Plan Commission
Regular Meeting
Monday, February 6, 2006, 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. Hammann, Cheryl Dickert, Gil Skinner, Dave Sauer, and Jeff Vrstal. Ald. Aikman was absent. Staff present: Tim Schwecke, City Planner; Bill Connors, City Administrator; and Jim Beilke, Clerk/Treasurer. Ald. Cothard and Sornson were present in the audience.
Approval of Agenda.
The Agenda was approved after moving the following items to follow citizen appearances: 8(A) D&D Development Annexation, 7(A) Site plan for Evansville Community Bank (Application #2006-1), and 7(B) Larson Acres annexation Petition (Application #2006-2).
Approval of Minutes.
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to waive the reading of the January 3, 2006 Minutes and approve them as printed. Motion passed.
Citizen Appearances Other Than Those Agenda Items Listed. None.
Preliminary Development Presentations (taken out of order)
Bob Fleischacker representing D&D Development stated the proposed annexation of some of his client’s land was initiated by the additional right of way needed on the south side of USH 14 for a drive-by lane opposite of J Lindemann Dr. There is a real potential for development for this area now because the market is right. Their plan is to develop over 200 acres over a period of time. The initial phase would incorporate about 74 acres with a commercial zone buffered by a light industrial area. Roger Berg, 75 Exchange St., reported that this development is consistent with the City of Evansville Smart Growth Plan.
New Business (taken out of order)
Bill Albright from Evansville Community Bank presented the new site plan and building design for Evansville Community Bank on the corner of Exchange Street and Main Street (Application #2006-2). The new site plan displays significant changes in elevations and a more historical look to the building, which has features similar to the nearby railroad depot.
Mr. Schwecke recommended several conditions for approval as listed in his report. The height and size of the building are consistent with dimensional standards for the B-2 district.
Mr. Sauer asked the applicant submit a stormwater plan with the new site plan before approval. He also reported that the old site plan showed a drive-through lane in a different location that did not interfere with the now standing streetlight.
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to approve the application, with conditions contained in the staff report.
Motion by Sauer, seconded by Skinner, to amend the motion, requiring the applicant to move the drive-through lane or pay for the cost to move the streetlight. Motion passed.
The original motion, as amended, passed.
Mr. Berg presented the Larson Acres annexation petition (Application #2006-2). The two parcels totaling 88.51 acres on the north side of Porter Road on the City’s west side are covered by the annexation petition. The annexation is being requested to facilitate residential development, including single-family and multi-family. A portion of the property will be used for a regional storm water detention basin that would serve the new Westfield Meadows Subdivision and other, already existing subdivisions to the south.
Mr. Schwecke recommended several conditions for approval as listed in his report.
Mr. Sauer reported that the existing box culvert (bridge) would have to comply with city standards. Now it is a town road that is 18 feet wide. City standards require 41 feet. The new bridge would be longer and wider to carry the sidewalks and curve and gutters. As of today, the bridge is in need of improvements. Town of Union Board President Kendall Schneider reported that this bridge is currently a No. 3 on the township’s list of short span bridges (under 20 feet long) that need to be repaired or replaced, and it would cost the approximately $100,000 to bring it up to the city standards.
Ald. Hammann reported the only reason the land is being annexed is because of stormwater management in this region, which is part of the Smart Growth Plan. Mr. Connors reported that if the city denies annexation, the developer is entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the 7 acres of land for the detention pond, cost of the construction of the pond, cost of the engineering the pond, and the cost of improving Porter Road.
Mayor Ringhand opened the public hearing at 7:05 PM. Ald. Sornson raised the issue of grants for the bridge improvements. Mr. Sauer reported the state funds bridge improvements grants through the county. If requested annexation were granted, three quarters of the bridge would be located in the city and one quarter in the town. Thus, the town, city, and county would apply for a state grant for the bridge improvements. Kendall Schneider said the Town of Union opposes the annexation at this time because of environmental concerns and urban sprawl. The Town of Union is agreeable allowing the developer to build the pond and dedicate it to the city while the land remains in the Town of Union, like they have done in the past with other city projects. Elvin Francis, 17347 W County Rd C, opposed the annexation because farmland would be converted into wetland, which is presently farmed. Mr. Francis asked if this detention pond could be located more north of the city. Mayor Ringhand closed the public hearing at 7:12 PM.
Mr. Sauer reported that they addressed all known concerns regarding ground water flow and the city needs to manage the stormwater flow in this region. The Plan Commission has been working on solving the drainage in this region for years and agreed the city needs control of maintenance of the pond and bridge because it affects the city.
Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to recommend to Council the adoption of Ordinance #2006-2 with recommendations from the staff report and to include the applicant agrees to enter into an agreement with the city that requires the applicant to pay for the cost of repairing the bridge on Porter Road if it is deemed unsafe by a qualified engineer or when the subject property is developed for residential purposes, whichever is earlier. Motion passed.
Unfinished Business.
