Planning Commision - Regular Meeting

ridiculous managers

This is true. They sent out the press release, so we can talk about it.

And then of course, like two hours after that comes out, we get a...

So how about talking to Dave Zilberg, Interim City Manager of the City Council of Time and Class Association. This literally came in like 90 seconds ago. Well, that's the way the word comes from.

I'm getting increasingly angry at the school system. It's like people that have no idea how government works.

Again. But when you go to the teacher, now we have a larger problem. you're watching it I have never watched a TikTok in my life, and I don't like it. Yeah.

it's just like uh have you seen that oh yeah they're not exactly they're exactly they're terrible

What's that? I was just saying they don't necessarily have their finger on the pulse, but it's always funny whatever they do choose to think out of the, you know.

Yeah.

Well, you know, the owner of the general contractor . . . . . .

But that is . That's very good. That's very good.

okay so just just That's right. I mean, this is assumed people that are . . .

It's 6 p.m. and the June 1st, 2026

a session of the city of eau claire plan commission is called to order if anyone in our audience wants to speak tonight i don't believe we have do we have comment okay we have comment uh um contact forms uh located on the back table there and uh and if you give it to one of our planners at the front table i asked them asked everyone to turn off your cell phones and or put them in silent mode

Okay, I will call the attendance roll.

Commissioner Brewster.

Present.

Commissioner Reed.

Here.

Commissioner Wolfgram.

Here.

Commissioner Zoeg.

Here.

Commissioner Lawson.

Here.

Commissioner Leonard? Here. Commissioner Holzman? Here. Commissioner Gettinger?

Here.

And the chair, Commissioner Erickson, is here. And we have nine out of nine. So we have a quorum. will read our standard introductory statement for how we conduct our businesses at our meetings during tonight's meeting plan commission members will be participating in person and deliberate and takes action on the agenda items before us the plan commission attempts to conduct its public hearings in a relatively informal manner within the constraint that we must deal with the issues before us in an orderly and business-like fashion We give the applicant an opportunity to speak first and then others are permitted to speak either for or against the proposal. We do request that everyone restrict their comments to the issues before us, avoid unnecessary repetition, and be prudent in their use of time. But we want to be sure that we have adequate time to deal with it as carefully with the last time on the agenda as with the first. If you wish to view, not comment, tonight's public meeting, it can be viewed through the live link on the City's homepage under Public Notices and Meetings. This meeting is being recorded at the same location. Item number three is our open public comment period for those items on the agenda that do not appear on tonight's agenda as a public hearing. Item number four is our consent agenda, and items six, seven, and eight are discussion among commissioners only. Item 5 is a public hearing and will have its own public comment period. Item number 4 on our consent agenda and item 6, 7, and 8 or any other item not on our agenda are open for public comment at this time. Is there anyone here wishing to give public comment on items 4, 6, 7, and 8 or any other comments not related to tonight's agenda? Please come forward. Are you here for the public hearing?

We're here for item six.

Item number six is the public hearing, and that'll have its own public hearing agenda item. And we'll call you then. Thank you. So if there's anyone else that would like to speak on any other items besides item six, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll move on to item six. Number four, our consent agenda. Tonight, our consent agenda has three sub items. Item A is the approval of the May 4th, 2026 plan commission minutes. Item B is the TDS fiber easement and bridge conduit, Phoenix park and Phoenix park bridge. And item C is a continuation of permanent encroachments to the sculpture tour of Eau Claire for the sculpture tour exhibit. The public comment period for the consent agenda was offered under item 3 and is now expired. The entirety of the consent agenda will be acted upon by a single vote. Are there any commissioners that have questions, comments, or would like to see any of the three sub-items removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved.

A second. Oh, I'm sorry.

We have a motion by Commissioner Brewster and a second by Commissioner Wolfram. And I will call the roll. Commissioner Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Wolfgren? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Holzman? Aye. Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

And the Chair votes aye, and the motion passes. Chair?

The item passes nine to zero. Chair, I would also like to register an aye.

