Plan Commission Meeting Minutes November 27, 2012 3920 N. Murray Ave Village of Shorewood, WI 53211

1.

Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.

2.

Roll call. Present: Pr. Guy Johnson, Tr. Michael Maher, Susan Buchanan, Barbara Mendelson, Chris Gallagher, Samuel Dickman and Thomas Hofman. Others present: Planning and Zoning Administrator Ericka Lang and Village Attorney Ray Pollen.

3.

Approval of October 23, 2012 meeting minutes. Tr. Maher moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Mr. Gallagher. Tr. Maher included corrections to the minutes. Vote 7-0 to approve the minutes with corrections stated.

4.

Statement of Public Notice.

5.

Public Hearing: Consideration of conditional use for gasoline station at 4000 N. Wilson Dr, applicant Atiq-U-Rehman. Ms. Lang introduced the item. The item was first discussed at the October 23rd Plan Commission meeting. The property is zoned B3 and service stations are allowed by conditional use. Since the property is changing ownership along with the proposed improvements to the property, staff determined that a conditional use is required. Proposed is a small addition at the north end of the property and removal of the service bays to make the property a full convenience store. Ms. Lang reminded the commission of the site improvements that were discussed at the previous meeting. The improvements are part of the project pre-approval and had been reviewed with the applicant. The improvements are as follows: •

• • •

Light Poles - the SE and NW corner poles will remain, as recommended by the Police Chief. Ample lot lighting is necessary for safety reasons, which is the key element to all crime prevention. Staff requests further lighting on or closer to the building to deter break-ins, especially if night parking. Parking screening - Remove existing guardrail along alley and screen with a 4 foot tall wooden fence, tapered to 3 feet around the corner along Wilson Dr. Fence will screen garbage enclosure. Garbage enclosure – will enclose with 7 foot tall masonry wall with wooden gates along alley for refuse pick up and gate on west side for staff access. South façade changes - Infill materials will be consistent with surrounding façade materials where restroom doors are being removed. South facade window will not reduce in size, ensuring better visibility from outside in. Page 1

Plan Commission November 27, 2012 Page 2

•

Fence, building and canopy materials - These items are considered by Design Review Board only.

Ms. Lang also included the new renderings had been greatly improved to show the improvements. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. and closed the hearing at 6:41 p.m. with no comments. Mr. Pollen informed the commission that their finding and motion should be consistent with Code Section 535-25C items 1-7 and could reference the staff memo dated November 20, 2012. Mr. Maher asked about snow removal. Mr. Uttech stated that some would be stored on site and the rest would be removed. Mr. Maher asked about the recycling containers and their storage. Mr. Pollen said that by code containers for recycling are required. Ms. Lang stated that these services are privately contracted by the business owners and that the enclosure for the garbage is large and could possibly fit both sets of containers. Mr. Maher asked about the screening on Capitol Drive and Wilson Drive. Ms. Lang stated that the owner intends to wrap around the proposed screening to accommodate both Capitol Drive and Wilson Drive screening issues. Ms. Lang also informed that the window size facing Capitol Drive has been increased in size instead of being reduced like first proposed. Mr. Maher moved to approve the application for a conditional use permit for the gasoline station at 4000 N. Wilson Drive based upon the review and determination that the criteria listed in Code Section 535-25(C) are met and with additional conditions outlined in the staff memo dated November 20, 2012. Seconded by Ms. Buchanan. Vote to approve 7-0. 6.

Public Hearing: Consideration of conditional use for carryout pizzeria at 4475 N. Oakland Ave, applicant Carmelo Fazzari. Ms. Lang introduced the item. On November 1, 2012 a conditional use application was received from Carmelo Fazzari to operate a carryout and delivery pizzeria at 4475 N. Oakland Avenue location. This is the BK Yun building that previously housed the BritInn and Shorewood Inn (both restaurants). The space has been split in two and the other half is currently occupied by Curves Fitness Center. The space to be used for the restaurant is about a 1000 square feet. Per code §535-27K “restaurants, carry-out, in the B-1 through B-3 District” are conditional uses that may be permitted. There are three parking spaces in the rear of the building for delivery vehicles. A few bar stools will be available inside the space but a majority of the business will be carry out. Given the previous uses and the smaller size and minimal seating capacity, staff determined that a special exception for parking is not required. Mr. Johnson opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. and closed the hearing at 6:54 p.m. with no comments.

Plan Commission November 27, 2012 Page 3

The business hours will be 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. Monday through Sunday. The official name of the business will be Al Calderone Club. Ms. Buchanan asked if the parking in the rear was for staff. Mr. Fazzari stated that yes, the spaces would be for delivery vehicles. Ms. Buchanan inquired about customer parking and Mr. Fazzari stated that 85% of the business would be delivery and that most of his staff would be from UWM and take the bus to work. He plans to employ 8 individuals with 6 present at a time. Mr. Maher moved to approve the application for a conditional use permit for a restaurant carry out with the permit issued to Al Calderone Club based on the review of section code 535-25C and that the criteria under that section are met. Seconded by Mr. Gallagher. Vote to approve 7-0. 7.

