Village of Bellevue Plan Commission

Transcription

1 Village of Bellevue Plan Commission Pursuant to Section Wis. Stats., a scheduled regular meeting of the Village of Bellevue Plan Commission was held on Tuesday, at 7:00 p.m. at the Bellevue Village Hall/Public Safety Building 3100 Eaton Road, Green Bay, WI ROLL CALL: Steve Soukup, Chairman x David Maccoux exc. Paul Hamachek, Vice Chair/Secretary x Mark Roznowski x Paul Carron x Tim Schmidt x Mark Janowski x Also Present: Andrew J. Vissers, Community Development Director, Michelle Du Chateau, Assistant Planner/Zoning Administrator, Jim Conard, Craig Delahunt, Steven Zeitler, Geoff Gialdini, Marty Brice and other interested parties. I. 7:00 P.M. CALL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Soukup at 7:00 p.m. 1. Approval of Agenda: Moved by P. Hamachek, seconded by P. Carron to approve the agenda. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 6-0 II. CONSENT ITEMS: These items consist of non-controversial or housekeeping items required by law. Any Commission member making such request prior to a motion and vote on the Consent items may consider items individually. 2. Consider/Discuss/Act on the Minutes of the July 21, 2015 Plan Commission Meeting. Moved by P. Carron, seconded by P. Hamachek to approve the minutes. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 6-0 III. REGULAR ITEMS: NEW BUSINESS: 3. RP Consider/Discuss/Act on the request by Geoff Gialdini, Mark D. Olejniczak Realty, Inc., Owner, for a request to rezone Parcel B from B-2 General Business District to LI Light Industrial, generally located on the east side of Guns Street approximately 200 north of Lynwood Lane. M. Du Chateau stated the proposed rezoning is requesting to rezone Parcel B from B-2 General Business to LI Light Industrial to allow construction of a mini storage facility. This same proposal was brought before the Plan Commission and Village Board in February of 2015 as a Planned Development District and was denied. Within the PDD, the applicant had proposed to zone the parcel with an underlying zoning district of B-2 General Business District and a PDD Overlay. The PDD proposal maintained all the standards and allowable uses within the B-2 District

2 but allowed a mini storage facility as a permitted use. The current proposal will straight rezone the parcel to LI Light Industrial which means all permitted uses within the Light Industrial District will now be permitted on this parcel. The owner has indicated they would place deed restrictions on the property restricting uses, but the Village cannot enforce these as they are private restrictions. The Village no longer has conditional zoning, which means in order to place conditions that run with the property a PDD would need to be approved. As indicated above, the PDD submitted for the property was denied. M. Du Chateau stated staff is not supportive of this proposal for a number of reasons. First, the proposed land use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which identifies this parcel as General Business. The property is currently zoned B-2 General Business, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is designed primarily to accommodate commercial activities and service needs of area residents. Secondly, this property is bounded by residential to the south, east and west. There are numerous lots around the Village that are already zoned for mini-storage and not adjacent to residential zone districts. M. Du Chateau indicated secondly this could also be considered spot zoning. Spot zoning is when a zoning ordinance is amended to zone a relatively small area for uses significantly different from those allowed in the surrounding area to favor the owner of a particular piece of property. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has defined spot zoning as a rezoning whereby a single lot or area is granted privileges which are not granted or extended to other land in the vicinity, in the same use district. While spot zoning isn t necessarily illegal, any rezoning should be consistent with longrange planning and based upon considerations which affect the whole community. If this were to be challenged, the Village would essentially be spot zoning the property. M. Du Chateau stated lastly that there were a number of unique conditions included in the PDD proposal that we cannot require as they are outside of the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Those were proposed to help better integrate the use into the location. The applicant may be willing to incorporate those conditions, however they could not be enforced. M. Janowski asked if this could be a conditional use instead of a straight rezoning request. M. Du Chateau indicated that the Zoning Code does not permit mini warehouse/storage as a conditional use in the B-2 District. P. Carron asked for clarification on the power lines. He feels that the lot is useless because of them. M. Du Chateau indicated that ATC does have certain regulations and authority of the easement and any proposal would need to be reviewed. They obviously limit what can be done but doesn t necessarily make it useless. Based on trying to maximize the use of property, mini storage being uninhabited makes it easier to develop the property within the conditions placed by ATC. G. Gialdini stated he disagrees with staff s claim that the proposal is inconsistent with the Village Comprehensive Plan. He distributed signed letters from some surrounding neighbors indicating support of the project. He stated that the zoning for the condos came long after the zoning for his property was established as B-2. Therefore, they should have known there would be a nonresidential use there at some point. In addition, the condos have small garages and would likely use this project as storage. That would be very convenient. He compares this to the Alpine Condo project in Green Bay and if they had storage within walking distance, it would be very convenient for them as the biggest complaint is storage. So he feels it is serving the needs of the community. G. Gialdini stated that there are other areas in the Village that do have industrial zoning that backs up to residential zoning such as on Monroe Road south of 172 and on Lime Kiln Road south of 172. He also stated that he thinks that no other type of development could occur on the lot. So, there

