November 7, 2011
PLAN COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Mike Weinkauf, Paul Beere, Maureen
Eckert, Patricia Gerber, Chris Johnson, Tom Rowntree and Mark Tamblyn present.
Betty Novy, Clerk Treasurer, and Jon Schattner, Zoning Administrator were also
present.
Correction or approval of the October 3, 2011 Minutes
Tamblyn moved, 2nd by Johnson to approve minutes from the October 3, 2011 Plan
commission meeting as printed with correction of the spelling of Tom Rowntree’s
name in the list of attendees. All were in favor. Motion carried.
Discuss meeting procedures, acceptance of public comments, and conduct
of public hearings
Novy reported the Village Board recently adopted a procedure for the acceptance
of public comments that requires use of a citizen registration form. The
procedure also establishes rules for the conduct of attending citizens and/or
guests. The Village Board recommended that the Plan Commission adopt
similar procedures. Discussion was held on a script and procedure for
plan commission meetings that Schattner had prepared which was based on research
he had conducted on meeting procedures and the conduct of public hearings.
Beere moved, 2nd by Eckert to adopt the following meeting script and public
hearing procedure with addition of a requirement that the citizen registration
form being used by the Village Board also be used for Plan Commission meetings
to require registration by individuals wanting to speak during the public
hearing portion of the meeting.
Village of Rochester Planning Commission – Chairperson’s Speech
Pound Gavel….
The meeting will come to order for the public hearing of the Village of
Rochester Planning Committee.
Pledge of Allegiance
My name is _____________and I am the Chairperson for the Planning Commission.
The Village Clerk will call the Roll (the Clerk shall call off each member’s
name and those present respond by saying “here”). The purpose of this
meeting is to hear petitions and Committee items posted on the public hearing
agenda for tonight’s meeting. Due notice of this meeting has been given to
the news media, applicant, property owner and general public and the Open
Meeting Law requirements have been met. The Planning Commission meeting
held today is open to the public.
The Planning Commission is interested in hearing all pertinent information.
After a petition or item posted on tonight’s agenda is read, the petitioner will
come forward and present his case. We are taping these proceedings so it
is important to speak clearly and state your name and address prior to
presentation. It is requested that no one interferes with or interjects
comments while another has the floor. Unruly behavior, such as booing or
harassing remarks, is prohibited. All discussions shall be directed to the
Planning Commission. Also keep your comments directed to the petition that
is before the Planning Commission. We are not interested in any issues
unrelated to the petition, only in information that will assist the Planning
Commission in making a decision. After the Planning Commission members
finish questioning the petitioner, anyone in favor of the petition will be asked
to come forward and testify. Opposition will testify last. The
Chairperson will permit adequate time for anyone wishing to speak. If
there are a large number of speakers, including many who are a part of groups or
organizations, ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the organization
or group.
After all the petitions have been heard the public hearing will be closed.
Anyone is welcome to stay and listen to the decisions that are made during the
meeting. If you do not wish to stay, you may call the Village Clerk
tomorrow for the results of today’s hearing. All applicants will be
notified of our decision by mail within ten (10) working days.
Remember that now is the time to speak. When the public hearing is closed
the public will not be allowed to speak, as no new information may be entered
into the record. It is, however, a public meeting, so you may attend and
listen to what is being said and to what decisions are made. Since we are
about to take testimony, please be sure that all cell phones and pagers are
turned off. In addition, it should made part of the record that Planning
Commission members may have visited each of the sites prior to this meeting and
that pertinent information obtained during the visit can be discussed at the
meeting and used to assist with the decision making.
Before we begin testimony, is there a motion to approve the minutes of
(month-day-year)? (Get motion/second/vote)
We will now begin the public hearing and I will ask the Village Clerk to
introduce the first petition.
Guidelines for Conducting Planning Commission Public Hearing
Public Hearing
1) Bring the meeting to
order (read speech)
2) Have petition read by
the Village Clerk
3) Zoning Administrator
makes presentation to the Planning Commission
4) Owner and/or applicant
comes forward to present petition to the Planning Commission
(state name and address prior to addressing the Planning Commission)
5) Questions by Planning
Commission
6) Questions by Staff
7) Dismiss applicant
8) Anyone in Favor of this
petition? (Say (3) three times)
9) Anyone in opposition of
this petition? (Say (3) three times)
10) Any communications?
11) Next Petition, etc.
12) Close the public hearing after the last
petition (get motion/second/vote)
Board Meeting
1) Review findings of fact and conclusions to support
action taken for each petition
2) Keep track of made motion for/against petition, who
seconds, call a vote and note results
3) Review amendments, layovers, reconsiderations, etc.
4) Adjourn (get motion/second/vote)
Motion Carried.
Novy stated Mike Pankonin, 206 W. Wade Street, had asked to address the Plan
Commission prior to the start of the meeting. She noted the public
hearing on the ordinance being considered by the Plan Commission tonight will be
held at the December Village Board meeting and that quite a few comments had
been taken on the ordinance by the Plan Commission at the October meeting.
She asked whether the Plan Commission would allow Mr. Pankonin to comment.
Plan Commissioners stated no objection.
Mr. Pankonin stated he attends many meetings and believes structure for
committees and councils is common and good, but he feels that the timing of this
(implementing a public comment procedure) is bad because his perception is that
it is an attempt to muzzle what people want to say.