Consideration of zoning requirement regarding commercial use of residential dwellings within commercial districts. Ms. Lang reminded the commission that this item was first discussed at the July Plan Commission meeting when Suzanne Powers zoning petition was on the agenda. The zoning code currently prohibits 1 to 4 unit residential buildings in the business district from being converted or altered for business purposes and from being subdivided if a 1 to 4 unit residential building is on the property. There are currently 4 single family buildings (3800, 3808 and 3814 N. Oakland Ave. and 2428 E. Capitol Dr.) and one duplex (4443-43A N. Oakland Ave.) that exist in the business district. Ms. Lang also reviewed the multi-families in the B-District and all are over 6 units and do not apply to this code. These five buildings are the only ones impacted by this code today. The Zoning Code as it exists now reads: Zoning Code 535-21A(2) B-1 District Uses Prohibited “(a) building that are solely residential in use [1]”Any land or lot on which there is located a residence of four families or fewer shall not be subdivided for business purposes. [2] “Any building used as a residence of four families or fewer shall not be added to, altered or converted for business purposes.” **The same language is found under the B-2 section 535-21B(2)(b)[1][2] and under the B-3 section 535-21C(a)[1][2] With only five buildings impacted by this code today, staff proposed three options. Option one is to repeal the subdivision language because there would be no impact due to the fact that the remaining 5 lots are too small to subdivide. Option two would be to revise the language in (a)[2] to “only prohibit single family dwellings for being used for business purposes”. This would allow the one duplex in the B-1 District to be converted and would keep the remaining 4 single families as-is or they would need to be combined for a larger development (Oakland Avenue properties). Option three would be to repeal all the language. Repealing all the language would allow for the single family on Capitol Drive to be used for 100% commercial and the three single families on Oakland Avenue to be used for mixed –use.

Plan Commission November 27, 2012 Page 4

Ms. Lang explained why amending this section was supported by staff. The existing and proposed zoning impacts a very small number of nonconforming structures in the business districts today. The existing language also has been in the zoning code for decades, originated in a time when well-defined design guidelines and master plans did not exist for addressing a change from a residential to a commercial use. Lastly, the language does not fit in with the master plan mission of promoting live-work opportunities as part of quality of life measures. Mr. Gallagher asked what the lot size requirement was to establish a planned development district (PDD). The requirement is 25,000 square feet. The three single family homes on Oakland could be combined without approval but would not fit this size requirement and a PDD would not be allowed. Subdivision of lots needs approval but to combine the lots no approval is required. Ms. Lang stated that her recommendation was to repeal the language entirely or to prohibit single families from being used for commercial purposes and repeal the subdivision language. Mr. Hofman agreed with the option of not allowing single family buildings to be used for commercial. Ms. Lang said when this code language was created there was no Central District Master Plan and very detailed design guidelines and a design review board like today. Also, single families are non-conforming structures and improvements are limited to them. Mr. Gallagher asked about adding an addition to an existing single family building and if that would be allowed. Ms. Lang again explained that because they are non-conforming structures there are limits to improvements. Mr. Maher asked about why this was being proposed. Ms. Lang said the proposal was a way to recognize the violations of the code in the past and to rectify the future. Ms. Buchanan asked based on how the code is written now, whether or not a duplex could have commercial on the first floor and residential on second floor. Ms. Lang said the code currently does not allow that. Mr. Gallagher confirmed that with residential and commercial in one building there are more restrictive building code requirements. Mr. Hofman said he did not have a problem with the conversion of a duplex to commercial it was just a matter of it being done properly and well. Mr. Gallagher said the community is reliant on a successful business district. To do that he felt that allowing the single families to convert to commercial would possibly not be in the best interest of the business district. The purchase of the three lots on Oakland to be developed into something larger would possibly be better and to encourage larger developments rather than smaller spaces where businesses vacate quicker. Ms. Buchanan felt that many historic municipalities had good mixes of new and old buildings for commercial uses and that possibly a business district with all “new” buildings was not favorable either. The diversity of the buildings is a unique positive for municipalities. She felt that residential structures in the business district should be allowed to convert but that it should be done well. Ms. Lang felt that leaving the code and not changing it would not be in the spirit of the code and that it would be instead in the spirit of past decisions. Ms. Lang felt that to

Plan Commission November 27, 2012 Page 5

recognize the duplexes that have been converted in the past, the recommendation would be to repeal the subdivision of lots and to prohibit single families from being converted for commercial uses. Mr. Pollen stated that the main motivation is to fix and amend the code section to be consistent with what the village has done in the past. Mr. Maher was concerned about the conversion of residential buildings being converted but done poorly. He stated there should be safeguards going forward to protect against that. Ms. Lang stated that repealing the subdivision language and single family conversions to commercial would protect against that. Mr. Pollen stated the commission had three options. The first motion would be to recommend the zoning change with the criteria under option 1 and 2A. The second would be no motion. The third would be to direct staff to research implications of the 2A zoning change and report back to the commission. Mr. Gallagher moved to recommend to the Village Board the zoning change recommended under options 1 and 2A on the supplemental handout provided November 27, 2012. Seconded by Mr. Dickman. Vote to approve 7-0. Mr. Dickman asked if the homeowners of the buildings affected would be notified. Ms. Lang said that she will send notifications for the Village Board meeting. 8.

Update on zoning materials provided to Commission.

9.

Schedule next meeting. The next meeting was not scheduled due to no applications. Availability of members will be checked if application is received.

10.

Other business as authorized by law.

11.

Adjournment. Mr. Dickman moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m., seconded by Mr. Maher. Vote 7-0.

Recorded by,

Crystal Kopydlowski, Planning & Zoning Administrative Assistant