Date and Time: October 2, 2017 6:00 PM 1. Roll call Discussion and possible action on the following: AGENDA CITY PLAN COMMISSION Location: Page 1 of 46 Members: o Mayor Wiza o Alderperson Kneebone o Commissioner Brush o Commissioner Cooper o Commissioner Curless o Commissioner Haines o Commissioner Hoppe Lincoln Center, Multi-Purpose Room 1519 Water Street Stevens Point, WI 54481 2. Report of the September 5, 2017 meeting 3. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone two unaddressed properties south of Northpoint Drive between Forest Street and Georgia Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100264 & 281240830100202) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-3 Single and Two-Family Residence District. Pages 13-25 4. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone three properties south of John s Drive between Georgia Street and Frederick Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100139, 281240830100138 & 281240830100137) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-4 Multiple Family 1 Residence District. 5. Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point to Amend Chapter 23, Zoning Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 23.02(3), Industrial Districts, to permit a setback reduction for properties bounded by two or more streets in the M-1 & M-2 districts via a conditional use permit. Pages 26-27 6. Public Hearing and Action on a request from Altmann Construction for a conditional use permit to reduce the street setback of one street frontage at 3201 Business Park Drive (Parcel ID 281230802100009). Pages 28-36 7. Request from the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Stevens Point to purchase 101 Georgia Street (Parcel ID 281240830400103). Pages 37-42 8. Request from the City of Stevens Point to purchase three properties: 1466 Water Street (281240832201931), 0 Water Street (281240832201912), and 924 Arlington Place (Parcel ID 281240832201911) for the preservation of property for a future city hall. Pages 43-46 9. Community Development department monthly report for September 2017 10. Director s update 11. Adjourn Pages 3-12 Pages 13-25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any person who has special needs while attending these meetings or needs agenda materials for these meetings should contact the City Clerk as soon as possible to ensure that a reasonable accommodation can be made. The City Clerk can be reached by telephone at (715) 346-1569 or by mail at 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481. Maps further defining the above area(s) may be obtained from the City of Stevens Point Department of Community Development, 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481, or by calling (715) 346-1567, during normal business hours. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a quorum of the Common Council may be in attendance at this meeting. Page 1 of 1
Page 2 of 46 PUBLISH: September 15, 2017 and September 22, 2017 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Commission of the City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin, will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, October 2, 2017 at 6:00 PM at 1519 Water Street (Lincoln Center Multi-Purpose Room), Stevens Point, WI 54481 to hear the following: 1. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone two unaddressed properties south of Northpoint Drive between Forest Street and Georgia Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100264 & 281240830100202) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-3 Single and Two-Family Residence District. These properties are also described further below: Parcel 281240830100264: W561'OF E886'NENE; EX S47.5RDS;EX CSM32/62;EX PRCL DES718883&755028;EX ST S30 416/357;689/1147, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. Parcel 281240830100202: N 28.5 RD OF S47.5 RD OF W561'OF E886'NENE EX S11RD OF E14.5RD EX STRS S30T24R8 416/357 689/1147, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. 2. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone three properties south of John s Drive between Georgia Street and Frederick Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100139, 281240830100138 & 281240830100137) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-4 Multiple Family 1 Residence District. These properties are also described further below: Parcel 281240830100139: LOT 4 CSM#8257-32- 87 BNG PRT NE NE S30 T24 R8 416/357-58 689/1147-49, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. Parcel 281240830100138: LOT 3 CSM#8257-32- 87 BNG PRT NE NE S30 T24 R8 416/357-58 689/1147-49, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. 317 Georgia Street, Parcel ID 281240830100137: LOT 2 CSM#8257-32- 87 BNG PRT NE NE S30 T24 R8 416/357-58 689/1147-49, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. 3. Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point to Amend Chapter 23, Zoning Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 23.02(3), Industrial Districts, to permit a setback reduction for properties bounded by two or more streets in the M-1 & M-2 districts via a conditional use permit. 4. Public Hearing and Action on a request from Altmann Construction for a conditional use permit to reduce the street setback of one street frontage at 3201 Business Park Drive (Parcel ID 281230802100009). This property is zoned "M-2" Heavy Industrial District and is described as LOT 1 CSM#8519-34- 49 BNG PRT SWNE & NWSE;SUBJ RC-695/7 & 757204 S2 T23 R8 682/16-20-ANNEX 660041 (MFG), City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. 5. Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point Public Utilities Department to Item 5 construct a municipal service and operational facility garage at an unaddressed parcel on Cypress has been Street (Parcel ID 281240832300408). This property is zoned "R-3" Single and Two-Family Residence postponed District and is described as LOTS 731 THRU 747 BLK 78 M M STRONGS ADD ESMT DES IN 583/929 (PART OF CSM 1/134).50A 583/929-30, City of Stevens Point, Portage County, Wisconsin. All interested parties are invited to attend. BY ORDER OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STEVENS POINT, WISCONSIN John Moe, City Clerk