You did not, I did not call you? Oh, excuse me. Mr. Brewster, I didn't go back to the top of the list, which you are at the top of the list, Commissioner Brewster. Nine to zero, now it's nine to zero. Thank you all, again, for correcting me. Very, very well. Okay, now we move on to item five for recommendation of the City Council, 27 to 31, capital improvement. The request to consider the CIP for that period of 2027 to 2031 and the applicant of the City of Eau Claire and it is a citywide agenda item and I believe Erin White is our presenter.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you. Happy to be here once again. It is CIP time in the City of Eau Claire. This is first of several, or the midpoint of several steps. It's already gone through a few different governing bodies for recommendation proposals, and now it's time for the Planning Commission to review this as well. You received a packet with the broader information. We're just going to hit a few slides and a few pieces of information to pull out of the broader packet information that was included. so again this is the 2027 through 2031 plan we do capital improvement plans on a five-year basis the um cip is intended to meet and review strategic goals objectives plan overview and the calendar is what we'll be hitting within this and it is kind of finds the capital expenditures in the community for the next five years The strategic goals and objectives, there are seven listed up in there. Support economic prosperity for all with diverse creative economic development and inclusive housing options. Two, provide safe, functional, accessible infrastructure and services that are environmentally sensitive and sustainable. Three, optimize the city's organizational potential. Four, develop, nurture, and revitalize safe, healthy, and connected neighborhoods. Five, facilitate an engaged community. Six, create engaging opportunities to make Eau Claire livable, lovable, and fun. And seven, nurture community-wide opportunities for personal learning growth and development. The listing here is expenditures by fund, and these are all lumped together. You're looking, again, at five years out. The 2027 budget includes everything from LBE, which is land, buildings, and equipment, transportation, sewer, water, storm, parking, transit, central equipment, three TID districts, I mean, four TID districts, parks and rec, Fairfax, which is the pool system, risk management, HOBS, and the library are all some of the funding allocations that are in there. And again, the total across the five years for all of these line item budgets is $305,460,425. Any questions at this point before we move on to the next slides? So some of the major projects that we're looking this year, the sewer, the headworks, the sewer system, plant system, the headworks and disinfection, we call it rehab, but really we're talking heavy duty upgrades. That has a $22 million price tag for the year 2027. Fire Station 2 remodel or replacement. Fire Station 2 is the one that's directly adjacent here to City Hall. That has been reviewed and unreviewed for quite some time. As the city has expanded, it's no longer in the optimum position. It's an old facility, and from a response time standpoint, it really needs to be on the other side of the river. to have appropriate coverage. So that is an item that has been on the agenda for quite some time as well. TID 17, the multimodal overpass. That would be the Paragon development, the Sevens development down along Old Town Hall Road. That includes a multimode overpass from where the new street construction across to connect with Ayers Court. It is a pedestrian, bike, and vehicle overpass for that space. Railroad safety improvements, there are a number of projects that are floating around to that. Gateway drive improvements, again, more street improvements, downtown parking ramp demolition, and then the replacement, those are in 2030 and 2031. That's a long process as well. It's a challenging demo project, and then what gets replaced is also still to be determined, but they are looking at potential for A type of parking in place, whether it's surface parking or some level of minimalized ramp structure going back in, that is something that's being looked at as well. CIP was recommended for approval by Transit Commission on May 19th. CIP was recommended for approval by Parks and Waterways on May 27th, and now it is before the Planning Commission. I'll kick back to the previous slide. Any specific questions relates to some of these projects or improvements. Running through the broader packet, I kind of pulled a few identifying things. There are seven water, stormwater, and wastewater projects related to those types of upgrades or improvements. A lot of that's coming from annexations that we've had now need stormwater, sewer, and sanitary... water extensions to serve those. You're talking lift stations in some cases, pumps, everything that goes to extending out to new subdivisions and developments. Orchard Hills would be one of the primary ones that would be a live example of that. There are six transportation projects listed in there. Those are anything from sidewalks and trails to the transportation study, which is on the cycle to do that, and more street work and broader transportation-related expenditures. So this pack includes a variety of different areas and hits a variety of different things within the CIP approval. We'd be happy to start taking any questions.

Questions from commissioners?

Mr. White, so these are general questions, so I don't know if I should wait until the end. Would you like me to ask a general question at the end?

Either way would be fine. We can look to answer one now, but if you want to wait, there's only a couple slides left. I think I'll wait.

Okay, thank you. Okay.

So let me flip back forward again. This is the calendar of actions still to be done for this. We're looking at public discussion number one on the proposed CIP next week on June 8th. Amendments to city council in mid-June. Public discussion number two will be that third week of June, that third session. There will be a council work session on that as well. the next third public discussion on july 13th and then council it will be for council for adoption on july 14th so that is the general calendar that we're looking at as we move forward with this process yeah and the link here you can capture the the proposed capital improvement plan and the full budget online and go through all the details would be available at this link and uh like i said some of the examples that were that were in your packet were pulled from the the overall document and let's see that is not what we're looking at so that is the end of the slides and thank you

Mr. White, so I just have a couple of questions to just further understand how things are prioritized. How is it determined what level is assigned to each category, each project? What's the criteria just overall?

So some of that is ranked by the division that are submitting these. critical need it identifies what strategic goals this aligns with in terms of the city's overall plans and objectives some areas have more specific criteria like when you look at street conditions the streets are rated by the OT and ratings may jump some project ahead or behind on others based on the condition that's found on that so there's a number of factors that go into there and it is all submitted by the staff that are looking at these projects

And then I know that some of these projects are mandated. Do you know off the top of your head which ones are mandated that you can't reallocate funds from?

That is a good question. I'm not sure. I'm gonna invite Michael Corball from our budget office. He might be able to answer that.

Some that immediately come to mind would be like the projects within our water and sewer funds. A lot of those projects are funded specifically through those utilities. So the money and revenue that's raised within those utilities can't be used for projects outside of those purposes. So I would say a lot of those specific utility funds, water, sewer, storm, are some of the major ones that I would say.

Thank you. And then I just have one other question for now. So I do know that yearly allocations can shift. So I've seen that done in the past where they're advocated for to shift from one year to the next, for instance, depending upon if a particular project in a given year needs more funding. Those need to come back to council for approval if there is a request for shifting money from one year to the next. Is that right?

I believe that is correct.

So with the CIP, it's a little bit of a strange compared to the regular budget where right now it's a five-year budget, but really just the first year. So 2027 is what's being approved. appropriated into the operating budget in November. And so from right now going forward, there can be changes made from 28 to 2031. But if there's any changes that are gonna be made within the 27 operating budget, that would come back to city council for approval through our budget amendment process.

Thank you very much. Of course. I would add too that some of the projects have been moved back within the CIP as well in terms of backward years just looking to accommodate what revenues are available and projections for downstream. Other questions?

Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. So I have two questions. The first, I think I know the answer to, but I just want confirmation. When we're doing sewer projects or projects for one of our utilities, is that bonded in any different way? Or is that money that's coming out of the general fund that then the utility pays back somehow in a different fashion? Or are those just normal projects? I know the way that the PFAS plan was paid for was was not that but i'm wondering with some of these that are just like regularly scheduled upgrades and things like that if that's more done internally within the utility

So there's not a significant difference in the bonding process in terms of going out for bonds on a project, whether it's utility or whatnot. But the revenue stream that's collected and paid in has to be identified within our systems and segregated within our systems. So utility funds stay with the utility and retires utility eligible expenses. So it's more within an internal accounting system.

OK. And then one more, if I may. And this is a totally unrelated question. What happens to CIP money, like let's say for 2027, it's bonded for, it's allocated, excuse me. And then if it's not spent, you know, if something happens and we don't end up doing this project or we do it in a different way that's cheaper or... what happens to that money is it just like get rolled over into something else or does it have to be used within a certain period of time once it's bonded for any i know it eventually does roll back into the general fund in terms of specifics i'll let michael answer that one yeah um

So when we bond for money, we do generally have to meet debt arbitrage requirements. So if you don't spend down the money that you borrowed for within a certain amount of time, there can be monetary penalties. So we often are usually speaking weekly with accounting to make sure that we're meeting our debt arbitrage requirements for each of our funds. And then a lot of, I mean, typically we don't have problems meeting our, spending down our bond proceeds, but in the few cases that we do, the money would typically just go into the fund balance of whatever fund for whatever the project is in. So it would help, it would basically just help offset future costs for projects within that specific fund if we're talking about water, for example, or sewer. So if that makes sense.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

Other questions?

Thank you.

And is there any further discussion amongst commissioners? So I will entertain a motion on the capital improvement project for 2027 through 2031.

So moved.

Mr. Mercer moves. And Mr. . Second. Sorry, second.

Commissioner Wolfman.

Thank you. So I'm going to vote yes and I'm not going to take a lot of time right now to unpack this. I do want to see an increase in the housing fund initiative quite a substantial increase, and that's very much related to strategic goal number one. And just in brief, we have, and many of you have heard me talk about this over time, we have 37% of our city residents that are earning under the 80 to 100% of the county median income, which is deemed workforce housing. We've built I think it's close to, Mr. White, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've built close to about 1,000 units within the last six or seven years of what's labeled more than that. Okay, well, at least I'm not under that. Okay, more than 1,000 units. And we have over 700 households on our housing authority waiting list and growing. People are often waiting two years. Wages continue to lag behind rents. We can't wait for wage increases. So this demographic, almost 40% of our residents, from my perspective, needs to be prioritized as critical infrastructure level one. So I'm going to stop there, but I'd like that to be on the record as my comment, and I thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Wolfgram. Anyone else? Seeing none, I will call the roll. Commissioner Wolfgram.

Aye. Yes.

Commissioner Zoig.

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson.

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger.

Aye.

Commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed. Aye. And the chair votes aye. And now that passes nine to zero. And we will move on to item number six on the agenda, which is a public hearing. for recommendation of the city council rezoning our Z176226 of the land development ordinance heavy vehicle parking amendment to recommend amendments to the LDO title 17 related to heavy vehicle parking in residential areas and to recommend amendments to title 10 on vehicle weights. The applicant is the city of Eau Claire and this is a citywide and we have

Yes. Thank you, Chair and Planning Commissioners. This item is before you again. This item was approved by Council last month. There's a few minor amendments introduced by two Council members to tweak a few of the conditional use provisions, and we'll go through them If you recall, this was introduced as a conditional use permit in light residential zones. So the non-sewered residential district, the general residential district, the neighborhood residential district, you'd have to obtain a conditional use permit, meet all the conditions in order to be approved by the plan commission at a public hearing. And so the ordinance, what's up for debate here is not the actual definition of the heavy vehicle. That's been approved. No amendments there. But to tweak a few of these conditions. So the first thing here is to look at the vehicle type to actually allow a full semi-truck, the cab, and the trailer. So taking out the cab-only provision there with the arrow noted. Oops. And then in these provisions here related more to the zoning dimensional standards, instead of a lot size, actually waiving that so that the lot could be as small as one could imagine. So waiving that. Then G is reducing the setbacks from 10 foot setback to five foot setback for the driveway to allow, again, if the lot size is gonna be smaller, that it would go to logically think a smaller setback. So reduce down to five feet instead of 10 feet. And then, yeah. So the trailer, I don't have that actually on the slide, but the trailer in a different provision would also be allowed back to this one that you'd be able to do the cab and the trailer. So you could do the trailer It's in your packet, the actual ordinance changes. You can see those amendments. There's four of them. So these would go to council at their next meeting forward with your recommendation. This is a public hearing. Again, just as a reminder, these vehicles, we bumped up, the city council bumped up with your recommendation the pounds from 6,000 to 10,000 to be more modern standards. So that was approved. showing the type of vehicles that on the left would be allowed without a conditional use permit in these low density residential areas. But on the right side, the larger, greater weight classifications would have to get that conditional use permit and meet all those other conditions adjacent to a commercial or industrial zone is one of the hardest things that they would have to be able to meet. So again, trying to narrow down where these things could be again situation occurring with um the the violation that we looked at before and just to note the rvs even though that they wait they weigh more because they're used for residential purposes are exempt from this ordinance as a reminder i know we have some new plan commissioners that weren't here for this item in the past so happy to answer any questions but But again, staff's concerns about the negative externalities with air pollution, with sound. We brought this up before. Difficult introducing an industrial-type purpose in these low-density residential zones, causing some different conflicts with neighbors were our concerns. Possibly seeing... Perpetuation of more storage and warehousing on sites of residential Zones in the low density low density residential areas You can see the list here of our concerns So that is the staff report Here for any questions and then again, there's a public hearing and two people here to comment Any questions from mr. Brewster

you chair um so when you're talking about the setback that's like uh from every possible property line right like it has to be able to fit so you're you're no closer to any property line in any direction than five feet is that that yeah it would be five feet from the side or rear property line

As you can see, no heavy vehicle parking is allowed in the front yard or in the street side yard of the lot. In number three there, the parking stall shall be screened from all adjacent property views with different types of screen, whether it's a fence or landscaping or within an enclosed building, if required by the Planning Commission. It gives you latitude in case there's situations where you actually want it inside of a building or a garage. Thank you.

Seeing none, this is a public hearing. So is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak? Come forward, state your name, and spell your last name.

Yeah, thank you. I'm Jessica Schoen. Last name is spelled S-C-H-O-E-N. I reside at 2416 Shale Ledge Road in Eau Claire. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. For those of you who don't know, I am the city council representative that serves the northeast side of the city. I'm also council's current vice president. But I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of just myself, not on behalf of all of council, but I really feel strongly about this issue. I thought it was important that I come speak to plan commission tonight and offer some context and ask you all to support these changes that are before you. So I will say, first and foremost, this is not an issue, heavy vehicle parking, that I thought would be one that I take up and feel so strongly about, but I've been working on it now with my constituent Craig, who you'll hear from, and I think you've heard from before, for almost eight months now, which is really wild. And in those eight months, I've been paying more attention. It's been more front of mind and I've been going around the community and just as I'm talking to people about this situation, hearing from other people and understanding how many people this rule impacts and how restrictive it really is to working class folks. So I feel really passionate about it. And it's before you tonight because the changes and the direction that had been provided previously when it was presented to you all previously and to council, and as Ned mentioned, it was approved by council, we realized and we learned that the rules, as they were written, it actually does not apply to virtually any properties in the city. We still believe, or I still believe I should say, that these rule changes should be applicable to folks and properties in proximity to commercial corridors and directly adjacent or adjoining to industrial districts. So I don't envision this applying to folks in exclusive residential areas, really looking very narrowly at appropriate areas in the city for these changes in this permit process to exist. And so the provisions or the conditions related to that proximity to commercial corridors and industrial districts is preserved. The changes that Ned highlighted are the only ones that I propose changing. And it really is the intent to honor the intent of the initial policy direction that was given and supported by council. And to make sure that we're building a community and making sure that these types of policy changes that impact just everyday working folks are things that we have the power to change. And they feel pretty minor, but they have a big impact. And so I'm really supportive of them. And I hope that you all are too. Thank you so much.

