Minutes: Evansville Planning Commission: June 29, 2006

Plan Commission

  
Regular Meeting

Thursday, June 29, 2006, 6:00 P.M.

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

Draft MINUTES
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Decker at 6:00 PM. Present were: Mayor Decker, Ald. Braunschweig, Ald. Hammann, Cheryl Dickert, Dave Sauer, Gil Skinner, and Jeff Vrstal (arrived at 6:26 PM). Staff present: Tim Schwecke, City Planner; Bill Connors, City Administrator; and Jim Beilke, Clerk/Treasurer.

Approval of Agenda

The agenda was approved as printed.

Approval of Minutes

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to waive the reading of the June 5, 2006, Minutes and approve them as printed. Motion passed.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to waive the reading of the June 14, 2006, Minutes and approve them as printed. Motion passed.

Citizen Appearances Other Than Those Agenda Items Listed - None

Unfinished Business.

Tom Overmyer and Jason Frericks from Foth and Van Dyke present the traffic impact analysis of Highway 14, County M, and J. Lindemann intersections. They presented the pros and cons of four options: A) Traffic signal lights located at both the County M and J. Lindemann intersections, B) A traffic signal light at County M with no left turn movements allowed at J. Lindemann, C) A traffic signal light at County M with right and left turn movements allowed from Highway 14 on to J. Lindemann and left turns prohibited onto Highway 14 from J. Lindemann, and D) A modern roundabout located at both intersections.

Option A incorporates traffic signal lights at both intersections and is a very traditional solution, which would require widening HWY 14 and County M. Option B is similar to Option A, but no left turns would be allowed on or off of HWY 14 onto J. Lindemann. This option would push commercial and local traffic into the surrounding subdivision streets, which were not designed for this type of traffic. Existing and proposed business along J. Lindemann could be adversely affected due to the lack of easy access from HWY 14 to J. Lindemann. Option B also requires more widening at the intersection of HWY 14 and County M to facilitate the proposed development traffic. Option C would restrict left turns onto HWY 14 at J. Lindemann. This option would cause similar concerns as option B. Option D incorporates two modern roundabouts. The roundabouts would require larger intersections, but HWY 14 would not need to be widened. Maintenance and infrastructure costs are less with the roundabouts than traffic signal lights. Mr. Overmyer stated, tonight, the Commission needs only to approve the establishment of a controlled four-way intersection and do not need to decide which option to use.

Motion Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to support the establishment of a controlled four-way intersection at USH 14 and J. Lindemann Drive. Motion passed.

Tom Overmyer discussed how options B and C are not feasible because the extra costs and impractical traffic patterns. They presented all four options per DOT directives. Now the city can eliminate some of the options.

Motion by Braunschweig, seconded by Sauer, to eliminate options B and C regarding the preferred method of controlling traffic and pedestrian flows at the intersection. Motion passed.

Mayor Decker reported on the establishment of an ad hoc study committee to develop a proposal for the Plan Commission’s consideration relating to Traditional Neighborhood Development projects and design standards for residential structures. She stated that Matt Brown, Gil Skinner, Gwen Walker, and Alderperson Bill Hammann were appointed and 3 more will be appointed at the next regular Common Council meeting. The TND will then have an organizational meeting in July.

Ald. Hammann led the discussion regarding the establishment of a standing committee on Intergovernmental Cooperation, composed of three specified Union Township representatives and three specified City of Evansville representatives. The Smart Growth Committee disbanded and formed the Town of Union—City of Evansville Intergovernmental Committee. The Common Council will appoint Alderperson Bill Hammann, Alderperson Mason Braunschweig, and Roger Berg to this new committee.

Mr. Connors reported on the research for cost-benefit studies. Virchow, Krause & Co., LLP and TishlerBise have done studies for developers. Mr. Connors noted the studies were not done for municipalities but for developers, and their conclusions were sometimes vague. He suggested the city planner continue researching this issue.

New Business.

Joe Bradley from Dairyland Real Estate presented the conditional use application for indoor commercial entertainment at 128 East Main Street, Sophia X Huang applicant (Application #2006-17). Sophie Huang wants to establish a restaurant in the existing building at 128 E. Main Street. Her intent is to remodel the building and create three commercial spaces. The restaurant would occupy one space and other commercial businesses would occupy the two remaining bays.

Mayor Decker opened the public hearing at 7:37 PM. Barb Jacobson, 55 S. 6th St., questioned the type of restaurant and business hours. Roger Berg, 75 Exchange St., favors businesses moving to the downtown area. Mayor Decker closed the public hearing at 7:38 PM.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to act on the application (not defer to a later date). Motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Skinner, to approve the application based on the findings as contained in the staff report and the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any. Motion passed.

Tim McGee from McGee Construction presented the site plan application for Ramono’s Pizzeria expansion, Frank Ramono applicant (Application 2006-18). Ramono’s Pizzeria wants to add 727 square-foot addition to the existing restaurant.

