MINUTES

CITY OF JEFFERSON

JOINT MEETING PLAN COMMISSION AND COMMON COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2003

The meeting was called to order. Plan Commission members present were: Adams, Beyer, Brandel, Brawders, Bare, Ludwig, and Nash.

Common Council members present were Mayor Brawders, Ald. Wagner, Ald. Gang, Ald. Stewart, Ald. McGrath, Ald. Bare, Ald. Coffman, and Ald. Carnes. Absent was Ald. Stevens.

Also present were City Attorney Brantmeier, and City Administrator Schornack.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

There was no Public Participation.

APPROVAL OF FINAL CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FROM J & J DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ALONG MASONIC BOULEVARD

It was noted that the Final Certified Survey Map was consistent with the Preliminary one, which was previously approved by the Plan Commission. The location of the proposed lot was pointed out.

Nash questioned the utility easements associated with this lot. It was stated that there was a 10’ wide utility easement along the west side of the proposed lot, and a 10’ wide utility easement along the east side of the adjacent lot. There was no easement between the lots.

Nash, seconded by Adams, moved to approve the Final Certified Survey Map as submitted. Motion carried on a voice vote.

DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE #3-03 RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR LARGE RETAIL BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET

Ludwig referred to a memo to the Mayor and Common Council dated April 1, 2003. This memo included items for discussion that were brought forward by the Plan Commission, and consultants for Wal-Mart. This memo also included some items from a letter received from Tom Pinnow of the County-City Credit Union.

All members of the Plan Commission and Common Council present received a copy of this memo for review at this meeting.

Mayor Brawders stated that it was important that the Plan Commission and Common Council meet to come to an agreement regarding this Proposed Ordinance #3-03.

The members present agreed that each item in the memo should be addressed individually.

It was stated that this Proposed Ordinance would apply to all new large retail, and not just a selected development.

There was discussion on the size of some of the larger existing retail structures in the City. They then further discussed the building size in square feet to which this Proposed Ordinance should apply.

Beyer felt a building of 20,000 sq. ft. should comply with Proposed Ordinance #3-03. She said this would allow more control of development, and that the Waiver of Standards section of the Ordinance could be exercised if needed.

Nash expressed concern about waiving certain items of the Proposed Ordinance, noting that consistency of those waivers with each development was very important.

Coffman questioned the consequences if waivers were granted inconsistently. Atty. Brantmeier cautioned the Plan Commission and Common Council about litigation. He also pointed out that due to political process, a different governing body might review each proposed development.

There was discussion on the size restriction listed in the Proposed Ordinance for an addition to an existing retail and commercial service building. Some members said this Proposed Ordinance should apply to a 20,000 sq. ft. addition, but disagreed with the line, that read “which brings the total building size to over twenty thousand gross square feet shall also require a Conditional Use Permit”.

It was stated that smaller development would still be reviewed by, and require approval from the Plan Commission. Schornack said that the current Zoning Code would be reviewed when it is updated, noting that it could be amended for retail and commercial development.

After further discussion, there was a consensus to change the size of the Retail and Commercial Service Building to “in Excess of 50,000 Square Feet of Area”, and to keep the addition at 20,000 sq. ft.

1. Compatibility with City Plans. The Plan Commission had asked that the developer be responsible for written reports requested by the Council or Plan Commission.

Ludwig said that much of the information required in the written report would be included in the site plan. However, the written report would be proof of compliance with the City’s Master Plan and Ordinances.

Most agreed that the City should have the right to require a written report.

4. Building Entrances. It is proposed to remove “All sides of the building that directly face or abut a public street or public parking area shall have a public entrance.”

Bare stated that the façades facing or abutting a public street should have an appearance similar to the front, but should not require an entrance.

It was noted that the façade treatment of all sides, other than the front, were addressed in a different section of the Proposed Ordinance.

Beyer asked that a design feature be incorporated into each façade. Most members present agreed.

8. Traffic Impact. The building size in this section should also be changed to new buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. or additions over 20,000 sq. ft. to existing buildings.

The Plan Commission felt the traffic impact analysis should consider the parking lot 100% full for level of service analysis. It was noted that this requirement would direct the traffic engineer when doing the study.

Coffman brought up the current parking requirements, noting that they should be reviewed when the Zoning Code is updated. He felt that current requirements could be reduced, and referred to several existing parking lots that were never full.

9. Parking. It was suggested to remove “Landscaped medians shall also be used to break large paving areas in to smaller pods, with a maximum of 100 spaces in any one pod.”

The Wal-Mart consultant felt inclusion of this restriction would not only be expensive, but an inefficient style of design. They did not object to parking lot curbed landscaped islands at all parking aisle ends.

It was the consensus of the members present to remove “Landscaped medians shall also be used to break large paving areas in to smaller pods, with a maximum of 100 spaces in any one pod.” from number 9 of the Proposed Ordinance.

19. Waiver of Standards. Tom Pinnow requested that the required ¾ vote be replace with a simple majority vote.

Brandel agreed that to waive a standard, should require a simple majority vote, or two thirds vote. He explained that the Plan Commission has seven members, and a ¾ vote would require five affirmative votes if all members were present. He also noted that a quorum of the Plan Commission was four members, and in that case three of four votes would be required to waive a standard.

It was agreed that a simple majority should be required to waive a standard.

Ald. Gang asked at what point the Common Council reviewed any proposed development. It was noted that the Common Council would be involved in the first steps of rezoning and/or annexation and also in the final step of the approval of the Developer’s Agreement.

There was some discussion on the Common Council having final approval of all Conditional Use Permits. Ald. Wagner said that the approval of Conditional Use Permits should be kept at the Plan Commission level.

20. This item adds a new paragraph: Developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City, which shall include the payment of all utilities including storm water infrastructure. All members present agreed with this addition.

Coffman brought up the parking restrictions. He felt that more parking should be allowed between the front façade of the building and the public street.

There was discussion on this restriction. Brandel noted that it was necessary to consider that this Proposed Ordinance would affect all development, including existing businesses that wanted to expand. He said that it might be impossible to comply in some situations.

Ald. McGrath suggested that not more than seventy-five (75) percent of the off-street parking be located in the front of the building. Most agreed.

Brandel asked to re-visit the first item referring to the size of additions. He felt is was unfair to ask an existing business with a 20,000 sq. ft. addition to comply with the same ordinance as a new business of 50,000 sq. ft. He said that he would like to see the ordinance changed to include any addition that brought the total square footage of the building to 50,000 sq. ft. or larger.

The members present agreed.

Bare asked that Commercial development be required to pay a Park Dedication Fee. It was stated that the City Attorney would have to be consulted on that issue.

Ald. Stewart said that an economic study should also be required. It was stated that any new or expanding business would do that anyway, and could be asked to make that information available.

Bare expressed concern about Natural Resource Preservation, noting that the hill surrounding the south water should be retained if development occurred in that area. Beyer said that Jefferson Utilities should also review that situation.

Ald. Coffman asked the Plan Commission to look closely at item #18 of Proposed Ordinance #3-03, which refers to a Maintenance Bond dealing with the possible vacancy of a building.

MINUTES

Adams, seconded by Nash, moved to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2003 meeting as printed. Motion carried on a voice vote. Beyer, Bare, and Brandel abstained.

Adams, seconded by Ludwig, moved to adjourn. Motion carried on a voice vote.