Page 3 of 46 REPORT OF CITY PLAN COMMISSION September 5, 2017 6:00 PM Lincoln Center, Multi-Purpose Room 1519 Water Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481 PRESENT: Mayor Wiza, Alderperson Kneebone, Commissioner Brush, Commissioner Cooper, Commissioner Haines, and Commissioner Hoppe. ALSO PRESENT: Director Ostrowski, Associate Planner Kearns, City Attorney Beveridge, Police Chief Skibba, Alderperson Jennings, Alderperson Shorr, Alderperson Nebel, Alderperson Johnson, Alderperson Slowinski, Alderperson Dugan, Alderperson McComb, Alderperson Phillips, Alderperson Morrow, Jim Belke, Frank Nueberger, Janet Miller, and Pete Arntsen. 1. Roll call. INDEX: Discussion and possible action on the following: 2. Report of the August 7, 2017 meeting. 3. Public Hearing and Action on a request from Jared Redfield for a conditional use permit to convert 1033 Park Street (Parcel ID 281240832402113) into apartments. 4. Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point to Amend Chapter 30, Building Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 30.04(3), Fences, to permit deviations from the ordinance with recommendation by the Plan Commission and approval from the Common Council. 5. Request by the City of Stevens Point Police Department to relocate operations from 1515 Strongs Avenue to 933 Michigan Avenue (Parcel ID 281240833200105), formerly Mid-State-Technical College. 6. Request from the City of Stevens Point to vacate a portion of public right-of-way on Reserve Street, south of Madison Street. 7. Request from the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Stevens Point to purchase 1105 Second Street (Parcel ID 281240832200409), formerly Jerry s Auto Service. 8. City of Stevens Point Housing Study 9. Draft Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Housing 10. Community Development monthly report for August 2017 11. Director s Update 12. Adjourn 1. Roll call. Present: Wiza, Kneebone, Brush, Cooper, Haines, Hoppe Not Present: Curless Discussion and possible action on the following: Page 1 of 10
Page 4 of 46 2. Report of the August 7, 2017 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Brush to approve the report of the August 7, 2017 Plan Commission meeting; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Public Hearing and Action on a request from Jared Redfield for a conditional use permit to convert 1033 Park Street (Parcel ID 281240832402113) into apartments. Director Ostrowski briefly summarized the request to convert 1033 Park Street, zoned B-2 Central Business Transition District, into a 4-unit apartment complex with approximately 4-6 bedrooms in total. He reminded the Commission that the request was before them as all multi-family was a conditional use in every zoning district, also noting that the property had previously acted as residential prior to being converted into offices. The existing and proposed floorplans for the first and second floor were presented, and he further explained that the Inspection Division would need to further review them due to the significant interior and minor exterior renovations needed to convert to multi-family. The internal review would make sure that all applicable building codes were met. He recommended approval with conditions stated in the staff report. Mayor Wiza declared the public hearing open. Mayor Wiza declared the public hearing closed. Frank Nueberger (2316 Elk St) stated that the owner, Mr. Redfield, did not effectively maintain the property grounds. Motion by Commissioner Cooper to approve the request from Jared Redfield for a conditional use permit to convert 1033 Park Street (Parcel ID 281240832402113) into apartments with the following conditions: 1. Applicable building codes shall be met and applicable permits obtained. 2. Landscaping shall be added to fully screen the parking lot. The applicant shall submit an updated site plan identifying required landscaping and stall requirements. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by community development department staff. 3. The maximum number of units shall be 4, with a maximum number of 6 bedrooms. 4. Snow shall be removed from the site, or stored in a location that it will not negatively impact parking, vehicular circulation, or adjacent properties. 5. Any outdoor refuse enclosure shall be fully screened with opaque fencing. 6. The applicant shall submit an updated site plan if second floor exterior ingress/egress (stairs) is installed, to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 7. The applicant shall pay the required park fee per unit to the City. 8. Minor modifications may be approved by staff. seconded by Commissioner Haines. Page 2 of 10
Page 5 of 46 Motion carried 6-0. 4. Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point to Amend Chapter 30, Building Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 30.04(3), Fences, to permit deviations from the ordinance with recommendation by the Plan Commission and approval from the Common Council. Director Ostrowski stated that as they went through the Zoning Code rewrite, items such as fences and accessory buildings would be transitioned from the Building Code into the more appropriate Zoning Code, and further explained that the request had initially stemmed from a potential downtown area project where AT&T would be looking to add security fencing around their parking lot. Due to how the fence ordinance was written, the fence heights proposed for the project would be prohibited. Furthermore, there were instances downtown where buildings went up to the street and blocked the vision triangles. If looking at the fencing ordinance compared to the setback requirements for principal structures, it made sense in certain instances to allow the Plan Commission to deviate from the current requirements in certain locations and circumstances. The amendment to the ordinance would allow exceptions from the section stated, as well as the addition of conditions through a site plan review by the Plan Commission and Common Council. He stated that the amendment would allow for more flexibility for odd shaped lots. Mayor Wiza declared the public hearing open. Mayor Wiza declared the public hearing closed. Motion by Commissioner Haines to approve the request from the City of Stevens Point to amend Chapter 30, Building Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 30.04(3), Fences, to permit deviations from the ordinance with recommendation by the Plan Commission and approval from the Common Council; seconded by Commissioner Brush. Motion carried 6-0. 5. Request by the City of Stevens Point Police Department to relocate operations from 1515 Strongs Avenue to 933 Michigan Avenue (Parcel ID 281240833200105), formerly Mid-State-Technical College. Mayor Wiza noted that Alderperson Shorr, while unable to attend the meeting, had been in contact with his constituents, and continued to have an open invitation for comments or concerns regarding the current agenda item. He further explained that the funding for relocation had already been approved, but a state statue required a review by the Plan Commission and subsequent adoption by the Common Council. Director Ostrowski explained that even though the request was a permitted use within the zoning district, the location or building design of any public building required a recommendation by the Plan Commission to the Common Council before they could act on a final approval. The building at 933 Michigan Avenue, or the old Mid-State Technical College, was roughly 36,000 square feet in size, and north of the Boys and Girls Club and Parks and Recreation Department. The intent would be to relocate the City s Police Department services from 1515 Strongs Avenue where they currently leased space from the County. He briefly explained that a space design study performed in 2013 had identified that the Police Department had been severely lacking in space and showed that they would need more than double of their existing space. Whether the Municipal Court would also be located there was yet to be determined. He explained that there would likely be no major exterior changes to the building upon initial move-in, but future modifications could be determined as the department assessed their needs such as the construction of a parking garage. The primary ingress and egress, parking, and public access were also briefly discussed, as well as the potential to lease 8,000 square Page 3 of 10
