Planning Commision - Regular Meeting

There you go.

Here we go.

Good evening. Good evening, everyone. It's 6 p.m. The August 3rd session of the City of Eau Claire Plan Commission is called to order. I will call the attendance roll. Commissioner Brewster?

Here.

Commissioner Erickson is absent. Commissioner Guttinger? Here. Commissioner Holtzman is absent. Commissioner Lawson?

Here.

Commissioner Lenard?

Here.

Commissioner Reed?

Here.

Commissioner Zoig?

Here.

And the chair is present. We have a quorum. I will read our standard introductory statement for how we conduct business at our meetings. During tonight's meeting, Plan Commission members will be participating in person to deliberate and take 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 each 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 the use of time. We want to be sure that we have adequate time to deal as carefully with the last items on the agenda as with the first. If you wish to view and not comment at tonight's meeting, it can be viewed through the live event link on the city's homepage under public notices and meetings. This meeting is being recorded at the same location. Agenda item number three is the open public comment period for those items that do not appear on this agenda as a public hearing. If you are here to give public comment on items seven and eight, or items not appearing on this agenda as a public hearing, you can come up now. So seeing none, we will move on to agenda item number four. Agenda item number four is our consent agenda. A, approval of the July 6th, 2026 plan commission minutes. B, final plat of Orchard Hills first addition. C, electrical easement, county line road. And D, excess land of four parcels. So I will entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Brewster.

I would like to pull items B and D off the consent agenda.

Then I will entertain a motion then to first approve the items remaining on the consent agenda, which will be A and C. Move. Commissioner Lenard, is there a second?

I'll second that.

Commissioner Brewster? And then we will take the vote. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson is absent. Commissioner Guttinger? Aye. Commissioner Holtzman is absent. Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Lenard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye, and that passes. Okay, Mr. Noel, you are going to present on item B, is that right?

Yes, thank you, Planning Commissioners. This item is a final plat. Usually it's on a consent agenda. This has a few additional conditions. Some of it has to do with the new land development ordinance to get familiar with. So those conditions are pretty much standard now, but will show up more. To get into this one. This is actually the second phase. So it's the first edition, but it's actually the second plat that we have on this project at Orchard Hill south of the main part of the city off of Misher and County line or a couple County Road double I. And you can see the subdivision here. This is mainly for single-family and two-family units. The zoning was already in place. The preliminary plat was already in place that you approved some time ago. The final plat is consistent by and large with all of that. So that's the main thing that staff looks at at this stage. One thing, though, that was unclear before... I went on vacation. I noted in the staff report that we didn't have an answer about tree Removal the site was pretty much denuded of trees Prior to the new LDO ordinance into effect, but there are some areas that have highlighted here sort of in crudely in green that shows These new proposed Lots that are subject to the new rule because they are new Lots Anything that existed prior to October 1st of last year is not subject to it if it was an existing parcel or a lot of record so in this case, we just need the applicant to identify any high-value trees that pertain to these groves of trees Those ones that are high value that that will be cut down for the development need to then also offer the mitigation of 30% of that total inches and typically What we're seeing is that you can get a lot of those inches through the street tree requirements. So they just double that way. They work real well and you don't actually have to replant them on the lots. So these arrows just highlight from the grading plan some of these areas that we noticed that they have created these buildable envelopes that show the whole lot where there's existing trees. So the applicant just really needs to clarify what's gonna stay, what's gonna be removed. Do the calculations through what we call a site plan and we can make that a condition of approval if you agree as part of the Process and that that would be in place staff reviews it with the city Forester before we actually have that final plat approved So it'd be a subject condition if you recommend and then also at the City Council when they look at this next Tuesday So that's the primary issue. Everything else looks fine. Just to confirm, adding a condition then, a number 10 to this list that would say to meet the tree preservation standards of the city ordinance.

Thank you, Mr. Noel. Is the applicant here and would like to speak? Or take questions?

Okay.

I have some questions for the applicant. Yes. Commissioner Goodenshire. Can the applicant come forward because there are questions for you? If you could state your names and your address before you begin. Thank you.

Dan Knowlton. I work at Everyday Surveying and Engineering. My home address is 809 Jewel Court in Eau Claire. Thank you. I'm Jeff Stockburger with Everyday Surveying Engineering, 642 Farcourt, Eau Claire. Thank you so much.