Are there any questions for Michelle? Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Please come forward and state your name and address. Spell your last name.

My name is Craig Green, R-I-H-N, 3014 Seymour Road, Eau Claire. Council members? Um, nothing's really changed on my part since the last time I was here, other than the restrictions that were put on, I guess really weren't talked about. Um, I, you know, the half acre lot, um, like Alderman shown and thanks again. Um, I don't fit that parameter, but I've got a big corner lot. I've got a perfect, you know, nice spot. I put a fence up. I've turned into paperwork with all the signatures of all, all of my neighbors and everybody's in. You know, they like me parking there. I mean, I talk to them all the time. The other thing is it's a commercial vehicle. So the tractor alone is considered a commercial vehicle, but the statute says that I have to be able to haul a commodity, whether it's people... I mean, that was my truck in the picture. To be a commercial vehicle, you have to be allowed to haul stuff. So if I can't park my trailer there, which is part of my commercial vehicle, it really, changing the rule really wouldn't help me because I'd have to find someplace else within the city. I found one spot is out on Highway 12, a truck alignment. They've got nine parking spots. So I get up quite early in the morning and some days I don't get home until four or five o'clock in the afternoon. If I get back that late, and I've dropped my trailer there before for either them to work on it or something was going on at my house that I couldn't park my trailer there. If I get there later in the day, there are no parking spots available. So I won't know that until I would get there. And now at 5 o'clock at night, there's no spot available for me to park my trailer. Now I've got no place to park. So I'm asking, you know, pass with these new updates on the law or whatever would be awesome. I mean, that's what I'm asking for. And again, Alderman Schoen, it's not going to be every truck in Eau Claire because the parameters are quite narrow. I mean, to be a car adjacent to industrial, there isn't very many. And I'm not right out in the middle of 50 houses. I'm on a truck route. right across from Industrial. I maintain the driveway, the sidewalk. I'm doing all of that. I put a fence up. So you really can't see my truck unless you're looking for it if you're coming from the west. From the east, it's a little more visible. But as far as the noise and the smell, it hasn't been a problem with any of my neighbors. I mean, they wouldn't have signed the petition if it had been. Thank you.

Thank you. So I know you have many experience in the trucking industry. And my question to you is, and to the council and everyone else, is I feel like we are doing a lot here for one resident of the city. I haven't seen any other people. Council shown back there has talked about there's been a lot. I haven't seen anyone else come here at all in these multiple meetings we've had to express anything. I mean, I feel like we're making a rule in the city for one resident to park his tractor trailer in his yard. We've had multiple, multiple meetings and this keeps going back and forth. It's great that the government is doing something for one person, but we have not seen to us any other example of this in the community, whereas I feel like we're doing a special need, something for the need of one person. I know there is other places to park trucks and trailers in the Chippewa Valley. Yes, you do have to pay for them, but it's a business expense as well. I mean, I'd love to park. I understand it's maybe an owner-operator and but there's other owner-operators in the city of Eau Claire and surrounding area that's doing something different. So that's my opinion. Obviously we're discussing this, but I'd also like to know where the no-through truck routes are in the city of Eau Claire as well, because it shows that it has to be that, and we've not seen a map of that as well. I just want to discuss that and set that out in the record for that, so thank you.

Certainly, can I comment on that? As far as the truck routes, FedEx is right across the street from me, so they're in and out of there 50 times a day. To the first part of your thing, I think the biggest thing is here is I didn't give up. I got cited, I tried to go through the city attorney, and before I got cited, I tried to talk to the city attorney. Neighborhood services sent me a letter saying, hey, you can't park there, somebody called. So then I tried to get ahold of the city attorney, wouldn't talk to me until I was cited. Then I got cited and called the city attorney's office to see if we could work something out, not realizing that I had to do all of this. Um, so I just, I kept at it. There are other trucks, but I don't think that they even know why I'm here. I don't, I'm not advocating for anybody else. And you're all right. Now it does seem like it's just for me, but it's not, the law will be changed. And if they fit the parameters, go get the permit and away you go. I mean, it's, I mean, I'm not advocating for any other buddy. I mean, but it, it, if I do, if it works out and they, you know, I guess, you know, if the law is going to be changed, that'd be awesome. Thank you. Commissioner Wolfgren.