Page 6 of 46 feet of the northeast corner of the building, adding that the use would need to be compatible with the park and Police Department. Staff recommended approval of the relocation of the Police Department to 933 Michigan Avenue, noting that it made sense due to its centralized location for City response, that the site was already owned by the City, and that there was adequate space for the Police Department, in addition to there being room for expansion. Commissioner Hoppe asked if there were any plans for parking on the southeast portion as that area was typically used for events, to which Director Ostrowski stated that most of the parking would remain public surrounding the park area, adding that most of the events occurred in the evening when there would be less staff parked vehicles. Mayor Wiza noted that the northern parking area was currently leased. Commissioner Brush asked if there was a secondary ingress and egress. Director Ostrowski confirmed that there was an additional entrance and exit towards the south in front of the Parks and Recreation building off Sims Avenue. Given the complexity of the site with the junior high, the Parks Department, and the Boys and Girls Club, there was potential for high foot traffic amongst these facilities, they would be keeping the primary entrance off Michigan Avenue. He noted that this use would be far less intense than the former technical college. Commissioner Haines asked how the site and ingress/egress would be affected if police had to rush out of the site, similar to the Fire Department when responding to an emergency. Mayor Wiza stated that while the possibility was there, it was not a frequent occurrence since police responding to calls where typically already out and about in the City. He asked the Police Chief to expand the concern. Police Chief Skibba explained that while there were times when pedestrian traffic was high, sirens were used to notify the public, but mainly they were looking to notify the homes across the street to the west that they were exiting. He also noted that they drove through the area often and were very cognizant of the environment. Education about the primary and secondary exists would be important as pedestrian traffic to the south was much higher. As they moved into the future and considered a possible garage facility, they would then again look into access. Director Ostrowski noted that while there was no public hearing, residents within 200 feet of the site had been notified of the request. Motion by Alderperson Kneebone approve the request by the City of Stevens Point Police Department to relocate operations from 1515 Strongs Avenue to 933 Michigan Avenue (Parcel ID 281240833200105), formerly Mid-State-Technical College; seconded by Commissioner Haines. Motion carried 6-0. 6. Request from the City of Stevens Point to vacate a portion of public right-of-way on Reserve Street, south of Madison Street. Director Ostrowski explained noted that they had previously discussed the agenda item when they did an introductory resolution, adding that they had to wait 40 days before council could act on it. They would attempt to get an easement document by the owner of as there were some utilities that extended through the portion looking to be vacated, as well as extending through the property in which they own. He further Page 4 of 10
Page 7 of 46 explained that because the land originally came from the east, it would be vacated back to the east. Typically, he added, if they couldn t determine where the land had come from, it would have been split down the middle. Lastly, he added that the two properties would not lose all access from Madison Street. Mayor Wiza asked for comments from the audience, to which there were none. Motion by Commissioner Hoppe approve the request from the City of Stevens Point to vacate a portion of public right-of-way on Reserve Street, south of Madison Street; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Motion carried 6-0. 7. Request from the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Stevens Point to purchase 1105 Second Street (Parcel ID 281240832200409), formerly Jerry s Auto Service. Director Ostrowski briefly explained that the Redevelopment Authority was looking to acquire Jerome Rashka s property, formally known as Jerry s Auto Service, which had recently burned down and subsequently razed. From a redevelopment perspective, he explained, it made sense to move forward in acquiring the property as a good portion of the block was already owned by either the City or Redevelopment Authority. He noted that any request to purchase a property required a recommendation by the Plan commission, adding that they already had an option to purchase signed by both parties. The total price would be $22,400 to the Raschka s, with the closing costs and taxes taken on by the Redevelopment Authority and City through likely TIF 6 funds. Reports and results of the environmental testing performed were provided within the staff report, adding that there would be some contamination still on site from the removal of underground storage tanks. That area would likely be disturbed and then be disposed of properly. Commissioner Haines asked what the zoning of the property was, to which Director Ostrowski stated Central Business Transitional. Commissioner Haines asked how much land there was in this entire area, to which Director Ostrowski estimated about an acre. Commissioner Haines asked what the liability would be regarding polluted soils if the Redevelopment Authority owned it. Director Ostrowski explained that it depended on where the pollutants came from, and whether or not there was a viable responsible party left. He noted that when they had acquired the mall project there had been contamination, and with no viable or responsible party, it had fallen back onto the City. Since they were buying the property as is, it would likely fall on the City and Redevelopment Authority to clean up the site. Director Ostrowski and Commissioner Haines briefly discussed remaining and surrounding contamination around the former WPS site along Crosby and Jerry s Auto Service, as well as the flow of pollutants towards the east and southeast. Pete Arntsen (1016 Bukolt Ave) stated his support for the City acquiring the property and for infill development. He asked that the City due its due diligence prior to purchasing to see if there were any grants available for the cleanup of residual contamination. Page 5 of 10
