PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Town Hall, Wednesday October 17, 2001 for approval at the

11/14/01 meeting

Chairperson Bellmer called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m

PRESENT: Chairperson Bellmer and Planning Commissioners’ Chuck Lewis,

Michael Van Dyke, Harold Pelton, Dennis Jochman,

and Richard Ratchman. Community Development Director George

Dearborn and Associate Planner Jeffrey Smith.

EXCUSED: Commissioner Koeppe

ALSO PRESENT: James Heyrman Michelle Malueg

Michael Cashman Robert Liedl

Robert Drifka Patrick Pazdernik

Doug Hahn Timothy Lewis

Nami McConnell Lee Heeter

Barbara Heeter Bill Tuttle

Carl Petersen Wende Sturm

Jeff Kippenhan Thomas Danz

Jan McHugh Tim Carlson

Carol Mentz Grace Petersen

Jeanne Krueger Kathy Prusse

Mark Isaac Gary Smith

Jane Isaac Jeff Prewitt

Margaret Drawenek Cindy Nelson

Diane Schuler Melissa Liedl

Ken Neveau Arden Tews

Joyce Neveau Jim Johnson

Jane Hermans

Lance Lor

Approval of Minutes – September 19, 2001

Motion by Chairperson Bellmer, seconded by Commissioner Jochman, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on September 19, 2001. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused (Comm. Koeppe).

1. Conditional Use Permit – MEE Bellevue LLC – E. Shady Ln. – (008-0131)

Director Dearborn gave an overview of the CUP proposal, which called for a 134 unit apartment complex on property that was zoned R-5 (Planned Residential). The adjacent land uses were described, which consisted of R-3 (duplexes) to the north, B-3 (General Business) to the east, MH-1 (Mobile Home) to the west, and R-2 (Single-Family) to the south. The density of the proposal was 11.5 units per acre and Director Dearborn then explained that recent multiple-family proposals were closer to 9 units per acre. Director Dearborn briefly pointed out the proposed screening, design, and layout of the project. In addition, Director Dearborn pointed to traffic count studies which indicate that a single-family development generates more trips per day than a multiple-family development. Furthermore, Director Dearborn explained that if the density of the proposal was reduced to about 9 units an acre, the traffic counts would be very close to a single-family subdivision. Therefore, Director Dearborn stated that Town staff recommended approval, with a list of conditions, such as the density being reduced and the design of the units that front E. Shady Lane would closely represent townhouses.

The list of conditions set forth by Town staff includes:

1. A detailed site plan be prepared for review by town staff, which meets all town regulations and R-5 zoning district standards.

2. A drainage plan, with calculations, must be submitted to the Town Engineer for review & approval. The drainage plan must address the proposed berms.

3. The detail of the exterior façade for the apartment buildings and garages be reviewed by town staff in order to ensure that it is compatible with the surrounding land uses.

4. A landscape plan be submitted for review and approval by Town staff.

5. Additional screening, such as fencing, be placed along the portions of the property that abuts the residential areas.

6. The applicant identifies areas of open/green space for the development, which can be used as play areas for children.

7. Left and right turn lanes shall be constructed at the E. Shady Ln. entrance in order to address the increased traffic flow.

8. There are adequate areas within the apartment complex to allow for emergency vehicle access and turnaround.

9. Detail of the lighting be submitted for review by town staff. All lighting must be full cut-off fixtures.

10. A 10 foot wide pedestrian trail be constructed along E. Shady Lane for the length of the property.

11. The applicant complies with all other federal, state, and local regulations.

At this point, the developer presented a revised plan and drawings. First, the number of units was reduced from 134 units to 106 units (16 unit buildings would now be 12 units). This would then decrease the density to 9 units an acre. The Watermolen proposal in 1999 had 120 units. Second, concerning landscaping/aesthetics, there would be a brick entranceway with landscaping, a landscaped boulevard at the entrance that would have adequate space for emergency vehicles, and landscaping placed on top of the berms that would front E. Shady Lane. Third, the two buildings fronting E. Shady Lane would be 8 units and designed to be compatible with the single-family homes across the street (e.g. red brick with white trim). Fourth, there would be a solid white 6 ft. fence, as well as landscaping, on the northern portion of the parcel in order to screen the project from the adjacent residential area. Fifth, the developer identified many evergreens and shrubs in order to address the green space concerns. Also, the plan was revised in order for all the buildings to meet the 30 ft. zoning setback requirement to all exterior property lines. Finally, the developer pointed out some other details of the apartment project proposal, such as no dogs, motor boats, outside storage, etc; two people maximum for 1 bedroom units and 4 people maximum for 2 bedroom units; and rents ranging from $550 to $670. After stating these facts, the developer explained that the apartments were geared towards young professionals and the elderly. The developer then stated that there would most likely be very few children.

Gary Smith, 831 Trailsway Lane, clarified with the developer that the latest proposal had 41 percent open/green space. Also, Mr. Smith stated that there was a safety issue with all the children walking on the nearby roads. Later in the meeting, Mr. Smith explained that he would prefer one-story apartment buildings as opposed to two-story apartment buildings.

Barbara Heeter, 1960 Tumblebrook Ct., inquired if the final plan of the Watermolen proposal was about 9 units an acre. Ms. Heeter then gave a presentation and stated the reasons why she opposed the latest revision to the apartment project proposal. The major issues pointed out by Ms. Heeter were:

1. She stated that under the Comprehensive Plan, piecemeal development was not desirable, especially when addressing compatibility concerns. She then believed that the CUP process protects against incompatible land uses as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Heeter then pointed out that she calculated the average density of the nearby areas, which were 2.5 units per acre. This density was then unacceptable in her opinion with the latest proposal of 9 units per acre.

2. Concerning transportation issues, Ms. Heeter stated that pedestrian access was inadequate and that there were too many traffic problems around the subject property. For example, there are many public and private roads nearby, there would then be too many vehicles generated by the project as well as other surrounding land uses (e.g. Club West), and finally, there would be many safety problems for kids waiting at their school bus stop.

3. Concerning parks/open space issues, she pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan states that every neighborhood should be in close proximity (1/4 mile) of a park. She then explained that there was not adequate green space for the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Heeter concluded that the proposal was not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, just like the Watermolen proposal in 1999.

Director Dearborn then responded to the issues addressed by Barbara Heeter’s presentation:

1. Concerning density, the calculation should not reflect right-of-ways, roads, etc. since that would lead to an inaccurate representation of density. The density calculated by Barbara Hetter used these calculations. Director Dearborn explained that Town staff recommended a reduced density (closer to 9 units an acre), with townhouses fronting on E. Shady Lane. Director Dearborn did caution the Commission to not deny the CUP without looking at all the conditions (e.g. design, screening, layout, density, etc.). Director Dearborn reminded the Commission that the property was already zoned R-5, which does allow for some type of multiple-family use.

2. Concerning transportation issues, Director Dearborn explained that the Comprehensive Plan identified E. Shady Lane for reconstruction. Again, Director Dearborn pointed out that the traffic counts of a single-family development would be similar to the current multiple-family proposal.

3. Concerning parks/open space, Director Dearborn stated that the subject property was not identified as a park. Also, he pointed out that the Town owns a 63 acre piece of property nearby that may be converted into a nature park. Furthermore, Director Dearborn explained that Town staff requires that all new subdivisions dedicate an area for a park/open space. Finally, Director Dearborn briefly pointed out to the fiscal issues faced by the Town Board in acquiring additional land for a park.

Diane Schuler, 2117 Meadow Green Dr., stated concerns about the density of the proposal, potential crime associated with apartments, safety of kids on the roads, and the potential effect of the proposal on the property values of nearby single-family homes.

Chairperson Bellmer stated that a residential use (e.g. R-5) was not incompatible with another residential use (e.g. R-3). Chairperson Bellmer though did explain that density was the major issue.

Wende Sturm, 761 Trailsway Lane, preferred the property to be a park. Also, Ms. Sturm was concerned with the distance of the fence from the lot line and the potential problems associated with the dumpsters. The developer stated that the fence would be 3 ft. off the lot line and then pointed out the location of the fence on the site plan.

Jane Isaac, 885 Tumblebrook Rd., stated a concern about the safety problems with the roads and also any potential negative effects on the property values. Town staff received a phone call from another resident, Wendy Hoffman, who was concerned about the potential negative impacts of the development on local schools.

Commissioner Jochman explained that multi-family developments have many strict rules in order to keep them marketable. Commissioner Jochman was concerned with the safety of children and then recommended that the bus stop locations should be changed.

Director Dearborn responded to the road safety concern by pointing out that when roads were reconstructed, as was planned in the future for E. Shady Lane, pedestrian access was taken into account. For example, a pedestrian trail was included with the recent reconstruction of a portion of Cold Spring Road. Director Dearborn again pointed out that there were fiscal issues involved with road reconstructions and trails. Finally, Director Dearborn stated that apartments, single-family homes, and even a park would cause increased traffic on E. Shady Lane.

Jim Johnson, 2100 Redtail Dr., believed that no residential development should be approved until road/safety issues were addressed.

Jane Hermans, 1963 Tumblebrook Ct., stated that it has been difficult to get bus stops moved.

Margaret Drawenek, 2116 Meadow Green Dr., stated that she preferred a condominium development for the subject property.

Commissioner Pelton reiterated the traffic problems in the surrounding areas and then stated that he would oppose the project until the E. Shady Lane problems were addressed.

Doug Hahn, the attorney for the developer, explained that a single-family development would have more kids and generate more traffic. Mr. Hahn felt that the surrounding land uses made the proposal compatible and furthermore, stated that the current R-5 zoning allowed for the proposed use.

