Minutes: Evansville Plan: July 5, 2005

Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 6:00 P.M.
City Hall, 31 S. Madison Street, Evansville, WI

MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ringhand at 6:00 PM. Present were: Mayor Ringhand, Ald. Aikman, Ald. Hammann, Ms. Dickert, Messrs. Sauer, Skinner, and Vrstal. Staff present: Tim Schwecke, City Planner; Bill Connors, City Administrator; and Jim Beilke, Clerk/Treasurer. Also present was Ald. Cothard and Ald. Sornson.

The Agenda was approved as printed.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to waive the reading of the June 6th, 2005 Minutes and approve them as printed. Motion carried.

Citizen Appearances Other Than Those Agenda Items Listed. None.

Unfinished Business.
The commissioners reviewed an updated draft of proposed amendments to subdivision regulations, which covers storm water management and erosion control. Mr. Connors said he would attempt to complete the re-formatting of these provisions in time for the ordinance to receive its first reading at the July 12 Common Council meeting.

Mr. Schwecke reported that he has not yet had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the business and development communities about enacting architectural design standards. Mr. Connors reviewed the purpose of the new agenda format and public hearing process with the Commission.

New Business
The Commission took up Francois Oil Co.’s application for rezoning. Mr. Connors stated Francois Oil Co.’s earlier application for rezoning covered the lot immediately to the east of Citgo’s lot, but the site plan showed another 20 feet of land from the next lot. The new application would correct this oversight by zoning the 20 feet of land from Residential District One (R-1) to Community Business District (B-3). Tom Ness, 270 E. Main, talked about how the bufferyard was moving the business closer to his home.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to act on the Application #2005-10 relating to the zoning map amendment for the Citgo Convenience Store/Gas Station. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Common Council the adoption of Ordinance #2005-15, which would amend the city’s zoning map by changing the zoning classification of the subject property as specified from Residential District One (R-1) to Community Business District (B-3).
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, amending motion to recommend to the Common Council a zoning change for the easterly 20 feet of the subject property from Residential District One (R-1) to Community Business (B-3) based on the findings as contained in the staff report and on the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed zoning classifications outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any. Motion carried

The original motion, as amended, carried.

Ron Combs gave an overview of the application to divide Grand Orchard Estates (Rachel Elmer’s land) into 52 residential lots along with 3 non-buildable outlots.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to act on the proposed land division Application #2005-8 for Grand Orchard Estates subdivision. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to the Common Council the approval of the land division with conditions as may be contained in the staff report and other conditions as may be imposed by the Plan Commission.

Mr. Schwecke gave an overview of his staff report containing 24 points on concerns pertaining to the Grand Orchard Estates subdivision Application #2005-8.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Common Council the approval of the division of the subject property into the lots as shown on the preliminary plat, based on a finding that the subdivision is environmentally sound and there is adequate public facilities available to meet the needs of the subdivision, provided the following 24 stipulations are satisfied prior to filing of the final plat. Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

Mr. Connors stated the staff report on the application for rezoning the Grand Orchard Estates subdivision lists lots to be rezoned R-1B, but Ordinance #2005-16 list these lots as being rezoned LL-R12A. After the application for rezoning was submitted, the preliminary plat was revised to increase the size of some lots, so all of the lots that were listed R-1B became large enough to be LL-R12A. The minimum house size in the R1-B and LL-R12A districts is the same (1,450 sq. ft.).

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to act on the proposed ordinance (Application #2005-9) relating to Grand Orchard Estates subdivision. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Common Council a zoning change for the subject property from Agricultural District One (A-1) to LL-R12A, LL-R12B and R-2 based on the findings as contained in the staff report and on the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed zoning classifications outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any, and to amend the city’s zoning map accordingly.

Motion by Ringhand, seconded by Skinner, amend motion to remove “Westfield Meadows” subdivision on page 1, line 18, of Ordinance #2005-16 and insert “Grand Orchard Estates” subdivision. Motion carried

The original motion, as amended, carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council approval of site plan application for Ace Hardware (Application #2005-11) with conditions as may be contained in the staff report and other conditions as may be imposed by the Plan Commission.

Roger Berg gave an overview of the site plan application. Dave Warren expressed the need to expand space for Ace Hardware to meet the needs of his customers. With the potential of attracting upwards of 100,000 customers a year, Ald. Sornson led a discussion with the Commission regarding the traffic impact on USH 14. They discussed the possibility of a by-pass lane on USH 14. Mr. Morning is obligated to construct a by-pass lane and has given the City a letter of credit for the cost of constructing the by-pass lane, but the exiting right-of-way is not sufficient. The land (12-15 feet) needed for the right-of-way, which is south of the highway, is owned by D&D Development. The City may have the ability to obtain the land through eminent domain powers. Mr. Connors will forward to the developers the needed dimensions of the land for the by-pass lane. The discussion turned to an entrance onto USH14 from the south side of the subject property. The State would not allow another access to USH 14 unless it was moved significantly to the east from the current intersection. The discussion turned to the issue of sidewalks. Ald. Hammann recommended that sidewalk be put on Ace site plan. Mr. Connors stated the Bank of Evansville was not required to have sidewalks on the south side of Brown School Road, just on the east side of J. Lindemann Dr. Thus a sidewalk on Ace Hardware site plan would be inconsistence with the adjacent property. In previous meeting, it was decided that the commercial side of Brown School Road did not need sidewalks, but the residential side needed sidewalks. The discussion turned to the by-pass lane again, and who will pay for the additional costs associated with the acquisition of the needed land.

Motion by Hammann to table the original motion until all the issues are resolved. Motion failed for lack of a second.

The developers requested a recess, so that they can discuss this matter among themselves.

Mayor Ringhand called for a five-minutes recess at 8:11 p.m.

Meeting reconvened at 8:18 p.m.
Regarding the bypass-lane issue, Attorney Jeff Roethe proposed that John Morning would be responsible to pay the costs to acquire 15 feet of additional right of way according Engineer Sauer’s dimensions and to pay the cost of the condemnation action if required, with Mr. Roethe’s firm to represent the city in the condemnation action. Regarding the sidewalk, Attorney Roethe proposed that if the Bank of Evansville agrees to put in sidewalk on the south side of Brown School Road, they will put in matching sidewalks from that moment. They do not want to voluntarily to consent to sidewalks at this time, because it is contrary to want the Plan Commission did prior to Ace Hardware application.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, amending the original motion to include: additional curb on the east entrance of development, outside storage for the fertilizers or chemicals that are storage outside under a roof or inside the building, street repairs to Brown School road due to this construction are to be completed at the cost of the developer, the six-inch storm sewer is acceptable, John Morning is responsible for obtaining, at his own cost, the additional 15 feet of right of way, for paying the cost of a condemnation action if necessary, and any cost of moving utilities from the utility easement where the additional right of way will be located, a lighting plan is submitted to and approved by the Plan Commission (or city engineer), enclose the garbage dumpster with a fence that is constructed of wood or brick that complements the appearance of the building, and confirmation that they have approval from the State to allow the ground sign along USH 14 located outside of the 60-foot highway setback or is otherwise allow within the setback area, and they agreed to put in sidewalks if the Bank of Evansville agrees to put in sidewalks along south side of Brown School Road. Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to act on the land division Application #2005-12 for Ace Hardware, carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Common Council the approval of division of the subject property (in Application #2005-12) into lots as shown on the preliminary certified survey map, based on a finding that the subdivision is environmentally sound and there is adequate public facilities available to meet the needs of the subdivision, provided the following stipulations are met prior to filing of the final plat: (1) comply with all provisions of chapter 110 of the Municipal Code and state, (2) Depict intra-block drainages, if any, on the final plat with arrows indicating the direction of flow along with the following notation: “Arrows indicate direction of drainage swale construction during grading and such swales shall be maintained by the lot owner, unless modified with approval of the city engineer”, (3) Obtain written authorization of the proposed subdivision from the public works department and the water and light department, (4) All on-site electrical, telephone, and cable service shall be placed underground, and (5) Place the following narrative on the face of the plat: “Depending on the zoning district classification(s) of adjoining parcels, it is possible that bufferyard may be required along one or more of the property boundary lines to comply with city zoning standards. The motion carried.

The Commission took up the Evansville Community Church’s application for a conditional use permit. Sandy Decker, Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission, raised the issue that the conditional use permit application for Evansville Community Church must be reviewed by the Historical Preservation Commission.

Ald. Hammann asked what are the hours of operation. Chris Lark, 235 S. Madison St., informed the Commission the hours will be 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. Additionally, the building is being prepared for the youth center. Lark stated the activities of the Christian youth center would be geared to kids who use the facilities.

Motion by Hammann, seconded Skinner, to act on the conditional use permit (application #2005-13) from Evansville Community Church. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to City Council approval of the conditional use permit based on the findings as contained in the staff report, building inspector inspects the building to make sure it meets code for its intended use, contingent on review by and a positive recommendation from the Historical Preservation Commission, and hours of operation will be between 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to act on the proposed Ordinance amending the Municipal Code Relative to Sidewalk Cafes in B-2 district. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to the Common Council the adoption of Ordinance #2005-21, which would amend the city’s zoning code by allowing sidewalk cafes in the Central Business District (B-2) as a conditional use provided specified standards can be met.

Ald. Hammann led the discussion on sidewalk obstruction that no portion of the sidewalk café may impede pedestrian movement. All food shall be prepared within the restaurant. No alcohol beverages may be served or consumed in the sidewalk café.

Motion carried.

The Commission took up the issue of drive-through windows in the B-2 district. Discussion centered on the safety of drive-though windows in a downtown area. The Preservation Commission strongly opposes the blanket expansion of drive-through windows for all businesses in the Historic District.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to act on the proposed ordinance relating to drive-though windows in the B-2 district. Motion carried.
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Common Council the adoption of Ordinance #2005-22, which would amend the city’s zoning code by allowing drive-though windows for all types of commercial enterprises in the Central Business District (B-2) as a conditional use provided specified standards can be met.

Ald. Aikman discussed how drive-through windows do not fit into the downtown appeal and history. She raised the issue of safety to pedestrians and how other communities do not have drive-though windows in their downtowns. She pointed to how the code may conflict with exiting businesses.

Mr. Vrstal discussed how an application for a drive-though window would have to come the Plan Commission where safety issues could be addressed. He discussed the limited downtown parking issue and how the City could design guidelines that would make drive-though windows safe. Finally, the Commission discussed the language in the ordinance with the Administrator Connors.

On a roll call vote, Ald. Hammann, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Vrstal voted in favor. Ald. Aikman, Ms. Dickert, Mr. Skinner, and Mayor Ringhand voted against. Motion failed.

John Decker, 143 W. Main St., asked if there was a staff recommendation on the ordinance regarding “Institutional Residential Use in Residential Districts.” Mr. Connors reviewed the ordinance, stating that city purchased new parts of the zoning code, and they did not do anything with the residential districts. Now he tried to harmonize two conflicting parts of the zoning code regarding “institutional residential use” and to get rid of restrictions regarding vehicular access to institutional residential uses and commercial uses in the business zoning districts. John Decker raised concerns regarding how the proposed ordinance would adversely affect the possible expansion that the Evansville Manor is considering. From Evansville Manor, Cliff Woolever, 11030 N East Union Rd., expressed concerns regarding setbacks requirements, parking spaces, and CBRF-siting for his business outlined in a letter.