Page 8 of 46 Motion by Commissioner Cooper to approve the request from the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Stevens Point to purchase 1105 Second Street (Parcel ID 281240832200409), formerly Jerry s Auto Service; seconded by Commissioner Brush. Motion carried 6-0. 8. City of Stevens Point Housing Study Director Ostrowski stated that Agenda Item 8 and Agenda Item 9 would be taken together, to which there was no objection. He further explained that through the process they had an opportunity to work with a number of agencies, such as the Portage County Business Council which was very helpful throughout the process. In addition they had wanted to wait to review the Comprehensive Plan until the Housing Study was complete before proceeding through the Housing chapter. He noted that there would be some grammatical errors, but they were looking more for feedback on the content. Director Ostrowski summarized the Housing chapter beginning on page 79 and invited comment from the Commission and audience throughout his summary. Commissioners had several comments as described below: 1. Obtaining data from the census block level rather than the census track level for renter occupied housing costs. 2. Generation Z should be recognized under Demographic Preferences. 3. There not being a need to be so specific on unit type mentioned under Housing Study findings as the Housing Study found there to be a lack of supply among all unit types. 4. Reference and link to the Housing Study in the introduction of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Bring over Housing Study maps from pages 72 and 73 to replace streets list under Local Needs in the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Incorporate town homes and zero lot lines formats under Objectives. 7. Include a list of encouraged housing and ownership types under Goals, Objectives and Policies. Commissioner Brush noted the mention of a stagnant or tight market, to which he asked whether it was concluded if Stevens Point was either of them, to which Director Ostrowski stated that the Housing Study recommendations that were provided pointed to a tightening market and the need for additional housing of various types to meet demand of the growing community. Alderperson Jennings (First District) asked what mechanism was used to determine how many rentals there were, to which the United States Census Bureau was referenced. Alderperson Dugan (Eighth District) urged for the renovation of older homes, not just the redevelopment of newer properties, noting that while Stevens Point had a lot of character with their historic homes, those historic properties had not been well maintained. Mayor Wiza noted that the City was looking at allocating additional resources to help fund programs for the redevelopment of existing properties. Page 6 of 10
Page 9 of 46 Alderperson Kneebone (Seventh District) asked how individuals in retirement, who are on a fixed income, affected housing costs and household projections, to which Director Ostrowski noted that the next section within the study discussed the different demographic groups and their housing preferences and how they impacted the market. Alderperson Nebel (Third District) expressed her concern for single family homes, noting that while adorable homes in good locations may become available, the neighborhoods themselves were not desirable due to them being overrun with rentals. The likelihood of first time buyers purchasing a single family home to renovate was much lower than it used to be. Alderperson Dugan (Eighth District) expressed her concern for the lower wage employment with the City and referenced United Way s ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) Report. She also noted that rentals were becoming more frequent in her single family neighborhood due to profit potential, and added that she was trying to start a Neighborhood Association in her area. Alderperson Jennings (First District) suggested language updates under 3.3 Housing Study Findings to not necessarily reflect the stock, but rather the use of single family homes as being the issue for lack of single family housing. Mayor Wiza stressed the need of being cognizant of the fact that eliminating rental or student housing would not solve all housing issues and that there needed to be a balance since everyone needed adequate housing. If all rentals were turned into single family homes, there would still be students that needed to rent, only they would now be displaced. He also added that all renters were not students. Alderperson McComb (Ninth District) asked that rehabbing or restoring existing older homes be added on page 86 under Housing Study findings due to its importance. Director Ostrowski noted that the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Study should be taken together rather than standalone documents, noting that there seemed to be some points that were taken out of context. Alderperson Dugan (Eighth District), regarding the section for student population and rentals, noted that while students had a desire for higher quality housing, rent was far too high compared to the quality they were getting, to which Commissioner Hoppe stated that the issue seemed to go in hand with the lack of supply. Director Ostrowski noted a finding within the Housing Study that placed the number of multi-family housing units constructed within the last decade within the City at approximately zero, with Plover constructing several multi-family complexes. He noted that bringing in higher quality rental stock into the City had the potential of bringing up quality standards among all rentals, as well as opening up existing rentals to be sold and converted back to single family. Jim Belke (1013 Second St) asked whether there could be something done in conjunction with building permit requirements that would allow inspections. Director Ostrowski stated that the City followed state requirements, the Uniform Dwelling Code, and International Building Code. The larger issue seemed to be property maintenance in regards to meeting certain standards. While the City used to have a rental inspection program for three or more units, they Page 7 of 10
Page 10 of 46 were now looking at modifying it and turning it into a voluntary inspection program which would be discussed in the future relatively soon regarding life and safety standards that they would need to meet. Alderperson Nebel (Third District) reiterated that property maintenance needed to be addressed. She briefly explained what the voluntary inspection program may entail. Alderperson Jennings (First District) reiterated that the language on page 88 as it related to a lack of supply of single family housing needed to be corrected or changed, as the lack was in student housing which resulted in students renting single family homes. Director Ostrowski noted that they would be reviewing Goals and Objectives in detail at a later date. Alderperson Dugan (Eighth District) suggested that the City add more defining features in order to define a sense of place, such as gardens or different paths for walking and bicycling. Mayor Wiza noted that the Water Department provided incentives for storm water diversion for things such as rain gardens or rain barrels. Commissioner Haines asked whether there was a chapter that discussed neighborhoods, to which Director Ostrowski stated that it would be mixed among different sections such as Housing, Transportation, and Land Use. 9. Draft Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan Housing This item was discussed under Agenda Item 8. 10. Community Development monthly report for August 2017. Director Ostrowski explained that they were a little below 2016 year-to-date values, but well over in terms of permits issued which indicated an increase in smaller remodel projects across the City. Under the Code Enforcement section, there was now a row for Tagged violations. The new tagging system, he explained, offered an immediate notification of a violation and gave the resident 24 hours to correct the violation. If compliance was not met, an official notice would proceed and the violation would go through the normal processing steps which could take several days to see a violation corrected. Frequently Violated Ordinances brochures were also being handed out as an attempt to educate new tenants, residents, and students about local ordinances. Commissioner Haines asked how the Neighborhood Improvement Coordinator found violations, to which Mayor Wiza explained that they operated through complaints that come into the office and through driving around the city. He added that the tag system provided a friendlier and more rapid approach to dealing with violations. Alderperson Dugan (Eighth District) stated that the Neighborhood Improvement Coordinator was doing well, adding that there were also many engaged citizens assisting in finding violations and notifying him. Lastly, she added that she was also handing out Frequently Violated Ordinances brochures in her area with her contact information and the circled violation if there was one present. She recommended that other alders also engage in this method. Motion by Alderperson Kneebone to approve the monthly report for August 2017 and place it on file; seconded by Commissioner Haines. Page 8 of 10
Page 11 of 46 Motion carried 6-0. 11. Director s Update. Director Ostrowski had no further updates. 12. Adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:36 PM Page 9 of 10
Page 12 of 46 Attachment Pertaining to Item 10: Community Development Report for August 2017 Page 10 of 10
Administrative Staff Report Rezone Request Northpoint Drive and Georgia Street Property from "R-2" Single Family Residence District to R-3 Single & Two Family Residence District & "R-4" Multi-Family I Residence District September 26, 2017 Page 13 of 46 Department of Community Development 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481 Ph: (715) 346-1568 - Fax: (715) 346-1498 Applicant(s): James Shuda Staff: Michael Ostrowski, Director mostrowski@stevenspoint.com Kyle Kearns, Associate Planner kkearns@stevenspoint.com Parcel Number(s): 281240830100264 281240830100202 281240830100139 281240830100138 281240830100137 Zone(s): "R-2" Single Family Residence District Comprehensive Plan: Residential Council District: District 4: Oberstadt Current Use: Vacant / Residential Applicable Regulations: 23.02(1)(e) and 23.02(1)(f) Request 3. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone two unaddressed properties south of Northpoint Drive between Forest Street and Georgia Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100264 & 281240830100202) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-3 Single and Two-Family Residence District. 4. Public Hearing and Action on a request from James Shuda to rezone three properties south of John s Drive between Georgia Street and Frederick Street (Parcel ID s 281240830100139, 281240830100138 & 281240830100137) from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-4 Multiple Family 1 Residence District. Attachment(s) Application Findings of Fact Two of the parcels are zoned R-2 Single Family Residence District, Two larger parcels are proposed to be rezoned to R-3 Single & Two Family Residence District. Three smaller parcels are proposed to be rezoned to R-4 Multiple Family I Residence District All parcels are vacant. The City s Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map calls for a residential use on all of the lots. Staff Recommendation In taking into consideration the findings, specifically lack of a coordinated development plan for the larger area, the environmental considerations and the negative effects of increased density has on these considerations, the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, and creating pockets of lower intensity zoning designations, staff would recommend denying the request for both rezonings. Page 1 of 9
Vicinity Map Page 14 of 46 Requesting R3 Zoning Requesting R4 Zoning Background The property owner, James Shuda, is requesting to rezone the five properties from R-2 Single Family Residence District to R-3 Single and Two Family Residence District and R-4 Multiple Family I Residence District, as indicated above. The properties have been for sale for a number of years and have not been developed. They exist within a transitional zone between dense apartments to the east and single family homes to the west. The applicant indicates that the rezoning is proposed to eventually sell the property for development that could be two-family or multi-family residential. Note that given the two separate zoning classifications requested, two action items are needed, both of which have been summarized in the standards of review below pertaining to the rezoning requests. Standards of Review Rezoning Request 1) The parcel(s) meets the minimum lot requirements. Analysis: Below are the property details: Page 2 of 9
Proposed R-3 Zoning: Page 15 of 46 281240830100264 3.86 Acres (168,141.6 s.f.) width = 500 ft., frontage = 875 ft. 281240830100202 4.69 Acres (204,296.4 s.f.) width = 470 ft., frontage = 760 ft. Proposed R-4 Zoning: 281240830100139 0.47 Acres (20,473.2 s.f.) width = 81.25 ft., frontage = 162.5 ft. 281240830100138 0.47 Acres (20,473.2 s.f.) width = 81 ft., frontage = 162 ft. 281240830100137 0.47 Acres (20,473.2 s.f.) width = 81 ft., frontage = 162 ft. Below are the performance standards for each district. Page 3 of 9
Page 16 of 46 Findings: The properties would meet the minimum lot requirements for the proposed districts. Differences between the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts exist regarding uses, lot standards such as setbacks and density, and signage. Single family residential uses are permitted in all districts. Two-family (duplexes and townhomes) are permitted in the R-3 and R-4 districts with varying lot size requirements, and multi-family residential is a conditional use within the R-4 district. Other more intense uses permitted or conditionally allowed in the R-4 district include large group daycares, funeral homes, bed and breakfasts, inns, and nursing homes. Lastly, two square feet of signage is permitted in the R-2 and R-3 districts; however, 32 square feet is permitted in the R-4 district. Page 4 of 9
