Plan Commission Meetings and Agendas

VILLAGE OF PEWAUKEE
PLAN COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
May 13, 2021

1. Call to Order and Roll Call

President Jeff Knutson called the Zoom meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

Plan Commission members present: Comm. Joe Zompa, Comm. Theresa Hoff, Comm. Jim Grabowski, Comm. Cheryl Mantz, Trustee Craig Roberts and President Jeff Knutson. Comm. Ryan Lange was excused.

Also present: Village Planner Mary Censky, Village Attorney Matt Gralinski, Village Engineer Tim Barbeau, Village Administrator Scott Gosse and Deputy Clerk/Treasurer Jackie Schuh.

2. Public Hearings

a. Conditional Use Grant request to develop an outdoor dining/seating area accessory to their existing restaurant use, The Chocolate Factory, using four of the public parking stalls situated in the W. Wisconsin Avenue right-of-way directly in front of the business located at 161 W. Wisconsin Avenue – Unit b. Applicant is Blommer, Inc., d/b/a The Chocolate Factory, in c/o Valera Smokvin. Building owner is Siepmann Development Company. Right-of-way is owned by the Village of Pewaukee. Property is Zoned B-2 Downtown Business District. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Pat Gallagher @ 909 Quinlan Dr. – Ms. Gallagher, speaking on behalf of the Beach Party and the Taste of Lake Country, asked the Commission to consider keeping the parking spaces in front of the businesses on W. Wisconsin Ave available for non-profit events such as these. She requests that businesses take down the seating areas during the charitable events so as not to detract from the available setup space for the events.
Valera Smokvin, representing The Chocolate Factory @ 161 W. Wisconsin Ave. Unit B – Although Mr. Smokvin does not want to detract from events such as those Ms. Gallagher spoke of, he also would like to add value to community. Should the street seating for The Chocolate Factory be granted, he commits to moving the curbs/tables/chairs for the events this year, even though it requires the use of a forklift to do so. In doing so, he asks for collaboration in the future from all parties involved. He is also willing to donate the curbs and such for events, if needed.

3. Citizen Comments - None.

4. Approval of the Minutes:

a. Regular Plan Commission Meeting – April 8, 2021
Comm. Grabowski motioned, seconded by Trustee Roberts to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2021 Regular Plan Commission meeting as presented.
Motion carried by roll call vote 4­2­0 with Comm. Mantz and Comm. Hoff abstaining.

b. Special Plan Commission Meeting – April 12, 2021
Comm. Grabowski motioned, seconded by Comm. Zompa to approve the minutes of the April 12, 2021 Special Plan Commission meeting as presented.
Motion carried by roll call vote 4­2­0 with Comm. Mantz and Comm. Hoff abstaining.

5. Old Business

a. Review, discussion and possible recommendation to the Village Board to modify the language of Section 40.424 of the Municipal Code regarding Vision Clearance Triangles at intersections. Village initiated.
Planner Censky reviewed a street listing provided to her by DPW Director Dan Naze and Engineer Tim Barbeau and provided additional information on vision clearance triangles. Discussion followed regarding standards used to calculate vision clearance triangles, the Commission’s ability to waive or modify standards, different types of intersections and their vision clearance requirements and how this puts the Village more in line with other municipalities.
Comm. Grabowski motioned, seconded by Comm. Mantz to recommend to the Village Board to modify the language of Section 40.424 of the Municipal Code regarding Vision Clearance Triangles at intersections with the following language amendments:
40.424. – Traffic Visibility Requirements.
(a) In order to provide a clear view along intersecting streets to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians there shall be a triangular area of clear vision at the intersection of any two streets; or the intersection of a street and a railroad.
(b) For purposes of this Section 40.424, the following Functional Classification System shall be based upon the Villages annual “Wisconsin Information System For Local Roads’ system report.
(c) In the case of intersecting local streets or in the case of local streets intersecting with
collector streets, the distances to be used along the property lines to establish the vision triangle clearance space shall be 15 feet.
(d) In the case of intersecting collector streets, the distances to be used along the property lines to establish the vision triangle clearance space shall be 25 feet.
(e) At all other intersections, the distances to be used along the property lines to establish the vision triangle clearance space shall be 30 feet.
(e) The vision clearance requirements may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis if it shall determine that the unique, site-specific conditions in a particular setting warrant an increase in order preserve the public health and safety or that a decrease would not compromise the public health and safety. The Planning Commission shall consult the Village Engineer and Director of Public Works for their input on matters of increasing or decreasing the vision clearance triangle distance standards and shall recite the specific basis for their final determinations in the minutes of any meeting at which any waiver or modification to the vision clearance triangle has been granted or required.
(f) This Section does not apply to intersecting private streets but it does apply to private streets that intersect with public streets, railroads or alleys.
Motion carried by roll call vote 6­-0.