Can we recall Ms. Schoen if we're done with questions? Are there any other questions for Mr. Schoen?

No others? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Reno. Ms. Schoen?

Thank you, Ms. Schoen. Can you be specific with us about what neighborhood groups, perhaps a neighborhood association, what groups you've talked to that support this?

Sure. So I have not presented this aside from the Airport Neighborhood Association. I brought this to their attention. I didn't get a lot of feedback one way or the other. There was no negative reaction, but I will say there's been comments. And so this is what I'm referring to when I mentioned that there's a lot of other folks that would be impacted by this. As I'm having conversations with people informally in the community, There's a lot of folks who are surprised to learn this isn't allowed right now. And they say, well, my neighbor does this, or I've seen that truck parked down this road all the time. And so I know there's a lot of folks in the community that currently are parking their heavy vehicles on their private property. that are not in conformance or have not gone through the process to get a conditional use permit. And as the previously approved rule stands, they would not be eligible. As I mentioned, the rules were so restrictive that they aren't applicable to anyone in the community right now. And so this would allow to make sure that, again, those properties and the areas where it's appropriate, there would be a legal mechanism for people to obtain the conditional use permit so they could lawfully do that. I don't have numbers about how many people are doing this right now, but I think that they happen to just be lucky that folks have not submitted a complaint. And so I think there's a lot of instances out there. I can't speak to specific numbers, but that's my perspective on... on where I've been hearing about this from people. And I will say, I guess again, informally, members of the Randall Park Neighborhood Association as well.

So your response to Commissioner Zoig's concern that it seems to be a change for an N of one, and you've started to respond to that, is there anything else that you would like to add to that? It does sound anecdotal, And I do believe you, and I have a passion for this as well, but it does sound anecdotal at this point. Is there anything else that you'd like to respond to the N of one?

Sure, sure. Yeah, I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you very much, Commissioner Wolf-Graham, for the opportunity to speak on this again. I think that to me right now, sure, there may be one instance that this commission is thinking of and that the community has in mind when we're talking about this rule change. But I, again, think about how many folks anecdotally are out there doing this right now that may need to ultimately at some point in time obtain a conditional use permit to continue that practice if they meet all the conditions that are laid out. And I really feel strongly that Eau Claire is a community we talk a lot about affordability, and we want it to be a community that everybody can live and work in. And I see this as a change in a policy decision to help further that goal.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, uh, chair Erickson. And hi, Jess, I have a question for you. Um, so, um, I, uh, was, I guess I can skip some, I'll just say it. I was one of the people who supported this a month ago. Um, and I have really no problems with a lot of the changes. The only thing I have, I want to ask you a question about is why the, um, articulation, why the trailers? Cause for me, none of all these changes are pretty minor except for the addition of the trailer. So help me understand as someone who's supposed to make sure that residential neighborhoods reduce disruptions because that's what it says in the comprehensive plan. How do we allow trailers in this way that's being proposed and also reduce those disruptions?

Sure. That's a very good question. Thank you, Commissioner Reed. I would say, again, anecdotally, So I live not far from where Craig lives. I didn't know him before this issue popped up about eight months ago, but I spent many, many days driving back and forth and I never noticed his vehicle. He had parked it, and I don't know if this is information that Craig has shared with you previously when he's spoken to plan commission, but he's been doing that for 10 years, 11 years, and nobody in the community ever Notice he's screened the property appropriately in my opinion I've seen no reason why that can't continue in that Instance and again with the condition that remains in place related to the proximity the direct proximity to commercial corridors and industrial districts That type of vehicle traffic is very germane to those neighborhoods in those areas of the community again I think I would not be supportive if we were talking about removing that requirement and letting this Occur in a you know, like downtown neighborhood area I think that would be disruptive and it would be incompatible But again with consideration to the full picture and all of the conditions that remain I think that I would say in my my instance It was not a disruption and I don't think it would be in others Other questions from commissioners So

We're limiting this to a very narrow system, right? So we're not going to have a lot of conditional use permits, I presume, by this happening. But again, we're back to the point where we're at is there's no one here. This has been such a hot topic that it's been back and forth that no one else in the community has brought this attention to us and I feel like we're still to the point where we don't know if there's even anything else. We're making a rule for one resident that, no offense, but may be retired in 10 years, who knows, depending on field prices. That's why I feel like we're doing something here for the one case that isn't an issue in this community. And I haven't seen it. You say you hear it, which is great, but where are these people? Where is this? Who has anyone talked to? And having the semi-tractor as well and the trailer with the combination, so it's an 80,000-pound vehicle in the yard. I mean, I'll be honest with you. I think we're... We're opening ourselves a can of worms and I'm just, I'm gonna be opposed to anything that with this at this time, so.

Okay, this is not a question. Should I go sit down? Are there more questions?

Mr. Rauschen. I don't have a question for her, but a question for Ned. With what was passed here at our level and what went to city council, if I remember correctly, Our regulations or requirements of this ordinance are more lax than communities around us, correct?

Or am I incorrect? No, Altoona bans this type of practice. Yeah, Madison doesn't allow this. Green Bay doesn't allow it based off our research. This would be more open.

Correct. So we're already more generous than other surrounding cities?

With what was already passed, correct. Yes. Yeah, these are some tweaks. Somebody, I think Zoe asked about no-through truck routes. So those have been specifically asked by usually residents that have difficulties with truck movements. So Carson Park Drive or other places like parks, Lake Street, Ferry Street, London Road. So they're actually in the ordinance. So there's only four situations that are no-through. So that's pretty minor. But just to answer your question on that. Commissioner Wolfman.

Mr. Noel, can this amendment, I think the answer is yes, this amendment could come back if, for instance, Ms. Schoen came back with residents to speak to it, a petition, whatever, it could come back to us, correct?

yeah if you postpone but it will go before the um city council it's already been public notices as such it will okay so i mean again remember the plan commission's recommendation body yeah okay commissioner brewster thank you chair um so i just want a little clarification if possible about the the process for conditional use um you can technically meet

all the conditions for conditional use and we can still turn it down.

No, that would open the city up to a lawsuit. That's why the conditions are there, so that we reduce subjectivity. So that's why there's a lot of conditions on this one. So if they meet all the conditions, it's basically a permitted use with conditions. The state law changed probably 10 years ago now to make this more clear so that applicants know what they're getting into.

so if um a follow-up if i may um so if somebody uh like if two situations are identical and one person has the support of all their neighbors and one person doesn't that makes no difference at all correct yeah it needs to be based off of objective measurable

Definable type things rather than opinions. Can we put you know Like the same way we do with the the chicken ordinance your neighbors have to be okay with it Yeah, you could have a percent of you could add as a percent of neighbors Some sort of objective, you know 75% of neighbors 80% of neighbors you know The majority of neighbors agree, but I think the concern with the city planning aspect is that say the diesel and you've got neighbors that have asthma next door and then all of a sudden you introduce an externality that is hurting somebody with their public health and that's why city planning is there to try to take pull apart um externalities negative concerns that might actually hinder public health and so as it might be adjacent to industrial zone the other property on the other side of the property might be adjacent to residential and that might be where it's affecting if that's where the driveway is and so it's hard to really look at all those particular cases but that's why overall when we think about writing code we're thinking about the whole city rather than just one isolated property

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Noel. I will entertain a motion.

So moved. Mr. Brewster? Second.

And Mr. Reed? Any comments? or discussion from the commissioners. Mr. Brewster.

Yeah, so one thing that I've been thinking about with this is I'm not sure how it would be written, and I probably should have talked to Ned beforehand, but it slipped my mind. And I guess one of my thoughts on how to tweak this would be to have it so the driveway for it has to come onto a truck route. Does everyone, can everyone kind of visualize what I'm saying? so like yes you can store it but it can't be you can't like go around your house and then uh come on to you know so you have to like pull on to the truck route that might be one thing that that might help with that um and also i was thinking about the the thing i asked uh planner noel about with regard to um the adjacent percentage of neighbors. I don't know. I'd be interested to hear what other people think about either of those options before I go ahead and make a motion on it.

Further discussion?

I'm in full support of the percentage of neighbors. Right now, it is anecdotal, and I understand that, yet I very much support all of staff's negative potential impact, so I would strongly support a percentage of neighbors' objective criteria to be added. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I think as it's written now, as it relates to is this, you know, does this pass the comprehensive plan? I'm leaning. I had a lot of hesitancy. I'm leaning towards it is technically compatible with the comprehensive plan because it only applies to folks on truck routes. So that's where I'm leaning right now.

Commissioner Brewster.

I guess I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion to add a conditional use requirement to require approval of 75% of adjacent property owners.

I'll second that.

If I could quick throw a question to Ned. Do you need like exact wording or is that sufficient? Okay, thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion as amended?

Well, first I have to call the motion as amended. Just on the amendment, yes. It's the same. What are we voting on again? The motion is to approve as amended by Commissioner Brewster.

We're voting on the amendment.

Can we state the amendment word by word?

Okay. Would you care to state that again, Commissioner Brewster?

Yes, happily. Just add a requirement. I leave it to the planners to come up with the best actual wording, but a requirement for the list of conditional use requirements that one must make to have written approval of 75% of adjacent properties.