Motion by Ringhand, seconded by Hammann, to act on the proposed ordinance relating to institutional residential used in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to the Common Council the adoption of Ordinance 2005-23 which would amend the city’s zoning code by allowing “Institutional Residential Use” in Residential District One (R-1), Residential District Two (R-2), and Residential District Three (R-3) as a conditional use provided specified standards as revised can be met.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to amend the ordinance (1) on page 2, line 18, re-insert text of section 130-376 (3) A and B; (2) on page 2, line 8, change “50” to “35;” and (3) on page 1, strike the text on line 7. Motion carried
Connors discussed that this ordinance tried to accomplish two things, “institutional residential use” and vehicular access. The Commission decided to deal with vehicular access at later date and to strike out sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 from the ordinance.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to amend the ordinance to strike section 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 and to strike out page 1, lines 10 and 11, from the title of the ordinance. Motion carried

The original motion, as amended, carried.

The Commission took up the issue of sandwich board signs in the B-2 district. Nicole Hamby, 15846 W. Union Rd., spoke in favor of addition signs to counteract the negative impact of the road construction.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to act on the proposed ordinance relating to sandwich signs in the B-2 district and temporary signage during road construction projects. Motion carried

The Commission discussed this ordinance allows only signs in the historic district or the central business district with a sign permit.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Common Council the adoption of Ordinance #2005-20 which would amend the city’s sign code by allowing: (1) sandwich signs in the Central Business District (B-2) on city sidewalks provided specified standards can be met and (2) temporary signage during major road reconstruction projects.

The motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to act on the proposed ordinance relating to the status of nonconforming signs following the termination of a business and other unrelated revisions intended to clarify existing provisions. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to recommend to the Common Council adoption of Ordinance 2005-19 which would amend the city’s sign code by clarifying: (1) the status of nonconforming signs following the termination of a business and (2) other unrelated provisions.

Nicole Hamby asked for explanation of the current sign regulations and the changed that would be made by the proposed ordinance. Mr. Connors explained the ordinance would add introductory text to the sections of the sign regulations (because the titles of the sections are not part of the regulations), correct inconsistencies in awning, canopy, and marquee terms, clarify when a legal non-conforming sign of a terminated business loses its legal non-conforming status, and how to classify signs. The intention is to clarify current sign regulations consistent with staff’s interpretation and not to change current sign regulations.

Ald. Hammann asked who is responsible for taking down signs of terminated businesses. Mr. Connors stated that regulation states that if a sign is not taken down after six months, the zoning administrator will notify owner they have 30-days to take down the sign. An earlier ordinance changed the sign regulations to say that if the building owner fails to take down the sign, the public works department could do so and bill the building owner for the cost, or the City Attorney could seek to fine the building owner in the municipal court. Mr. Connors stated public works could hire outside vendor to tear down signs. Nicole Hamby asked if the former owner or current owner of a building would be responsible for taking down the sign of a terminated business. Mr. Connors said the current owner would be responsible, so a purchaser of a building might want to require the seller to take down all signs.

Preliminary Development Presentations. None

City Planner’s Report.
Mr. Schwecke provided an update on Badger Cycle, including that Tom Nonn has removed the sign from the building. Additionally, Mr. Schwecke continued with two issue in the sign code that he recommends to be addressed: (1) the sign code gives a property owner 30 days to remove illegal temporary signs, and (2) an issue related to banner signs, which do not need a sign permit. Finally, Mr. Schwecke recommended that the Plan Commission amend the zoning code to clarify that the person who is creating a lot needs to provide a bufferyard when the abutting lots have “incompatible uses” with the new lot.

Report of the Evansville Redevelopment Authority.
The Redevelopment Authority is considering requesting the Council to enlarge the downtown TID.

Motion by Hammann, seconded Skinner, to adjourn, carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:56 PM.

Prepared by:
James A. Beilke
City Clerk/Treasurer

The Minutes of the Plan Commission are not official until approved by Plan Commission.