b. Review, discussion and possible recommendation to the Village Board to modify Section 40.204 of the Municipal Code adding the use “Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse with or without Indoor and/or Outdoor Recreational Facilities” as a conditional Use in the R-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Village initiated.
Planner Censky reviewed details that were presented last month to the Commission. In collaboration with the Village Attorney, language was drafted to include items suggested by the Commission. Staff feedback was that the language should limit the use to new developments only and that the facility must be owned by a homeowners association. Questions arose regarding how a facility owned by an HOA is taxed. Attorney Gralinski advised that a discussion of the taxability of an HOA-owned clubhouse/facility can only be addressed at the Village Board level, not Plan Commission. Concern arose as to when the Village Board would address this item at their meeting and Administrator Gosse reminded the Commission that proper notices must be given for the Public Hearing at the Village Board level.
Comm. Mantz motioned, seconded by Comm. Grabowski to recommend to the Village Board to modify the language of Section 40.204 of the Municipal Code adding the use “Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse with or without Indoor and/or Outdoor Recreational Facilities” as a conditional use in the R-5 Single-Family Residential Zoning District with the following as included:
40.367.4.– Conditional Uses.
(4) “Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse with or without Indoor and/or Outdoor Recreational Facilities” subject to the following requirements:
a) The building(s) land and facilities associated with the clubhouse use shall be owned and operated by a corporation, association, person or persons, for a social, educational, entertainment or recreational purpose and to which membership is required for use and participation and not operated to render a service that is
customarily carried on as a business. The Village Attorney shall review and approve copies of the proposed covenants and restrictions of the ownership/association describing the intended use, care and operating plans for “Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse with or without Indoor and/or Outdoor Recreational Facilities”.
b) Membership shall be limited to the owners of a specifically defined set of benefitting lots and or units within a neighborhood level boundary contiguous the clubhouse property.
c) The clubhouse may not be occupied for residential dwelling or business purposes [ref paragraph a) above] except, when approved by the Planning Commission and for a limited time only, as a model/sales center if the clubhouse is located in a new and developing neighborhood.
d) The building scale and the architectural style/materials/colors shall be consistent with the surrounding buildings within the neighborhood. All buildings must comply minimally with the Residential Design Standards as setforth in Chapter 40, Article IX, Division I, Section 40.436 of the Village Code.
e) All structures shall meet the setback, offset, open space, maximum building coverage ratio and height regulations of the R-5 District with Residential Redevelopment Infill Overlay District attached.
f) Sufficient parking shall be supplied onsite for owner and guest parking. Landscaping shall be used to minimize the view of the parking lot from the street.
g) Exterior lighting and landscaping shall be subject to the Planning Commissions review and approval taking into consideration such special needs as screening the use from neighboring lots/units, preventing light trespass or glare issues, the general landscaping characteristics of the neighborhood.
h) The proposed hours of use for the Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse, including the surrounding property and the facilities shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission bearing in mind the residential characteristics of the neighborhood.
i) Outdoor recreational and gathering facilities shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission as to suitability within a residential neighborhood and more specifically their proposed spatial placement within the property. Suitable uses would not include uses that may have an adverse impact on the peace and quiet of the immediately surrounding neighbors or the Village as a whole in terms of such things as, but not necessarily limited to, noise, traffic, light trespass, glare.
j) Use of the Private Neighborhood-Based Clubhouse, including the surrounding property and the facilities, shall be exclusive to the Members and their guests.
Motion carried by roll call vote 6­-0.

