September 7, 2011                            

PLAN COMMSSION                                              

7:00 p.m.

Weinkauf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Beere, Eckert, Gerber, Rowntree and Tamblyn present.  Johnson was absent.

Beere moved, 2nd by Rowntree to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2011 meeting.  Motion carried.

Public Hearings:  There were none.

Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to occupy an existing commercial building to conduct instructional dance and gymnastic classes, birthday parties, music lessons and fitness programs, at 29110 Evergreen Drive, Village of Rochester, Racine County Wisconsin

Applicant:  Foursis Dance Academy, LLC    Parcel #17603190102030

Schattner reported on the request of the applicant to substitute wall packs for the lamp posts previously submitted and approved as item number four in their conditional use permit that was issued June 15, 2011.  Schattner recommended approval of the request based on compliance with the following items:

1.      That lights are installed according to the written documentation submitted with the amendment request dated August 19, 2011;

2.      That the candlepower of the lights are consistent with the exhibit submitted with the amendment request;

3.      That the lights do no direct light onto other properties or into the road right of way;

 

4.      That the lights are maintained and kept in an operable condition.

Plan commissioners commented that the parking lot faces a marsh.  Conceivably there should be no problems with directing light onto abutting properties.  Schattner acknowledged this, but also noted he wished this to be addressed in the conditional use permit just in case there would be any development in that area in the future.  As a sidenote, Schattner indicated the business is planning to open September 10th.

Beere moved, 2nd by Rowntree to approve the request for amendment to item number four of the conditional use permit issued to Foursis Dance Academy on June 15, 2011 subject to the recommendations of the zoning administrator.  Motion carried.

Review:  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  (per Ch. 15, s. 12.04, recommendations to be made at a subsequent meeting)

Weinkauf reported the need for amendment to Village and (former) Town of Rochester park districts came to the forefront when working with an architect on the village hall building project.   Lot setback requirements make locating structures in park districts very difficult.   The issue was referred to Schattner for review.

Schattner reported working on zoning codes and districts with the ordinance committee to reconcile differences between the (former) Town of Rochester and Village of Rochester zoning districts and code provisions.  The ordinance committee developed language including appropriate uses and setbacks for park districts and had submitted a draft ordinance to the Village Attorney for review.  Legal review caused some changes to the language because the ordinance committee had wanted all uses in what was to be a P-3 “Municipal Campus  District” to require conditional use approval.   However, the attorney struck that part of the ordinance because recent case law has established that there must be some allowable uses in each zoning district that do not require conditional use approval.  As a result, the municipal campus district was removed from the revised ordinance before the Plan Commission tonight, leaving only P-1 “Institutional Park District” and P-2 “Recreational Park District” classifications.   The conditional use issue was resolved by requiring conditional use approval in either of these districts whenever a lot contains, or proposes to contain, more than one building on a lot.  The number of buildings, lot width and area, minimum setbacks, and allowable distances between buildings then become subject to the review and approval of the Plan Commission. 

The Village Attorney also expanded the ordinance to include a listing of parcels in the Village that are already zoned P-1 or P-2, or whose current uses are such that they should be re-zoned to these zoning district classifications.  The list includes all parcels that should be affected by the zoning amendment.  The amendment includes language to grandfather existing uses so that they may continue to exist and operate without requirement of a conditional use permit.  However, if they wish to expand their operations with another structure or use, a conditional use process would be required.

Schattner reviewed the list of parcels noting there had already been some updates since this version was submitted to the Plan Commission.  He added (part of) to the listing next to the Racine County parcel which houses the Racine County Highway Department.  He noted part of this parcel will remain under a mining classification.  He stated he did not feel it was wise to change that zoning until that part of the parcel is restored.  He also added the parcels containing the Rochester Post Office and the Racine County Cemetery located on CTH “J” to the listing.   Weinkauf noted that part of the Racine County parcel is also used as FFA (Future Farmers of America) grounds. 

There was discussion about including parcels in the listing that are owned by the Honey Lake District and used as community parks.  Weinkauf will seek input from the Honey Lake District on these parcels. 

Tamblyn questioned inclusion of athletic field lights as a conditional use in these districts.  Schattner concurred this is often a topic of contention for neighbors and indicated he would work something into the ordinance to address this use. 

Novy indicated the ordinance is only presented for review at this stage and the Plan Commission must hold off its recommendation to the Village Board until the October meeting.

Schattner requested that Plan Commissioners contact him before the October meeting if they think of anything else that should be considered or listed in the ordinance.

Tamblyn moved, 2nd by Eckert to adjourn at 7:55 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Betty J. Novy, MMC, CMTW, WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer