#2 Public hearing and action to rezone 1220 West Court Street to B2 (File Ord. #2011-485) RevCommunity Development Department Memorandum
Date: July 11, 2011
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Brad Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Second reading and public hearing on a proposed ordinance rezoning
property located at 1220 West Court Street from O1 to B2 (File Ordinance
No. 2011-485).
_____________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Robert Kerman has submitted a request to rezone property located at 1220 W. Court
Street from O1, Office/Residence District to B2, Community Shopping District. The
subject property is currently developed with a building that provides office and cold
storage space. The building has most recently been occupied by JVL Net for its office
operations. A new tenant wishes to use a portion of the building to sell various items,
primarily home furnishings. Since use of the building for retail sales is not permitted
within the O1 District, the property must be rezoned to a zoning classification consistent
with the proposed use. The B2 District allows for the establishment of business uses
involving general retail sales and service activities.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that the
City Council support a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2011-485 rezoning property
located at 1220 West Court Street from O1 to B2.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTED MOTION
A motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2011-485 rezoning property located at 1220 West
Court Street from O1 to B2.
ANALYSIS
A. The subject property consists of a 0.78-acre parcel of land situated between Pearl
Street and Terrace Street on West Court Street. The site is developed and includes
an office building constructed in the 1950’s. The building is located on the northwest
portion of the property and setback just a few feet from the north property line,
adjacent to a single-family home. There are also six curb openings constructed
along 3 street frontages adjoining this site.
B. The building contains approximately 2,700 square feet of space devoted to office
use and another 2,600 square feet of storage space. In order to conduct retail sales
and establish a business use in this location, rezoning to a business district is
required. The applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the B2
District to accommodate this use.
C. The subject property is currently zoned O1, Office/Residence District. The O1
zoning designation was applied in 1981 when the last City-wide remapping effort
occurred, and the O1 District reflected the principle use of the property at that time.
The property has primarily been used for office purposes in the past including Total
TV, Inc., Electoralarm Security System and most recently JVL Net Internet Services.
However, a new tenant proposes to use a portion of the building for purposes of
establishing a resale shop and intends to sell various items, primarily home
furnishings.
D. The subject property is located between commercial, industrial, office, and
residential zone districts and land uses along the West Court Street corridor.
Properties west of the subject property are within the O1, Office/Residence District,
and properties south and east of the subject property are within the B3, General
Commercial District. Although these properties are within Office and Commercial
zoning districts, the majority of the properties include low density residential uses.
Low density residential is also located immediately north of the subject property as
Map A
shown on .
E. In review of this request, it was apparent that properties south and east of the
subject property are within the B3 zoning district. The applicant inquired about
rezoning the subject property to the B3 District; however Staff did not find this
property appropriate for a B3 zoning classification at this time. The City has not
received a development proposal for this site. Without a proposal, Staff is
concerned about allowing a potentially conflicting use eligible under the B3 District
that could be problematic if developed on this property so close to residential uses to
the north. For example, automotive repair, taverns and used car lots are permitted
uses in the B3 District; they are not permitted in the B2 District.
Map B
F. The Future Land Use designation for this site is Planned Mixed Use (See ).
The Planned Mixed Use category is designed to facilitate a carefully controlled blend
of commercial, residential and office arrangement of uses. This land use category
encourages a mix of land uses and provides for flexibility in layout. This type of
flexibility is considered a key component for revitalization of existing commercial
corridors like West Court Street. The Comprehensive Plan specifically identifies the
B2, Community Shopping District as an appropriate zoning district for this Future
Land Use category.
G. It is not uncommon for the City to map a B2 District property along a commercial
corridor such as being requested in this case. Areas along Center Avenue, West
Court Street and Milton Avenue all have instances where there are B2 District
properties mixed in with the more prevalent B3 District properties.
H. Staff has not been contacted by any residents within or around the requested
rezoning area at the time this report was written.
I. Staff is recommending the Plan Commission support a motion to forward the
requested rezoning of this property from O1 to B2 to the City Council with a
favorable recommendation. The B2 District is an appropriate zoning district for this
property because it is consistent with the Future Land Use designation and it would
limit potentially conflicting land uses that may otherwise occur if more intense
commercial zoning is applied on a site that immediately adjoins low density
residential.
PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – 20 JUNE 2011
Brad Schmidt, Associate Planner, presented the written staff report.
Commissioner Marklein asked if Westgate Corridor Group had offered an opinion on
this application. Cherek indicated that the required notices were sent to property
owners within 400-feet of this development but that there hadn’t been any direct
interaction with the Westgate Corridor Group.
Commissioner Marklein asked, since the subject property was surrounded by B3, if it
could be rezoned to B3 with a condition to prohibit certain uses. Cherek stated there
are many residential properties within this area and staff had concerns about potential
B3 uses that could be established by right without review if the property was rezoned to
B3 simply because it was contiguous to this zone district. He said that staff believed the
property should be zoned B2 and if an application for a proposed use warranting B3
zoning ever came forward, staff would then be able to evaluate impacts associated with
that use. Commissioner Marklein asked if the applicant’s proposed use was permitted
within the B2 District and Cherek confirmed that it was.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak:
Carla Miller, 21 N. Terrace, spoke in opposition to the request. She stated that
she and other property owners in the area had a lot invested into their homes
and properties to make the neighborhood look nicer. She stated safety concerns
due to the number of children in the neighborhood and extra traffic in and out of
the site. She felt that the use would detract from her property value and that it
wouldn’t do anything to improve the neighborhood.
Bryan Schnell, 121 N. Terrace, stated that from the standpoint of beautifying the
neighborhood, he agreed with Ms. Miller’s comments. However, he indicated
that he supported the rezoning as many businesses have been lost on that side
of town and he felt that more business would give people a reason in the area.
He commented that he didn’t want to see the building abandoned and eventually
torn down.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Werner asked if staff had looked into closing some of the curb openings
to the site. Cherek stated that hadn’t been considered but that he didn’t believe all six
curb openings were required. He continued that the City has the authority to require a
property owner to discontinue or eliminate a curb opening if it is no longer being utilized
and that he is aware of one opening that is not being utilized at this time. He stated that
the proposed tenant will only occupy a portion of the building, that the rest of the
building has been vacant for some time and it would be difficult to determine which curb
cuts should be eliminated until staff knows that what type of uses will be proposed for
rest of the building.
Commissioner Werner asked if staff had any idea what kind of traffic this business may
generate. Price stated that the traffic generated should not be significant and that there
generally isn’t as much traffic with a resale shop as there is with general retail. He
continued that a traffic analysis had not been done but he felt that there would be more
traffic with this use than there was with the previous office use that most likely did a lot
of business over the internet. He stated that the elimination of curb cuts on Terrace
Street could be considered as the curb cuts on Pearl and Court Street should be
sufficient to the use. Commissioner Werner asked if there had been any discussion
regarding this with the applicant and Price stated that there had not been because it
wasn’t something that had been previously considered.
Commissioner Voskuil stated that since the applicant was not in attendance, she was
hesitant about making any decisions on this item without him being able to be a part of
the discussion.
Commissioner Madere asked if a change in use requires a site plan review. Price
stated that it can but in this particular use, office and retail have the same parking ratio
so it wasn’t required.
Commissioner Marklein asked if additional screening as a buffer between the use and
residential properties in the area could be requested as a condition of approval. Price
stated that in general, landscaping and screening requirements between residential and
commercial uses are the same whether the use is office or retail. Since there isn’t any
screening there now, the property would typically be handled as a pre-existing/non-
conforming use. If the use required a conditional use permit, staff would require
screening but staff didn’t feel it was required with the minor increment in change of
zoning. He added that staff could certainly encourage the applicant to do so.
There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner
Werner to table this item to the July 5, 2011, Plan Commission Meeting so that the
Commission could discuss questions/changes that were brought forward with the
applicant.
The motion carried on a 6-1-0 vote with Commissioner Siker opposing.
Cherek informed the Plan Commission that since the City Council had scheduled this
item for public hearing at its July 11, 2011, meeting, the Plan Commission’s motion to
table it should not affect the schedule.
PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – 4 JULY 2011
Brad Schmidt, Associate Planner, presented the written staff report. The Commission
was reminded that a public hearing was held and closed on this item at their last
meeting and if the Commission wishes to re-open the hearing, there would need to be a
motion to do so.
There was a motion by Commissioner Consigny with a second by Commissioner
Marklein to re-open the public hearing on this item. The motion passed with a 5-0-0
vote.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak:
Bob Kerman, property owner of 1220 West Court Street, stated that he was
available for questions.
Commissioner Marklein asked if Mr. Kerman was comfortable with the recommendation
by the City to rezone the property to B2 rather than B3 as he had originally requested.
Mr. Kerman stated that he originally asked for B3 because the building is for sale and
he felt it would make the building more marketable. He stated that he accepts staff’s
recommendation to rezone to B2 as it satisfies the needs of the current tenant who
waiting for rezoning approval. He added that the tenant planned to use the building
three days a week for about 5 hours a day.
Commissioner Siker questioned the 5 curb openings on the property and asked about
the one that doesn’t go anywhere and if it was necessary. Mr. Kerman stated that it
wasn’t a driveway but instead was used as a parking space for the neighbor’s truck in
exchange for shoveling services on Mr. Kerman’s property. He added that the drive
does lead to a stairway to the generator for the building.
Carla Miller, 21 N. Terrace, asked the Commission to take into consideration that
the residents in the area have spent 25 years turning the neighborhood around
and to remember that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. She stated
that although she feels there needs to be good business on the west side, she
has concerns that the next request would be to rezone the property from B2 to
B3 and she didn’t want to see some of those allowed uses in the neighborhood.
She liked the suggestion at the last meeting regarding closing drives on Terrace
Street and said that she would appreciate anything the Commission could do to
help the neighborhood.
The public hearing was closed.
There was a motion by Commissioner Siker with a second by Commissioner Consigny
to forward the rezoning to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
The motion carried on a 5-0-0 vote.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Assessor’s Office indicates that the assessed value of this property would not be
affected by this rezoning. The property includes an existing structure which has been
vacant for two years. The rezoning of this property to B2 would allow for a variety of
retail uses which were not previously permitted in the O1 zoning district. A tenant has
proposed to use the building to sell various retail items, primarily home furnishings. The
rezoning of this property from O1 to B2 will not result in a negative fiscal impact to the
city.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jay Winzenz
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-485
An ordinance changing the zoning classification of property located at 1220 W
Court Street from O1 to B2, with a penalty and injunctive relief for a violation
thereof as set forth in Section 18.28.010 of the Code of General Ordinances of the
City of Janesville.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
The zoning classification of the following described property is hereby
changed from O1, Office/Residence District to B2, Community Shopping District.
th
Property within the NE 1/4 of section 35, all in T.3N., R.12E. of the 4 P.M., City of
Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin
Described as follows: lots 78, 79, 80, 81 and south 4 feet lot 82 of Mitchell’s second
addition to the city of Janesville, Rock county, Wisconsin. also including portions of
adjoining right-of-way, described as follows: commencing at the northeast corner of said
lot 81, northerly along right-of-way of north terrace street, 4 feet, more or less; thence
easterly and perpendicular to said right-of-way to the centerline of north terrace street;
thence southerly along said centerline to the intersection of the centerline of west court
street; thence westerly along said centerline to the intersection of the centerline of north
pearl street; thence northerly along said centerline to a point perpendicular to the
northwest corner lot 78; thence easterly and perpendicular to the centerline of north
pearl street to the northwest corner lot 78; thence southerly to the southwest corner lot
78; thence easterly to the southeast corner lot 81; thence northerly to the point of
beginning. Containing an area of 1.3 acres.
SECTION II.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the
Common Council, the public health, welfare, peace, tranquility, good order, public
benefit, and police power so requiring.
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
APPROVED:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
Brunner
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
Dongarra-Adams
Liebert
ATTEST:
McDonald
Rashkin
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
Steeber
Voskuil
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
Proposed by: Applicant
Prepared by: Community Development Department