3 should be no worries about rezoning the property to LI since there is only about 19,600 sf of buildable area that isn t impacted by the ATC Power Lines or floodplain/esa areas. G. Gialdini stated that this would bring tax revenue to the Village of Bellevue, so therefore should be considered to be a good project for the community. S. Soukup asked for a motion. P. Hamachek stated he appreciated the work put in by the applicant, but feels that this use is not consistent with the Comp Plan and is incompatible with the condos across the street. Whether it is condos or single-family it is still residential and this use is still industrial. P. Carron stated he supported the request because this is not located right in the middle of a residential district so he doesn t consider this spot zoning. S. Soukup asked for a motion either way. M. Janowski stated he doesn t think it should be rezoned to industrial. He believes there is still usable area for other uses. S. Soukup stated that this has proposal has come up before and he understands how the Commission voted before on the PDD request which was to deny. The Village Board also did vote it down as well. He is in favor of the project but not the straight rezoning. If the applicant comes back with the PDD after the year timeframe, he feels the Village Board would approve it. M. Janowski stated that ministorage is a holding use as there isn t much value to create them. Therefore in the future if the land becomes more valuable, then it would be easier to purchase it rather than have a more established use on it. He would support the PDD request but not the straight rezone. Motion made by M. Janowski seconded by P. Hamachek to recommend denial of the proposed Rezoning Petition RP MOTION TO DENY PASSED 5-1 (Carron) 4. CSM Consider/Discuss/Act on the request by Steven Zeitler, PLS, Petitioner, on behalf of James Weber and Jacob and Rebecca Hasseler, Owners, for approval of a Certified Survey Map, located at 2563 & 2575 Allouez Ave, Parcels B-96-1 & B M. Du Chateau stated the proposed Certified Survey Map will create 3 lots and an Outlot from two existing lots. The existing Lot 1 is currently a 5.27 acre parcel which is split by existing Lot 2. A portion of existing Lot 1 is adjacent to Main Street and is zoned B-2 General Business. This portion of the property will be combined with the existing Lot 2 to create proposed Lot 3. While nothing in the code prohibits a lot from having split zoning, Staff recommends leaving the two lots separate so there is no ambiguity as to where the dividing line between the different zoning districts is located. M. Du Chateau stated Proposed Lot 1 has been created with the intent to develop. Since this lot has frontage on two streets (Allouez Avenue and Little Creek Lane) it is considered a through lot. On through lots, both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines and therefore must meet the 30 setback requirement on both sides. Proposed Lot 2 contains an existing house and will be a total of 1.65 acres. Although a portion of this lot abuts Little Creek Lane, the zoning lot frontage is below the minimum requirement of 60. Therefore, lot frontage and access shall remain on Allouez Avenue. The intent of proposed Outlot 1 is to be deeded to and maintained by the owner of Parcel B-96-7-F due to the lack of a front yard. A note shall be placed on the CSM stating that Outlot 1 shall be combined with Parcel B-96-7-F.