Mr. Pankonin was thanked for his comment.
Ordinance #2-2011 “An Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 15, Sections 3.09,
5.04, 5.05 and 5.08 of the Village of Rochester Municipal Code, to recreate
Chapter 15 Section 3.09, Public Facilities Districts, which apply to the entire
corporate limits of the Consolidated Village of Rochester, to repeal conflicting
provisions in the existing (former) Town of Rochester Code of Ordinances and the
Village of Rochester Municipal Code, and to rezone Parcels to P-1 and P-2
Districts
Weinkauf noted Schattner had done a good job explaining P-1 and P-2 districts at
the October meeting and that this was on the agenda for continued discussion.
Plan Commissioners discussed the ordinance and suggested the following
amendments:
3.09 D.1. (P-1) “Permitted uses.” Add “campus areas” to the following use:
“Public or private schools, colleges, and universities, provided that the lot
area is not less than two acres”
3.09 E.1. (P-2) “Permitted uses.” Add “bike trails, basketball courts, and
skateboarding” as allowable uses.
Tamblyn suggested research be performed on the development plan for Case Eagle
Park to determine if there are any proposed uses for that park that might be
included in the list. He recalled there might be plans for a band shell.
Johnson indicated a band shell should be listed as a conditional use because of
the activity and sound levels this type of use produces. It was noted
music halls are included as a conditional use under P-1 zoning. It seemed
to be the consensus of the committee that a band shell would fall under this
classification.
Schattner suggested, rather than listing every possible use, to include a
blanket statement such as “or uses similar in nature to the allowable uses”.
Gerber questioned inclusion of the post office on the list of properties to be
rezoned. She noted the building is currently used for institutional
purposes, but that it is privately owned. She noted recent media coverage
on the closing of post offices throughout the country and questioned how that
will resolve itself if the Rochester Post Office is closed and another use is
proposed that does not fit institutional classification. It was noted that
plans are under way to construct a new village hall too, so the same situation
will likely arise with municipal building.
Schattner summarized the intention of setting up these districts it to make sure
the Village is covered with all existing uses and that anything that comes in
new has to comply with the district requirements. When uses change, the owner
or possible tenant will have to pursue re-zoning the property. While this
may seem cumbersome in some instances, it offers the Plan Commission an
opportunity to review the proposed change of use. Examples were discussed
regarding county owned lands and buildings in Rochester. If the county
chooses to sell these lands, the Village will have an opportunity to review what
the proposed changes are.
Gerber stated she understands the intent of the ordinance to rezone the listed
properties to P-1 and to P-2. She feels P-1 and P-2 are the appropriate
districts for the listed properties and that adoption of the proposed zoning
ordinance will offer a sense of uniformity throughout the Village. She
reviewed comments from the last meeting and feels the listed properties are
being put in the appropriate districts for what they are being used for today.
Gerber moved, 2nd by Johnson to recommend approval of Ordinance #2-2011
noting the recommendation is to re-zone the properties as listed.
Rowntree commented on his review of comments made by the public at the October
meeting. He noted many comments involved rezoning Rochester Commons Park
to P-2 rather than P-1. The justification given was that the zoning should
be P-2 because of the ball diamond. While he appreciated the comments, he
did not agree with them because he considers the primary use of Rochester
Commons Park as the library, and P-1 is the more appropriate zoning because the
library is the dominant use.
It was additionally noted that Rochester Commons Park is zoned residential right
now. Zoning the property consistent with its current use will clean up a
lot of problems.
Gerber stated her review of the comments made at the last meeting made her think
people were more fearful about what possible uses might come rather than what is
currently here. She continued that the purpose of the ordinance is to
rezone the property for the use that it is now. She felt residents did not
need to be too concerned about a prison (this is on the list of P-1 conditional
uses). She noted more fear about what could come down the road rather than
what is happening right now. While she appreciates those concerns, she
feels the ordinance addresses that by having conditional uses in place that will
require review before a proposed use is allowed to go in.
Schattner stated, in regards to prison use, there are state statutes in place
that restrict placement of a facility of that nature. State statutes will
take precedence. He clarified the ordinance contains permitted
and conditional uses. Legal review by the Village Attorney confirmed not
all uses can be listed as conditional uses. Courts have concluded there
must be a list of allowable uses for every zoning district.
Schattner continued explaining that the uses that come in front of the Plan
Commission are conditional uses and if there is a proposal for any sort of
lighting- because lighting impacts the neighbors and the neighborhood itself.
It is not every use that comes before the Plan Commission. If a proposal
comes in for a permitted use, the zoning administrator will issue a zoning
permit after he has reviewed the proposed use to ensure that it complies with
the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Weinkauf commented what the Village is trying to do is combine the original town
and village zoning ordinances. Schattner indicated his feelings that this
ordinance is a happy medium between the two of them that makes sure current uses
are not non-conforming. Some uses will be grandfathered and can exist the
way they are until they are gone. At that time, use of the parcels would have to
comply with the zoning ordinance.
Weinkauf restated the motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #2-2011
to the Village Board. Motion was carried.
Johnson moved, 2nd by Eckert to adjourn at 7:51 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, MMC CMTW WCPC
Clerk-Treasurer