Plan Commission

Minutes Village of East Troy Plan Commission 2015 Energy Drive March 8, 2021 6:30 p.m. 1. Call to order- President Seager called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Verification of open meeting notice – Clerk Alexander verified the meeting had been posted according to open meetings laws. 4. Roll call Present: President Seager, Trustee Renucci, Commissioners Edward Arendt, Chris Bottoni, Roger Hayes, Benny Stichmann and Joe Wisniewski Others: Zoning Administrator Schwecke, Administrator Suhm, Clerk Alexander, Building Inspector Scott Johnson, Attorney Chris Geary (Attended via Zoom: Commissioner Arendt, Attorney Geary) 5. Citizen participation No citizen participation. 6. Approve Plan Commission minutes of January 11, 2021 Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Hayes, to approve the 1/11/2021 minutes. Motion carried. 7. Conditional use for golf simulator classified as indoor recreation along with a tavern for sale of canned and bottled beverages for property located at 2541 Main Street, Unit B and C (RA139600001); Brian Pluess and Jinnesa Pluess, operator; Douglas Persich, property owner, applicant (application 2021-02) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Pluess presented the plan to open a golf simulator experience and to offer small items of food/beverage for customers, not a commercial kitchen, with the intent to offer the option of serving customers beer/wine. Several residents spoke in favor of the plan and felt it would be popular. Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report for this commercial entertainment business and verified that it complied with the standards, that the property is owned by Citizens Bank and that the conditional use would be for a golf simulator with the tavern as an accessory use which would prevent the sale of alcohol as the primary use. Discussion included the selling of alcohol near the daycare, and it was explained that while the sale of alcohol is prohibited near schools and churches the state statute definition of a school does not include daycare facilities. President Seager closed the public hearing. B. Potential recommendation by Plan Commission to Village Board Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Wisniewski, to recommend the Village Board approve the conditional use subject to the terms in the draft conditional use order dated March 3, 2021. Motion carried. 8. Raze an existing building in the Downtown Design Overlay District located at 2088 Church Street (ROP 00111); Kinove LLC, applicant (application 2020-26) A. Public hearing (Note: The public hearing was convened January 11, 2021 and adjourned to this date.) President Seager announced that the public hearing is still open from the January 11, 2021 meeting. John Vilanj, East Troy Area Historical Society, provided an update on progress searching for funding to restore the Cobblestone building at 2088 Church Street. He detailed contacts with various  individuals interested in preserving historical sites, Walworth County Historical Society, the property owner, investigating various grant opportunities, submitting applications for grant funds, contacting potential donors, discussion with a local bank on an account for restoration donations, contact with an organization to placing the building on a national database of cobblestone buildings and has reached out to the This Old House organization who are reviewing the project. He has received support from Walworth County Historical Society and on social media for the restoration project. Needs to consult with a historical attorney regarding separation of ETAHS and donations for this project and is looking for specialized contractors for the project. His plan would be to create a non-profit hotel and feels that the project is attainable it just needs the funds and time to do so. He confirmed that the estimated funds required to restore the building are about 3 million dollars. Adam Aisen, CEO of Extended Care Professionals (EPC), 2096 Church Street, which shares a wall with the Cobblestone, along with their Chief of Staff, lawyer, structural engineer, and Head of Finance. He thanked the property owners for meeting with them. They posed 4 items of concern: the potential for unsafe conditions, how the proposed demolition would affect their building and who would bear the responsibility for damages and potential disruption to their business. He urged the Commission to consider these questions when making their decisions. Alfred Sanchez, Structural Engineer from TD &H Engineering, representing EPC, discussed the building code and concerns with the project impacting the lateral stability of their building. Attorney Patrick DeMoon, Sweet & Mayer, on behalf of Kinove, LLC, agreed that the building is historic but unsafe now and will be more unsafe in the future. He stated that this is not a situation that can wait and if it is going to be razed it should happen now before the road work this spring. He stated that the building has been in rough shape for some time, and no one has come forward prior to do this. The cost of repairs far exceeds the building’s value. He is unsure anyone would come forward and this still presents a problem for the roadwork project. He stated that there is a small amount of asbestoses that will be professionally remediated prior to the demolition, the property owners will hire a professional demolition company and allow a structural engineer with representatives of the Village into the building prior to the raze to determine what needs to be done to do this safely. He stated that the building is not actually connected to the building at 2094/2096 Church Street but joined by a passthrough building and this would reduce the impact to the neighboring property. Insurance for the project will be , naming the Village as an additional insured and any damage that is done by this work the client will take responsibility for. He