Page 17 of 46 2) The change in zoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The Comprehensive Plan calls for this area to be a residential use. A residential classification in the comprehensive plan may include single family or two family residential. Proposed R-3 Proposed R-4 Future Land Use Map 2005 Stevens Point Comprehensive Plan Findings: Staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning above and have found it not to be entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Low intense uses, such as single family residential, should typically transition into more intense use, such as commercial, rather than be located directly adjacent, due to the different land use patterns and impacts produced from each use. Given the existence of the single-family uses to the west of the property and dense multi-family to the east, a transitional use such as two-family (duplex, townhomes, etc.) may be a fitting use for the R-3 proposed property. However, given the existence of other lots within the block that have already developed as single family, one could argue that a change in zoning that creates two family dwellings may create inconsistencies within the area. In terms of the R-4 proposed zoning, it is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Comprehensive Plan, as the FLUM identifies the area as residential. While a rezoning to R-4 may be consistent with the development to the north and east, it is not necessarily consistent with the development to the west and south. Furthermore, this area has many environmental considerations for development, including wetlands, high groundwater, and shallow bedrock. Increasing the potential density of this area only exacerbates the negative effects of these environmental considerations. Page 5 of 9
Page 18 of 46 Property Property Property Property Page 6 of 9
Given these considerations, staff does not feel that this standard of review is met for either request. However, if the owners or a future developer is able to come up with a plan that coordinates the development and addresses the negative effects that it may cause, staff would reserve the ability to reconsider an alternative proposal. For example, a planned unit development or a conservation subdivision may work well on the two larger parcels. However, additional review and requirements may be needed. 3) The change in zoning will not create adjacent incompatible uses. Analysis: The following are the current City zoning classifications and uses of adjacent properties: Direction Zoning Use North R-2 Single Family Residence District R-4 Multiple Family 1 Residence District Single Family Residential Apartments South R-2 Single Family Residence District Single Family Residential East R-2 Single Family Residence District R-4 Multiple Family 1 Residence District Single Family Residential Apartments West R-2 Single Family Residence District Single Family Residential Page 19 of 46 Page 7 of 9
Page 20 of 46 Findings: The properties exist in a transitional zone where single-family and multi-family residential uses are present. A rezoning to R-3 of the two larger properties could allow for transitional uses such as duplexes to be constructed between the single family and multi-family residential. However, given the existence of current single-family homes already constructed around the larger subject property, it could also create inconsistences. Georgia Street North is currently the dividing line between the single-family zoning to the west and the more intense zoning the east. While transitional and buffer zones work well in many instances, in this case, given the existing single-family uses within this block, staff feels that it creates a greater degree of inconsistency for this area. If however, a coordinated development plan were approved for this area, as opposed to just a blanket rezoning, staff may reconsider an alternative proposal, but as it sits, a rezoning to R-3 would create pockets of single-family zoning between two-family and multi-family zoning. The challenge with just a blanket rezoning of the area is that no further development regulations can be placed upon any development that is permitted within the district beyond the basic zoning regulations for that district. Again, while transitional zones work well to help separate uses, this area already has a fairly large buffer between the more intense uses east of Georgia Street North and the lower density development west of Georgia Street North. Existing Buffer Page 8 of 9
Page 21 of 46 In taking into consideration the findings, specifically lack of a coordinated development plan for the larger area, the environmental considerations and the negative effects of increased density has on these considerations, the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, and creating pockets of lower intensity zoning designations, staff would recommend denying the request for both rezonings. Page 9 of 9
Page 22 of 46
Page 23 of 46
Page 24 of 46
Page 25 of 46
Memo Page 26 of 46 Plan Staff Community Development City of Stevens Point 1515 Strongs Avenue Stevens Point, WI 54481 Ph: (715) 346-1567 Fax: (715) 346-1498 To: From: Plan Commission Plan Staff Date: 09/21/2017 Subject: Public Hearing and Action on a request from the City of Stevens Point to Amend Chapter 23, Zoning Code, of the Revised Municipal Code, specifically Section 23.02(3), Industrial Districts, to permit a setback reduction for properties bounded by two or more streets in the M-1 & M-2 districts via a conditional use permit. Currently the City s Zoning Code permits properties zoned M-1 Light Industrial District and bounded by three or more streets to request a reduced setback through the Common Council. This language however does not carry through to the M-2 Heavy Industrial District. Several properties in the City have an M-1 or M-2 zoning designation and vary in sizes. Most on the periphery are multiple acres, however many in the center city are smaller. In both cases, the likelihood of the property having multiple street frontages is high. For example, nearly half of the properties in the Industrial Park and Portage County Business Park adjoin two or more streets. A 30-foot setback (M-1) or 40-foot setback (M-2) from multiple streets significantly reduces the usable lot area, especially on smaller properties. Page 1 of 2
Therefore, staff is recommending to amend the existing ordinance above to allow for the setback reduction, no less than 20 feet, to occur on properties bounded by two or more streets and within the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. One street must maintain the standard setback requirement. Below is the proposed amendment to Chapter 23.02(3), Industrial Districts. M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Page 27 of 46 USE LOT AREA AND DENSITY LOT WIDTH HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE SIDE YARD STREET SETBACK REAR YARD PARKING AREA OF STRUCTURE All permitted uses 8,000 Sq. Ft. Lot area 80 ft. 50 ft. or 125 ft. If fire prevention system approved by Fire Dept. 10 ft. Each side yard and 20 ft. For side yards adjoining any r district 30 ft. In cases where a property is bounded by 3 2 or more public rights-of-way, the Common Council may, via Conditional Use Permit, reduce the street setback of newly-constructed buildings from the required 30 ft. on of the street frontages, but may not reduce the setback to less than 20 feet, and must maintain one street setback at 30 ft. 20 ft. Per 23.01(14) 0 Cond. Uses As set by the Plan Commissi on and Common Council M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT USE LOT AREA AND DENSITY LOT WIDTH HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE SIDE YARD STREET SETBACK REAR YARD PARKING AREA OF STRUCTURE Permitted Industrial Uses ½ acre lot area 100 ft. 50 ft. Or 125 ft. If fire prevention system approved by Fire Dept. 20 ft. Each side yard and 30 ft. Adjoining any residence district 40 ft. In cases where a property is bounded by 2 or more public rights-of-way, the Common Council may, via Conditional Use Permit, reduce the street setback from the required 40 ft., but may not reduce the setback to less than 20 feet, and must maintain one street setback at 40 ft. 20 ft. Per 23.01(14) 0 Other Permitted Uses Condition al Uses As set by the Plan Commissi on and City Council. Page 2 of 2
Administrative Staff Report Conditional Use Permit Reduced Setback Request 3201 Business Park Drive September 26, 2017 Page 28 of 46 Department of Community Development 1515 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481 Ph: (715) 346-1568 - Fax: (715) 346-1498 Applicant(s): Staff: Altmann Construction Michael Ostrowski, Director mostrowski@stevenspoint.com Kyle Kearns, Associate Planner kkearns@stevenspoint.com Parcel Number(s): 281230802100009 Zone(s): "M-2" Heavy Industrial District Master Plan: Business Park District Council District: District 6 Slowinski Lot Information: Effective Frontage: 730 feet Effective Depth: 285 feet Square Footage: 102,366 Current Use: Acreage: 2.35 Acres Commercial/Industrial Applicable Regulations: 23.01(16) and 23.02(3) Request Public Hearing and Action on a request from Altmann Construction for a conditional use permit to reduce the street setback of one street frontage at 3201 Business Park Drive (Parcel ID 281230802100009). Attachment(s) 1. Application 2. Site Plan 3. Renderings Findings of Fact: The proposed request is for a reduced street setback to construct an addition onto the existing facility. The property is zoned "M-2" Heavy Industrial District. A recent ordinance amendment may permit the reduction of a street yard setback to 20 feet. Staff Recommendation Based on the findings below, staff would recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to reduce one street yard setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. One street yard setback may be reduced to 20 feet. 2. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. 3. A stormwater plan shall be submitted and reviewed/approved by the Public Works and Utilities Department. 4. A refuse enclosure provided shall complement the materials used on the main building and be screened with landscaping. Details shall be submitted regarding the refuse storage to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 5. Minor modifications to the plan may be approved by staff. Page 1 of 5
Vicinity Map Page 29 of 46 Proposed addition & reduced setback Background Altmann Construction, representing the property owner, is requesting to construct an addition onto the north side of the existing building. The addition encroaches into the standard 40 foot street setback. Therefore, they are requesting to reduce the setback required from the Clem s Way property line down to 20 feet. Note that this cannot be pursued if the amendment preceding this request is not approved. Staff have reviewed the standards below for a conditional use pertaining to the request. Standards of Review 1) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Analysis: A food production use already exists on the property within the 12,000 square foot facility. The proposed addition would add approximately 4,188 square feet onto the north side of the facility. Findings: The establishment of this addition using a reduced setback should not be detrimental to the public, as the use is currently located on the property. In addition, the reduced setback would still maintain adequate spacing between the right-of-way. Furthermore, the surrounding commercial and industrial uses should not be Page 2 of 5
negatively impacted, especially as the use is a less intense industrial use and is contained solely within the facility. 2) The use will not be injurious to the use and for the purpose already permitted; Page 30 of 46 Analysis: This area is comprised of commercial, and light/heavy industrial uses given the location within the Portage County Business Park. The property sits on the corner of Business Park Drive & Clem s Way. The use is normally permitted within the district; however, the reduced setback requires a conditional use permit. Findings: The proposed use is fitting for the property and should not be injurious to the use or surrounding uses. The reduced setback is along Clem s Way which has a road width of 80 feet, meaning the adjacent building is separated by a distance of over 140 feet. Furthermore, the addition is proposed on the north side of the building which translates to the northeast side of the property, furthest from the intersection. 3) The establishment of the use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; Analysis: The majority of the property within the park is developed, however several developed lots have land area available for growth. Findings: Given the proposed request is for an addition with a reduced setback on one street yard property line, it should not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. 4) The exterior architectural appeal and functional plan of any proposed structure will not be at variance with either the exterior architectural appeal and functional plan, and scale of the structures already constructed or in the course of construction in the immediate neighborhood or in the character of the applicable district so as to result in a substantial or undue adverse effect on the neighborhood; Analysis: The building plans indicate that the building materials, painted split face CMU, will match the existing building and incorporate service doors and windows. Findings: The addition should not be at variance with the existing structure or others within the neighborhood as it will match the existing in color, texture, and design. 5) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been, or are being, provided; Analysis: Adequate utilities exist to serve the addition. Some utilities may need to be relocated on the building and repositioned on the site. Stormwater has not been addressed regarding the addition. Findings: Staff would recommend a stormwater plan be submitted and reviewed/approved by the Public Utilities Department. 6) Adequate measures have been, or will be, taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets; Analysis: Ingress/Egress to the site will remain the same, however the Clem s Way parking area serving the loading docks will be widened to accommodate the addition. Findings: The addition should not significantly increase the traffic on site. Furthermore, the plan incorporates the enlargement of the asphalt loading area to accommodate the addition. Page 3 of 5
