January 4, 2010
PLAN COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
Mike Weinkauf called the meeting to order at
Sandi Swan, Secretary, Jonathan Schattner, Zoning Administrator and Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer were also present.
There were approximately 65 residents in the audience. A sign-in list is provided as an attachment to the minutes.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Joseph moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2009 meeting. Motion carried.
Public Hearing
B-4 Conditional Use
to convert the use of a previously owned medical building and occupy it as a
municipal building for the Village of Rochester; Applicant: Village of
Rochester; Owner: Waukesha Health Care, Inc.
Parcel ID#
176-031911009040
Weinkauf started off the meeting by addressing some misconceptions and rumors that people have been concerned with. The rumor first being that the purchase of the Pro-Healthcare Building is a done deal. Weinkauf state that it is not a done deal and the purpose of the public hearing is to gather information and provide the residents with information so the Board can make a final decision. The other misconception is that if the sale is complete that local contractor’s would not be allowed to bid on the remodeling project. Weinkauf stated any work that may be required will be put out for bid, where anyone can bid and the job would be given to the lowest most qualified bidder.
Schattner then reported on the zoning for the subject property. He stated the subject property is zoned B-4/PUD which is a Highway Business District with a Planned Unit Development overlay. He stated the type of conditional use that is being requested is allowable under that zoning district. The PUD specifies the setbacks that are applied to the building and those were approved back in 2007.
Craig Ellsworth, architect from The Architectural Firm addressed the Commission and the Public. He reported that he was contracted by the Village to determine the feasibility of renovating the original Village Hall to fit the growing needs of the Village and the staff. He stated after sitting down with the Village Board and the staff members that it became evident that to bring the Rochester Municipal Building up to an acceptable long term standard facility for a municipality that it would be an extensive renovation.
Ellsworth reported that during one of the Board meetings he attended it was commented that there was a commercial building in Rochester that might be going on the real estate market. He stated that he would be remiss as the Village Architect not to look at that building as another viable option for the Village. He stated that because of the economic status that the country is in he is very familiar with the fact that when an existing commercial property goes on the market it will most likely be offered at a substantially lower cost or value than it would cost if you had to build it today.
Ellsworth then reported on the analysis that he compiled to renovate the existing Municipal Building and also what it would cost to purchase the Pro-Healthcare Building with some renovations. He stated that the cost analysis was based on national averages adjusted to the region. He also incorporated information he has received from recent bidding jobs to come up with a final cost. Although no cost is exact, he stated that in using this formula, he finds that he is usually within 10% of the actual costs.
In summarizing the analysis of the current municipal building, the building would need extensive remodeling which would include a new HVAC system to replace the three stand alone systems that currently serve the building. Electricity and lighting would need updating; which would be similar to an entirely new building project due to code compliance. Plumbing systems are in mediocre condition and bathrooms would have to be brought up to ADA standards.
Substantial interior renovation would be necessary to address security, storage and additional office space issues. Substantial exterior work would also be needed to address the multiple complaints the Village has received over the past five years with regards to the aesthetics of the building.
Renovation could take up to 8 months and would require the office staff and assembly functions to be relocated for that period of time. Ellsworth reported that the total project cost would be $214.00 per square feet. The Municipal Hall is 4640 square feet for a total project cost of $1,002,734.34.
In summarizing the analysis for the purchase of a new facility, the former Pro-Healthcare Building, the building as it stands is 6700 square feet and right now meets 80 – 90 percent of the Village needs. The building itself has a layout that would accommodate the uses and functions of the village hall. Renovation could be limited to the addition of an assembly hall.
The building is built to an institutional grade level. The HVAC system as well as the doors, windows and lights are all of top shelf quality. The building is insulated to modern standards. The masonry was done right. There is room on the site for further expansion in the future if necessary.
Ellsworth stated that in his opinion the Village is probably getting the building at a 60% discount with the purchase price of $825,000. The purchase price with the recommended renovations would come out to a cost of $179.00 per square feet; for a grand total of $1,198,678.00.
Novy then explained the financing portion of the project. She stated it is the policy of the village that all municipal building costs and improvements are financed 50% by the village sewer utility and 50% by the Village general fund. The reasoning for that policy is that the staff and equipment in the building serve both entities.
Therefore the Sewer portion of the purchase and renovation of the Pro – Healthcare Building would be $600,000. That money would come out of the sewer reserves and there would be no financing necessary. There would be no impact on the sewer utility rate as well.
The Village portion of the purchase and renovation would be $600,000. That amount would be rolled into another outstanding loan of $110,000 for a total, to be financed over a twenty year period, of $710,000. The tax impact would be 9.4 cents per assessed thousand.
Novy then identified some of the options for the disposition of the current municipal building. They were discussed as the following:
Weinkauf asked Novy to identify some of the needs that brought about the decision renovate the existing building.
Novy stated that while we are getting by with what we have, there are certain deficiencies that the municipal building has.
They were identified as the following:
Currently the sheriff deputy, public works supervisor, building inspector and zoning administrator all work out of the same office and desk space, this has the potential of causing chaos when having four people work out of the same desk.
For Betty and Sandi, while their desk space is adequate, privacy and security is a concern as there is no separation between clerk/staff and public entry. Additional space is needed in the waiting/reception area to accommodate lines and security concerns.
File storage space is inadequate and limited. As the Village grows more file space is needed. There are several vacant lots in Rochester for the potential of a lot of growth; while growth may not be immediate the potential is there with 50 vacant subdivision lots, 60 plus condominiums and vacant farm land as well. Since taking over zoning in Rochester, Racine County would like to eventually transfer all files in their possession that pertain to Rochester to our facility. That will require more storage than the current building will allow.