urged the Plan Commission to approve the raze request at this time as it is the right of his client for his property with reasonable conditions. Ted Zess, Business Owner, encourage the Commission to not approve the request at this time because there are options out there to restore the building. He feels it is wrong to raze the building due to the nature and history of the building and to avoid an empty lot on the Square. He feels there should be a development plan in place to preserve the history of the area before the building is allowed to be razed. Betty Parman, Business Owner, urged the Commission to take time to consider their decision and not approve the request because the building is a part of the community, it would be a loss for the whole corner of the Square and whatever new is planned there would not hold the nostalgia. She feels that although the cost of restoration is high people will contribute. Asked that time be allowed to consider options and funding for restoration. John Vilanj, ETAHS, discussed the condition of the exterior of the building, feels the exterior is in good shape other that the front, discussed other buildings on the Square that have been restored, expressed disappointment that the property owners lawyer urged for the raze request approval and offered to accept the process for the ETAHS. He believes they can come up with  funding and asked for 6 months to lock in financing and look for others interested in ownership. Ann Zess, Business Owner, thanked Mr. Vilanj for his efforts and urged allowing him time to pursue his leads. John Jacoby, W2464 Leasure Way, discussed that this is a complicated issue that deserves a lot of diplomacy going forward. He sees the unique issue of the Villages responsibility to keep the public safe and keep the neighboring building safe, but the property owners point that if they are denied removing the building, they should not be responsible or liable for any damages that occur. Rick Strieter, Kinove, LLC, stated that the property owners support restoration and if funds can be put together through the ETAHS they would be thrilled. The property owners have held many meetings on this issue including with EPC, their attorney and with the ETAHS searching for ways to raise funds. He stated that by approving the raze request the razing of the building would not necessarily happen; they have had inspections for asbestoses that would be professionally removed safely; the structure is independent from the neighboring building but there is a breezeway-type structure between the two buildings. This breezeway shares the outside surfaces of the two buildings and would need to be removed carefully and then the rest of the demolition would be done professionally. He also discussed other demolitions that have been done before without major structural damages. He believes that the efforts by the ETAHS are great but if the building is falling apart it needs to be taken down and would like the raze request approved in case it needs to be done. He stated that citations had been issued to the property owners and requested relief from any citations or fines that would be assessed to the property owners. Attorney DeMoon, Kinove LLC, stated that if there is any delay tonight in approving the request no costs associated with that should be forwarded to his client, specifically for making the building safe for the roadway project and workers as well as making the sidewalk safe, including shoring up the building. He stated that any delay tonight is not at his client’s request because they are ready to move forward. John Vilanj, ETAHS, stated that he understands investment that has already been placed in this property. He feels that the timber frame can be reinforced from the inside out and the neighboring buildings are not connected and can be separated. He asked for time to find donors and stated that he is willing to take on this project for the ETAHS. Discussed possible uses for the building if it is restored. President Seager clarified the statement from Mr. Strieter and stated that there were never any citations or fines issued to Kinove, LLC regarding this property. There was a property maintenance request, in the form of a letter from Code Enforcement requesting property maintenance and the letter also stated that the recipient should contact Code Enforcement for any questions, time extensions or help in meeting the stated timeframe. Commissioner Bottoni asked how long the property has been owned by the current owners (about 7 years) and what has been the delay in developing the property that has brought us to this point. President Seager explained that there have been discussions with the property owners, and they were looking for grants and historical funding to preserve the building and that is a long process. The family has invested in the Village over the years in other projects in the community and this was the next phase. They have invested quite a bit in that process. The Village has waited to see what they planned to do. Discussed the roof issues from 2017 and the damage to the façade from the weather after that point. Rick Strieter, Kinove, LLC, they have gutted the inside and removed the drywall and lath which revealed the extent of the issues. They have had architects review the interior and an engineer  review the building several years ago. The inside structure is gone and is unsafe inside. The owners have invested to try to find ways to save the building and worked with State Historical Society on what can and cannot be done to maintain historical value but the cost to bring back the building and to determine the feasibility of this as a justified business. This entire inside would need to be gutted and rebuilt from the inside out. John Jacoby stated that development was not considered until after the Village’s water main project on the Square due to concerns related to confirmation that the water pressure