4 M. Du Chateau stated that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions stated in the staff report. M. Janowski asked if we could restrict the access off of proposed Lot 1 off of Little Creek Lane. M. Du Chateau stated that she asked Public Works and they did not have a concern with an additional driveway off of Allouez Avenue. S. Zeitler the intent is to disperse the property due to the passing of the original owners. He concurs with the conditions of approval and is seeking a favorable recommendation from the Plan Commission. Motion made by M. Janowski and seconded by M. Roznowski to recommend approval of the proposed Certified Survey Map (CSM) subject to the following conditions: 1. Review, approval, and signature from Brown County Planning Commission. 2. All easements as required by reviewing agencies. 3. Provide a copy of any additional restrictive covenants not shown on the plat for review. 4. A note shall be placed on the CSM stating Outlot 1 shall be combined with Parcel B F. 5. All revisions based on Staff s comments shall be submitted for review and approval. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OMA Consider/Discuss/Act on the request by Jim Conard, Petitioner, on behalf of Aldo Santaga, Owner, for an Official Map Amendment to modify the future road network shown on the Village of Bellevue Official Map on Parcels B-312-3, B-312-4, and B-316, generally located at the terminus or existing Paris Lane, and extending south and east. A. Vissers stated the proposed Official Map Amendment is focused on the area east of the termination of Paris Lane and extends southward to the Village of Bellevue/Town of Ledgeview border. The proposal requests to terminate the future road connection to the south and replace it with a cul-de-sac. The remaining future road network stays as is currently approved and shown. A. Vissers indicated this area was studied back in 2003 and 2004 in regards to future street layouts and connectivity. Five options were considered, one of which did have Paris Lane terminating in a cul-de-sac. However, the network that appears on the Official Map was chosen based on the overall connectivity as well as providing a number of access points for traffic dispersal. The proposal that is being requested would extend Paris Lane slightly and then terminate in a cul-desac, eliminating the connection to the property to the south. The remaining future road network would not be altered and would still have two access points into the development area off of Bower Creek Road and through future development areas in the Town of Ledgeview. The plan is to develop possibly four (4) new single-family lots around the cul-de-sac through the platting process. A. Vissers stated the Public Works/Engineering Department has submitted a significant review of the proposal as well as is attached to this report. Both layouts will work, but depending on what layout ultimately happens, engineering and extending utilities to serve other areas will need to be incorporated and studied. Although both layouts will work, the Village already has evaluated this area back in 2003 and 2004 and from 5 alternative layouts, chose the one that appears currently on the Official Map. Nothing has been submitted that would change our support of that layout. There are some ESA s and wetlands in the area but are no different than what was shown during the review previously. If there was some specific information that indicated that no matter what, the proposed layout would not work or there were no alternatives to request an ESA Amendment or

5 possible fill a wetland, then Staff may consider that information when making a recommendation. So both the existing layout and proposed layout work. A. Vissers indicated staff understands that this area may not develop for a number of years, but the point of retaining connectivity and planning or the long-term development future is why these area development plans are required and approved. It is more so a balance of a short term benefit or a long term commitment to the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. P. Hamachek asked if Paris Lane could just be extended to the next lot and not put the cul-de-sac in to maintain the future possible connection but allow the applicant to parcel off lots. A. Vissers stated it could but we try to avoid doing short 100 street segments because of the fact that the connections are usually the weakest point of the road and considering Paris Lane was installed in 2005/2006 when it comes time to replace, it makes sense to do the entire road all at once versus having to come back and do a 100 segment later on from a cost and mobilization aspect. But that could be considered and approved by the Village Board. Also, we would have to take into account the utilities and how they could be extended and ensuring that we secure any easements and who is responsible for the costs. M. Janowski asked if Paris Lane extends west of Bower Creek Rd. A. Vissers stated not currently, but is planned to extend west in the future. J. Conard from one of Brown County s maps it shows a wetland in the area of where the road would extend so he feels that this is evidence enough that the current layout would not work. A. Vissers stated that there is a wetland indicator identified but it has not been delineated so unless it is delineated, it isn t certain if it would impact the layout significantly or not. J. Conard stated there isn t cooperation amongst all property owners right now to develop this area so this will allow for development now rather than waiting for the future which could be decades. They would prefer to keep the cul-de-sac proposal rather than extending the roadway because of the future uncertainty. The homeowners in this area want it to be a cul-de-sac and support this proposal. S. Soukup asked for clarification on what property would need to be purchased in order for this to work. J. Conard stated that anything south of the creek is actually owned by the residents who live on Kettle Creek Drive, so there would need to be a subdivision of that property if this proposal were to be approved. M. Brice stated that he developed a lot of this area and where Paris Lane terminated now there was a study that was done that showed that you could still get the number of lots being requested by extending the road as shown on the current Official Map. He stated that there are environmental issues with the property but that is pretty much anywhere that you develop and you have to work around it. J. Conard stated that according to Brown County Zoning there is a wetland directly in the path of the future road. M. Janowski asked if they had done a delineation on that supposed wetland. J. Conard stated no, but the map says there is one.

