Plan Commission

Minutes Village of East Troy Plan Commission 2015 Energy Drive November 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, Roger Hayes, John Merath and Benny Stichmann Excused: Commissioner Chris Bottoni Others: Zoning Administrator Schwecke, Administrator Suhm, Clerk Alexander 5. Citizen participation No citizen participation. 6. Approve Plan Commission minutes of October 11, 2021 Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Commissioner Arendt, to approve the October 11 minutes as presented. Motion carried. 7. Extra territorial review of a one-lot certified survey map to create a 5-acre parcel with a remnant ag parcel located off of St. Peters Road (PET1800020A); Peter and Susan Acker, applicant (2021-34) A. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Stichmann, to recommend the Village Board approve the CSM in the Town of East Troy subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated November 3, 2021. Motion carried. 8. Extraterritorial review of a one-lot certified survey map to create a 4.85-acre parcel with remnant ag parcel located at W2691 Highway 20 (L T 2400010); Robert and Linda Dingman, applicant (application 2021-35) A. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Motion by President Seager, second by Commissioner Stichmann, to recommend the Village Board approve the CSM in the Town of Troy subject to the conditions listed in the staff report dated November 3, 2021. Motion carried. 9. One-lot certified survey map to merge 3 adjoining parcels located at 2511 Main Street; BBQ Pit LLC; Leon Davis, agent (2021-36) A. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report and indicated that he expects a site plan to be submitted for the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Hayes, to recommend the Village Board approve the CSM based on the general and specific conditions listed in the staff report dated November 3, 2021. Motion carried. 10. Amend various dimensional standards in Subsection 510-24(H) of the zoning regulations for the Two-Family Residential (TR-8) zoning district; Steve Lambrechts, applicant (2021-37) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing at 6:36 pm. Steve Lambrechts, applicant, explained that he is requesting to create two separated parcels. He stated he has a petition signed by neighbors stating there is no opposition in having the property change from a rental unit to an owner-occupied home. He requested to allow the lot width of one parcel to be 60’ and other one 72’ and that both the church and the home already have separate water and sewer. Zoning Administrator Schwecke provided background on the request and that the applicant is requesting to amend the zoning code that would affect every TR-8 parcel in the Village. He referenced the definition of TR-8, the map for TR-8 parcels and Exhibit A from the packet materials that shows the changes of the proposed amendment. He explained that the biggest effect is the change in minimum lot widths from 75’ to 60’ for residential lots and from 75’ to 70’ for nonresidential lots. He stated that the Plan Commission is a recommending body to the Village Board and the Village Board makes the final decision. Discussion included not changing setbacks however many of the TR-8 properties are in the older portions of the Village. Melanie Denhart, N8428 Townline Road, spoke regarding 2931 Union Street, as a member of the UCC Church, and explained that the church membership had declined, and repairs were needed, to finance repairs they inquired about splitting the property into two parcels. On April 23 they received a letter from the Village stating that they could not separate the parcels based on current code and the membership felt they had no option and made the decision to sell the entire property. They are startled to see that this is a possibility. Michelle Dillon, 2005 Beulah Ave., spoke in support of Ms. Denhart’s comments, but expressed concern with decreasing what has been determined to be standard and that such a decision will affect all property owners. She stated that these community members were denied this option and should have been treated the same as everyone. A UCC Church member then read the letter from the Village dated April 23, 2021. She stated that the sale of the parsonage could have allowed them to keep their church. Colton Dillon, 2005 Beulah Ave., understands the Church’s situation and the request to split the property but has concerns with where that would end and what else be affected in the community. He asked if this could be considered for only this property. He discussed what the text amendment would change throughout the Village as it would not only affect this property and may create a domino-effect with other properties. Administrator Suhm explained when staff receives inquiries regarding lot divisions the dimensional standards for lots contained within the zoning code are reviewed when determining whether a lot division would be permitted in reference to the letter cited. In response to a question related to the minimum lot width for single family residential zoning (SR-4), Administrator Suhm clarified it is 75 feet with a minimum of 50 feet street frontage. President Seager closed the public hearing at 6:53 pm. B. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed that the Plan Commission is advisory to the Village Board for code amendments and the options that the Village Board would have regarding the proposed text amendment that would affect only the TR-8 zoning district. Discussion included that TR-8 is a zoning district for duplexes and a narrow duplex lot is different than a narrow single family lot, that the setbacks would still be maintained, that TR-8 is an  allowed rezoning for some of the more difficult parcels in the Village, how this decision may impact other lots, that other properties in the original part of the Village would currently be considered sub-standard in size based on current standards, and perhaps an alternate option needs to be considered for those lots in the future. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Hayes, to recommend to the Village Board approval of the request to revise Section 510-24 (H) as set for the Exhibit A. Motion carried. 11. Rezone subject property located at 2019 Beulah Avenue (RA454000001) from Light Industrial (LI) to Attached Residential (AR-9); ABCS Investments LLC, applicant; Steve Lambrechts, agent (application 2021-38) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing at 6:58 pm. Steve Lambrechts, applicant, reviewed the conditional rezone that was granted previously and has expired and that he is now reapplying for a conditional rezone to AR-9. He stated that he doesn’t want to see this land developed as apartments and is in favor of owner-occupied buildings, townhomes, or an assisted living facility. Michelle Dillon, 2005 Beulah Ave., stated apartments on this property would change the property drastically for the landscape for the neighboring properties. She asked why only those property owners within 300’ are notified of the subject property and does not feel that this is acceptable. She feels all residents have a vested interest in these topics and do not want property values to decrease. She stated that she would favor single family development and that the Village is already well above acceptable levels for multi-family housing both by state standards and what has been set by Plan Commission. Colton Dillon, 2005 Beulah Ave., agrees with Ms. Dillon’s statements regarding the amounts set for multi-family housing. He stated that he did not want to see a multi-family development next to their home and they do not want to live in a big city. He asked that the Commission not approve the rezone request and should a topic such as this come before the Commission again to notify more than just property owners within 300’ of the subject property. Zoning Administrator Schwecke explained that there is no requirement to notify property owners other than the public hearing notice that is published in the official newspaper. The Village has been notifying property owners within 300’ of the subject property as a courtesy. Ken Walbrandt, 2996 Chafin Ave., stated that neighboring citizens were before the Commission two-years ago and expressed their opposition to multi-family zoning at this location. Mr. Lambrechts stated that his property is identified as infill property and the real estate sale sign stating that the property was zoned as MR-10 has been in place since the original conditional rezone was approved. He feels that new property owners in the area had the opportunity to see this sign and also the newer residents may not know what the property was like before he cleaned it up (such as removing storage tanks, underground tanks, old buildings, etc.). Ms. Dillon expressed her concern that the Village is above allowable amounts of multi-family housing. She again stated that she feels that notifying property owners within 300’ of a subject property is not enough notice and this policy needs to be reconsidered. She feels that this rezone request, if approved, will negatively impact the property values of surrounding properties. Zoning Administrator Schwecke provided a definition of in-fill properties and provided history of the original conditional rezone to MR-10 that then expired, and the application was received to renew the conditional rezone to MR-10. He explained that there was a percentage included in the Comprehensive Plan regarding multi-family housing that was being developed at the same time. The policy was later further rewritten indicting that if a property was identified as “in-fill” it would  not be held to the multi-family percentage. The subject property has been identified as an in-fill property. As part of the Comprehensive Plan revision there is a change that states if a property is shown as mixed residential in the Comprehensive Plan, then the corresponding zoning classification would be AR-9. Mr. Lambrecht’s then withdrew his application for the conditional rezone to MR-10 and applied for the conditional rezone to AR-9. Commissioner Stichmann explained that the Commission had many discussions about the AR-9 and TR-8 zoning classifications because they more closely resemble single family type developments as this zoning does not allow for large, dense buildings. They more resemble more single-family atmosphere while being attached buildings such as condos or town homes and the setbacks and standards are more neighborhood conducive. President Seager closed the public hearing at 7:18 pm. B. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Discussion included that the AR-9 zoning would allow for cottage housing to be proposed as a Planned Unit Development and that the current zoning is Light Industrial and would allow for Light Industrial uses. Zoning Administrator Schwecke reviewed his staff report and stated that he had received one comment via the ZoningHub and that it was included in the packet, and that this would be a conditional rezone to AR-9 with a term of 4 years during which time a development plan would need to be submitted for consideration and if no development plan was submitted the zoning would revert back to Light Industrial at the end of the 4 years. Motion by Commissioner Hayes, second by Commissioner Merath, to recommend the Village Board approve the conditional rezoning of the subject property as set forth in the ordinance dated November 2, 2021. Motion carried with Commissioner Stichmann abstaining. 12. Potential revisions to the zoning code (Chapter 510) relating to bufferyard requirements (application 2021-33) A. Public hearing President Seager opened the public hearing at 7:22 pm. Zoning Administrator Schwecke explained that this topic came before Plan Commission last month and adds a waiver provision to the bufferyard requirement under certain circumstances. President Seager closed the public hearing at 7:23 pm. B. Possible recommendation by Plan Commission to the Village Board Discussion included the definition of a bufferyard (the strip of land between two abutting properties of different zoning districts that act as a buffer by the addition of screening), the revision would add the potential for a waiver to be requested, all or in part, based on the elevation difference between the subject properties should the topography make the bufferyard ineffective. Motion by Commissioner Stichmann, second by Commissioner Merath, recommend the Village Board approve the proposed ordinance based on the findings contained in the proposed ordinance. Motion carried. 13. Discussion related to potential revisions to the zoning code and comprehensive plan with regard to the Downtown Transition area described in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan Review included that this was discussed previously to define the Downtown Transition area and to implement this new district (as shown on the presented map which indicates the changes and properties included) and keep the Downtown Core the properties that face the Square with zero setbacks, while adding more properties to the Downtown Transition area to allow for development and opportunities of commercial and office uses, if desired. Moving to define what  uses would be allowed Zoning Administrator Schwecke presented the current land use table and added the Downtown Transition area to identify those uses that would be allowed by right or by conditional use. This is a multiple-step process with defining first the map, then the land uses, then the dimensional standards. Discussion included the size of lots in the original portions of the Village, the need to have the dimensional standards consider the expanded commercial uses and the parking needed, the impact on impervious surface amounts, the intended result to allow for additional home businesses and/or homes being used for businesses, should multi-family uses be allowed, how development may occur and utilize the Downtown Transition area, mixed use development, desired density in this area, maintaining the heart of the historic district but allowing it to grow to allow for additional opportunities of grass roots businesses, conditional use process and authority, the ability to start smaller and allow the opportunity to expand the uses in the future if needed, the ability to have different design standards for the Downtown Design District and the Downtown Transition area, and the possibility for staff approval rather than Plan Commission approvals. Direction to staff was to incorporate tonight’s input for the next meeting, to consider the map, a revised land use chart and propose dimensional standards while keeping the need for parking at the forefront. 14. Recommendations for future agendas (no packet materials) • Revise application requirements for rezoning petitions • Revisions to floodplain regulations based on new DNR model ordinance and new flood maps • Commissioner Stichmann suggested discussing a procedure to inform the Commission of potential concerns/conflict raised with code requirements, to consider the practice of notifying property owners within 300’ of a subject property and the publication in the East Troy Times. Administrator Suhm suggested that it may be valuable that as issues arise a report be prepared for the Plan Commission identifying trends/issues. She sympathized with the specific situation that the UCC Church is facing and agreed that this is unfortunate, she explained that staff is tasked in responding based on current code and enforcing the written and current code and rules that come from the Plan Commission. 15. Next meeting: • December 13, 2021, at 6:30 pm — regular meeting if needed 16. Adjourn Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Renucci, to adjourn. Motion carried at 8:11 pm. 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