Mr. Schwecke reported the restaurant provides 35 parking spaces. Eleven of the parking spaces are shared with the Citgo gas station. The applicant would need to obtain a permanent parking easement form the owner of the adjoining Citgo gas station for the mutual use of eleven parking spaces. Mr. Ramono stated the permanent parking easement has been filed with Register of Deeds. He will provide a copy of the parking easement for the City Planner.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to approve the application with conditions as contained in the staff report (and other conditions as may be imposed by the Commission). Motion passed.

The Plan Commission recessed at 7:53PM and reconvened at 8:03 PM.

John Morning presented the Landowner-initiated comprehensive plan amendment, Phil Maas applicant (Application #2006-15). The subject property is currently designated as agricultural/underdeveloped on the interim future land use map and on the future land use map it is shown as walkable neighborhood and neighborhood activity center. The applicant submitted an application to amend the interim future land use map to show the subject property as walkable neighborhood and neighborhood activity center so as to be consistent with the future land use map. Currently residential development in Evansville is following a fairly conventional approach. Development of the subject property would create a type of housing not currently available in the city and would help to meet some key objectives in the city’s comprehensive plan.

The Commission discussed that the Interim Future Land Use Map shows anticipated future development during the first 10 to 15 years after adoption of the plan. The plan also contains a long-term Future Land Use Map, showing anticipated development more than 10 to 15 years after adoption of the plan. The Maas property was shown as a location for future urban residential (walkable neighborhood) development on the Future Land Use Map. But the Maas property was left off of the Interim Future Land Use Map in an effort to control the rate of residential development in the city. This amendment does not automatically mean development of a residential subdivision on the Maas property. The landowner and developer would need to petition for annexation into the city, and the Common Council could refuse to grant annexation at this time. The Commission also discussed the traffic concerns in this area and how, currently, traffic must drive through the downtown when traveling north to Madison. If the area was developed, the traffic going to Madison from the Westside of the city could be routed away from the downtown.

Mr Connors led a discussion on the anticipated population growth for the city. His calculations showed that by allowing the residential development on the Maas property during the next 10 years, in addition to all of the other recently approved residential subdivisions or recent annexations for future residential subdivisions, would cause the city’s population to grow 30% during the next 10 years, unless lack of market demand for new housing slowed the rate of population growth. By way of comparison, the city’s population grew by 27% from January 1, 1990, to January 1, 2000.

Mark Schnepper, 547 S. 6th St., raised concerns about the school system absorbing a 30% growth and wanted to see impact studies. Richard Woulfe, 255 E. Main St., also want an impact analysis done because the new state law prohibits school impact fees.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to adopt Plan Commission resolution #2006-4 recommending the City Council change the designation of the subject property on the interim future land use map to be the same as shown on the future land use map. Motion passed on roll call vote. Mayor Decker, Dickert, Sauer, and Vrstal voted in favor. Ald. Hammann, Ald. Braunschweig, and Skinner voted against.

John Gishnock presented the landowner-initiated comprehensive plan amendment, Kurt Kamholz applicant (Application #2006-16). The subject property currently contains a single-family residence and an out building that are part of a former farmstead. A barn and other farm related buildings are immediately to the east on an adjoining parcel. Both the interim future land use map and future land use map show this parcel and the immediate area as Townhouse/Alternative Housing/Two-Family Residential. He is requesting the city to amend the interim future land use map by showing the subject parcel as rural residential. There would be no change to the future land use map. Mr. Gishnock would live on the parcel and establish a home occupation for a small-scale landscape design business.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Sauer, to adopt Plan Commission resolution #2006-5 recommending the City Council change the designation of the subject property on the interim future land use map from townhouse/alternative housing/two-family residential to rural residential. Motion passed unanimously on roll call vote.

Mayor Decker presented the city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment (Application #2006-21). The subject property is currently designated as existing light industrial on the interim future land use map and the future land use map. It is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The city wants to amend the both the interim future land use map and future land use map to show the subject property as governmental/institutional.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to adopt Plan Commission resolution #2006-6 recommending the City Council change the designation of the subject property from light industrial to government/institutional on the interim future land use map and future land use map Motion passed.

Mayor Decker presented the city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment (Application #2006-22). The subject property is currently designated as governmental/institutional on the interim future land use map and the future land use map. It is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The northern half of this city-owned parcel is to be sold and will be used for industrial purposes consistent with the requirements of the zoning district. The city wants to amend the both the interim future land use map and future land use map to show the northern half of the subject property as industrial.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to adopt Plan Commission resolution #2006-7 recommending the City Council change the designation of the north half of the subject property from government/institutional to light industrial on the interim future land use map and the future land use map. Motion passed.

Mayor Decker presented the city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment (Application #2006-23). A portion of the subject property is currently designated on the future land use map as walkable neighborhood and as townhouse/alternative housing/two-family residential. The city wants to amend the future land use map to show those areas as agricultural/undeveloped because this area is not readily serviceable with city water and sewer and the city’s comprehensive plan should recognize that fact.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to adopt Plan Commission resolution #2006-8 recommending the City Council change those areas designated as walkable neighborhood and townhouse/alternative housing/two-family residential to agricultural/undeveloped on the future land use map. Motion passed.