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you. What are the ranges, the price ranges of the houses that are going to be in your subdivision? Okay, I don't know that.

Well, twin homes, I mean, purposely they do that because they're a smaller lot. You're sharing a lot, basically, but it's split in two for the sole purpose of being in a better price range. I really don't know. I have no idea. Yeah, I mean, I don't either, other than from my own personal knowledge of looking at the real estate market.

Will you be building any houses or just selling the lots to builders?

Well, he's a surveyor, I'm the engineer. The developer is Craig Wurzer, three other guys. They're the actual, well, are they building other homes?

I think it is, yes, based on Paul Holsinger, C&E Wurzer, they'd be the ones mainly building in the subdivision.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you so much. So I will entertain a motion, but first, Mr. Noel, could you state the staff condition that you're recommending again, please?

Yeah, to meet the standards of the tree preservation ordinance in the LVO.

Okay, so I'll entertain a motion with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Brewster.

Yeah, I'll move that we bring this into discussion and then we can add the amendment.

Okay. But I'll get a second now.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll second it.

Thank you, Commissioner Leonard. Okay, so we'll move into discussion.

I'd like to move to amend item B to say add a number 10 meet the tree preservation ordinance in the LDO.

Yeah, I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Reid. Any discussion before we vote on that? Okay, I'll take the vote. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye, and that passes. So I will now entertain a motion on D, the excess land item.

I so move.

Commissioner Brewster, a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Leonard, and then Mr. White, you have a presentation? Yes. Thank you.

Good evening, Aaron White, Community Development Director, and the For you and it went on the consent agenda. Normally we see excess land declarations go on the consent agenda before Plan Commission, but with these being pulled off we have a short presentation We're looking at four sets of parcels or four different areas within the within the city for consideration of excess land the first one the Park Ridge parcel It's outlined in the light blue. So this is an area that's adjacent to the Half Moon Lake A little closer view of that parcel. Again, it is that odd-shaped triangular piece that's highlighted in the orange. This map shows the surrounding zoning. The current zoning for that is mixed residential. This property was acquired by the city through a tax delinquency sale years ago. The city has sat on it and made no use of it, so it's determined that this would be suitable for potentially most of these that we'll be looking for are looking at some type of housing at some point in time. That's what's currently around them, and that's what would be most appropriate use for those. So this site would have potential to be one or two unit. living units home units and again it city doesn't have a need for it it isn't part of our trailer park system so we'd be looking for an excess land declaration for future proposals i'd reiterate that none of these sites have any existing proposals or proposed uses for them we are simply going through the excess land declaration once they're declared access land the city can then acquire invite proposals to be submitted for final uses of these sites so these are all just Excess land, the city has determined that there's not a need to maintain ownership of them moving forward. So this would be the first park ridge parcel. The second parcel is on Vinecourt Parcel, again outlined in light blue. Zooming a little bit closer. Nobody really knows, had a detail of why this site was acquired by the city in years past. Again, there's no reason to maintain ownership of it. It is in an area that's surrounded by residential, and in this case, neighborhood residential. So it's likely, again, suitable for future residential project. It is, again, a large enough size that it could accommodate a one or two unit residential unit. And again, looking for determination on this site. The next two parcels I've combined together, these are in what's collectively referred to as the well field site. The well field is a 400 acre chunk of land that is out by the airport and is the source of the well fields for the cities, or several of the cities, wells for the city. The two parcels that we're looking at clear access are outlined in red. They are a fraction of a percent of the overall well field capacity. The close-up of those two sites, they're both highlighted in the light green. Wellfield is... Zone public the surrounding areas are sewn general residential. I would highlight in these spaces. There are if you look there are red and blue lines Leading into those parcels that are highlighted. Those are existing water and sewer laterals That are going into the new city park. There are about 22 existing water and sewer laterals going into the those two areas that are highlighted in light green. There are 22 existing houses within the well field. They were built anywhere from the 70s up into the most recent one in 2016 along East Riverview Terrace. So these are, don't know why, and nobody in the city knows why they stopped building within these spaces they were intended to be built out the laterals for water and sewer are in those spaces so we'd look to just complete what was originally intended to be done in those the city utilities and city community services have reviewed this and there is no need or reason from a utility standpoint or wellfield standpoint to keep those spaces open. And there's no issues from the utilities of putting in housing that was originally intended to go in there in years past. We had a lot of feedback on this one from the community, mostly from the surrounding neighborhoods. General response was they don't want any new housing in this area. They like it the way it is, would like to see it left the way it is. We had an open house at the library several weeks ago. About 40 folks came in and attended. Most of the comments relates to this space. Some of the representatives from those neighborhood areas have also provided some information that are looking to move forward. They would like to leave these spaces undeveloped, again, just because they don't want to see additional housing in the area. From our standpoint, from the city standpoint, there's no reason to not build out the housing as was intended to be built in these spaces in years past when the laterals were put into those areas. Those are the locations. It's pretty basic. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. I know there's not like a special legal requirement that this be seen by Parks, Waterways, and Urban Forestry because the Wellfields area isn't technically a park. My understanding is that it was presented there anyway. Could you give a little info as to what that thought or how that conversation went?

It was previously presented with a cluster of parcels, one of those which was a park, and that's the reason why it went towards parks and water. They just took them. They all got put on the agenda instead of the one that had to go on the agenda. That parcel that is a park was removed and is not under any type of consideration for excess land, so we're just following the standard process, which is plant commission recommendation and then on to council. Okay.

Follow-up. So I know that there's been some conversation about putting the remaining area of the well fields that does not include these parcels into some sort of conservation easement that would also allow the water utility to use it for water utility things if it ever needed to. If you could provide any insight as to what that process would look like and potentially a timeline for something like that.

Sure, we don't have a timeline for it. The first thing is the final parcel on the North Long Riverview. We'd have to do a formal CSM for that. What we're estimating there is just carrying the lot line on the backside. So we'd have to do a formal legal meets and ways of that area as well. The balance of the space certainly could do any type of conservation program, a conservancy conservation easement. We'd need to sit down with the legal department and determine what's appropriate and what allows the operation by utilities to continue to operate by utilities. But yeah, council could certainly make that choice and would provide the direction to start that process. That would be strictly a council decision. But it certainly could be done and council would be well within their means to be able to direct staff to do some sort of preservation within the balance of the space. of reiterate on this discussion that the only pieces that the city is looking at for excess land are the ones that are stubbed for water and sewer were and were intended to be housing at some point in time okay thank you any other questions

On the top of page 28, you have the statement that it costs $500,000 to build a single family home in Eau Claire. That's the cost of the land and the cost of the building, but doesn't include any profit for the developer. that number kind of riled me the wrong way so i started doing some checking and i checked with a local developer who immediately pointed me to a mls listing of a property on jeffers road that's brand new property three thirteen hundred forty seven square feet two bedrooms two baths two car garages selling for three hundred and fifty two thousand nine hundred fifty five dollars Did some more checking, found another one, another listing for $352,000. And both those listings include profits for the developer, of course. So I suggest to you that this number is a little bit on the high side.

I'd probably clarify that I'm not sure how that was stated in there, but the statistic that we were given, one of our local developers pulled every new home construction sale, and we're talking new construction. They pulled the new home construction sale for every project in the Chippewa Valley in 2024 and 2025. The average new home construction price for sale for single-family home was $501,000. in the chippewa valley over a two-year period and that was taking account all sales of new construction obviously there may be few that are selling at different price points less than that but as it's that's an average they're also houses are selling considerably higher than that average not media average correct you know what averages do all right i just wanted some clarification thank you certainly

Mr. White, was most of the feedback from the community there that they wanted to see it undeveloped, did that include the residential areas that are stubbed in, or are they concerned that there would be further development behind those properties?

Little bit of both some of the feedback was they liked them exactly as it is and didn't want any change to it at all Some of them some of the comments coming forward were that this is the first step to develop the entire well field site Which obviously we can't do that as our well sources. We can't develop the entire site the idea of doing some sort of Conservancy would be a means to help alleviate some of those concerns that this is like the first step in a broader redevelopment of this area

Thank you.

Any other discussion from the commissioners on this item? Commissioner Brewster. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, you're good. We almost had it at the same time.

Commissioner Reed.

Yeah, I noticed the previous speaker said that this issue came before Parks and Waterways before March 25th. Is that correct? absolutely they wanted more information on what was being proposed and and we kind of stepped three you having a conversation with Council and we went to a new process which will do open houses

on some of these larger excess land processes. We had that first one a few weeks ago and went over all these parcels, opened to the community, opened to the public for discussion, question, and answer. But yeah, they took no action. They asked that more information be provided. They made no recommendations.

Commissioner Brewster? Oh, nothing. Any further discussion on this item? We do have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brewster?

I would like to divide the question on this particular item to have a separate vote on the Lawrence Street and East Riverview Drive parcels. I will second that.

Commissioner Reed has seconded that. Any discussion on that?

I do. Commissioner Zoig? From the presentation Mr. White gave us, these are all meant to be developed lands. They just stopped being developed and somehow the city took possession of it. I think we're just starting back up what was supposed to be finished and completed. I don't know why we got to separate all the, just, I'm questioning why is more like the reasoning, why we're separating everything.

Commissioner Brewster?

Yeah, so my thought process on this is like this is an area that, you know, there's a lot of people with disabilities Concerns in the neighborhood and I think there's value in slowing this particular one down and providing potentially more opportunity for public input and discussion with both staff and council members and You know as as mr. White said there's no There's no plans that were delaying by giving us a little bit more time and I haven't gotten any input from any community members on any of the other ones, so I see no reason to delay those. But this one I would like to slow the process down a little bit so people feel like they can be heard.

Commissioner Reed?

Yeah, in response to a previous speaker, likewise I agree that these two parcels identified are materially different than the other two, just being around the well field, and I would like to see... Some more thoughts on, because it's wooded public land, possible conservation functions. I mean, I feel like we have a responsibility to at least think about it. But also, I want to be cognizant that we only make recommendations. So, yeah, I want to make a recommendation to council to do something like that.

Any other discussion before the vote on separating out these two parcels? then we're taking a vote on separating out these two parcels. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson?

No.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? No. And the chair votes aye, so that passes. Now I'll entertain a motion on the remaining two items in D on the consent Agenda?

Commissioner Brewster? It's already been moved, so we can just vote on that.

Okay, okay. Any other discussion on the remaining two items? Then we'll take the vote. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger? Aye. Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye, and that passes.

So we have to go back to discussing just those two parcels.

Okay. You have to excuse us. This is probably the most complicated consent agenda item that we've had. So we are back to discussing those two parcels. Commissioner Brewster.

I would move to table this item for a time period until our next meeting with the hopes that there would be an opportunity for parks, waterways, and urban forestry to discuss this further. I know it's not technically a park. I would argue that it definitely falls under the canopy of urban forestry in some capacity, and it's definitely a recreation area, and then with their discussion and recommendation it could come back for our next meeting uh or our let me if it wouldn't be our next meeting it would be our let's see what date would that be it would be september 8th 7th

August 31st. August 31st.

Oh. August 31st. Oh, because it's the Monday before the first Tuesday. Oh, geez. Okay. Yeah. August 31st. Second. Yeah.

Any discussion from the commissioners before the vote? Commissioner Reid?

I just have a procedural question. Is this the right way to go about it? Like should we, instead of tabling, should we like recommend the table? Or I'm just like curious what the language is.

We have a date scheduled to pull it off, so.

Then I will take the vote. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger? Aye. Commissioner Lawson?

No.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig?

No.

And the chair votes aye, so that item passes. So we will now move on to our regular agenda. Item number five is a public hearing for recommendation to city council, the land development ordinance amendments. City of Eau Claire is the applicant. The location is citywide and our staff presenter is Mr. Noel.