Mayor Ringhand noted the letter from Whiteman, Osterman, and Hanna LLP, which stated unreasonable restrictions on the use of outdoor wood furnaces would deprive citizens of an affordable means of home heating without producing any appreciable environmental benefit. Neighbor complaints about outdoor furnaces can and should be addressed by adopting the Best Burn Practices of the industry and by requiring appropriate stack heights in situations where neighbors are in relatively close proximity. Mr. Arndt, President of R.A. Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., reported that the City of Fort Atkinson banned outdoor furnaces based on a bad study regarding the amount of British thermo units (BTU) produced by outdoor furnaces. Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association (HPBA) has refuted the study by noting errors in the study’s testing methods. Mr. Arndt recommended the city follow HPBA Best Burn Practices and require certified outdoor furnaces, so that citizens are allowed an alternative fuel source to heat their homes. Commissioners instructed staff to draft an ordinance regulating outdoor furnaces.
The Plan Commission reviewed the goals and objectives of the Smart Growth Comprehensive Plan to ensure that the implementation of plan’s nine elements are understood in their totality over the life of the plan. Part of this effort will also include addressing conflicts that may arise between the nine elements.
Chris Eager, Chairperson of the Large-Scale Commercial Development Study Committee, reported on the activities of the Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to ensure that large retail projects are consistent with city’s general community character and surrounding area; would contribute to a diverse and sound economic base; and would prevent urban blight due to vacant retail stores. They have invited and listened to speakers from surrounding communities who dealt with large retail projects, so that the Committee can form a consensus regarding regulations on large retail projects. Then they would present a proposed ordinance to the public for refinement before it comes to the Plan Commission. The proposed ordinance should contain requirements in developer agreements between large scale development and city, site plan approval requirements, long-term maintenance requirements, landscaping plan requirements, lighting requirements, architectural standards, and building size, traffic impact studies, etc.
Mr. Schwecke led a discussion regarding the adoption of a resolution revising the fee in lieu of parkland dedication consistent with Sec. 110-192 of the Municipal Code. According to the City’s subdivision regulations, the Plan commission has the responsibility of recommending a resolution to the Common Council that would set a new amount for the fee in lieu of park dedication. As stipulated in Section 110-192 (6), the amount is automatically adjusted based on the percent change in the assessed value of land in the city form year to year. Last year, the city increased the fee 11.7 percent. This year the increase is calculated at 82.4 percent increase, in large part due to the property assessment reevaluation in 2005. Based on this index, the fee for a single-family dwelling would increase from $587.67 to $1,071.67 and for a multi-family dwelling unit the fee would increase from $440.73 to 803.72. Anticipating there would be discussion on this large increase, Mr. Schwecke provided some different approaches for the Plan Commission to consider from a survey on how other communities are dealing with this issue. Mr. Schwecke suggested the Plan Commission and Park Board should review the rationale behind some for the park dedication requirements.
Ald. Hammann favors an ordinance that makes the new residents pay for the new parks and not the current residents, noting that parkland dedication fees cover 25% of the cost of new parks. He stated the $587.67 parkland dedication fees are too low and does not favor capping increases. Mr. Connor noted that park impact fees are design to cover the cost to build new parks. The city does not have park impact fees. Parkland fees are designed to buy only land for new parks. After discussion of different approaches of raising the parkland dedication fees, the Commissioners asked Mr. Berg what are his thoughts. Mr. Berg favored a simple formula, so that all the money raised in parkland dedication fees goes to the Park Board to buy land and not to studies, appraisal, etc. Mr. Schwecke noted that the annual adjustment in parkland dedication fees does not equal the change in cost of land. Commissioners instructed staff to enact a rolling three average in a new ordinance with Ald. Hammann and Ald. Sornson sponsoring.
Mr. Schwecke led the discussion regarding amendment of the shoreland zoning ordinance relative to wetlands, lot widths, and building set backs. Rock County ordinance requires 15,000 square feet lot size and a minimum 100 feet lot width. The State Statues requires 10,000 square feet lot size. Mr. Schwecke recommended the city ask Rock County if they would be amicable to amend their lot size restrictions that carry forward into the city, which is allowed by state statutes. If the city were to require a 35 foot buffer strip along all navigable waters, Rock County could then reduce the lot size requirements to a minimum of 10,000 square feet. Whatever the city does, it is always under Rock County ordinance. Thus, Mr. Schwecke recommended the city approach Rock County for amendments.
Report of the Evansville Redevelopment Authority.
Mr. Connors distributed a revised Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District #5 Economic Development Fund Program Description and Applications, which is attached to the minutes. Mr. Connors noted the new criteria for financial assistance and investment listed on page 5.
Report of the Evansville Historic Preservation Commission.
Sandy Decker reported the first portion of survey is completed, and the results will be presented at the next Historical Preservation Commission meeting on February 15, 2006.
City Planner’s Report.
Mr. Schwecke reported on the Common Council actions relating to Plan Commission recommendation, which was distributed at this meeting (attached).
Adjournment.
Motion by Hammann, seconded Sauer, to adjourn, carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.
Prepared by:
James A. Beilke
City Clerk/Treasurer
The Minutes of the Plan Commission are not official until approved by Plan Commission.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment