Plan Commission

MINUTES EAST TROY PLAN COMMISSION 2015 Energy Drive 1/13/2025 6:30 PM Call to order- President Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance Verification of open meeting notice – Clerk Smith verified the meeting had been posted according to open meetings laws. Roll call: Present: President Johnson, Trustee Renucci, Commissioners Roger Hayes, John Merath, Scott Seager, Jacob Lederhaus, Bryan Harding Others: Zoning Administrator Sumwalt, Administrator Suhm, Clerk Smith Citizen Participation None Approval of Minutes – December 9, 2024 Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Trustee Seager, to approve the minutes as presented. Trustee Lederhaus abstained from voting. Motion carried. Ordinances/Code Amendments 1. Amend the general development plan for 2931 Union Street Planned Development district for property located at 2931 Union Street to allow office and/or personal or professional services in the portion of the church/school building that was previously a parochial school and add a multi-tenant monument sign; Steve Lambrechts, applicant (application 2024-17) a. Public hearing President Johnson opened the public hearing. Administrator Suhm made the commissioners aware that for a public hearing, the Village is legally required to publish a notice in the newspaper, which was done for this hearing. The Village Ordinance also requires that a notice be sent to the property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, which had not been done. The Ordinance also states that failure to mail said notice, provided that it is unintentional, shall not invalidate proceedings under this section, but for the Plan Commission’s consideration, there is an option to adjourn the public hearing to a later date after comments are heard tonight. It would not require those making comments to come back and make the same comments, as they would be part of the minutes that the Village Board would receive, although they are welcome to come back. If the Commission is so inclined, it would permit the staff to send notices to those property owners, as in the past those property owners had previously received notices on this property. Zoning Administrator Sumwalt summarized the proposal for an amendment to the 2931 Union Street Planned Development District (PDD), to the General Development Plan. The property owner’s proposal would add a new use. In 2023, there was an amendment permitting the former sanctuary portion of the building to be used for retail. In this proposal, a new use would permit personal or professional service purposes within the school portion of the building, which now is only approved for office use. These types of proposals, the General Development Plan per the code, are treated like a rezoning. The Plan Commission should determine if all the uses within the land use at this location are things they want to see there. Items mentioned within the land use that would not fit well at this location include hospitals, doctor’s offices, and veterinary clinics due to having higher parking demands based on those uses. With this planned development, there is not onsite parking. As part of the final development plan in 2023, there were a couple of spaces in the front of the property for the retail use in the former sanctuary space, but were not installed. This site is reliant on “on-street” parking, which is what is generally done in the area. The other aspect of the petition is a sign plan, adding a monument-style, multi-tenant sign on the east side of the building. He advised that the matter came to the village’s attention via a complaint about a lack of street parking, that staff didn’t know there was a salon business operating out of the school portion of the building. The salon is there without permits and approvals currently, and that if this particular land use was approved in the PDD, then the salon could move forward with obtaining the needed approvals and permits. For the salon to move  forward, an amendment to the General Development Plan would be needed. If the current language should stand, then only offices would be permitted. Petitioner Steve Lambrechts addressed the commissioners and stated that he wasn’t aware that there was a difference between office and personal professional services. He said he has asked his tenants to park in areas across the street, and to leave the on-street parking for their customers, that if he had developed the two off-street parking spaces noted in the plan, it would reduce street parking for residents, and added that the post office has requested that individual mailboxes be installed for each tenant. He noted that compared to when the property was a church and a school, the parking needs are much less now. Commissioner Hayes recalled that when Mr. Lambrechts first came to the commission after he purchased the building to convert the use, there was a concern about parking back then. Commissioner Seager reminded the board that there are no street-facing residents in that area, and that the nearby business is comparable to an industrial use. Since most of the building is along the street, parking in front of the building for those businesses would be appropriate. President Johnson invited the public to comment. Annette Rhode, who owns three businesses in the village, asked why the commission was questioning business owners about making changes to attract businesses, and that she was confused why parking would be a hang up. Commissioner Hayes answered that the parking issue for him was that neighbors had concerns about parking issues in the past. He said he would like to see the notice go out and to have another public hearing. Sara Wehmeier, owner of Divine Hair Studio, explained that she was unaware that any of this was an issue, that she had been in business about three weeks when the issue came to her attention. She said some