Revised Planning Commission Minutes of Dec 5th

Plan Commission

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, December 5, 2005, 6:00 P.M.

City Hall, 31 S. Madison Street, Evansville, WI

MINUTES
(Revised per Plan Commission’s instructions on Jan. 3, 2006)
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ringhand at 6:00 PM. Present were: Mayor Ringhand, Ald. Aikman, Ald. Hammann, Cheryl Dickert, Gil Skinner, Dave Sauer, and Jeff Vrstal. Staff present: Tim Schwecke, City Planner; Bill Connors, City Administrator; and Jim Beilke, Clerk/Treasurer. Ald. Cothard, Juergens, and Sornson were present in the audience.

The Plan Commission move item (7-A) regarding the discussion on the impact of residential growth in the school district facilities and finances after item (5) citizen appearances. The agenda, as amended, was approved.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to waive the reading of the November 1, 2005 Minutes and approve them as printed. Motion carried.

Citizen Appearances Other Than Those Agenda Items Listed. None.

New Business.
The Plan Commission discussed the impact on the school district facilities and finances from residential growth in the school district. Heidi Carvin, Evansville School District Superintendent, distributed a pie chart on the school district population by township showing the student population consisting of 50% from Evansville, 22% from Union, 8% from Magnolia, 5% from Porter, 5% from Center, 6% from Janesville, and 4% from others (attached). Next, Ms. Carvin distributed the school district enrollment projections, noting the most growth is in the K-5 grades (attached). With this growth, the school district facilities are now at 83% capacity (attached). Ms. Carvin asked the communities for input regarding residential growth. The City of Evansville has agreements with two major developers limiting them together to an average of 70 new lots per year for next 4 years. Mr. Connors added that future agreements would need to require fewer new lots than 70 per year if the City of Evansville is going to meet the targeted population growth rate of 27% over the next 10 years. Kendall Schneider, Town of Union Chairman, stated that currently the town is considering limiting growth to 44 new lots per year in the new Start Growth Plan, but that plan is not yet adopted. Ms. Carvin stated that the school districts facilities will be above 90% capacity within the next 10 years, and state revenues are not keeping up with the costs to run the schools. The state revenues are based on enrollment and/or Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 1993, the Wisconsin school revenues were capped, and it is illegal to exceed the revenue cap unless authorized in a district-wide referendum. Since then, the CPI inflation was lower than the inflation schools face, such as, insurance, wages, fuel, and textbooks. In 2005, the medium growth in budgets allowed by revenues limits was 2.5%, and the medium growth in the cost of schools was 4.2%, which leaves a typical gap between the cost growth rate and revenue growth rate of 1.7%.

There was discussion of the school district’s desire to retain a consultant to perform a new projection of future enrollment in the school district and whether the City of Evansville and Town of Union would be willing to contribute to part of the cost of such a study. The plan commissioners mentioned their interest in a study of the fiscal impact of new residential development on the city and school district. Mr. Connors noted that a future enrollment study and a fiscal impact study are not the same kind of study, and that Mr. Schwecke is going to explore whether he can produce a fiscal impact study using software the city has obtained.

The consensus of the plan commissioners and the representatives of the school district and Town of Union in attendance was that the three governments should work cooperatively to manage the impact of residential development on the school district and should consider joint funding of a future enrollment study and/or a fiscal impact study.

Unfinished Business.

The Plan Commission discussed a draft ordinance that would permit smaller single-family and two-family residential lots in older platted areas of the city than is currently permitted in the R-1 district. Last month, the Plan Commission reviewed a draft ordinance that would have created a new zoning district (R-1Z) to accommodate all of the small lots in the older parts of the city. The newly revised draft ordinance would amend the regulations for the existing R-1 and R-2 districts to allow smaller lots if they created by plats recorded before January 1, 2001. Ald. Hammann and Aikman would sponsor the ordinance.

The Plan Commission discussed a draft ordinance that would allow outdoor furnaces within the city limits provided specific conditions can be met. Ald. Aikman favors banning outdoor furnaces within the city limits because of public safety and health issues. After some discussion on public safety and health issues, the consensus was to grandfather in existing outdoor furnaces but with regulations. The Plan Commission instructed staff to draft an ordinance banning new outdoor furnaces and regulating the existing outdoor furnaces. Ald. Sornson instructed staff to place on the next Council agenda a moratorium for new outdoor furnaces with him and Ald. Hammann as sponsors.

The Plan Commission discussed a draft ordinance that would revise provisions of the sign code relating to violations. After reviewing the draft ordinance, Ald. Hammann and Sornson said they would sponsor it.

The Plan Commission discussed a possible boundary agreement between the City of Evansville and the Town of Union. Ald. Hammann reported that last month the Commission talked about a possible Joint Cooperation Agreement with the Town of Union, who is working on their Smart Growth Plan. After they complete it, the City and Town will then work on a boundary agreement.

New Business (continued).

The Plan Commission reviewed Secured Equities, LLC’s site plan located at 204 Water Street (Application #2005-26) for a building approximately 3,500 square feet, which will be divided into three spaces. Originally, the site plan requested a building with two phases, but Secured Equities, LLC amended the site plan by removing the second phase.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to approve Secured Equities, LLC’s site plan (Application #2005-26), with conditions contained in the staff report, and other conditions as may be imposed by the Commission.

Mr. Berg stated the correct address for the project is 204 Water Street, and that the Plan Commission agenda and information in the packet listed the wrong address. Additionally, Mr. Berg is not asking for financial assistance from TIF and will not construct the second phase of the building. Mr. Schwecke recommended the applicant obtain a floodplain permit to construct the project within the 100-year floodplain, obtain a sign permit for any proposed signage, and build a bufferyard with opacity of 0.3 along the eastern boundary.

Motion carried.

The Plan Commission reviewed Charles Rohloff’s preliminary certified survey map (CSM) that would create a single parcel of 2.65 acres, which will be added to an adjoining public park (Application #2005-32).

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Vrstal, to recommend to the Council the approval of Charles Rohloff’s preliminary CSM within the city’s extraterritorial plat review area (Application 2005-32). Motion carried.

The Plan Commission discussed the zoning code text amendment (Ordinance #2005-43) relative to reconstruction of damaged nonconforming structures

Mr. Schwecke reported that under the ordinance, any “nonconforming structure” could be reconstructed, and any structure containing a “nonconforming use” (regardless of whether the structure is conforming or nonconforming), could be rebuilt and the nonconforming use re-established within 18 months from the day when the damage occurred. The Plan Commission could grant an additional 18 months extension.

The public hearing was opened at 7:40 PM. Ald. Sornson spoke in favor of this ordinance. Steve Hagen, 420 W. Main St., raised the issue that many buildings are on lots too small to conform to current municipal code, or the building use does not conform to current code. If the buildings were damaged, the buildings could not be rebuilt conforming to current code. Thus property owners would not be allowed to rebuild, and their lots would remain vacant. This ordinance would allow these nonconforming buildings to be rebuilt in their existing footprint. Mr. Connors reported that in section 1, paragraph (a), the Commission may want to add the words, “except as provided in paragraph (c),” because paragraph (a) and (c) contradict each other. The public hearing was closed at 7:45 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to recommend to Council adoption of Ordinance #2005-43, as drafted.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to amend section 1, paragraph (a), to include the words, “except as provided in paragraph (c).” Motion carried.

The original motion, as amended, carried.

The Plan Commission discussed zoning code text amendment (Ordinance #2005-44) relative to creating a new zoning district – Special Use Business District (B-5). Mr. Schwecke distributed a memorandum (attached) and reported that Ordinance #2005-44 establishes a new zoning district entitled B-5. What it does not establish are bufferyard requirements, provisions related to signage, or landscaping requirements for the new B-5 district. The amendment in his memorandum that he distributed would correct these omissions. This ordinance would create work-live units, defined as a building with commercial activity that occupies the majority of the space and with living quarters (for only the business operator) that occupies a minor portion of the space. This ordinance also allows railroad lines as a conditional use.

Ald. Hammann noted that John Petterson from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 6905 would like to change the zoning of the VFW’s property from B-2 to B-5 as a contiguous property to the newly proposed zoning district. In the new proposal, indoor commercial entertainment (page 4, item 130-408) is not allowed as a permitted conditional use. The VFW Post requested the City would consider changing the status of indoor commercial entertainment to a conditional use in B-5.

The public hearing was opened at 7:57 PM. Mr. Berg stated the City should consider changing the zoning of the VFW lot to B-5 because it may not be a VFW Post twenty years from now. If the lot were zoned B-5, it would be easier to sell. He added that the City should also consider the work-live units because they would incubate new small businesses. Mr. Schwecke noted that only the business operator could live in the residential space and that owners are not allowed to rent their residential space. Mr. Berg stated that would be problematic for the small business owners who want to rent their residential space. Dave Olson, from Baker Manufacturing Company, and Ald. Sornson do not favor having residential space in the new B-5 district because the business environment in this area is inappropriate for residents. In the spirit to move this ordinance forward, Mr. Berg recommended eliminating the residential components in this ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 8:05 PM.

After considering the issues of work-live units in this business area, the consensus was to eliminate it from the new B-5 district. The Plan Commission reviewed the VFW Post’s request to change the zoning district for their parcel to B-5 and adding indoor commercial entertainment. Additionally, the Commission discussed adding outdoor commercial entertainment, deleting commercial apartments, and deleting farm residence in the new B-5 district.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to recommend to Council the approval of Ordinance #2005-44 with following amendments: adding both indoor and outdoor commercial entertainment as a conditional use (on page 4, item 130-408 and 130-409); deleting commercial apartments (on page 5, item 130-522); deleting farm residence (on page 5, item 130-523); deleting work-live (on page 4, item 130-422); deleting Section 2 pertaining to the work-live units (on page 1); and including Section 12 through 17 in the City Planner’s 6-page memorandum that was distributed at this meeting. Motion carried.

The Plan Commission reviewed the zoning code map amendment (Ordinance #2005-45) relative to redesignating specified parcels from Community Business District (B-3) to Special Use Business District (B-5) (Application 2005-27). Mr. Schwecke reported that changing the zoning district as shown on the map is in the best interest of the City. The map in the Commission packet did not include the lot for the VFW Post in the new B-5 district. The VFW requested their lot be included in the new B-5 district.

The public hearing was opened at 8:27 PM. Ald. Sornson spoke in favor of this ordinance. The public hearing was closed at 8:28 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Aikman, to recommend to Council adoption of Ordinance #2005-45, including the VFW property. Motion carried.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to recommend to the Council the release of an easement established in favor of the City on parcel 6-27-165 (Dean Community Center parcel and adjacent parking-lot parcel). The Council approved a preliminary Certified Survey Map (CSM) splitting the properties between the City and MJ Properties. There are existing easements, which the City Attorney advised abandoning them and recording a new CSM without the easements. Then the City should enter into a new agreement with MJ Properties giving them an easement across Lot 2 (owned by the City), so that they would have access to the back end of Lot 1 (owned by MJ Properties). Motion carried.

The Commission then discussed the size requirements on group development projects in the B-4 district (Section 130-853, paragraph (12) of the Municipal Code). At the request of the business community, the Common Council adopted Ordinance #2002-11, which removed a minimum size for tenant spaces in a strip development building. The original intent of the ordinance was to remove all of the references to minimum floor area for tenants and for buildings, according to John Morning. Ordinance #2002-11 did not remove all such provisions, specifically Section 130-853, paragraph 12, which contains minimum size requirements for group development. This was a simple oversight in 2002. Ald. Sornson and Hammann would sponsor an ordinance that would eliminate the Section 130-853, paragraph 12, from the Municipal Code.

The Plan Commission discussed a possible amendment to the Interim Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map in the Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the recent enlargement of Tax Incremental District No. 5. There are a number of single-family residential parcels along Union Street at the northern end of the added territory, which are shown as single-family residential on the interim and future land use maps of the city’s comprehensive plan. Given the recent investment in the road reconstruction project and given this area is in the tax increment district, the Plan Commission considered amending the map changing the zoning from single-family residential to commercial or a similar use. If the map amendments were made, the current single-family residential zoning would not change until the property owners submit an application for a zoning map amendment. Mr. Berg spoke in favor of amending the map because it would encourage businesses to buy these parcels. Ald. Hammann noted that the Town of Union is working on their Future Land Use Map and maybe the city should hold off making changes to its Future Land Use Map until the city and township’s future land use maps are made consistent through negotiations. He added the Plan Commission would welcome any business proposal to change the zoning map, but there is nothing compelling to change it now. After further discussion, the commissioners reached a consensus that it was about time for the first annual review of the city’s Smart Growth Plan, and this possible change to the Future Land Use Map could be considered as part of that review.

Preliminary Development Presentations. None

City Planner’s Report.

Mr. Schwecke reported the floodplain ordinance would be ready next month.

Report of the Evansville Redevelopment Authority. None

Report of the Evansville Historic Preservation Commission. None

Adjournment

Motion by Skinner, seconded Vrstal, to adjourn, carried at 8:56 PM.

Prepared by:

James A. Beilke

City Clerk/Treasurer

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