Mr. Schwecke led the discussion on Ordinance #2006-16 regarding the sign code text amendment to provide for the regulation of window signs. This ordinance provides the definition and size of windows signs. The Commission discussed how this ordinance listed which signs do require a permit. They preferred all window signs are allowed without a permit. The Commission instructed staff to draft an ordinance in that manner.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to postpone Ordinance #2006-16 until next the regular meeting. Motion passed.

Mr. Schwecke led the discussion on the ordinance authorizing the assessment of an application fee for comprehensive plan amendment applications. The Commission instructed staff to draft an ordinance to reimburse the city for staff time and costs associated with amendments.

Mayor Decker opened the public hearing at 9:10 PM. There were no appearances. Mayor Decker closed the public hearing at 9:11 PM.


Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to recommend to Council the adoption of Ordinance #2006-17 as drafted. Motion passed.

Mr. Schwecke led the discussion of resolution setting the amount of the application fee for comprehensive plan amendment applications and floodplain development applications. This resolution would amend the fees relative to Ordinance #2006-17.

Motion by Hammann, seconded by Braunschweig, to recommend to the Finance and Labor Relations Committee the adoption of Resolution #2006-23 as drafted. Motion passed.

The Commission discussed the draft ordinance amending the city’s zoning code (Chapter 130) relating to large-format retail stores. Their concerns were if 50,000 square feet of floor space was adequate for a large-format store. This issue was discussed at the ad hoc committee. Everyone approved the 50,000 square feet limit because it fits the character of the city. Ald Hammann and Braunschweig would be sponsors of this ordinance.

The Commission discussed the draft ordinance amending the city’s zoning code (Chapter 130) relating to completion of a traffic impact analysis for development projects exceeding a specified threshold. The city pays for traffic impact analysis now after the development projects are completed. One of the problems with this procedure was the analysis provided information that would have changed how projects were developed. This ordinance would save city money and provide needed information in the planning process. The Commission questioned the specified threshold of 400 trip ends before a traffic impact study would be required. They instructed staff to research this issue before final approval by Council. Ald Hammann and Braunschweig would be sponsors of this ordinance.

The Commission discussed the draft ordinance amending the city’s subdivision and land division regulations (Chapter 110) relating to completion of a traffic impact analysis for development projects exceeding a specified threshold. Again the Commission questioned the threshold and instructed staff to research this issue. Ald Hammann and Braunschweig would be sponsors.

Mr. Schwecke led the discussion on amending the city’s zoning code (Chapter 130) to allow the city planner to review and act on minor site plan amendments. In some cases, developers have to go back to Plan Commission several times for minor changes as their project progressed. Each time a developer comes back to the Commission, they are charged a fee. This can be very expensive. The ordinance would authorizes the City Planner to make minor changes without taking the minor changes to the Commission, thus, saving the developers the fees for site plan amendments. The Commission is comfortable with the City Planner making minor changes and, later, reporting the changes to the Commission. They instructed staff to draft an ordinance.

Mr. Schwecke led the discussion on drafting of outdoor lighting regulations. Drafting a good lighting ordinance is very technical and difficult, and he is recommended hiring a consultant to draft an ordinance for the city. The Commission instructed staff to bring in the potential consultant to give presentation on his services.

Preliminary Development Presentations - None

Report of the Evansville Redevelopment Authority - None

Report of the Evansville Historic Preservation Commission – None

Mr. Connors led the discussion on the Wisconsin legislative update 2005 Wisconsin Act 477 (SB 681), which restricts the use of impact fees and imposes additional requirements on them. An impact fee is a fee a municipality enacts following the procedures in Wisconsin Statutes 66.0617 and collects from a subdivision developer in a subdivision to pay for some of the cost of additional public facilities the municipality must construct to provide adequate public service for the growing population. Without impact fees, property taxes will be higher than they would have been if impact fees were enacted, and as a result, existing property owners in a municipality must pay a much larger share of additional public facility costs created by population growth. Generally, impact fees are passed on to the purchasers of new houses, thus increasing the price of new houses. This new law also prohibits municipalities from collecting a fee in lieu of parkland dedication for new subdivisions. The new law requires the city to collect fees within 14 days of the issuance of the building permit for a lot or an occupancy permit for a house and to spend the impact fee revenue within seven years of the collection of each individual fee. For example, the city collects the impact fee from the applicant for a building permit for a new house at the time the applicant pays the permit application fee. The city continuously spends the impact fee revenue on debt service, so no individual fee is held for more than seven years. The aspect of the new law that will have the greatest impact on the City of Evansville is the prohibition against collecting a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. For any future subdivision on land that has not yet been annexed, the city might be able to require the petitioner for annexation to agree to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The city might enact a park impact fee, but the new law also limits the use of revenues from park impact fee to purchase land for parks and athletic fields and playground equipment.

City Planner’s Report

Mr. Schwecke reported that Board of Appeal denied Kleven variance application and enforcement on Tom Nonn, d/b/a Badger Cycle, was going to court.

Adjournment

Motion by Braunschweig, seconded Sauer, to adjourn at 9:59 PM, carried.

Prepared by:

James A. Beilke

City Clerk/Treasurer

The Minutes are not official until approved by Plan Commission at the next regular meeting.