May 11, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Mueller read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Chairperson Gene Mueller called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and asked for roll call. Other members present were: Cathy Kleine, Greg Koerwitz, Jerry Meyer and Bob Stepp.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the April 13th, 2009 meeting.
Member Kleine noted a typo regarding a date on page 1 paragraph 2.
Member Meyer made the motion to approve the minutes “as amended” of the April 13th, 2009 meeting and member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Meyer, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding the request for a Special Use Permit (SU-2009-02) from Carole Sprunk for a home occupation (Day Care).
Bedlan noted that Carole Sprunk planned on being in attendance but had her baby on Thursday so will not be present and that Eric Voss has volunteered to answer any questions the commission may have in regards to the matter. Member Stepp questioned how many kids she will be caring for. Bedlan stated that according to statute it will have to be less than 14. Voss stated that he believed it was around 7. Member Kleine questioned what the state requires in regards to day care center requirements. Voss stated that health and human services sets up those regulations and that all Day Care Centers must meet those requirements to become certified. The Sprunks are in the process of becoming state certified. Member Mueller asked if it was premature to grant a special use permit before they are certified by the state. Bedlan responded that this committee will only make a recommendation to council and actual approval of the permit will be given by council at a hearing. Voss notes that in the past special use permits for day cares have not been enforced but are required and that now that we are attempting to enforce zoning requirements they need to have special use permits prior opening. Member Kleine notes that in the zoning definitions there is a child care center and child care home and Carole’s application states it is a center. Bedlan states that although the word center is in the name it is actually a day care home as defined by zoning. Member Kleine asks what requirements we would have for a special use permit for day cares in addition to the state requirements. Voss feels that the state covers most the inspection concerns and the only other issue he could foresee may be if neighbors do not want a day care next door. Bedlan asks that we address that as a separate issue on the next agenda item. Member Koerwitz asks if the neighbors have any problems with the business going in or if they have been notified. Voss states that the neighbors he knows of are either aware of the plans for a day care in that location or live in the apartment complex and he is not sure who knows about it there. Member Mueller notes that if the neighbors have objections they probably would be at this meeting to voice them. Member Kleine states that if it is certified with the state it should meet all the special use permit standards and makes the motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Request for Special Use Permit application (SU-2009-02) from Carole Sprunk for a home occupation (Day Care). Member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Meyer, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the discussion and recommendation in regards to adding Child Care Home to Permitted Uses in all Residential Zoning districts
Bedlan states that this is just a discussion and to make any change to zoning there needs to be a hearing at the council level. She also states that she plans to discus several proposed changes to zoning before the committee is asked to make recommendations to council and then have one date for all the zoning change hearings at the council level. Bedlan states that technically day care homes are considered home occupations and are required to get special use permits but that this has not been enforced in the past so there are a lot of day care homes in town that do not have special use permits. At this point the options are to either require all day cares to get special use permits or make a change to zoning so that it is not required. Bedlan and Voss feel that since this is a home occupation that is so closely regulated by the state it is not necessary for the city to require permits also and that adding home daycares to permitted uses in all residential areas of town should be considered by the commission. Member Stepp questions if it is required for day care homes to get a special use permit in all residential areas and if there are home day cares in all residential areas now. To which Bedlan responds yes. Member Meyer notes that it is really no different than having a large family. Member Mueller asks if the city would gather all the state requirements and add them to the city regulations. Bedlan states that the city is only suggesting that home day cares be added as an allowable permitted use in the residential zoning area. Se notes that the attorney suggests preschools or home day cares be added in the same section of permitted uses that allows for public and private schools. Member Mueller asks if the city can gather all the appropriate information and return to the commission at a later date to receive a recommendation for council. Bedlan states that she will.
5. Next, was the discussion and recommendation in regards to changes to section 4.13 A of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition.
