July 13, 2009
7:30 p.m.
Chairperson Denise Blatny read the statement regarding the Open Meetings Act.
1. Vice Chairperson Denise Blatny called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. and asked for roll call. Other members present were: Gene Mueller, Cathy Kleine, Greg Koerwitz and Bob Stepp.
2. Next, was the approval of the minutes from the May 11th and June 8th, 2009 meetings ‘As Amended’.
Member Kleine made the motion to approve the minutes “as amended” of the May 11th and June 8th, 2009 meetings and member Mueller seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
3. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding the request for a Special Use Permit (SU-2009-04) from Jamalynn Barnett for a home occupation (Bait Shop).
Mr. Jamalynn Barnett and his father were present and spoke to the commission. Mr. Jamalynn stated that his son has been working on setting up this business for the last year. He began by taking over another individuals business at the same location selling night crawlers and now wishes to sell live bait to help pay for college. Member Kleine asked who will be working in the shop and Jamalynn’s father stated it would be mostly Jamalynn while school was out but at times other family members would help out. He stated that they plan to mostly sell night crawlers but do have a few minnows and bluegills. Member Koerwitz asked where the bait will be sold out of and Mr. Barnett stated they were selling from the garage. Member Blatny stated that there were some concerns about the signage and asked that Bedlan give that information to Mr. Barnett. Bedlan stated that their current sign would not be allowed for a home business and then read the requirement for signs for home business under the definition of home business. Member Blatny asked how they dispose of the dead bait to which Mr. Barnett responded that they freeze them for coon hunting. Member Blatny asked about the hours and Mr. Barnett responded that they are open from 8:00 to 10:00. Member Kleine asked how the neighbors are responding and Mr. Barnett stated that he has not had any complaints from the neighbors. Member Blatny asked where the customers park. Mr. Barnett responded that they park in the vacant lot behind the house and that one of his neighbors has allowed parking on his lot. Member Koerwitz made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Request for Special Use Permit application (SU-2009-04) from Jamalynn Barnett for a home occupation (Bait Shop). Member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
4. Next, was the discussion and recommendation regarding the request for a Certificate of Work in the Historic District (HD-2009-01) from Stephanie Harms for a building permit for Enhancement Tanning 401 E Street.
Bedlan stated that this permit involves two different jobs; a carport in the back of the building and an awning in the front and asks that the commission consider the jobs separately in regards to the type of certificate they choose to issue even though they will be combined on one building permit. Member Stepp asked if the Historic District included the back of the downtown building and Bedlan stated that it did. Member Koerwitz asked if both projects needed to go before the historic preservation committee because the building is in the historic district. Bedlan responded that the planning commission could vote “no material effect” if they choose and it then would not have to go on to the historic preservation committee.
Stephanie Harms and Bill Dewald were present and spoke to the commission in regards to the projects. Member Blatny asked what color the awning will be and if it will be metal or fabric. Harms states that the awning will be fabric and that she wanted a brown awning but the companies do not have that color so she is not sure yet but the awning companies are suggesting black. She also stated that her awning will be lighted at night. She stated that she originally started this project with the carport to protect against the elements and to help alleviate parking problems on the east side of the square which have gotten worse since the chiropractor has moved there. She has always had the intention to apply for the downtown design challenge grant to fix her awning because the current awning is leaking and has caused damage inside the store and now seemed like a good time because of the other work she was doing. Member Kleine asked again about the material and Dewald stated that it would be a fabric awning with an aluminum frame similar to the chiropractors. Member Blatny asked for guidance in regards to regulations for governing the historic district and Member Kleine noted that there was a section on the historic district in the zoning book section 5.18. Member Kleine notes that the suggested awning will look better than the existing one. Member Koerwitz suggests that they make a motion to move it on to the historic preservation committee. Member Mueller agrees with this and suggests that they make separate motions on each project. Member Mueller made the motion that the Planning Commission grant a certificate of Allowance and that the Historic preservation committee review the Request for a Certificate of Work in the Historic District (HD-2009-01) from Stephanie Harms for a building permit for an awning at Enhancement Tanning 401 E Street. Member Kleine seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Harms referred the commission to the pictures in the packet and stated that she planned on putting up a standard carport which she may seek to enclose in the future. Member Blatny asked if there were other carports in the area to which Harms stated there were. She also noted that Morehead from the light and water department looked at the proposed site and stated that the carport would not interfere with the electrical to her building. Member Stepp questioned if the carport would be attached to the building to which Harms answered that it would be attached by a breezeway. Member Stepp questioned if this would affect the historic designation and Bedlan stated that the only requirement she found was that it not have any effect on the brick facing. Member Stepp referred to Less Ward not being able to put up a similar type of building. Fire Chief Voss stated that Wards building was not allowed because he did not meet the size requirements. Member Blatny asked what the carport was to be used for. Harms stated that it would mostly be used for parking and maybe some storage if enclosed. It was noted that there is an electric pole close to the proposed site and that Morehead has looked at the site and approved the proposed work. It is also mentioned that the garage door if any will be placed as far to the north as it can go instead of centered on the building to allow for the electric pole. Harms noted that she is looking at the brown color and that they are going to do some concrete work from the door to the garage along with putting in the breezeway to keep the rain out of the building. Member Blatny asked where the other carports are. Harms stated that one is a deck to the south and there is one other in the area. Member Blatny feels that none of these respects the historic integrity of the area and that Harm’s would be no different. Member Blatny also asks if the neighbors are ok with it and Harms states that Lilly’s is ok with the addition and she has not spoke with her other neighbor. Fire Chief Voss states that if Harms does decide to enclose the carport later she will need to speak with him to ensure that she meets all the fire codes. Bedlan states that the commission is now only voting on whether or not to allow for the work to be done and that if Harms decides to enclose the building later she will need to meet all the building and fire code requirements. Member Blatny asked what the size of the building will be. Harms stated it is to be 24 x 26 with one garage door place towards the north of the building. Member Stepp made the motion that the Planning Commission grant a certificate of No Material Effect for the Request for a Certificate of Work in the Historic District (HD-2009-01) from Stephanie Harms for a building permit for a carport at Enhancement Tanning 401 E Street. Member Kleine seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
5. Next, was the hearing in regards to adding Child Care Home to Permitted Uses in certain Zoning districts of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition.
Bedlan spoke as the Zoning Administrator and stated that at present there is no allowance for Child Care Homes or Child Care Centers in any zone in Fairbury according to the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition and that this change would allow for these homes and centers in all zoning districts. Then she referred the commission to the resolution and memo written by the City Attorney, David Bargen. Member Blatny questioned restrictions that may be placed on the location of daycares within certain distances of other businesses for instance, liquor stores. Member Blatny questioned if the daycare zoning should be allowed to be so broad-based or if it should be restricted to residential only. Fire Chief Voss noted that the state will check those location restrictions before they issue licenses. Member Stepp noted the difference between Child Care Centers and Child Care Homes. Bedlan stated that Child Care Centers can be allowed in commercial areas under services but that the Attorney did not recommend that. Member Stepp questioned if they could just vote on Child Care Homes if they so choose. Bedlan stated that they could and clarified that Child Care Homes are technically Daycares with 14 or fewer unrelated children and that the business does not need to be carried out in the place of residence. Member Kline noted that in the zoning ordinance
Child Care Homes in the downtown zone are listed in special permitted uses and not permitted uses. Member Kline also noted that in the resolution Child Care Homes are allowed in all areas and Centers are only allowed in Commercial areas. Member Mueller suggested the commission follow the Attorney’s proposed ordinance stating that if they start to modify the Attorney’s proposed ordinance they may create more problems. Member Koerwitz made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance to amend the Fairbury Zoning Regulations to provide for Locating Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers in Residential and Commercial Zoning Districts in the City of Fairbury. Member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
6. Next, was the discussion and recommendation in regards to changes to section 4.13 A of the Fairbury Zoning Regulations – 2005 Edition.