c. Review and discussion regarding portions of the Village of Pewaukee Comprehensive Plan update in progress – i.e. Chapter 8 - Transportation and Facilities Element. There may also be discussion regarding its relationship(s)/connectivity to the recently completed Village of Pewaukee Strategic Plan Update.
This item was postponed to a later time by agreement of the Village Planner and the Commission.

6. New Business

a. Review and discussion on the Conditional Use Grant request to develop an outdoor dining/seating area accessory to their existing restaurant use, The Chocolate Factory, using four of the public parking stalls situated in the W. Wisconsin Avenue right-of-way directly in front of the business located at 161 W. Wisconsin Avenue – Unit b. Applicant is Blommer,Inc., d/b/a The Chocolate Factory, in c/o Valera Smokvin. Building owner is Siepmann Development Company. Right-of-way is owned by the Village of Pewaukee. Property is Zoned B-2 Downtown Business District. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING.
Planner Censky reminded the Commission of other businesses in the area that are utilizing the same type of street dining this applicant is requesting. Censky led the Commission through a brief review of the proposed site plan, where the parking stalls are located in relation to the front façade of The Chocolate Factory, as well as the type of tables, chairs, curbing and fence rails proposed. Discussion followed regarding the continued strain for ample parking downtown, the desire to obtain parking spots in the property owners’ private lots to make up for the spaces lost for street dining, pedestrian safety, whether existing street dining set-ups have met their CUG requirements and concern for cleanliness for non-sit-down type restaurants. Comm. Mantz and Comm. Zompa both stated they have not been in favor of the downtown street dining since the beginning due to the safety concerns and the need for some type of ‘master plan’ and traffic studies to address the high traffic on W. Wisconsin Avenue especially in the summer months. Comm. Grabowski expressed dismay that the owners of the buildings have not carried through with parking stalls in their back lot designated to public parking and that the rails at existing street dining establishments have significant gaps in them which creates a real safety hazard as people/kids can get through them. He also did not like the idea of umbrellas and expressed great concern for safety as the particular business caters to mostly families with children. Comm. Hoff would also like to see a comprehensive plan for the downtown area and would like the businesses, property owners and village to all work together. President Knutson was in favor of the idea and suggested creating fencing along the beach-side of the street to keep pedestrians from crossing where they should not be. Discussion followed as to whether the village should be getting a stipend for these spaces as it is public right-of-way being utilized for private businesses. Trustee Roberts felt 4 spaces is too much for this business and he believes the commission may not pick and choose which businesses get the street-dining privilege. He feels it is acceptable or it is not and that the Commission needs to decide overall how it wants to proceed, not one business at a time. Valera Smokvin, of The Chocolate Factory, clarified that he is looking to create a wonderful family atmosphere and that he is willing to work with the Commission on a site-plan that works for them, especially one that is safe. Discussion continued regarding addressing whether existing CUG terms for other businesses have been met and whether these CUGs should remain or not. Comm. Grabowski insisted that building owner Siepmann address off-street public parking stall signage issues for compensatory parking before coming back to a meeting to discuss closing off any more parking stalls. Trustee Roberts recommended that The Chocolate Factory work with Planner Censky to make appropriate modifications to the site-plan and then return to the Commission at a special meeting.