7) The proposed use is not contrary to the objectives of any duly adopted land use plan for the City of Stevens Point, any of its components, and/or its environs. Analysis: The property is zoned M-2 Heavy Industrial District. The intent of this district is to provide for those manufacturing or other industrial uses having more obnoxious or nuisance effects than the M-1 Light Industrial District and having a greater intensity of manufacturing, processing, employment, traffic, and other related activities. It is intended that the M-2 district generally be located distant from non-manufacturing uses: that it be buffered by the M-1 district or by major highways, rivers, open space, or high intensity commercial uses, and that all M-2 districts be located consistent with the City s Comprehensive Plan. The City Comprehensive Plan calls for the area to develop as a Business Park District. Findings: The use is permitted within the zoning district and is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 8) The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Commission. Analysis: The applicant is requesting a reduced street yard setback to construct an addition. The increased floor area from the addition does not require an increase in parking stalls onsite, as enough currently exist to meet the increased ratio. Note that the Portage County Business Park Deed Restrictions and Protective Covenants onsite may be more restrictive than the City s applicable ordinance. A landscaping plan and stormwater plan have not been submitted. Findings: Staff would recommend the submission of a landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. All other applicable zoning code standards are met regarding the development. 9) The proposal will not result in an over-concentration of high density living facilities in one area so as to result in a substantial or undue adverse effect on the neighborhood, on the school system, and the social and protective services systems of the community. N/A 10) Principal - Applications for exclusive multifamily residential uses: The view from the street should maintain a residential character. The view should be dominated by the building and not by garages, parking, mechanical equipment, garbage containers, or other storage. N/A 11) Access to the site shall be safe. Analysis: The development takes access from two streets, Business Park Drive, and Clem s Way. Once on the site egress can occur from either access point. No changes are proposed to the ingress/egress for the site. Findings: The standard is met. Page 31 of 46 12) There shall be adequate utilities to serve the site. a. The Public Works Director, Police Chief, and Fire Chief shall determine whether there is adequate sanitary sewer, potable water, storm drainage, street capacity, emergency access, public protection services, and other utilities to serve the proposed development. They shall review the plan to ensure safety and access for safety vehicles. Page 4 of 5
Analysis: Utilities currently serve the site for the existing facility. The fire department can access nearly all sides of the facility. Findings: This standard is met. 13) The privacy of the neighboring development and the proposed development shall be maintained as much as practical. Guidelines: a. Mechanical equipment including refuse storage shall be screened from neighboring properties. Analysis: No refuse enclosure has been identified on the site plan, and therefore specific details regarding its construction and size are unknown. Findings: Staff would recommend that the enclosure complement the materials used on the main building and be screened with landscaping. Furthermore, the applicant shall submit details regarding the refuse storage to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. b. Lighting shall be located to minimize intrusion onto the neighboring properties. Analysis: A lighting plan has not been provided. Findings: Given industrial and commercial use of adjacent property and the distance to adjacent property, a lighting plan may not be required. c. Sources of noise shall be located in a manner that minimizes impact to neighboring properties. Analysis: Noise is anticipated to be minimal after construction. Findings: It is not anticipated that significant noise will be created with this request, especially as the use occurs fully within the facility. 14) Principal - Applications for exclusive multifamily residential uses. Landscaping shall be provided or existing landscape elements shall be preserved to maintain a sense of residential character, define boundaries, and to enhance the sense of enclosure and privacy. N/A Page 32 of 46 Based on the findings above, staff would recommend approving the conditional use permit to allow the applicant to construct the proposed addition with a reduced street yard setback, no less than 20 feet, along Clem s Way, subject to the conditions outlined on page 1 of the staff report. Page 5 of 5
Page 33 of 46
Page 34 of 46
CONSTRUCTION SET 8/02/2017 Page 35 of 46
Page 36 of 46
Memo Page 37 of 46 Plan Staff Community Development City of Stevens Point 1515 Strongs Avenue Stevens Point, WI 54481 Ph: (715) 346-1567 Fax: (715) 346-1498 City of Stevens Point Department of Community Development To: Plan Commission From: Plan Staff Date: 9/26/2017 Re: Request from the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Stevens Point to purchase 101 Georgia Street (Parcel ID 281 240830400103). There is a property at 101 Georgia Street that is in a deteriorated shape that the owner has indicated that they are willing to walk away from and deed the property over to the Redevelopment Authority. The intent of this would be for the Redevelopment Authority to acquire the property, raze the home and detached garage, and then try to sell the property to someone to recoup the funds that are spent to raze the structures. An estimate to raze both structures is $12,000. The land is valued at $13,000. There may be some closing related costs and taxes that would also have to be satisfied with the acquisition. At the last Redevelopment Authority meeting, the purchase/acquisition of blighted properties and removal of structures to sell the lot for a new home was a redevelopment program that the Redevelopment Authority is considering. Therefore, there may be several similar situations that come forward to the Plan Commission for their recommendation. The property has been deem unfit for human occupancy and is currently vacant. Staff would recommend approval of acquiring this property, razing the structures, and then selling it to a future purchaser. Please find attached other documents relating to the property. Page 1 of 2
Page 38 of 46 Page 2 of 2
Page 39 of 46
Page 40 of 46
Page 41 of 46
Page 42 of 46
Memo Page 43 of 46 Plan Staff Community Development City of Stevens Point 1515 Strongs Avenue Stevens Point, WI 54481 Ph: (715) 346- -1498 City of Stevens Point Department of Community Development To: 9/26/2017 Re: Vicinity Map Edgewater Manor City Parking Approx. 50 Stalls Leasable Building Developable Site 1 of 3
Page 44 of 46 here on the City s City to city h - ies City - City- this 2 of 3