Procedurally, how would that work? Would the city be required to go out and solicit the votes of the neighbors?

I would assume that we could do something identical to the paperwork that we do with having urban chickens. You know, you just have your neighbors sign this form.

Yes, we do something similar on poultry, correct? Yes. So we have a system in place to do that. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions on the amendment?

So now I will call the roll. Commissioner Lawson.

No.

Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger. No. Commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Wolfgram.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye. Abstain.

Excuse me, did I miss someone? I abstain.

Commissioner Zoig, excuse me.

You're abstaining? I abstain. Okay.

Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. And the chair votes aye. And that passes on a six to two vote. Now, we have an amended motion, and I will call the roll on the motion as amended. We will start with Commissioner Leonard.

Aye.

Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger.

No.

Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Wolfgram?

Aye.

Commissioner Zoig?

Abstain.

Abstain, okay. And Commissioner Lawson?

No.

No, and the chair votes aye, and we have, it passes on a seven to two vote. Excuse me, one abstention. Okay, that completes item number six on our agenda. Item number seven is a comprehensive plan advisory committee discussion. This is a discussion among staff. The public comment item for this item was offered under agenda item three. The open public comment period has expired for this item, and we have... Mr. Noel.

Okay, so the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee that you helped to, most of you, when we created the public participation plan, if you remember, it was a small group, about 12 to 15 community members. There's going to be two plan commissioners and two city council members that create that connection point back to our group here. And we'll have updates and other discussion items amongst the plan commissioners, but We need two plan commissioners to appoint tonight to this group. Hopefully you had a chance to look at the duties and requirements, but you'll have a front seat kind of opportunity to be a part of sort of shaping the comp plan as we get into it with our consultants. Our first meeting will be probably virtually. They're out of Des Moines and Omaha in probably mid-August. So we're looking for two plant commissioners to bring forward ultimately the city council will approve the whole group with two council members as well as the two plant commissioners so if you have any questions let me know how many meetings sorry how many meetings probably about 10 or so over the course of about a year and a half Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Would you say that the plan commission people should not be the city council people, or does it not make a difference to you?

I would say to not have the council liaison because that could change it may not you know come April again But the Planning Commission or the City Council have two members as well But there's no hard and fast rule, but I think to give the planning commissioners a chance It's up to you guys to decide that Commissioner Wolfram I would be happy to be one of them to serve I

Uh, I would like to be on, I did a plan comprehensive plan for before I came on this planning commission and during COVID times. So, which was even more of a challenge, uh, than when you don't have all the resources to reach out to. So that was my last, that was in 2020. So, uh, I really appreciate to be on this.

Anyone else? I would add also that I would assume this would probably exceed a year commitment. And if a commissioner's time is up in that year, I would wonder if we should be appointing a commissioner whose time would be up, which I am, but I'm not throwing my name in the ring.

If I may? Yes. I would say if we're timing out, or if they're timing out, because you get one re-up. So if you're at the end of your thing and you're not able to serve, I would say that would be different than if you're able to re-up.

Okay any other discussion Is this something that requires a motion then?

Yes, I believe it does.

I move that we appoint commissioners Wolf, Graham, and Zoid to be the plan commission representatives on the comprehensive plan steering committee. Is that what it's called? Advisory. Advisory committee.

Advisory committee, yes.

Oh, sorry.

Second by Holzman. And any other discussion? I will call the roll. Commissioner Leonard.

Aye.

Commissioner Holzman. Aye. Commissioner Gettinger.

Aye.

Commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Wolfgram.

Can I vote on myself? Aye.

Commissioner Zoig.

I'll vote on myself too. I'll vote on Wolfgram too.

And Commissioner Lawson. Aye. And the chair votes aye and that's nine to zero. Congratulations.

Two people right on either side of me. Like it was almost planned. But it wasn't.

Okay. Future agenda items. Yeah, not a lot. Just that we will have a July meeting for you. Several items. Maybe a couple final plats. And... Like I mentioned, the comprehensive plan is going to start. Probably our public launch just will be a website, more just like press release and things like that early August. Then we'd have that comprehensive plan, advisory committee meeting sometime mid-August, get going. And then when school gets back into session, we'll really ramp up, do public surveys and more outreach activities. So right now we're getting organized a lot with the big project. But if you have any ideas and feedback, just let me know. But we're excited about the new comprehensive plan. It's going to build on all the foundation that we've put together over the last 30 years. This will be our seventh comprehensive plan. So we've done this before, and we're not rookies at it, but we're going to be able to take it to another level. So we're excited about that. But other than that, Director White, do you have any updates? So, yeah, that's all.

We are adjourned.