The mechanicals such as HVAC, plumbing and lighting all need updating. The HVAC that serves the existing building is made up of three stand alone systems and require multiple service calls per year to address different issues.
The bathrooms and front entrance right now are not ADA compliant. Being a municipality the village has a higher degree of obligation to comply with ADA standards.
The existing lot is very limited (land locked) and does not provide for substantial expansion in the future. Expanding upward in the existing building is problematic due to the cost of required structural alterations as well as the asbestos in the roof decking.
Parking is limited to street spaces only. Expansion of parking is difficult and a cooperative arrangement with Community State Bank has not materialized.
Multiple complaints received over the past years as to the exterior aesthetics of the building.
Comments were taken
from the audience. Concerns and or comments are highlighted as follows:
The state of the economy and the burden on the taxpayer of higher taxes.
No investigation into the cost of building a new building on the Village owned land by the Fire Station.
Loss of tax revenue from the lot and building being purchased.
The Village purchasing a building on a private road.
Feeling that it may cost more if the Village waits.
Just a lot of money.
New building has room for future expansion if necessary.
New building has a good location and ample parking for large events i.e. elections.
Concerns of the future use of current municipal building.
The village acted hastily, did Pro-Healthcare get any other offers?
Decision should be given to the taxpayers in a referendum.
Felt it was a good opportunity for the Village because of the economic status.
The board is looking toward the future and an opportunity like this may not come again.
Beere moved, 2nd by Eckert to close the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Motion carried.
Action Items
B-4 Conditional Use
to convert the use of a previously owned medical building and occupy it as a
municipal building for the Village of Rochester; Applicant: Village of
Rochester; Owner: Waukesha Health Care, Inc.
Parcel ID#
176-031911009040
Discussion was held about the possibility of asking for an extension on the offer. Ellsworth stated that if the Village asks for an extension, the offer would have to go though a board approval process again. It was his understanding that the original offer faced much scrutiny from the Waukesha Healthcare Board. He’s not sure the offer would get approved again at the same dollar amount. The Village would have to determine if the risk is worth it. It is his opinion that if it’s a good idea in 60 days then it is a good idea now. He doesn’t feel 60 days is going to make a difference.
Tamblyn asked for a show of hands from the audience of who was in favor of purchasing the Pro-Healthcare building. The out come showed approximately 50% of the audience was in favor of the purchase.
Eckert moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to recommend approval as it was submitted of the B-4 Conditional Use to convert the use of a previously owned medical building and occupy it as a municipal building for the Village of Rochester. Motion carried.
Zoning
Permit/Temporary Site Plan Review to sell Consumer Grade Fireworks from a
30’x40’ canopy tent from June 16 – July 10, 2010 at 2723 Beck Dr. (Burger King
Lot); Applicants: Vince & Heather Siegel; Owner: Southern Foods Corp.
Parcel#
176-031901021000
Tamblyn questioned if the were any problems or complaints from last years’ tent sales. Novy reported that the Village received no complaints.
Joseph moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to approve the zoning permit/temporary site plan with the following recommended conditions provided by Jon Schattner, Zoning administrator.
1) Upon receiving approval from the Village of Rochester Planning Commission it is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain a zoning permit card, at a cost of $60.00 from the Village Zoning Administrator, prior to conducting the temporary sales of fireworks on this property. The zoning permit card must be displayed in a prominent location at the project site, and a copy of these conditions must be kept at the project site at all times, until the project has been completed.
2) The proposed 30’ x 40’ tent and 8’ x 20’ storage container must be located according to the revised submitted plan, received on December 29, 2009. The proposed sales activity must be contained within the tent area and there shall not
be any outside displays or signs within the right-of-way of Highway 36 and Beck Drive. Applicants indicated that a 4’ x 20’ banner will be located on the canopy tent.
3) The temporary fireworks sale activity shall comply with your Business Operational Plan attached to your application request, received on December 15, 2009.
4) The temporary fireworks sales activity may be conducted from June 16, 2010 through July 10, 2010 from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The tent and storage container must be removed from the property by July 14, 2010.
5) All parking for this operation must be on-site. No parking is permitted along the public right-of-way of Beck Drive or State Trunk Highway 36. The applicants may have to direct vehicles on-site to avoid drivers hesitating/stopping on the road. The applicants are responsible for ensuring that all the parking for this temporary sales activity is in the designated on-site parking spaces on this property.
6) There shall be no firework demonstrations or other ignition or use of fireworks conducted on this property.
7) The applicants are responsible for keeping this area free of refuse or debris from the temporary use on a daily basis.
8) The applicant must obtain all necessary federal, state, and local permits, approvals and licenses and comply with all applicable codes and regulations.
9) The applicants must comply with the provisions of Article VII, Division 4.Performance Standards found in Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Racine County Code of Ordinances. (See attached copy)
10) No additions, deletions, or changes may be made to the project, site plan or these conditions without the Village of Rochester Planning Commission, prior approval. All additions, deletions, and/or change requests must be submitted in writing to the Village Planning Commission, for their review and approval.
11) The applicant must allow the Zoning Administrator or a Village employee full and unlimited access to the project site at a reasonable time to investigate the project’s construction, operation, and maintenance.
12) Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this approval could result in the issuance of citation(s) and permit revocation.
13) You’re acceptance of this approval/permit and beginning the project means that you have read, understand, and agree to follow these conditions. Therefore, Vince and Heather Siegel and their heirs, successors, and assigns are responsible
for full compliance with these conditions.
14) It is the property owner’s responsibility to inform any subsequent owner or operator of these conditions.
Motion carried.
Eckert moved, 2nd by Joseph to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandi Swan
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer