Loading...
Full Agenda Packet CITY OF JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, September 12, 2011 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call. 3. City Council meeting minutes of: A) Regular meeting of August 22, 2011 B) Special meeting of August 26, 2011 “C” 4. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) “C” 5. Motion to approve final Certified Survey Map 11009-C, Vineyard Land Company, 3 lots on East Milwaukee Street. “C” 6. Action on a proposed resolution recognizing September 11-17, 2011 as National Assisted Living Week. (File Res. No. 2011-833) OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. 2. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 14 (Signs) of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville to allow electronic message signs within Sign District E under specific situations and if approved by the Plan Commission through a conditional sign permit. (File Ord. No. 2011-494) NEW BUSINESS 1.Direction to City Manager on possible transfer of property or construction of parking lot at 121 East Court Street. ----------------------- “C” – This designation indicates an item that the City Council will take up under a Consent Agenda. City Council Agenda – September 12, 2011 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) 2. City Council discussion and direction to staff on citizen request to modify pool regulations related to required fencing. 3. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to use the property acquisition account to pay the special assessment receivables that were held by Rock County and the City of Janesville for the Hickory Ridge subdivision lots. (File Res. No. 2011-832) 4. Schedule and waive notice study session meetings to review 2011 proposed City and Library budgets. 5. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. 6. Matters not on the Agenda. 7. Motion to adjourn. The use of audible cell phone ringers and active use and response to cellular phone technology by the governing body, staff and members of the public is discouraged in the Council Chambers while the Council is in session. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 VOL. 62 NO. 12 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on August 22, 2011. The meeting was called to order by Council President Brunner at 7:00 PM. Council President Brunner led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Council President Brunner, Councilmembers Dongarra-Adams, Liebert, McDonald, Rashkin, and Voskuil. Absent: Councilmember Steeber. CONSENT AGENDA Regular City Council meeting minutes of August 8, 2011. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) Action on a financial gain request from Janesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau to host an Art Infusion event in downtown Janesville on September 16, 17 and 18, 2011. (Councilmember Rashkin abstained from voting on this item.) Action on a financial gain request from USA Water Ski and Wakeboard to conduct a USA Wakeboard Collegiate Midwest Regional event on September 17 and 18, 2011 at Traxler Park. Financial statement for the month of July, 2011. Council President Brunner stated that all items on the consent agenda would be approved if there were no objections. There were none. OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. Neil Deupree, 419 S. Franklin St. spoke in favor of the upgrades at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (NB #2.) 2. A proposed ordinance prohibiting the possession of any firearm in any City building or structure except as allowed by law for sworn law enforcement and peace officers, with penalties for violations thereof as set forth in JGO 9.88.040 received its second reading and public hearing. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., spoke against the ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Council President Brunner postponed action on this item until October 10, 2011. (File Ord. No. 2011-493) Council President combined Old Business #3 and #4. 3. & 4. A proposed ordinance deleting and recreating electoral ward boundaries received its second reading and public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed. Council reviewed the proposed ordinance and the associated resolution which assigns the electoral wards to polling places. Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said ordinance and resolution, seconded by Councilmember Liebert. Councilmember Liebert requested that the vote be split. Revised File Ord. #2011-497 passed by the following vote: Aye: Brunner, Dongarra-Adams, McDonald, Rashkin and Voskuil. Nay: Liebert. Resolution 2011-830 passed unanimously. 5. Action on a proposed resolution approving the project plan for Tax Increment Finance District No. 35, land located at the southwest corner of STH 11 and Beloit Avenue. Councilmember Dongarra-Adams moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed by the following vote: Aye: Brunner, Dongarra-Adams, Liebert, Rashkin and Voskuil. Nay: McDonald. (File Res. No. 2011- 816) NEW BUSINESS 1. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acquisition of property located at 1116 Hamilton Avenue. Councilmember Rashkin moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2011-829) 2. Authorization for the City Manager to issue a change order in the amount of $750,000 to the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction contract in order to proceed with energy enhancing modifications to produce additional electricity and fuel for municipal vehicles. Councilmember McDonald moved to authorize the City Manager to issue a change order in the amount of $750,000 with the intent that the necessary equipment for this project is installed and operational by the end of 2011; and express the intent of the City Council to borrow funds at a future date to finance these improvements. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. 3. Adoption of financial policies on debt management and fund balance and resolution 2011-828 to approve commitment of fund balances. Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said resolution and policies, seconded by Councilmember Liebert. Council President Brunner offered a friendly amendment to Council Policy #75, page 3, paragraph 6, that the City shall limit borrowing for the annual street resurfacing-reconstruction program to $950,000 per year. In addition, borrowing in excess of $950,000 per year for this purpose requires a super majority vote of the City Council. The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker and the motion, as amended, passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2011-828) 4. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. No one spoke. 5. Matters not on the Agenda. Councilmember Rashkin stated that a member of the Sustainable Committee requested that roof shingles be recycled. Council President Brunner stated that there is an MPO meeting scheduled for September 26, 2011 at 6 p.m., there is a Labor Day parade on September 6, 2011, the Big Give Food Drive is scheduled for October 8, 2011, and the Budget Advice Scorecard is available online for the public to complete a survey regarding the City’s annual operating budget. 6. Councilmember Rashkin moved to convene into closed session, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85 (1) (e), for the purpose of deliberating and setting the negotiation terms, conditions, and parameters for the potential sale of NSP rehabilitated properties located at 414 North Washington, 212 Madison, and 407 Lincoln since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council convened into closed session at 8:35 p.m. These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council. Jean Ann Wulf City Clerk-Treasurer PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN SPECIAL MEETING August 26, 2011 VOL. 62 NO. 13 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on August 26, 2011. The meeting was called to order by Council President Brunner at 7:15 AM. Council President Brunner led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Council President Brunner; Councilmembers Dongarra-Adams, Liebert, McDonald, and Rashkin. Absent: Councilmembers Steeber and Voskuil. Councilmember Dongarra-Adams moved to convene into closed session, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85(1)(e), for the purpose of deliberating and setting the negotiation and bargaining strategies, terms, and conditions for a potential industrial site TIF #35 development agreement, since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Rashkin and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council convened into closed session at 7:16 AM. These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council. Jean Ann Wulf City Clerk-Treasurer JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE AGENDA 9/12/2011 RECOMMENDED A. ELECTRICIANS–ORIGINAL Steven C. Mylrea 4810 Ellestad Dr., Madison, WI William J. Wood 123 N. Esterly Ave., Whitewater, WI Scott A. Wuttke 910 W. Walworth St., Elkhorn, WI B. SIGN ERECTOR–ORIGINAL Badge Masonry of Janesville LLC Justin J. Olson 645 Wildfire Ln., Milton, WI C. SECONDHAND ARTICLE DEALER–ORIGINAL Bargin Bin Dan Buehl 1220 W. Court St. Suite 100 Purple Creek, Inc. Elizabeth A Raymond 171 Lake Summerset Rd., Davis, IL D. ORIGINAL CLASS B INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND FERMENTED MALT BEVERAGE LICENSE Hooters of America, LLC. d/b/a Hooters Michael S. Murphy 3300 N. Pontiac Dr. Community Development Department Memorandum September 8, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Brad Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CSM 11009-C, Vineyard Land Co. – 3 Lot CSM The Plan Commission recently reviewed and recommended approval of CSM 11009-C. This item was added to the September 12, 2011 Council agenda. However, the applicant has notified me that he would like to have this item removed from the Council agenda at this time. Community Development Department Memorandum September 12, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Brad Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Final CSM 11009-C, Vineyard Land Co., 3 Lots along E. Milwaukee St. SUMMARY Vineyard Land Co. has requested the approval of a three lot certified survey map located 4412 E. Milwaukee Street. The subject property was platted in the past as part of the Wuthering Hills Northeast Fifth Addition. The property is zoned R1, Single and Two- Family Residence District. Lot 3 of the proposed CSM includes an existing residence and two out buildings which consist of legal, non-conforming structures on the site. The applicant proposes to create two new single-family home sites on Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed CSM. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that the City Council support a motion to approve Final CSM 11009-C. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION The City Manager concurs with the Plan Commission recommendation. SUGGESTED MOTION A motion to approve Final CSM 11009-C. ANALYSIS A. The site was previously platted. The survey area contains approximately 2.4 acres of land and is zoned R1, Single and Two-Family Residence District. The site currently contains a single-family residence and two detached accessory buildings. The configurations of the lots proposed are adequate in size and shape to satisfy the zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements. B. The future land use designation for this site is Single Family Residential. The zoning of this site is consistent with this designation. C. The survey complies with the requirements of the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. D. The final survey includes all existing utility easements and additional utility easements as requested by the utility companies having rights to serve the area. E. The site has existing sidewalks on E. Milwaukee Street. F. A drainage easement currently exists on the southern part of Lots 1,2 and 3 which is adjacent to the public greenbelt and a corresponding not indicating the existence of the public greenbelt has been added to the survey. G. This site was previously platted and therefore, no new special assessments need to be collected for the CSM. H. The applicant should contact the City Clerk’s Office regarding any outstanding taxes, special assessments, or other fees which must be paid. PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – September 6, 2011 The Plan Commission unanimously agreed to forward Final CSM 11009-C to the City Council with a favorable recommendation. cc: Eric Levitt Jay Winzenz CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM September 6, 2011 TO: City Council FROM:Rebecca Smith, Management Assistant SUBJECT: Action on proposed resolution recognizing the week of September 11-17, 2011 as National Assisted Living Week (File Resolution No. 2011-833) Request Council President Brunner asked that a resolution recognizing September 11-17, 2011 as National Assisted Living Week in the City of Janesville be added to the September 12, 2011 Council agenda. Recommendation Staff recommends the Council pass resolution 2011-833. Suggested Motion I move to approve file resolution 2011-833 to recognize September 11-17, 2011 as National Assisted Living Week in the City of Janesville. Background National Assisted Living Week was established in 1995 by the National Center for Assisted Living to provide a special opportunity to bring together residents, families, employees, volunteers, and the surrounding community to celebrate assisted living residents and the services provided by the staff within assisted living communities. The 2011 theme is “Forever Proud”. This theme addresses the pride assisted living employees have in their work; the residents they serve; and their country. Should the Council approve this resolution, a representative from the Our House Assisted Living Facility would pick up the resolution plaque at a later date from the City Manager’s Office, as they are unable to attend the September 12 meeting. FILE RESOLUTION NO. 2011-833 A resolution recognizing week of September 11-17, 2011 as National Assisted Living Week WHEREAS , the number of elderly and disabled Americans is increasing; and WHEREAS , assisted living is a long term care service that fosters choice, dignity, independence and autonomy in our elderly nationwide; and WHEREAS , the National Center for Assisted Living proudly created National Assisted Living Week®; and WHEREAS , the theme of National Assisted Living Week® 2011—“Forever Proud”— highlights the opportunity to share with our residents a multitude of events and activities that demonstrate how much they are cared for and respected. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVEDby the Common Council of the City of Janesville on this 12th day of September 2011 that the week of September 11-17, 2011 be recognized as National Assisted Living Week; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Common Council to encourage all citizens to visit friends or relatives in assisted living facilities to learn more about assisted living services and how they benefit our communities. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent APPROVED: Brunner Dongarra-Adams Liebert Eric J. Levitt, City Manager McDonald Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Council President Brunner Prepared by: Management Assistant Community Development Department Memorandum Date: September 12, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Vicky Miller, Development Specialist SUBJECT: Second reading, public hearing, and action on a proposed ordinance amending the City’s Sign Code to allow electronic message signs within Sign District E under specific situations and if approved by the Plan Commission through a conditional sign permit (Ordinance No. 2011-494). _____________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The Community Development Department has drafted an Ordinance to amend Chapter 14, Signs, in order to allow electronic message signs in Sign District E. Staff drafted the amendment at the request Council Members Steeber and McDonald to amend the Sign Code. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that following a public hearing, the City Council support a motion to adopt Revised Ordinance No. 2011-494 amending the Sign Code to allow electronic message signs in Sign District E. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION I am supportive of the provision to limit the distance from electronic message signs and residential neighborhoods. Hopefully this amendment will balance that protection and the ability for Rotary Gardens and potential other public facilities and parks to have this capability. SUGGESTED MOTION A motion to adopt Revised Ordinance No. 2011-494 amending the Sign Code to allow electronic message signs in Sign District E. ANALYSIS A. In January of this year, Staff received a request from JNB Signs, on behalf of Janesville Morning Rotary Club to install a new monument style ground sign with an electronic message center (EMC) at 1455 Palmer Drive (Rotary Botanical Gardens) The property is zoned C, Conservancy District and is located in Sign District E. Currently the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14) prohibits electronic message centers (EMC’s) in this district; therefore, applications for conditional use review and sign permits could not be accepted. Staff researched various options and believes that the only viable method for allowing the sign would be to pursue an amendment to the sign code (see Exhibit A). Council Members Steeber and McDonald requested that staff initiate a text amendment. B. The Sign Code establishes five Sign Districts: District A includes properties near Interstate 39/90. District B includes properties located along major business corridors, such as Milton Avenue, Center Avenue, West Court Street, North Parker Drive and Racine Street. District C includes other commercial areas within the city which are not in Districts A or B and which are zoned Business, Office or Industrial. Examples of applicable locations would be along portions of East Milwaukee Street, Memorial Drive and North Washington Street. District D includes the downtown area. District E includes all other remaining areas of the city. These properties are not located along a state highway or zoned for business and office uses. District E consists of residential and conservancy zoned lands that accommodate housing, city parks, greenbelts and open space areas. Allowable signage in District E is the most restrictive of all of the sign districts since it is primarily residential in nature, but may also include churches, schools, golf courses and outdoor recreational facilities. (Note: Churches are exempt under Federal law and upon determination by the City Attorney; therefore, they do not need conditional sign permit approval in order to install an EMC.) C. Currently EMC’s are eligible for placement in all sign districts except District E. EMC proposals (except churches) require conditional use review by the Plan Commission. Owners of properties located in District E (including Rotary Gardens) cannot apply for conditional use review. The Rotary Garden’s site is owned by the City, leased by Rotary Gardens and located in a sign district where EMC’s are strictly prohibited. In drafting the amendment, Staff was particularly concerned about what the overall impact on residential districts would be throughout the city if EMC’s were listed as eligible signs in District E. Currently the sign code protects residential neighborhoods in this district from the installation of commercially oriented signs and their operations. However, there are also certain land uses and activities that exist in District E, whereby the use of electronic signs may benefit the community. (For example, the sign at Rotary Gardens would announce upcoming events taking place at the center.) In order to find balance between these competing measures, Staff drafted the proposed amendment to include a minimum “500 foot” separation requirement between residential uses and placement of EMC’s in District E. D. Although Staff believes that EMC’s have become part of the accepted and/or expected urban landscape, we believe that it is necessary to restrict the distance between EMC’s and residential uses in District E in order to maintain the integrity of residential districts, neighborhoods and public open space areas. A specific provision has been inserted into the sign code amendment to ensure this is properly addressed. The amendment proposes there be a minimum distance of 500 feet between an EMC and any residence along the adjoining street corridor. The 500 foot separation would significantly limit eligibility of EMC’s in District E and restrict their placement to locations which are well removed from surrounding residential buildings and land uses. st At the Plan Commission meeting held on August 1, Commissioner Consigny requested clarification of how the proposed 500 feet would be measured. In response, Staff has revised the amendment (Exhibit A) to read as follows: “Electronic Message signs may be allowed in Sign Districts A, B, C and D upon the review and approval of a conditional sign permit by the Plan Commission as provided in Section 14.48.015 of this chapter. Electronic Message signs located on premise may be allowed in Sign District E only if the sign is oriented to traffic on the adjoining street and is located at least 500 feet from a residential principal building as measured perpendicular to each sign face along the adjoining street and upon approval of a conditional sign permit by the Plan Commission. Exhibits B and C illustrates Rotary Garden’s proposal to install a new monument ground sign in front of the main building. Under the code amendment requirements, the sign must be positioned perpendicular to the street in order to be oriented to traffic along Palmer Drive. There are no residences within 500 feet of the sign; therefore, the separation requirement would be met. The design, suitability and size of the sign are issues which would be considered by the Plan Commission at a future date if the proposed amendment is approved and if Rotary Gardens submits a conditional sign permit application. In that case, a public hearing will be held and the Plan Commission will review the characteristics of the sign against ordinance standards, including the appropriateness of an EMC in the garden setting. The Plan Commission also has the authority to impose more restrictive conditions if deemed necessary and to grant variances through the conditional use process. (As currently designed, Rotary Garden’s sign would require a variance for the size.) An EMC is not currently being proposed for Parker High School (Exhibit D); however, the property is located in District E and it would potentially be eligible under the proposed code amendment requirements. The sign would have to be positioned perpendicular to Mineral Point Avenue and 500 feet from any residential building along either side of the street. At this point in time, the land across the street from Parker High School is undeveloped, and the school property would be eligible to apply for an EMC. In the future, the construction of a residential structure across from the school would change the eligibility status, prohibiting the use of an EMC. E. Staff is supporting the proposed amendment since the placement of EMC’s would be subject to a 500 foot separation restriction and as drafted, would significantly reduce the number of eligible properties. Since parks and greenbelts are owned by the City, there is internal control over the placement of such signs on lands that could satisfy the separation criteria. For instance, Staff has determined that the following properties would be eligible for a conditional use review: Traxler Park, Rotary Gardens, Dawson Field, the Youth Sports Facility and Parker High School. If the amendment is approved, and a request is submitted for any of these properties, each would be reviewed by Staff and the Plan Commission based on the individual merits of the sign and the property. The 500 foot separation requirement ensures that no residence within the distance would be exposed to installation or operation of an electronic sign. The Plan Commission would ultimately decide if an electronic message sign proposal is appropriate through the conditional sign permit process. PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – 15 AUGUST 2011 Vicky Miller, Development Specialist, presented the written staff report. Commissioner Marklein asked why staff proposed this amendment rather than creating a new district. Miller indicated that since Sign District E would include all remaining areas outside of the other sign districts, there would be no need to create a new one. Commissioner Marklein asked if Parker High School received approval for an electronic message center and then a house was built across the street, would the sign be allowed to remain and Miller confirmed that there would be no requirement for it to be removed. Chairperson Voskuil asked if zoning drives the sign districts and Cherek responded that it does not. Chairperson Voskuil asked how staff arrived at the 500 foot separation requirement and Cherek responded that when looking at the overall City, 500 feet seemed to create a safe and significant distance in separating a possible sign from a residence. Cherek also noted that city- owned property, including 2,700 acres of parkland, makes up the majority of property that is eligible under this proposal. Chairperson Voskuil asked if the ordinance change was being requested because of Rotary Garden’s sign proposal and Miller indicated that the Rotary Garden’s request was what initially started the process. Commissioner Consigny asked what the impacts would be on a property opposite of a proposed electronic message center. Miller indicated that the sign would likely be positioned perpendicular to the front of the house and there may be some “glow”. The public hearing was opened and no persons appeared to speak. The public hearing was closed. There was a motion by Commissioner Dongarra-Adams with a second by Vice Chairman Madere to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt Revised Ordinance No. 2011- 494 amending the Sign Code to allow electronic message signs in Sign District E. The motion passed on a 6-0-0 vote. FISCAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no fiscal impact with regards to the code amendment. The processing of additional sign permits is anticipated to be limited due to the limited area affected by the code amendment. cc: Gale Price Duane Cherek REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2011-494 An ordinance amending the City’s Sign Code to allow electronic message signs within Sign District E under specific situations and if approved by the Plan Commission through a conditional sign permit as set forth in JGO Chapter 14, with penalties for violations thereof as set forth as applicable in JGO 14.48.050. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 14.20.120 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows: “14.20.120 Electronic Message Signs, On Premises . A . No illuminated flashing signs shall be permitted. Flashing signs are those which change their appearance more than once every four seconds. Chasing lights shall not be permitted. B . Electronic message signs may be allowed in Sign Districts A, B, C and D upon the review and approval of a conditional sign permit by the Plan Commission as provided in Section 14.48.015 of this chapter. Electronic Message signs located on premise may be allowed in Sign District E only if the sign is oriented to traffic on the adjoining street and is located at least 500 feet from a residential use principal building as measured perpendicular to the each sign face along the adjoining street in each direction (if a double faced sign), and upon approval of a conditional sign permit by the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission, in its review, shall consider the following: (1) Such signs shall comprise no more than 30% of the face of the ground sign area. (2) No sign shall interfere with the visibility of any traffic signal. (3) No such sign shall be illuminated to a degree or brightness that is greater than necessary for adequate visibility. Signs found to be too bright shall be adjusted in accordance with the instructions of the City. (4) No such signs shall be higher than 20 feet above the curb elevation in sign District C or D, no higher than 25 feet above the curb elevation for Sign District B and no higher than 40 feet above the curb elevation in Sign District A. (5) Routine messages shall not repeat in intervals of less than 4 seconds nor last longer than 10 seconds. Single phrase messages may last longer than 10 seconds. (6) No traveling message signs shall be permitted. (7 ) The Plan Commission must find that the character of the sign is compatible with the general area, and that limited visual impacts will occur to nearby residential areas prior to approving such signs. C . Time and temperature signs are allowed in all sign districts without approval of a conditional sign permit subject to compliance with criteria (1)-(5) listed in Section 14.20.120B. D. Illuminated price or rate panels for hotel/motel and motor fuel which change no more than once daily are allowed in all sign districts without approval of a conditional sign permit subject to compliance with criteria (1)-(3) in Section 14.20.120B. E. Rotating signs shall be limited to a maximum of eight revolutions per minute and shall not flash or have traveling bulb effects. F . Multiple message signs or tri-vision signs whose message are on triangular louvered facings and are changed by electronic rotation of the louvers are permitted for off- 1 premise signs provided that the time the message remains in a fixed position shall be six seconds or more. 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 Dongarra-Adams Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Liebert McDonald ATTEST: Rashkin Steeber Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Community Development Department Prepared by: Community Development Department 2 CITY MANAGER’S MEMORANDUM September 8, 2011 TO: Council President Brunner & City Council FROM: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager SUBJECT: Direction to City Manager on Possible transfer of property or construction of parking lot at 121 East Court Street Summary: The owners of One Parker Place approached the City about selling the lot at 121 E. Court Street to them for $1 to enable them to build parking at their cost. The estimated number of spaces would be around 45 spaces. An alternative concept that was initiated by me and discussed was that the City negotiate a lease agreement with the owner so that parking could be built on the City’s lot in combination with their lot. Background: The owners of One Parker Place LLP initially approached the current City Manager in early 2009 about building parking at 121 E. Court Street. At the time of the request the Council was considering approval of the current parking structure that was completed in 2010. During the discussions with the owners, it was the City Manager’s understanding from them that the City had discussed building parking for them when they initially bought One Parker Place, however I have not found any written commitment from the City to build parking at the time. In 2009, when the current City Manager was approached, the City Manager initiated having engineering look at potential design work for a public parking lot on 121 East Court. The concept design showed that we could place between 15 and 18 spaces at a cost of approximately $75,000. The City Manager did proposed building the public parking lot in the 2010 budget, but during the Note Issue discussions, many capital projects were required to be removed due to fiscal constraints and this was one of those projects. Due to the City not building the parking lot, One Parker Place LLP has requested that we sell the lot for $1 so that they can build a private parking lot of approximately 45 spaces utilizing the 121 East Court lot and the adjacent lots to the north and west. Analysis The current proposal has several issues to be considered. 1. If the City builds parking at 121 East Court Street, whether it be public or private parking, the General Fund will need to reimburse CDBG for the value of the land which is estimated to be between $30,000 and $40,000 value. 2. The potential need to remove the parking ramp over the river has been discussed for many years. The potential to remove in five plus years is a high probability. If the City were to remove that parking, replacement public parking would be necessary at the time. The proposal to dedicate the lot for private parking would eliminate an opportunity to build public parking. Although it would eliminate some of that parking demand. 3. The City is actively seeking ways to create additional jobs and or retain private jobs. This proposal helps One Parker Place LLP with their parking for current and potential businesses. City Manager Options Option 1: The first option available is to move forward with the request from One Parker Place LLC. The City Manager has concerns with this option based on the fact that we may need to evaluate all parking alternatives in the future. Option 2: A second option would be to build public parking in our lot which would result in up to 18 additional spaces. This option would be supported by the City Manager but may be a concern for One Parker Place LLC because tenants may want dedicated parking to locate there. Option 3: A third option that the City Manager has explored is doing a partnership with One Parker Place LLC, where the City reimburses CDBG the funds and One Parker Place leases the land and builds the 45 spaces. There could be options for purchase dependent upon retention or attraction of new tenants. Under this option, the City Manager’s concept would be to provide that part of the parking is public and part of the parking is public. The legal details would still need to be structured. Staff is looking for City Council on whether to move forward with any of the above concepts. Community Development Department Memorandum Date: August 17, 2011 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Gale Price, Manager of Building & Development Services SUBJECT: City Council Discussion and Direction to Staff on Citizen Request to Modify Pool Regulations Related to Required Fencing. _____________________________________________________________________ I. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not have a recommendation on this request at this time. Staff is requesting direction on how the Council wishes to proceed with the request. II. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION The City Manager believes that it is necessary to balance the safety of young children around pools with the ability for residents to have reasonable standards in order to have an inflatable pool, spa or constructed pool. I believe it to be a reasonable request to review having a non-connected fence of 4’ in height based on the information provided. Due to the nature of inflatable pools this is a difficult issue to enforce, but currently is enforced primarily on complaint basis. III. REQUEST The City Council has received contact from a resident who has requested that the City Council propose an ordinance change to City of Janesville Building Code Section 15.01.280.B, which requires a five (5’) foot high fence around any pool or hot tub with a side wall of 30 inches or more. The resident’s home has an existing four (4’) foot high fence and after erecting an inflatable pool within their rear yard, it was brought to their attention that a five foot fence is required. Council members McDonald, Liebert and Steeber co-sponsored having this issue brought forward. IV. ANALYSIS State law does not require a fence around a swimming pool on private property. State law does require a fence for all public pools with a depth of 24 inches or greater. In such an instance a five foot fence is required to be erected. Most municipal ordinances require a fence around a pool for private properties. The City of Janesville’s ordinance requiring a five foot fence is somewhat modeled after the state law for public pools with the exception that a pool is permitted to have a side wall of up to 30 inches without a fence around the pool. The Janesville ordinance is silent to temporary pools therefore it is applied to all pools based upon the side wall depth. The resident provided information to the Council members from other cities regarding temporary and permanent pool fence heights. Their information also indicates that many communities do not require a fence around temporary pools. In addition to that information they cite Consumer Product Safety Commission and insurance companies recommending a minimum of four foot high fences rather than the five foot high fence required by the City of Janesville Ordinance. Ultimately the issue of requiring a fence around a temporary pool or the height of a fence around a property with a pool is a local decision since state law is silent to fence requirements around a private pool. V. SUMMARY Staff is requesting that the City Council provide direction on how to proceed with the request to modify the fence height requirement. If the Council chooses to proceed with a proposed text amendment to the Building Code, then Staff will draft ordinance language over the fall and winter months so that it can be implemented in the spring. cc: Eric Levitt Jay Winzenz July 15, 2011 Dear Council Members of the City of Janesville: I am writing to each of you to request to amend City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.280 SWIMMING POOLS – GENERAL. This ordinance does not specifically address the commonly seen storable/temporary pools but rather enforces them along with the permanent pools. We would like to see the temporary pools exempt because there is nothing that is “built” and these pools are not permanent fixtures, don’t require any building, nor do they require any permanent electricity. The temporary pools can be readily disassembled for storage and reassembled to their original integrity quickly. At the very least, we would like to recommend that the fencing requirement be changed to a 48” minimum to be more consistent with our comparable cities. This is a standard fence size which would make it easier for the citizens of Janesville to comply with. Please see table below for my comparison. 50% of those cities do not enforce the temporary pools, while the other 50% enforce the 48” fencing requirement. They (the temporary pools) do not require an electrical permit as it is not a permanent fixture and doesn’t continually run. ORDINANCE INCLUDES POOL HEIGHT FENCE HEIGHT TEMPORARY POOL MINIMUM MINIMUM APPLETON Yes 24” 48” BELOIT No DEFOREST No KENOSHA Yes 24” 48” LACROSSE Yes 30” 48” MADISON No MIDDLETON No WAUKESHA Yes 42” 48” The State of Wisconsin does not regulate residential swimming pools. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission, PoolSafely.gov, and Safe Kids, along with several insurance companies, all recommend a 48” fence, however they do not require it. Again, we are asking for your assistance in amending City of Janesville Ordinance 15.01.280 SWIMMING POOLS – GENERAL to make the temporary pool exempt or at the very least, change the minimum fencing requirement to be at a reasonable height of 48”, which still provides a sufficient degree of protection and keeps Janesville in line with its comparable cities. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or telephone. I look forward to hearing from any or all of you. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this matter. I hope that you will agree that it would be very relevant to the City of Janesville residents to amend the requested ordinance. Sincerely, Tracy Schroeder CLERK-TREASURER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM August 30, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer SUBJECT: Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to use the Property Acquisition Account to pay the special assessment receivables that were held by the County and City for the Hickory Ridge Subdivision Lots (Resolution No. 2011-832) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council support a motion to authorize the City Manager to use the Property Acquisition Account to pay the special assessments that were held by the County and City for the Hickory Ridge Subdivision Lots. City Manager Recommendation This proposed methodology would allow the City Council to determine through the budgeting process now and in the future whether you desire to use the revenues of these sales to assist with further property purchases, operational costs or other capital needs. Suggested Motion I move to adopt Resolution No. 2011-832 which authorizes the City Manager to use the Property Acquisition Account to pay the special assessments that were held by the County and City for the Hickory Ridge Subdivision Lots. Analysis The City of Janesville has an investment of $155,500 in the Hickory Ridge Subdivision. The investment is made up of improvement costs and the cost to purchase the lots at the Rock County tax lien sale. Currently, we are accounting for Hickory Ridge Subdivision transactions in four funds: Capital Projects- Property Acquisition Account, Special Assessment Fund, Water Utility and Wastewater Utility. Staff would prefer to consolidate the accounting of the Hickory Ridge Subdivision by having the Property Acquisition Account pay all outstanding assessments on these lots so that they are free of any encumbrances and liabilities. All proceeds from lot sales would then be allocated to the General Fund-Sale of City Property Account. We believe this change would provide more flexibility to the General Fund as we navigate through our Special Assessment delinquency issues. The General Fund is ultimately responsible for the Special Assessment Fund’s debt service payments. RESOLUTION NO. 2011–832 A resolution authorizing the City Manager to use the Property Acquisition Account to pay the special assessments that were held by the County and City for the Hickory Ridge Subdivision Lots WHEREAS, the City of Janesville has an investment in the amount of $155,500 in the Hickory Ridge Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City of Janesville has been accounting for lot sales by distributing the proceeds from Rock County and individual lot sales to the Special Assessment Fund, Water Utility, Wastewater Utility and Property Acquisition Fund, and WHEREAS, the City of Janesville would prefer Property Acquisition Account pay all Special Assessment Receivables to the Special Assessment Fund, Water Utility and Wastewater Utility so that the lots are free of any encumbrances and liabilities; and WHEREAS, all past proceeds ($66,751) and future proceeds from the sale of these lots would be deposited into the General Fund-Sale of City Property Account, and WHEREAS, the City of Janesville would have more flexibility by changing the allocation of proceeds and expenses for these lots; and WHEREAS, the Common Council find that this Resolution are in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Janesville that the City Manager and others on his behalf are authorized to pay off the outstanding Special Assessments on these lots using the Property Acquisition Fund and that all lot proceeds will be given to the General Fund Sale of Public Property Account. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and his designee(s) are hereby authorized to take whatever other actions and to make whatever other changes that may find necessary and/or desirable to effectuate this transaction. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Dongarra-Adams Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Liebert McDonald ATTEST: Rashkin Steeber Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: City Manager Prepared by: Clerk-Treasurer’s Office CITY MANAGER’S MEMORANDUM September 8, 2011 TO: Council President Brunner & City Council FROM: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager SUBJECT: Schedule study session meetings to review 2012 proposed City and Library Budget. The City Manager requests that the City Council schedule the Study Sessions for the 2012 Budget discussion. The proposed budget study session dates are: th  October 12 (Wednesday) @ 6:00 p.m. th  October 18 (Tuesday) @ 7:00 p.m th  October 25 (Tuesday) @ 7:00 p.m. rd  November 3 (Thursday) @ 7:00 p.m. th  Public Hearing November 14 th  Adoption November 28 Thank you for your consideration.