Minutes: United Land Development Code: March 13, 2008

City of Evansville
Unified Land Development Code Advisory Committee

Thursday, March 13, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall (Third Floor), 31 S. Madison Street, Evansville, Wisconsin

MINUTES

1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Bill Hammann.

2. Attendance. Members present: Bill Hammann, Tony Wyse, Michael Pierick, until 7:20 p.m., Gil Skinner, Lori Allen
Members absent: Mason Braunschweig, Roger Berg
Staff: Tim Schwecke
Members of the public: none
Note: Dan Wietecha submitted written comments via email.

3. Approval of agenda. Wyse made a motion, seconded by Skinner to approve the agenda. Motion approved unanimously.

4. Approval of minutes. Wyse made a motion, seconded by Skinner to waive the reading of the February 21, 2008 minutes and approve them as printed. Motion approved unanimously.

5. Review of code
A. Article 5 Administrative Bodies. The committee reviewed the article and discussed the following:
(1) 130-302.f. Wietecha suggested that it would be easier to just say “may recommend changes.” (and the same comment for the same language in a number of other locations) The committee agreed.
(2) 130-302.g. Wietecha commented that some of these begin to encroach on the responsibilities of other city committees. Tim will verify the language.
(3) 130-302.g. Wietecha questioned where is the legal authority for PC to own land. Tim will verify.
(4) 130-302.h. Wietecha questioned is this right that PC would recommend and not decide conditional use permits? Schwecke indicated that Plan Commission currently has the authority to act on conditional uses. This will be revised to reflect that.
(5) 130-303.a –Wietecha questioned whether this follows statute, it is a change in the composition of PC. Is this a conscious change? It was noted that the current composition of the commission is as drafted. An ordinance was adopted in 2006/2007 changing the makeup of the commission so that there are four citizen members.
(6) 130-303.a –Wietecha suggested appointments need to be subject to approval by council. Schwecke will verify if set up that way in state statutes.
(7) 130-353. Skinner questioned whether city officials can be appointed or if it should specify citizens. Tim will verify.
(8) 130-400 –Wietecha suggested it may be advisable or valuable to create this committee, but if one of the goals of ULDC is to streamline our regulations, there had better be some real discussion before recommending adding another layer of bureaucracy. Pierick commented that each of the committees have a unique focus and that there may be merit in retaining them. The committee agreed that if possible one committee will be established to handle groundwater, erosion control, and stormwater management.
(9) 130-451.b (and 452 footnote) –Wietecha noted several inconsistencies. The existing Erosion Control Code has appeals heard by the public works committee (48-1.4), the technical review committee (48-7.6.i), and by the board of appeals (48-10). The merits of each should be discussed. The committee did not resolve this issue; will review when the language for a tech review committee is drafted.
(10) 130-501.b (and 502 footnote) –Wietecha noted that the existing Stormwater Management Code has the same inconsistencies. It has appeals heard by the public works committee (104-1.4), the technical review committee (104-7.6.j), and by the board of appeals (104-10). Again, the merits of each should be discussed. The merits of each should be discussed. The committee did not resolve this issue; will review when the language for a tech review committee is drafted.
(11) 130-502 (footnote) –Wietecha agreed with the comment in the footnote that the language poorly copied from the model ordinance is not appropriate and should be deleted.
(12) Division 6 Historic preservation commission. Hammann suggested and the committee agreed that this section needs to ensure the commission has more authority than it does now so development and redevelopment in the historic district is consistent with adopted preservation goals.
(13) 130-552 –Wietecha questioned why the geographic representation; there’s no such requirement on any other committee. Schwecke indicated that this is the way the structure is currently set up. The committee felt that it should be changed so that at least 4 of the members reside or own property within a historic district and that the ward of the appointed alderperson be included in the historic district.
(14) 130-552 – Wietecha commented that some historic buildings are owned by non-residents; do we want to include them? The committee agreed.
(15) 130-558 –Wietecha commented that this failure to report language is awfully strong; there’s no such requirement on any other committee. Schwecke indicated that the annual report is currently a requirement. The committee agreed to keep the last sentence of the section provided it is reworded. Pierick suggested language to revise the second sentence. Hammann suggested that the annual report be presented in January.
(16) 130-600 – Wietecha commented that there are some subtle but significant policy changes here; this section needs to be reviewed carefully. The committee reread this section and did not make any changes. Schwecke is to discuss with Wietecha.
(17) 130-600 – some responsibilities necessary to administration of the code are no longer listed here. Should this division include the role of the clerk, building inspector, planner, and any other staff? Maybe role the engineer division in here also.
(18) 130-611 – some responsibilities (particularly related to floodplains and wetlands) are no longer listed here. Schwecke will talk with Wietecha about these last two comments.
(19) 130-611. Hammann suggested that the engineer be responsible for addressing outdoor lighting, road concerns, environmental impacts, and traffic safety.
(20) Engineer conflict of interest. Hammann suggested that language be added regarding potential conflict of interest. Schwecke will draft language and committee will discuss at next meeting.
(21) Building inspector. Hammann suggested that there should a section for building inspector; to have strong authority
(22) Fire marshal. Hammann suggested that there should a section for the fire marshal; to have weak authority with appeals to building inspector or city administrator.

B. Article 11 Parking. The committee reviewed the article and discussed the following:
(1) Exhibit 11-1. Hammann mentioned that some of the some of the parking standards relates to the number of employees on the largest shift. He believes that his needs to be clarified to address shift overlap. Essentially need parking for the two largest shifts.
(2) Exhibit 11-1. Wyse questioned the standard for use #10.3 vehicle repair – what is adequate parking for temporary vehicle storage? Schwecke will clarify this in the next draft.
(3) Division 3 Bicycle Parking. The committee decided to change this part to indicate that bicycle parking is required, not optional as currently drafted.
(4) Section 130-3901 (e). Hammann suggested that the standards should not prescribe one design over others. It was noted that any design or shape can be used so long as it meets the six design criteria.
(5) City engineer review. It was mentioned that the city engineer will be asked to review this section when it has been revised.
6. Next regular meeting date. The next date for the committee is April 17, 2008.

7. Motion to Adjourn. On a motion by Wyse, seconded by Skinner, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.


Prepared by: Tim Schwecke, City Planner

The minutes are not official until approved by the committee at its next scheduled meeting.