6 M. Janowski stated that a delineation would show the boundary and then would determine if the road would need to be shifted or a lot line would need to be tweaked in order to get buildable areas. If could be a large wetland or quite small. A. Vissers stated that there is a potential for a wetland because of an indicator that was seen. The boundary of the wetland has not been determined as of yet. M. Brice stated they initially proposed a cul-de-sac for Paris Lane but that was denied by the Village at the time and what is shown on the Official Map with the connection to the south was ultimately approved. P. Hamachek wanted clarification that regardless of what is approved that the utilities would still need to extend through to serve the area to the south. A. Vissers stated that is correct. M. Janowski asked that if the cul-de-sac would be approved, there would need to be a utility easement on the proposed lots. A. Vissers stated the ideally it would split the property lines and the utilities would then be located within the easement. I believe Public Works stated a 30 easement would be needed. S. Soukup stated he is looking for a motion. M. Janowski asked what the staff recommendation is. A. Vissers stated it was denial based on the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. However, both scenarios could work, the question to be answered really comes down to getting development now, versus willing to wait for development in order to have the connectivity amongst neighborhoods since there is nothing that definitively without a doubt states the current proposed network will not work. M. Janowski asked if the item was denied that the applicant could still develop the four lots. A. Vissers stated yes, but ultimately that would be up to the applicant on it they want to pursue that direction or not. S. Soukup stated he is still looking for a motion. M. Janowski stated he sees it both ways working and is torn, but is looking at the whole area and would hate to eliminate the connectivity now just for four lots. S. Soukup asked what value the applicant was looking to sell these lots for. J. Conard stated somewhere between $75,000 to $80,000 per lot only if it is a cul-de-sac. If he has to extend a street, it is more cost to him and becomes less cost effective to do the project. M. Janowski stated we can t predict the future but only plan for it. We could take these lots now, but someone could come in a year from now and buy up all the land and want it developed. M. Roznowski stated that whatever decision is made, he feels that we need to plan for the long-term versus just having short term gains that may cost us more in the future. M. Janowski stated that if the wetlands were delineated and all avenues had been exhausted to try and construct the current layout and it was not able to be done, then the cul-de-sac would be the way to go. It s just we don t know and the current layout is feasible, so we think, and the road may

7 need to shift slightly to accommodate it. So without that information, he would prefer to keep the Official Map as is. S. Soukup asked if they have the ability to table this item for a month in order to get that information. M. Janowski stated he doesn t see the need because the decision is now versus later. P. Hamachek stated he agrees with the now versus later. He likes the connectivity as shown on the Official Map. S. Soukup asked if he would be willing to make that motion. M. Roznowski stated that this is a difficult item to consider but will make that motion. Motion made by M. Roznowski seconded by P. Hamachek to recommend denial of the proposed Official Map Amendment OMA MOTION TO DENY PASSED 6-0 IV. OTHER: 6. Matters from the Public: None 7. Director s Update: Updated the Plan Commission on the status of items considered by the Village Board. 8. Next Scheduled Meeting Tuesday, September 15, 2015 V. ADJOURN: Motion made by M. Roznowski and seconded by T. Schmidt to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Respectfully submitted, Approved Date: Andrew J. Vissers Acting Recording Secretary