b. Review, discussion and possible recommendation to the Village Board of the proposed 36 lot single-family residential subdivision Preliminary Plat for Riverside Preserve. The applicant is Riverside 321 Partners LLC in c/o Christian Hlavinka. The property, located at 321 Riverside Drive, is zoned R-5 Single-Family Residential District with Residential Infill-Redevelopment Overlay District.
Planner Censky explained that zoning and land use are already in proper position for a development such as this and that all lots are compliant as to minimum area and average lot size. The plat depicts a compliant “detail” regarding setbacks and offsets on each lot at 25’ front, 20’ rear and not less than 5’ on the sides. On certain lot combinations, this leads to very narrow building separation which may require special building construction standards that the developer and future builders must take into consideration. The applicant has provided a plan confirming the buildable footprint within each lot as adequate to meet the minimum home size requirements and will need to provide a lot list confirming that each lot can also conform to the minimum open space ratio of 25% and maximum building coverage ratio of 35%. Prior to or concurrent with the final plat submission, the applicant will need submit a portfolio of sample architectural intentions for the Planning Commission’s review. A detailed description of the plans for fencing and swimming pool permissions in the development will also be needed, per Censky. All roads are proposed to be public and appear to meet the standard Village requirements as to paving width, curb/gutter, and terraces. Engineer Barbeau reviewed his report adding extra emphasis to items of concern, including land in the 100-year floodplain, stormwater management, high groundwater which results in sump-pump drainage issues, insufficient utility easements with homes so close together, and the need for proper recording of details on the plat, including document numbers for easement documents. Comm. Hoff expressed concern about vacating the
end of Riverside Drive to the south as this provides access to the county hunting land which extends west to County Highway JJ/Bluemound Rd. She would also like to see an acknowledgment statement added to the official record indicating this. Of significant concern is the inadequate space for snow storage/removal in winter. Director Dan Naze suggests narrow pavement and depressed storage medians in the cul-de-sac areas to help with the snow issues, although he is not confident that it would be sufficient. He also would like to see the HOA maintain the green areas, not the Village. Discussion followed regarding public vs. private streets and how that affects snow removal, street maintenance and trash service, and advantages of outlots being owned by HOAs. Of concern to the Commission was designating the street as private as then one-half of the homes in the HOA would be on private streets and one-half on public which creates an issue for things like assessments and trash collection. Tony Zanon, the engineer for the developer, clarified that all the homes in the development are part of the HOA, that they prefer the streets be public, and all homes in the development have part ownership in the outlots and maintenance thereof, and that they have met all the requirements of the infill district.
Trustee Roberts motioned, seconded by Comm. Grabowski to recommend to the Village Board the 36-lot single-family residential subdivision Preliminary Plat for Riverside Preserve with the recommendations of Village Planner Mary Censky and Village Engineer Tim Barbeau.

Questions arose as to whether there will be additional plats that come forward as this is a preliminary plat. Planner Censky clarified that the plat will go on to the Village Board, and, if approved, it will advance to a development agreement with itemized improvements such as stormwater and outlot maintenance management. She reminded the Commission that approval is for the preliminary plat as presented with the developer then working with staff on the itemized details. Planner Censky stated that the decision to go public or private with the roads needs to be decided at this point. Attorney Gralinski confirmed this detail.

Trustee Roberts did not feel that there was enough information to make that decision at this time. Comm. Mantz voiced more concern about the snow removal and the burden that places on our DPW. Discussion followed regarding public vs. private snow removal.

Trustee Roberts retracted his motion in the hopes that the Village staff and the developer can address the snow removal details.