Susan Bartels is present and speaks in favor of the ordinance change. She states that in brief the ordinance does not allow for an accessory building on a lot without a primary building. She states that this ordinance was put in place when the community had a population of approximately 6,000 and most homes were occupied. Now we are a community of approximately 4,000 and there are a lot of vacant homes that need to be demolished. She states that she and others would like to purchase lots just to put garages on them. She notes that you can get special permits to do so but that is not what she is after because she would like to see that it is fair for everyone. She notes that the lot she would like to purchase is one the owners are not paying taxes on, the city mows and it looks terrible all the time. If she is allowed to put an accessory building on it she will pay the back taxes, mow it, put a nice garage on it and put it back on the tax roll. She feels a lot of people in this community who own a lot with a dilapidated primary building on it do not demolish it because what are they to do with the lot then. She does not feel it will sell easily without a home on it and other than putting a garden on the property it is of no use. She is requesting this change to allow people to build accessory buildings on lots without primary buildings. She notes that the city would still have control over what types of buildings would be allowed because they could make them meet certain size requirements and they would still have to get building permits to put up the garages. Member Mueller notes that the commission can only make recommendations to council on zoning changes and that they must be heard at the council level. Bedlan again states that this agenda item is only for discussion and that at a later date she will bring this item along with others before the commission to make all their recommendations for zoning changes to council all at one time. Kent Preston addresses the commission noting that many of the dilapidated homes are not being demolished because people need to keep them on the lot if they want to build a garage there in the future. He believes it could be a way to help clean up the town and get rid of the dilapidated homes. Steve Kettelhut addressed the commission stating that he would also like to see the zoning changed and that he believes there is a market for these smaller lots but that he would like to see some restrictions on the type of building, it’s placement on the lot (maybe towards the back ½ of the lot with some landscaping up front) and some requirements restricting things like several cars parked in the front of the lot or a kennel out front. He believes the idea is to make a market for these lots and he believes there is one but he is concerned about seeing things on the front ½ of the lot that would distract from the neighborhood and feels that there should be some restrictions placed on it. Member Mueller notes Kettelhut’s concerns and suggests that the city will have to come back with some restrictions before the commission makes a recommendation to council. Kettelhut suggest that there be some kind of size, height, setback and landscaping requirements. Bedlan states that she would be willing to do some research on suggestions for these requirements. Kettelhut suggest checking with Ashland ordnances. Member Mueller asked the city to compile all their information then bring it to the next meeting so that they can make recommendations to council based that info. Member Meyer asks to be able to make suggestions on requirements and Bedlan responds that as zoning administrator that is what she would like to have happen.
6. Next, was the hearing regarding the vacating of a portion of Anna Street located East of Lot 1, Blk. 2, Warren Place (201 West 4th Street) and West of Lot 3, Blk 1, Warren Place (133 West 4th Street).
Jimmy Jones was present and spoke in favor of the vacate. He notes that he has lived in that section of West 4th Street for 33 years and maintained it for the last ten years and he has documents proving this. He notes that in regards to fire hazards caused by closing the street in the past the two fires in the area were fought from 4th Street. He notes that if a fire had to be fought there they would either need to fight it from 4th or come through the park and cut the fence between the park and the alley. He contends that the garbage trucks do use this section of Anna Street but that they have to make a wide left turn coming close to hitting a pole or garage when doing so. He states that in the past when he had his tree cut down in the front yard the garbage truck backed down the alley and that they back down the alley on 3rd and 2nd Street also. He feels that if they won’t back down his alley then they should not be backing down 3rd and 2nd Street. He does not believe that the utilities use that section of the street. He states that if Anna were to stay open the City would need to make sure they maintain it and not him. He feels that 5mph would be an appropriate speed limit because the house at 201 West 4th opens right on to the street and his kids run back and forth between the houses. He notes that people speed through not paying attention. He feels that there should also be a ‘slow children at play sign’. He notes that he lives in a bad neighborhood and a lot of people speed through there thinking it is a shortcut to the park. He also believes a ‘dead-end’ sign would help a lot because it is not a through street. He notes that a ‘no parking’ sign has been brought up because the resident at 201 West 4th street has been parking in the street to slow traffic by her house. He feel a ‘no parking’ sign is not needed because it will not help to slow traffic. Member Koerwitz asks if a ‘dead-end’ sign would be acceptable. Jones responds that all three signs need to be there to have any effect although; he does not believe that any sign will really work and signing is a waste of money. Member Kleine comments that she did not even realize it was a street, she thought it was a driveway because it is narrow. Member Mueller questions why it is not regulation width. Mr. Jones states that in the past it has been classified as too wide for an alley and two narrow for a street. Member Mueller questions if it is on a city map. Bedlan states that it is on a map