Plan Commission

Minutes Village of East Troy Plan Commission 2015 Energy Drive September 13, 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, John Merath and Benny Stichmann Others: Zoning Administrator Schwecke, Administrator Suhm, Clerk Alexander 5. Recess and reconvene at the public parking lot located at 2108 Church Street to conduct a walking tour of the downtown area. The purpose of this is to view properties in the Downtown Transition area as established in the Village’s comprehensive plan. This event is weather dependent and is open to the public. It is anticipated this will last about one hour. Zoning Administrator Schwecke encouraged the Commissioners to remain in a group to observe the area and to keep comments to a minimum to be discussed later in the meeting. Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Arendt, to recess the meeting and meet at the municipal parking lot to conduct the walking tour of the downtown transitional area. Motion carried at 6:33 pm. Commissioners and public conducted a walking tour of the downtown transitional area, observing the current buildings included in this area, the proximity to the downtown core and the potential for commercial or mixed-used growth from the downtown core, areas that may have potential to be included and the challenges of parking in this area. (Participants included all Commissioners, Zoning Administration Schwecke, Administrator Suhm, Clerk Alexander, Steve Lambrechts, Barbara Hotz, David and Rebecca Picchi) 6. Reconvene at the Village Hall to discuss any observations made by the Plan Commission during the walking tour. Note – a more thorough discussion will occur later in the meeting. President Seager reconvened the meeting at Village Hall at 7:23 pm. For those members of the audience that did not join on the walking tour he recapped the tour as a visual walk around the transition area as an opportunity to see what the area around the downtown area looks like. 7. Citizen participation Barbara Hotz, 2019 Division, joined the walking tour and was interested in the discussion of expanding business opportunities within the Village. She discussed her feelings that the proposed apartment development at the former Chester Byrnes property would not be good for the charm of the community. While she understands the need to develop this property, she suggested a smaller footprint or perhaps considering a local business in this area. She hoped the Commission would take retaining the residential neighborhood nature of this area into consideration when looking at development proposals for this property. Ed Hinsberger, 2944 Union Street, discussed the positive reasons he chose this neighborhood for his family and expressed his concern with the proposed apartment development at the former Chester Byrnes property. He questioned what this proposed development would do to property values, is concerned with the loss of property value, the loss of privacy, the additional traffic congestion and added burden to utilities. He also asked if the proposed development would be funded with tax credits or if it would be subsidized. He realizes that there has been information obtained through rumor and second hand but has many questions on what the plan is and what is going on. He expressed a concern on getting factual information and a lack of transparency. He stated that he is opposed to the development. He noted that the proponents of the development that spoke at the August Plan Commission meeting don’t live in the area and wanted the Commission to know that the residents in the area do not support a 60-90-unit apartment development. Dan Szpot, 2030 Union Street, discussed his time in the neighborhood and the charm, safe atmosphere and neighborhood feel of the area. He stated that the idea of a multi-family development is disturbing to him. He lives next to a rental property and discussed that he feels many renters do not have a vested interest in the properties or neighborhoods and don’t maintain the properties. He stated he is not happy to have this many rental units considered and is concerned that a development of this size would destroy the neighborhood. He discussed parking in the area and how this is already a concern. He discussed the water run-off issue from the former Chester Brynes property and asked what would be done to correct that. He expressed his opinion that consideration of this development is heading in the wrong direction and appealed to the Commission to maintain the neighborhood. Neil Story, 2950 Union Street, discussed the water run-off issue but that he loves the neighborhood despite this problem. He feels that a development of 60-90-unit apartments, along with the associated dumpsters, garages and traffic would not be appropriate in a neighborhood of single-family older homes. He stated that he enjoys having the green space that is currently there and that the community uses the space for many different activities. He discussed his experiences in Wauwatosa and the issues of increased traffic and lack of parking. He feels this is a good neighborhood and the proposed development is too big. President Seager clarified to the audience that there was a proposal brought by a developer to the Plan Commission at the August meeting but that there is no item regarding this issue on the agenda for this meeting. He explained that the Commission listens to all proposals and comments brought to them during Citizen Participation. Bryan Schultz, 2049 Division, stated that he feels a development such as what is proposed would destroy his privacy and he is concerned with increased traffic. He also discussed confusion on why he is not allowed to build a 3-car garage, but this size of a development could be considered. Dominic Katcha, 1975 Division Street, stated that the rumors of the proposed 60-90-unit apartment development would not be good for the area because of the increased traffic and other issues. He expressed hopes that the developer would be more transparent. He feels this plan is too big in the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood. 8. Approve Plan Commission minutes of August 9, 2021 Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Commissioner Stichmann, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried. 9. Petition to establish a Planned Development District for an adaptive reuse of a school within the existing building located at 2931 Union Street (ROP 00075); Steve Lambrechts, applicant (application 2021-22) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing at 7:44 pm. Steve Lambrechts, applicant, discussed the proposal for the re-use of the church building. He explained that the congregation will continue to use the sanctuary and one office, there are currently no plans for the lower level, plans for the remaining 3 rooms on the main floor and 5 rooms on the upper floor would be to make cosmetic improvements and offer these areas as office space. Should the rental of office space not prove profitable he is considering converting the space into two apartments in the future. He also discussed that the church and parsonage are on one parcel and the residents in the parsonage would like to purchase