Trustee Roberts again motioned, seconded again by Comm. Grabowski to recommend to the Village Board the 36-lot single-family residential subdivision Preliminary Plat for Riverside Preserve with the following recommendations:
1)Clarify the detail of the 10’ pedestrian easement by Lot 26;
2)Show the vision corner on Lot 10;
3)Applicant acknowledges that narrow spacing between buildings may result in modified design/construction standards for the buildings;
4)Applicant to provide a lot list confirming that each lot can conform to the minimum open space ratio (25%) and maximum building coverage ratio (35%);
5)The applicant will need submit a portfolio of sample architectural intentions, a detailed description of the plans for fencing and swimming pool permissions in the development – these items to be presented to the Planning Commission for their review;
6)Street lighting and street tree planting layouts must be worked out between the developer and Village Staff for incorporation into the Development Agreement;
7)Village Engineer review and approval of all grading, drainage, erosion control, stormwater management, utility and similar infrastructure related details attendant to this development prior to final plat consideration.
8)All easements should be defined by written documents with the document number added to the final plat and written in when the final plat is recorded. The easements must indicate the purpose, rights granted, to whom those rights are granted to and who is responsible for maintenance of the easement areas.
9) a note should be added to the final plat stating, “Lands that are part of this subdivision plat are located in an area with mapped soils that may contain seasonal high groundwater. The lowest level of any residence should be at an elevation that is greater than those Proposed Basement Floor Elevations listed on Page 1 of 6 of the Soil Report prepared by Butler Engineering dated 6/12/20 to minimize wet basements and substantial sump pump activity.”
10)Consideration should be given to depressing the center island in both cul-de-sacs for stormwater (bioswale/rain garden) and snow storage in the winter, but have the Homeowner’s Association maintain the green space.
11)The distance for the “legs” of the vision corner easements can be reduced to 15 feet per the new code recently approved by the Village.
12)Owner shall make sure that the previous plat has been properly vacated.
13)Access shall be granted to the Village to be able to inspect the storm water management facility.
14)A storm water maintenance agreement shall be prepared, signed and recorded with the final plat.
15)Additional easements may be necessary after review of the development engineering plans.
16)The water main easement along the west side of Lot 1 should extend westerly to the lot line.
17)I recommend that the developer be required to replace those curbs with vertical face curb that is located adjacent to the driveway openings.
18)A turn-around or hammerhead would be required at the new southerly end of Riverside Drive.
19)Incorporation of items noted above on the final plat
20)Incorporation of additional notes, if any are needed, on the final plat based on a review of the engineering plans.
21)Developer to work with Village Staff to devise an agreement for the issues of snow removal and/or storage and street maintenance; If an agreement is reached, Waterstone Court and Oxboro Court shall be designated as public; Should an amicable agreement not be reached, Waterstone Court and Oxboro Court shall be designated as private with the removal and/or storage of snow, as well as street maintenance to be the responsibility of the Home Owners’ Association.
Motion carried by roll call vote 4-2 with Comm. Zompa and Comm. Hoff voting nay.

c. Review, discussion and possible recommendation to the Village Board of the Development Agreement drafted in support of the proposed Glen at Pewaukee Lake subdivision. This proposed 46 lot subdivision is located on approximately 14 acres of land near 449 W. Wisconsin Avenue. The property owner is the Village of Pewaukee. The developer is John Wahlen of Cornerstone Development (d/b/a The Glen at Pewaukee Lake).
Administrator Gosse stated that there will be no action on this matter as staff will be meeting with Cornerstone Development in a couple weeks to continue discussion on draft development agreement language.

d. Review discussion and possible action on concurring with sale of Village property at 449 W. Wisconsin Avenue.
Administrator Gosse reviewed that this action is required anytime there is a sale of public property that concurs with the decision of the Village Board to sell property. President Knutson confirmed that this in regards to selling the church at 449 W. Wisconsin Ave. to Agape.
Comm. Mantz motioned, seconded by Trustee Roberts to approve on concurring with the sale of Village property at 449 W. Wisconsin Avenue.
Motion carried by roll call vote 4-1-0 with Comm. Hoff abstaining.

e. Discussion and possible action on scheduling a Special Meeting for possible action on the Conditional Use Grant Application Items.
The Commission was in consensus to hold special meeting on Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 6pm.

7. Citizen Comment - None.

8. Adjournment

Comm. Zompa motioned, seconded by Comm. Hoff to adjourn the May 13, 2021 Regular Plan Commission meeting at approximately 9:45 p.m.
Motion carried by roll call vote 6-­0.

Respectfully submitted,

Jackie Schuh
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer
Village of Pewaukee