Bedlan stated that she had some suggestions to discussed in regards to allowing for a accessory building on a lot without a primary building and that she hoped that the commission could discuss the suggestions come up with some guidelines and then she would get with the attorney to write up an amendment if they choose to make the change. The suggestions include a ½ lot setback from the front, a 30 x 42 x 14 size maximum, a single story building, a two car curb cut (approx. 20’), no occupancy permits, following the same side setbacks as the current zone and no corner lots. One discussion point is the type of construction. She also notes that these buildings would likely be called something other than Accessory Buildings because they are technically not accessory to anything but rather something like Residential Detached Storage Units and that the issues of people running business out of the buildings and the buildings becoming nuisances can be prevented through existing ordnances. Member Koerwitz questioned the size limits and Bedlan stated that the sizes were suggested to allow for fifth wheels and that they would require at least a 14’ sidewall. Member Mueller requested a list from the city so that the commission can look over the suggestions and then come back to discuss them at a later date. Member Koerwitz stated that he likes the idea of new construction. Member Blatny asked what was meant by new construction. Bedlan stated that the new construction requirement is meant to prevent use of older unsafe materials. Bobby Elgert was present and addressed the commission in regards to allowing for an accessory building on a lot without a primary building. He stated that he feels the idea is a good one but that he thinks there should be some guidelines set. For instance not a lot of cars sitting out front and within the character of the neighborhood, no metal buildings. He stated that he believes they should be sided and such. The comment was made that metal buildings in some neighborhoods would be an improvement. Bedlan stated that weather it is a metal building or not she believes the rules should be consistent in all zoning districts. Bartels stated that although a Special Use permit and Board of Adjustments is fine if you own the lot but it does not apply if you do not. She wishes to buy a lot and put a nice prefabricated metal garage on it but will not buy the lot unless she knows she can build the garage. Fire Chief Voss clarified that metal buildings are allowed in all zoning areas and that the only change that is being proposed is whether or not the city should allow an accessory building on a lot without a primary building. Vaughn expressed his hesitation in allowing the cheaper Cleary metal buildings to be built because he feels it might make it easier for property owners to work around some of the building codes. Member Mueller stated requiring a Special Use permit allows the members of the board to have more control over the type of building being built as the attorney has suggested. Bartels questioned if she would then need to get a Special Use permit before purchasing the property. Member Blatny stated that she understands Bartels issue and that the commission is trying to decide what should be an allowable building. Bedlan noted that Bartels is not the only resident wishing to do something similar to this but that she has had several other request. Member Stepp and Koerwitz questioned who would decide if the building fits the character of the neighborhood? Bedlan stated that if someone needed to make that decision other than the commission the Zoning Administrator would have to do that but she stated that she does not like that plan and would rather have something specific written in the zoning ordinances. Member Mueller mentioned that doing something like that could become discriminatory. Kettelhut expressed his concern that the commission may talk themselves out of changing this ordinance. Member Blatny stated that she does not believe that will happen and that they are just trying to set some parameters. Member Koerwitz questioned what Kettelhut’s opinions are on the subject. Kettelhut questiond what the requirements are for houses. He asked if there are any requirements about what type of material can be used other than meeting building code requirements. Voss explained that metal buildings can be built in all zoning districts in Fairbury the question today is if we should put more restrictions on the accessory buildings we are suggesting to allow on lots without primary buildings. Member Mueller again refered to the attorney’s memo stating a Special Use permit allows for some control over what is being built. Bedlan recognized that but reminds the commission that Bartels complaint is that she does not already own the property and does not want to buy the property unless she knows she can build a garage on it. Also, that the city hopes that this may be a good way to promote the demolition of some of the dilapidated buildings in town. Vaughn noted that the nuisance ordinance makes the owner responsible if you devaluate your neighbor’s house and suggests that that ordinance may detour any questionable construction. Bedlan reread the suggested recommendations if this ordinance is to be changed and stated that she will send a copy to the commission for them to consider before the next meeting as requested by member Mueller. Member Kleine questioned if it will be allowed to have a drive through garage or if we will just allow for one drive. Bedlan and Voss stated that they are getting request for drive through garages for maneuverability reasons when it comes to backing up trailers.
7. Next, was the discussion of the resignation of Steve Siefford.
Member Koerwitz made the motion to accept the resignation of Steve Siefford. Member Stepp seconded the motion. By roll call, the vote was: 5 - "yes" (Kleine, Koerwitz, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
8. Next, were comments from the public on non-agenda items.
Member Blatny asked if there were any comments from the public on non-agenda items and there were none.
9. 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, Blatny, Mueller, Stepp) / 0 - "no". The motion passed.
Laura K. Bedlan
Planning Commission Secretary