the home, so Mr. Lambrechts is looking at possible ways to split the parcel to be able to sell the parsonage. If this can be done, plans for the church building would not change. Zoning Administrator Schwecke added that this proposal is for an existing building and uses the recent code amendment for adaptive use of an institutional building to be used for something else. If this proposal is approved, it would be a stand-alone planned unit development (PUD). He urged the Commissioners to consider the uses and if they fit the surrounding area and is the proposed use compatible with the surrounding area. Current zoning is TR-8 and is one property. He also indicated that Mr. Lambrechts may apply to the Plan Commission for a text amendment to allow for the parcel division. In order to allow for that Mr. Lambrechts will need to request to adjourn the public hearing to allow the Plan Commission to consider his application for the text amendment allowing the PUD to only be for the church portion of the property. Zoning Administration Schwecke also mentioned that there is no on-site parking now and none proposed in the PUD, only street parking. However, if there were apartments approved that would require overnight parking on the street (which is allowed only by permit in the winter and limited to two vehicles per household). Zoning Administrator Schwecke suggested the Commissioners keep this in mind when considering if that should be approved at this time or ask Mr. Lambrechts to come back and amend the PUD should he decide that he would like to develop the apartments. Mr. Lambrechts indicated that he would like to have the option but will work with whatever the Plan Commission would like. Zoning Administration Schwecke did draft an ordinance to create a new zoning district setting forth the parameters of what could be done on with the property and with standards that would be added to the zoning code including the permissible development uses and standards (language is included for the apartments if the Commission feels this is appropriate at this time or this could be amended later), that the church building cannot be expanded in size, the division of land is restricted (unless there is an approved text amendment and then this language would be pulled), and termination if not implemented within the timeframe allowed which would have the zoning revert back to what it is today. Discussion included the available space on the property and the issue of parking.  Dan Szpot, 2930 Union Street, discussed Mr. Lambrechts ideas, parking concerns, expressed concern with apartments being introduced in the neighborhood, and approved of the addition of offices. He expressed his trust in Mr. Lambrechts to keep the neighborhood standards in mind and do a good job with the property. He explained to the Commissioners the parking issues in this area and the continued spill over from the Square, including late night fights and arguments. He asked what the plan would be once the church is no longer needed. He stated that he likes Mr. Lambrechts plan and would be happy to see it approved as he would be concerned at what else would go into that area. Administrator Suhm took this opportunity to explain to the audience how to sign-up to receive eAlerts from the Zoning Hub on the Village website to be informed of development applications and offered to assist any who may encounter difficulty in doing so. Michael Heffernan, 2919 Union Street, expressed his concern with development in this area because of the lack of off-street parking. He explained that this has been a problem in the past in the area as he continues to have people blocking his driveway. Discussion included the procedure to adjourn the public hearing, allow Mr. Lambrechts to apply for the text amendment and then publish another Notice of Public Hearing and notify residents. This would then facilitate discussion of the possible apartments at this location at a future meeting if needed. Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Bottoni, to adjourn the public hearing at 8:01 pm. Motion carried. B. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board 10. Sign permit for a wall sign for Sauced Pizzeria located at 2886 Main Street (ROP 00060) in the downtown design district; Kinove LLC, applicant (Jamie Rohr, agent) (application 2021-23) A. Possible decision by Plan Commission Jamie Rohrer, applicant, discussed his sign application and referred to the submitted picture for the letters to spell Sauced Pizzeria. Zoning Administrator Schwecke explained that this application to the Commission is required because the location is within the Downtown Design District and the features of the sign (size, placement, lighting, color, and design) fit within the parameters set for the Downtown Design District. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Arendt, to approve the sign permit as it meets the standards as set forth in the Village code. Motion carried. 11. Potential revisions to the zoning code (Chapter 510) relating to occupancy permits A. Possible decision by Plan Commission to schedule public hearing on draft ordinance Clerk Alexander explained the background for the proposed language changes to clarify the process for obtaining a non-residential occupancy permit for businesses within the Village. Trustee Renucci  requested changing the language to read “For new businesses located on Village owned property the occupancy permit shall be considered for approval by the Village Board prior to issuance”. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Hayes, to accept the language and direct staff to set public hearing. Motion carried. 12. Discussion related to potential revisions to the zoning code with regard to the Downtown Transition area described in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan Zoning Administration Schwecke recapped the short walking tour in the area that is identified as the Downtown Transition Area, recognizing that the downtown is a critical component in the community, and to consider perhaps allowing additional land uses within this area to expand commercial opportunities should that be desired by a property owner, currently there is downtown core adjacent to single family residences, consider possible mixed residential use with the long-term goal to start drafting language that would identify some of the uses that would be appropriate, density requirements and go through the amendment process. Commission Stichmann asked Zoning Administration Schwecke to bring samples or such an ordinance for the Commission to review. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Hayes, to direct staff to draft language to review in starting to build into the Downtown Transition Area code. Motion carried. 13. Recommendations for future agendas (no packet materials) None 14. Next meeting: • October 11, 2021, at 6:30 pm 15.Adjourn Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Arendt, to adjourn. Motion carried at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Lorri Alexander Clerk Note: Recordings of the meeting may be found on our YouTube Channel - Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPfzVwLzE2Pqt4-g450Klg