would be able to fight fires if they occurred on the Square. Commissioner Hayes stated that the idea of a 6-month waiting period but asked what the ramifications would be if the building were to collapse during that time and what impact a collapse would have on the EPC building. Zoning Administrator Schwecke clarified that the Commission is not debating if a raze order should be issued but is considering the raze request because the property is in Downtown Design District and there are a number of concerns and conditions. If it is approved the owner will work with the Building Inspector when they make the decision to take it down and other conditions that are in place would be required to be met. The timing of any work would need to include the road project. Should the building be removed soon that may not be a factor but if it is delayed then the safety for the public and the construction workers during the construction must be addressed by the owner. The timing of the action is up to the owner and the Plan Commission needs to decide whether or not to approve the request. Rick Strieter, Kinove, LLC, stated that the owners would like the permit approved because they don’t want the liability if delayed. They feel that if there is going to be a delay the liability needs to be picked up by the Village. He stated that the cost to make the building safe exceeds 85% of the value. He stated that if the Village will not hold them liable the owners may agree to a delay. He stated that he does not have a concern that the building will fall down as the outside shell of the building holds the roof trusses, but the inside is the problem because the beams supporting the inside structure are compromised. Structurally inside it is not safe but at the time of the engineering report the building outside shell was not failing. Attorney DeMoon, Kinove, LLC, stated that the owners are concerned with the liability that was discussed in a meeting with the Village that requested the outside of the building be made safe for the construction workers. If this approval is delayed again, through no request of the owners as they have been willing to do this months ago, the property owners do not feel that they should bear this liability. Should the ETAHS or the Village come forward to accept that liability that would be fine, but this should not be the owner’s responsibility. President Seager explained that during a meeting with the property owners the Village offered to pay for a structural engineering study of the building to be sure it would not collapse during the roadwork if the building were still standing. The request of the owner was to make the exterior safe by means such as chicken wire wrapped around the outside. Trustee Renucci expressed concerns with liability being the responsibility of the Village taxpayers. He discussed the equipment and roadwork of the Walworth County road project and did not feel the Village is responsible for a private property. Village Attorney Geary explained that while this is a request from the property owner the Village has the right to impose conditions on the request. Zoning Administrator Schwecke suggested an additional condition could be to request they provide notice to the Village and adjoining property owners prior to beginning demolition within a specified timeframe such as 48-hours. Additional details will be included in the actual demolition permit from the Building Inspector. Concerns included time for road closures and neighboring businesses to prepare. Betty Parman, Business Owner, discussed the anticipated disruption of the road project and her concerns with street closures and detours. She feels this should have been better planned. She feels the Cobblestone building restoration needs more study and would like 9 months to work securing funds. Sonja Karlson, EPC, requested as much notice as possible prior to demolition work beginning to prepare their building for the effects of the demolition. Alfred Sanchez, EPC Structural Engineer, requested a letter stating that there would be no impact on the lateral stability prior to proceeding for the safety their building. He stated that no one knows what reducing one building would do to the other and feels that a study or recommendation from someone in the field would be prudent. Zoning Administrator Schwecke and Village Attorney Geary reminded the Commission that the issue before them is not if the work will affect other buildings as that is a civil matter and not the Villages. Trustee Renucci asked if the Village delays the approval of the request would the Village be responsible for any liability from the deteriorating condition of the building. Village Attorney Geary stated that if the owner requests to take down the building and the Village denies that and then there are future issues the Village will be dragged into it. There is a risk to the Village not necessarily from the building collapsing but also material falling off the building if the Plan Commission should delay the request. President Seager closed the public hearing. B. Potential recommendation by Plan Commission to Village Board Motion by Commissioner Arendt, second by Commissioner Hayes, to Ed motion to recommend Village Board deny the property owner’s request to raze the existing building. Roll Call Vote: President Seager No Trustee Renucci No Commissioner Wisniewski No Commissioner Stichmann Abstain Commissioner Hayes Yes Commissioner Bottoni No Commissioner Arendt Yes Motion failed. Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Commissioner Bottoni, to recommend Village Board approve the property owner’s request to raze the existing building, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Prior to demolition, the petitioner must obtain all necessary approvals including a demolition permit from the Village’s building inspector. 2. Within 45 days of commencement of the work, the site must be restored to an acceptable condition as determined by the Village’s building inspector. 