and that Anna is considered a street. Mr. Jones just wanted to note that at the time nobody cared enough to investigate if it was a street or not. Member Mueller notes that being that narrow it is interesting that it is still considered a street and questions what Mr. Jones primary reason for requesting a vacate is. He states because he maintains it and because of the traffic concerns. Member Mueller asks if vacating it will alleviate the traffic concerns. Mr. Jones feels that it would because he plans on fencing it off from the alley. He also feels there are some concerns with Jerry Scheer speeding down the street and another resident using the street and cutting across the city lot to get to their house. Bedlan notes that officer Wentz did contact her and let her know that he spoke with Mr. Jones but that he does not want to make a judgment on the situation due to lack of information. Mr. Jones claims that officer Wentz questioned if signs would help and said that it would be difficult to monitor for speeders. He also advised Mr. Jones that it would not be illegal to park a car in the street but suggested that it would not be a good idea at this time. Jones claims Wentz could see how getting a fire truck back there would be difficult and acknowledged that a lot of people do use it for a shortcut. Member Koerwitz states that he has a difficult time understanding how anyone can use the street for a shortcut and again suggests a ‘not a through street sign’. Kent Preston comments that it is still a through street and that sign would be inappropriate also noting that the residential speed limit is 20mph unless signed otherwise. Member Koerwitz questions how easily you could get another car through if one was parked there. Mr. Jones stated that you can. Mr. Jones also wants to note that Bender stated at the last meeting that speeders need to be caught and she does not believe signs will help. Mr. Jones believes that if the street stays open they will have trouble monitoring the speed limit. Mr. Dennis York was present and spoke against closing the street because he owns property at the end of the alley and uses Anna Street to access his garage. He believes it will hurt his property value, does not want to have to back 3 blocks to access his garage and questions if that street has no purpose why was it put there to begin with. Mr. Jerry Scheer was present and also spoke against closing the street. He states that he did not believe he was speeding when he used the street and that he does use the street a fair amount to access his property East of Anna. Mr. Scheer noted that he did not have a problem with closing the street until he discovered that if the street is vacated the city will put up barricades to permanently close the street. He also notes that when he spoke with Voss he was reminded to consider that what works for him now as far as an agreement with Mr. Jones may not be binding later or if he sells his property it may not be binding for the next property owner. Scheer admits that he has used it more often that normal lately just to prove that he does use the street. He feels that there are several ways it could be signed but that is for the City to decide not him, just as maintaining it is also for the City to do not for the Joneses. He comments that he does not know of anyone being run over in the area but notes that it is a dangerous spot although no more dangerous than the bathrooms being across the street from the funpark. He then questions what the City’s recommendation is in regards to vacating the alley and comments that he believes that there are utilities in the area. Joseph Parker the city administrator is present and states that none of the department heads believe it is a good idea to vacate the street. He believes that public policy dictates that it is a bad idea to vacate streets because if you ever attempt to get them back the City pays a pretty penny for them. Voss states that 80% of accidents happen when backing up and he feels the garbage guys have a hard enough time collecting trash and we don’t need to make it harder. Bedlan states that the street department’s main concern is with garbage collection in the area and if the street is vacated the residents both East and West of the street may have to put trash out front of their homes. She also notes that if the street is vacated access to the alley will be blocked. Kent Preston questions if the street department has any plans to replace the curb if the street is vacated. Bedlan states she is unaware of any plans to do that as they are under the assumption that Mr. Jones plans to use that as a drive. Mr. Preston feels that if the curb is not replaced then people will still think it is a through street and use it as such causing more problems. Mr. Jones notes that he is also concerned about his property values if the street is not vacated and that the other residents do not use it that much and they do have another way to access their properties. He states again that he feels the garbage guys can back down the alley fine and that he would not have a problem putting his trash out front of his house. Member Mueller closed the hearing. Member Kleine suggested a speed bump. Member Meyer states that you need pavement for a speed bump. Member Koerwitz suggest a ‘not a through street’ sign since it only leads into an alley but can not recommend closing the street. Bedlan states that the city is willing to put up any signs the council wants. The number of signs is questioned by Mr. Scheer. Member Meyer makes the motion to deny the vacation of Anna Street. Member Koerwitz seconded the motion with the suggestion that the council consider signage. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Meyer, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
7. Next, were comments from the public on non-agenda items.
There was some discussion in regards to whether signage would need to go before public works or straight to the council and where signage suggestions would come from. It was decided that the street department and police department would make signage suggestions to council.
8. With no other business on the agenda, Member Mueller made the motion to adjourn. Member Koerwitz seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Meyer, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Planning Commission Secretary