Commissioner Lewis then stated that he felt that the developer made the efforts to address the major issues, such as design and landscaping.

Commissioner Jochman pointed out that the nearby R-3 zoning was done after the subject property was rezoned to R-5 in the mid 1970’s. Therefore, Commissioner Jochman felt that the proposal was compatible with the surrounding uses, especially since the land to the north was zoned to R-3 after the subject property was already R-5. The R-3 zoning then acts as a buffer between the R-5 zoning and the R-2 zoning further to the north. Also, Commissioner Jochman pointed out that studies done by nearby municipalities have shown that there was not increased crime associated with multiple-family projects. Finally, Commissioner Jochman stated that a nearby apartment development, Cold Spring Villas, has a lot less children than a nearby single-family development, Prairie Creek.

Tim Lewis, 1024 Bridgeview Ct., stated that the infrastructure was not prepared for development.

Motion by Commissioner Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Jochman, to approve the CUP, with the 11 specified conditions. Motion carried with 4 Aye, 2 Nay, 1 Excused.

Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioner Pelton Nay; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

2. Certified Survey Map – Harris & Associates Inc. – American Dr. – (008-0249-04-01, 008-0249-05)

Director Dearborn reported to the Commission that the CSM was proposing to combine two lots into one lot. A site plan was recently approved by Town staff for a building addition that would cross an existing lot line. Thus, the CSM would make the building conform to zoning regulations and also allow the applicant to put up a sign.

Director Dearborn responded to a question by Commissioner Jochman, concerning the CSM process, by explaining that the site plan was approved on the condition that a CSM would be completed.

Motion by Commissioner Jochman, seconded by Chairperson Pelton, to approve the CSM as submitted. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.

Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

3. Rezoning – Mary Somers – American Dr. & Millbrook Dr. – (008-0250)

Director Dearborn explained that the applicant was proposing a rezoning from B-3 (General Business) to P-1 (Institutional & Recreational Park) for the construction of a church and school. Director Dearborn told the Commission that the applicant has talked to nearby property owners about the rezoning proposal. Director Dearborn then briefly discussed the concept site plan, such as the phases of the project, parking, access drives, and landscaping. Director Dearborn stated that Town staff would do the detailed site plan review. Chairperson Bellmer later clarified this point.

Bill Tuttle, 1888 Eagle Dr., stated that he agreed with the project. Mr. Tuttle did inquire on when the landscaping for the western portion of the parcel would be done. Mr. Tuttle preferred that it would be done at an early stage of the process. Finally, Mr. Tuttle clarified with the applicant on the location of the proposed access drive on Millbrook Dr.

Motion by Commissioner Pelton, seconded by Commissioner Lewis, to approve the rezoning from B-3 to P-1 as submitted. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.

Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

4. Certified Survey Map – Davel Engineering – High Plain Meadows – (008-5316, 008-5303)

Director Dearborn stated that the CSM would adjust the property line for Lot 44 of High Plain Meadows. The CSM would allow the property owner to put up a deck since the adjusted lot line would allow the deck to conform to the zoning setback requirement. The other lot affected by the lot line adjustment would still be over 9,000 sq. ft., which is the minimum lot size requirement for an R-2 (single-family) lot.

Motion by Commissioner Van Dyke, seconded by Commissioner Jochman, to approve the CSM as submitted. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.

Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

5. Adopt Citizen Participation Plan

Director Dearborn briefly discussed the Comprehensive Plan Update process, which includes a citizen participation plan. Director Dearborn then went through components of this plan, such as website use, surveys, and public hearings to address all the elements of the plan.

Commissioner Van Dyke recommended that residents should be able to make comments through e-mail.

Motion by Commissioner Pelton, seconded by Commissioner Ratchman, to adopt the citizen participation plan, with the amendment that section “E” under Public Information Dissemination add the line that e-mail can be used to get public comments on the plan. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.

Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

OLD ITEMS OF BUSINESS

1. Conditional Use Permit - Golf Bridge LLC – Golf Bridge Dr. – (008-0264-06, 008-0264-07)

Director Dearborn explained that the applicants had not submitted a revised plan since the last meeting. Also, Director Dearborn stated that the applicant recently submitted a request to delay the CUP for 90 days.

Carol Mentz, 827 Millpond Lane, clarified with the Commission that the current developer was different from the original developer for the apartment project.

Motion by Commissioner Jochman, seconded by Commissioner Van Dyke, to delay the CUP for a maximum of 90 days. Motion carried with 6 Aye, 1 Excused.

Chairperson Bellmer, Commissioners’ Lewis, Van Dyke, Pelton, Jochman, Ratchman Aye; Commissioner Koeppe Excused.

OTHER BUSINESS

Director Dearborn explained that the first public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan took place on October 15.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Commissioner Pelton, seconded by Chairperson Bellmer, to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Smith

Associate Planner