3. The property owner must provide proof of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to the Village Attorney; such policy must name the Village of East Troy as an additional insured. 4. The property owner must provide 48-hour notice to the Village and surrounding neighbors prior to the start of demolition. Roll Call Vote: President Seager Yes Trustee Renucci Yes  Commissioner Wisniewski No Commissioner Stichmann Abstain Commissioner Hayes No Commissioner Bottoni Yes Commissioner Arendt No Motion failed. Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Arendt, to recommend Village Board approve the property owner’s request to raze the existing building, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Prior to demolition, the petitioner must obtain all necessary approvals including a demolition permit from the Village’s building inspector. 2. Within 45 days of commencement of the work, the site must be restored to an acceptable condition as determined by the Village’s building inspector. 3. The property owner must provide proof of insurance in a form and amount acceptable to the Village Attorney; such policy must name the Village of East Troy as an additional insured. 4. The property owner must provide 48-hour notice to the Village and surrounding neighboring business owners prior to the start of demolition. 5. The property owner must show due diligence of healthy conversations with the East Troy Area Historical Society about the process of applying for grants or capturing funds to salvage the building. Motion carried with Commission Stichmann abstaining. 9. Potential cottage housing ordinance A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing. Administrator Suhm read a written comment from Erin Seaverson, 2040 Emery Street outlining concerns with the pedestrian connections, parking requirements and street facing visuals of developments. John Jacoby and Mike Zei spoke in favor of the ordinance. Discussion included garage placements; public facing visuals; use in in-fill properties; options for parking requirements; concern with the “no-step entry” vs. above grade entry and that these developments would be PUD’s (Planned Unit Development) allowing the Plan Commission to work with any developer on the details for the specific plan and property during the development review process. President Seager closed the public hearing. B. Potential recommendation by Plan Commission to Village Board Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Trustee Renucci, to recommend Village Board approve the proposed ordinance, based on the findings contained in the proposed ordinance. Motion carried. 10. Draft resolution relating to the Village’s extraterritorial review area A. Review and discussion Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report and explained that the map showed those areas that had been identified by staff for consideration. He explained that this action would not reduce the Village’s authority but would reduce paperwork. The Village has the authority to review all land divisions within 1.5 miles of the Village limits but, with this action, elects to not exercise that authority within these identified areas. The Village would retain the right to change this plan at any time in the future to include more or less area. Should a land division be proposed within the identified area the parties would not be required to bring that  plan to the Village for approvals. The areas defined were identified as areas that staff found to be outside potential growth zones or without impact to the Village. All other areas would continue to be subject to ETZ review. B. Potential action by Plan Commission Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Arendt, to direct staff to schedule a public hearing for the land division code amendment. Motion carried. 11. Discussion related to potential revisions to the Village’s comprehensive plan A. Review and discussion Discussion included needing to define “in or around the Downtown Core”; considering the area designated as the Downtown Transition in the Future Land Use Map; defining “multi-family” and what types of housing is included/excluded and incorporating this definition into the policy; considering the why the policy was created and considering additional properties that may be affected; possibly considering different procedures for in-fill properties for development and identify that on the Future Land Use Map; creating a specific procedure for those in-fill properties to allow a developer to come to the Plan Commission with a plan for a Planned Unit Development; the policy ratio may not apply to in-fill development and what types of properties this may benefit. B. Potential action by Plan Commission Direction was to bring this topic back at a future meeting for further discussion. 12. Update on tree protection ordinance (no packet materials) This was adopted by the Village Board. 13. Pending matters for next meeting • Potential revisions to the Village’s zoning code with regard to building demolitions in the Downtown District Zoning Administrator Schwecke explained this was originally discussed at the December 2020 meeting and the Commission felt that this process may need to be reviewed beyond the current application, as has been done with the property at 2088 Church Street, to provide additional guidance to applicants, consider requiring a development plan or green scape plan if there are no immediate development plans or other options that may be based on end goal of the vision for the Downtown District. This will be brought back at a future meeting for discussion. 14. Recommendations for future agendas (no packet materials) 15. Next meeting: April 12, 2021 (if needed) 16. Adjourn Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci, to adjourn. Motion carried at 9:00 pm. Respectfully submitted by Lorri Alexander Clerk