Planning Commission: July 2, 2007; Part I---Evansville Manor

City of Evansville

Plan Commission

Regular Meeting

Monday, July 2, 2007, 6:00 pm

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

MINUTES

Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Mayor Sandy Decker.
Roll Call. Present: Sandy Decker, Diane Roberts, Mason Braunschweig, Jim Brooks, Gil Skinner, Jeff Vrstal, and Bill Hammann. Staff present: Tim Schwecke and Dan Wietecha. Others present included: Julie Meredith, Tom List, John Willoughby, Tom Cothard, Tony Wyse, Greg Ardisson, Dick Woulfe, Cliff Woolever, Roger Berg, Jeff Farnsworth, Decklin Every, Reverend Robert Garbrecht, Dan Zettelmeier, Jolene Hawkins, and other members of the public.
Approve Agenda. Braunschweig made a motion, seconded by Roberts, to approve the agenda. Motion approved unanimously.
Approve Minutes of June 11, 2007 Meeting. Brooks noted that the public comments for and against the Ver Kuilen/Meredith Tavern CUP had been reversed. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Braunschweig, to approve the minutes with the correction. Motion approved unanimously.
Citizen Appearances. None.
Unfinished Business.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Schwecke said no Evansville residents had commented to FEMA in contradiction to the proposed maps. It will be about a year before FEMA formally adopts the new maps.
Allen Creek Master Plan. Wietecha said property owner interviews would be starting in the next couple weeks. A mid-project open house is tentatively scheduled during the August 21 Redevelopment Authority meeting.
New Business.
Evansville Manor Zoning Map Amendment (application 2007-6). Noting that her husband sits on the board for the Evansville Manor and that they own stock in it, Decker turned the meeting over to Braunschweig. Tom List of Plunkett Raysich Architects provided an overview of the project. It includes a separate, two-story building without a basement to serve as a 25 unit residential care apartment complex (RCAC). Access would be off Fourth Street, where the Manor is acquiring several properties. The interior roads have been designed based on comments for truck access from the Fire Department. There would be 1 parking space for every two apartment units which is the industry standard. In answer to a question from the Commission, Cliff Woolever said the new building would have a staff of about fifteen with only three or four on schedule at one time; there is adequate employee parking.
Schwecke noted that if the planned unit development (PUD) is approved it will still go through a site plan approval. The boundary of the PUD can also be amended in the future, as can the development standards in the ordinance. In answer to a question from the Commission, he said that a 0.3 opacity buffer and landscaping standards would be required; those would be more specific during the site plan review.

Braunschweig opened the public hearing at 6:29. Public comments generally in favor of the application included:

Good to see Manor expanding and offering additional variety of housing choices in Evansville.
Good addition for neighborhood.
Support expanding business and employment.
Public comments generally against the application included:

Danger of speeding traffic already in the area.
Need for sidewalk along Fifth Street.
Public Comments included several questions for clarification:

There is the potential for a community-based residential facility (CBRF) in the future, but none is currently planned.
Setback requirements would generally be 30 feet, but could vary in some parts of the irregular shaped lot.
The Commission cannot speculate on any potential impact to neighboring property values.
Employee parking is required in the development standards.
There would be an additional access off Fourth Street.
The Commission noted written comments from Michael LaRue. The public hearing closed at 6:37. The Commission asked about sight lines at the new driveway; it is perpendicular to Fourth Street and the trees are mature with a high canopy. The Commission noted that aside from some traffic concerns, the public had been generally supportive. In reviewing the staff report, the Commission noted the PUD would be consistent with the zoning code and compatible with the neighborhood. Cliff Woolever said that it would not be a traffic intensive development and that employees would not typically park on the street.

The Commission stated that the potential public benefits outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the PUD. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Hammann, to recommend to Common Council adoption of Ordinance #2007-7 as drafted based on findings contained in the staff report and on the conclusion that the public benefits of the proposed zoning classification outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts, if any. Motion approved unanimously.