ordinance amending chapter 23 of the municipal - City of Appleton

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CITY PLAN COMMISSION June 6, 2011 PAGE 2 Motion to approve by C. Konetzke, seconded by J. Dukelow. Vote on motion (5/0) 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Sections 23-131 M-1 Industrial park District and 23- 132 M-2 General Industrial District – Permitted Uses / To add Commercial entertainment as a permitted principal use. B. Roskom stated that we have had some inquiries as to using some of the vacant industrial buildings for some other creative uses beyond just straight industrial. Since we define commercial entertainment as something that is confined to the inside of a building we thought that this would allow someone the ability to be creative and have some reuse of the vacant industrial building. It does not waive the requirement of providing parking and those kinds of things. Those are still required. But at least when you have some vacant warehousing or industrial type buildings that have been vacant for a number of years and we can support someone who proposes a creative/positive use of a vacant building. Those kinds of uses typically aren’t impacting other industrial uses around them. Staff thought that this was a good change and we would recommend approval. J. Dukelow questioned if commercial entertainment would be a non residential use of some other zoning classifications? B. Roskom stated that yes, some commercial districts. J. Dukelow questioned if rather than have someone who owns an M-1 zoned building that’s vacant has to come in and go through the process of rezoning do you just want to add those allowable things to the zoning to simplify the process? B. Roskom stated that it simplifies the process plus it may be somewhat difficult to rezone the property in the middle of an industrial area. If there was something that led us to say that just doesn’t fit there, I don’t think we would have supported it. But we just couldn’t come up with that negative and it made more sense than rezoning. Mayor Hanna opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Hanna closed the Public Hearing. Motion to approve by M. Potter, seconded by C. Konetzke. C. Konetzke brought up when Fratello’s first came in and what that property would have been zoned. Looking at Riverside Paper, if there is something that is on the riverfront that is a warehouse our commercial type building why wouldn’t we have a restaurant, bar or dance hall down there in a commercial building? Why does it have to be limited to what was described as commercial entertainment. B. Roskom stated that some codes allow all previous district uses within the next district. So you can take an M-1 and say all C-2 uses are permitted in an M-1. It is kind of a pyramid approach. You can pick selective uses if you like. You do have more outside exposure/uses related to those kinds of things than you do commercial entertainment which is totally confined to the inside.
CITY PLAN COMMISSION June 6, 2011 PAGE 3 C. Konetzke is not picturing Foremost property being turned into a bar and restaurant the way it is. But it is almost like commercial entertainment is too narrowly defined as what you are classifying as commercial entertainment. B. Roskom stated that it is narrowly defined and I think intentionally so. In some of the cases the uses described really have more affective as a PD overlay or an over all redevelopment area. This really isn’t what that’s applying to. You brought up Foremost, RiverHeath and Eagle Flats. Two out of the three we have PDs on which allows that creativity to take place. It gives you greater ability to see the specifics of the use than something like this that basically says you can do it as an outright permitted use. K. Harkness stated that many of the commercial entertainment uses that we saw that might be compatible with the business park area are those types of commercial entertainment that you are not going to find in strip centers or in buildings in our Central Business District. They just wouldn’t ever go there for many reasons and they wouldn’t fit in that type of building and wouldn’t be appropriate. That was another reason we came at it from this angle. M. Potter commented on C. Konetzke question about why not have a restaurant/bar/dance hall there. Are we opening that commercial entertainment door to possibly using a special use permit to work into something like that there? Would that be a special use permitted concept? B. Roskom stated no. If you were looking at that type of mixed use, then you can use the PD overlay to try to accomplish that. P. Stueck questioned if it were possible to build a facility in one of our industrial parks with the thought of using commercial entertainment as the main purpose of the business? K. Harkness replied yes. P. Stueck wanted to make the comment that we have had people speak to us in the past and have been disappointed that we were allowing some laxing of the covenants in the industrial park district. His concern is that we are laxing this even more so. B. Roskom stated that this doesn’t impact the covenants of the industrial parks at all. They still apply and stand by themselves. If they are more restrictive then you can enforce them and be more restrictive. Vote on motion (5/0) 3. Official Map Amendment – Stormwater Pond located at the Northeast corner of Kensington Drive and Express Court (Tax Parcel No. 31-4-5568-00). D. Harp stated that this request was initiated by the Public Works Department and is based on the storm water management plans for this area of the city. Particularly for this location it is recommended that a pond be constructed on this site to facilitate dry land access for emergency vehicles during a one hundred year storm event. Although the pond is identified in this particular area of the property it serves notice of the city’s intent
Page 1 and 2: ”….meeting community needs…..
Page 3 and 4: CITY OF APPLETON Charge to: 11020 R
Page 5 and 6: 2. Director’s Report. Page 2 REPO
Page 7 and 8: MUNCIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Page 9 and 10: MUNCIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Page 11: MUNCIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Page 24 and 25: CITY PLAN COMMISSION June 6, 2011 P
Page 26 and 27: “…meeting community needs…enh
Page 30 and 31: MINUTES Tuesday, June 7, 2011 6:00
Page 32 and 33: UTILITIES COMMITTEE MEETING JUNE 7,
Page 36 and 37: Page 3 REPORT OF THE SAFETY AND LIC
Page 44 and 45: Page 11 REPORT OF THE SAFETY AND LI
Page 46 and 47: Page 13 REPORT OF THE SAFETY AND LI
Page 48 and 49: . The Operator’s License applicat
Page 50 and 51: Martin L. O’Donnell 111 E. Water
Page 52 and 53: PHILIP A. HOFFLAND 2611 BALLARD ROA
Page 54 and 55: KAY E. PETERS 1712 MOON BEAM TRAIL
Page 56 and 57: j. Change of Agent - Class “A”
Page 58 and 59: Smith moved, seconded by Oswald tha
Page 62 and 63: MINUTES COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELO
Page 82 and 83:
MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMIT
Page 84 and 85:
Oswald stated that with the large n
Page 86 and 87:
Croatt questioned Camacho’s under
Page 88 and 89:
“…meeting community needs…enh
Page 90 and 91:
Approved 5-0 b) #9-R-11/Clemons-“
Page 104 and 105:
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES June 8, 2
Page 106 and 107:
Finance Committee Minutes of June 8
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
To rezone lands located North of C.
Page 114 and 115:
THENCE S.00°07'11"W. 1241.97 FEET,
Page 116:
COMMON DESCRIPTION: Railroad crossi
Page 119:
Railroad crossing in the 100 block
show all

ordinance amending chapter 23 of the municipal - City of Appleton

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?