of her customers park on the square and walk to the building, and that she and her staff now park across the street to leave the parking by the building for customers, adding her customers are by appointment only and there are currently only three staff in the salon, and they are not there all day, every day. President Johnson said that this is the type of business the village wants, but that it is needed for the village to go through things the right way for approvals, and that the matter should be properly noticed to the adjacent property owners. His recommendation was to adjourn the public hearing and have staff notice those individuals and take the matter back up on February 10. Commissioner Seager questioned how an adjournment would affect the business owner, to which President Johnson said direction to staff was to allow the business to continue while the board went through the review process. Motion by President Johnson, second by Commissioner Lederhaus, to adjourn the public hearing in hold over until the Plan commission’s meeting on February 10 at 6:30 p.m., and staff to provide notices to property owners within 300 ft. Commissioner Hayes commented that he is not opposed to those looking to open businesses, but as a commissioner, he must consider all the properties around it. Motion carried. Public hearing adjourned at 6:59 pm. b. Discussion and recommendation to the Village Board (no action taken) Miscellaneous Business 1. Providence Farms preliminary plat in extraterritorial jurisdiction area (ETJ) located on Swoboda Road – Part of the Southeast ¼ and Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼ and part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 31, Town 4 North, Range 18 East, Walworth County, Wisconsin (PET 3100007); Willam and Pamela Burki, applicant (application 2024-18) Zoning Administrator Sumwalt briefed the board on the extraterritorial review of the Burki property, which the petitioner desires to split into lots to sell and keep for family, adding that the proposal conforms with current zoning. William Burki spoke on the proposed lots and lot access easements. Motion by Commissioner Lederhaus, second by Commissioner Hayes, to approve and recommend to the Village Board the approval of the preliminary plat, for William H. Burki and Pam Burki located on Swoboda Road (PET2100007), subject to the following conditions in the packet 1-3. Motion carried. 2. Amend the final development plan for Overlook Ridge Planned Development district to relocate the multi-family residential buildings further north (towards main street) on the property; Sawall Development, applicant (application 2024-19) Zoning Administrator Sumwalt informed the board that the developer had brought a new site plan for consideration after soil borings had been conducted on the site and the findings revealed substantial amounts of concrete up to 16 feet deep in some areas. Since this discovery greatly affected the ability to install infrastructure in that area, the plan would be to shift the location of the buildings closer to Main Street, and instead construct the parking area to the rear of the property. Karl Sawyer, of Sawyer Excavating,  presented maps and discussed his findings with the board, voicing his support for the shift in the site plan. The staff recommendation for a secondary emergency access and the location of the dog park were discussed. The secondary access will be further discussed at the next meeting. Options of buffering the dog park with more landscaping and switching the dog park and maintenance building locations (relocating the maintenance building on the east side of the site to the west side and dog park from the west side to east side of the site) were discussed. The petitioner will review options and bring this back to the Commission at their next meeting for consideration. With the relocation of the buildings, Zoning Administrator Sumwalt recommended that perhaps brick or stone could be added to the exterior for visual appeal. Commissioner Seager and President Johnson also voiced that they would like to see architectural elements, such as roofline cornice and window trim on buildings so they maintain a similar look to Village Square structures. The developer agreed to consider the recommendations and will bring his plans back to the Plan Commission meeting on February 10. a. Discussion and action by Plan Commission (no action taken) 3. Discussion related to the two-family residential planned land use category from the Village’s Comprehensive Master Plan. Zoning Administrator Sumwalt reviewed an inquiry related to whether a single-family residential lot near the square, which has a backyard larger than what is typical, could be split A rezone to TR8 would be necessary and would require a corresponding amendment to the Village Comprehensive Plan. Administrator Suhm said that the property is directly adjacent to the properties already zoned TR8. The land use in the comprehensive plan is single family residential so the lot in question cannot be rezoned. The comprehensive plan also identifies many of the properties already zoned TR8 as single family residential. Zoning Administrator Sumwalt was directed to review the issue and provide suggestions, especially considering housing shortages in the area. Recommendations for Future Agenda • Tiny homes as accessory uses in residential zoning districts • Revise application requirements for rezoning petitions • Potential regulations/information related to front-yard setbacks on side-loaded homes Next Meeting: February 10, 2025, at 6:30 pm Adjourn Motion by President Johnson, second by Trustee Renucci, to adjourn at 8:36 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Dannett Smith, Clerk Note: Recordings of the meeting may be found on our YouTube Channel - Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPfzVwLzE2Pqt4-g450Klg