Hello again. So we have a couple zoning corrections we found for the zoning map. These are city-owned properties that will be rezoned to be public. The first one is a stormwater pond by Fleet Farm. and that's zoned corridor commercial plan development. So we propose to rezone that to be public so it's consistent with its use and ownership. The other parcel is a remnant of a commercial plan Canary district in terms of the the redevelopment and it was zoned CBD and then crossed over to urban commercial or UC and Since it's parkland and owned by the city proposed to rezone that to be public So it's consistent with the parkland use so pretty straightforward zones again both owned by the city Again, this is another package of cleanups in terms of as we've implemented the LDO, different issues that we've identified, mainly non-policy issues, more smaller kind of tweaks to the code. And this first one actually is dealing with the form base The city decided to go with some form based zoning, more of a hybrid approach, some different principles of build two lines related to maximum build out frontage of a building on a street or actually more on a parcel related to more urban context, so downtown and our urban commercial zones. So in these districts right here, we have building, build out maximums, or sorry, I should say minimums, and it gets progressively higher in the downtown, because we want to densify those areas and use land most effectively in the urban context. But we have noticed, actually back to this situation, If you look at the Canary Park, the land to the south of that rezoned parcel is owned by the RDA, and there's looking at a possible artisan manufacturer type business in there. And you can see how that lot is really long and narrow. And so that building maximum frontage doesn't really work very well for trying to do that sort of. We're working with the applicant to try to still meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. But these provisions, they're footnoted in three and four for both zoning districts, allow staff through the administrative adjustment process, kind of a mini variance process, light variants if you will to look at again meeting the spirit intent of the zoning district, but making sure that they Are sort of accommodated with these strange-looking Lots That they're not at a disadvantage of that. So that's the idea. They're Applied to a real real-life situation that we're working with the applicant that does propose a Two-story building urban context and things like that. So hopefully you may see that in the future but example of that I'm not calling out all the ordinance amendments just the ones that are more kind of bigger changes and things to to note this was an area location requirements for different land uses that as the city sought to do more gentle density missing housing middles more entrepreneurship in in neighborhoods to do limited use permits on some New uses so when it comes to the locational requirements, this is also very a big sticking point with some of the Neighborhoods to the GR districts. That's the lowest density the general residential district the main issue there was to only if you had If you were proposing a three or four plex, you had to be next to a higher density zone or next to a busier street, right? And so we wanted just to make that more clear. We used next to language as opposed to adjoining or adjacent. That got a little tricky in terms of what did that actually mean, so just more plain, simple language. And instead of block, that became more confusing. We made sure that it was really what council directed on a lot. So that's the big change there. More of a clarification on how we've been applying that has been the lot principle, but this is actually making it very clear. So retains that council policy on the issue. Section five and six more relate to the entrepreneurship opportunities. And these are the accessory commercial units. So again, these are smaller little units not a home occupation, but kind of the next level up. And then the live work unit, the next level up from there, trying to integrate a little bit more mixed use opportunities for entrepreneurship in those primary structures that are used for residential purposes. The live work unit has to be at least 50% residential. So in order to do this, we retained the block concept that if you were on a block, that and this is what basically was passed but just again clarifying this is that if you're on the block containing these higher density properties that you would be allowed to be able to do this if you met all the other rules mind you so that's what that's clarifying there the same language for both the the ACU and the live work unit to say that if you're on that block or on a busy street you're allowed to do it but the limited use permit protections related to size number employees the types of uses uh... such as woodworking is not allowed anymore for these type of uses arts and manufacturing is but We don't want outside noise. Remember, you had a conditional use permit for a woodworking shop. That was quite controversial over a year ago, right? So the uses have been more restricted. Employee size has been noted in terms of the maximums and then parking as well in terms of making sure that you can meet some additional parking stalls. So if the applicant would be able to meet all that and is found with that location requirement, they could be able potentially to do it so that it would be more compatible into those of that housing. So that's that one. And then also through application of our new landscape parking lot design ordinances. Again, the design principles on this was really trying to use shade trees and landscaping to accommodate stormwater, to prevent the heat island effect, to beautify, to delineate some of the issues where we have areas basically people driving over landscaping and destroying it. So with the new landscaping island requirement, we were noticing that when we applied it to such an example like this, these smaller lots that are 50 stalls or less that In some cases, it would actually be a hindrance. They would lose the required parking. These sites are usually a half acre or less, so they're not very big anyways. You can see on this one that you've got a decent amount of, even though there's no boulevard there, tree-wise, you do have some green areas that this when the lot would be repaved and if you're under 50 stalls that you would not be subject to these having to install the landscape islands so we thought that that was more practical and it proposed that to you anything above that size would still have to meet those rules um and and there's some options there too for that but that's a another change so those are the main highlights to uh SHARE WITH YOU ABOUT THE ORDINANCE UPDATES. THERE'S A FEW OTHER SMALL THINGS THAT I CAN ANSWER IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OTHER SMALL CODES THAT WE PROPOSE TO DO FOR AMENDMENTS. BUT I THINK THIS IS ALREADY OUR THIRD ROUND OF LDO AMENDMENTS THIS YEAR. PROBABLY HAVE ANOTHER ONE LATER THIS YEAR. SO WE'RE LEARNING AS WE APPLY. Do you have any other questions of staff?

Thank you, Mr. Noel. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Obviously, the entire LDO isn't in our packet, and I didn't get a chance to look it up. I'm assuming when it comes to the live work unit and the accessory commercial units, if there's, you know, you mentioned woodworking, but if there's things with, like, you know, significant negative externalities that that would not be allowed, like, you know, a small hot pepper sauce factory, right, you know? Or something like that.

Right. Yeah, the compatibility, you know, there is a number of conditions that are all in the code about live work and accessory commercial units. So, you know, it gets progressively a little more intense as you go up to the live work unit. So, like, artisan manufacturing is allowed in a live work unit, right? for example, but you have to meet those standards which deals with the noise as well.

So cinnamon roll factory, yes. Hot peppers factory. Depends on how it smells, right? Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr. Noel from the commissioners? Seeing none, thank you so much, Mr. Noel. This item is a public hearing. If you're here to speak to this item, please approach the podium. State your name and address and spell your last name before you begin your comment. I'll wait just a minute. Seeing none, let's see. I'll entertain a motion on this item.

I so move.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Leonard, any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I will take the, oh, excuse me, Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say I appreciate the ongoing updates to this. The fact that it sort of feels a little bit more like a living document than it could have feels good, and I'm glad that we can find these places where we can clarify things and still allow a level of flexibility in our community for you know, somebody who wants to make cinnamon rolls at their house.

Any other discussion? I'll take the roll. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye and that motion passes, that item passes, excuse me. Item number six is a public hearing for consideration by the Plan Commission, a conditional use permit, heavy truck parking within an NR zoning district. The applicant is, I believe I'm spelling this, pronouncing this correctly, Reen, location 3014 Seymour Road. Good evening, Mr. Baumgardner.

Good evening, Commissioner. Speaking of ongoing updates, this is a relatively new land use for the land development ordinance having been passed recently in April, then amended again in June of this past year. This is a request for a conditional lease permit for heavy vehicle parking. So it's by Mr. Green and it's at 3014 Seymour Road. Here's a notification map we had for showing the location area. The nearest landmark I can think of is directly to the cell phone property, which is one of the FedEx facilities here in town. and here's the applicant's site plan for the property so with this being new land use there's a whole slew of new of course uh use standards for it because it is a conditional use permit generally speaking with it the applicant you know he meets most of the standards i went through them all in the ordinance in my report one after another it's For instance, it shows that he's meeting the setback. He's set from the property line. It's further back from the actual street than the house. You can kind of see the eight-foot fence that's along the sides. It meets the zoning requirements. It is zoned GR, which it requires it be. It is across, it's buffering, or it's abutting, rather, a collector road in the form of Seymour Road. The applicant was able to get signatures from the majority of the property owners around it, 86 or so percent. It was five of the six, or was it six of the seven? It's all of them except for the bar I last spoke to. That would be Kitty Corner to the southeast, so it meets that requirement. But generally speaking, it does meet all of the standards. with one potential exception and that is with standard g iii or g3 so standard giii requires that it be screened from adjacent property views and public view with dense landscaping screening and a gate that may include a type 405 buffer an eight foot tall wall or peg fence or enclosed building if required by the plan commission so with that here's a view of the property from from Malden Avenue looking at Seymour Road. And so that's to the northwest. That is the laser pointer will work. Granted, you actually. Oh, thank you, Ned. Very, very helpful. So that's from that area. And so the front is very heavily landscaped. So it would maybe be very slightly visible from that point. Not enough to really be concerned about. You also see the eight foot fence that the applicant has up on the property. This is a view from directly down the driveway. So this is the only actual angle where you'd be able to fully see the truck. And also it's a little hard to tell that there is a wall, a low stone wall in the back of the driveway. And you can see the neighbor's garage from there. So that is in the back in that area. It's heavily obscured from all the other directions. Here's actually another view of the north side, showing the eight foot fence and a series of low hanging trees. It's screened by the house, it's screened by the trees. It's really only not fully screened in this area. So the question posed to the commission for tonight is whether or not that is an acceptable amount of screening, if it just being visible essentially from the neighbor's garage or directly down the driveway is an appropriate amount of screening meeting the intent of the ordinance or not. To that end, I've prepared a series of findings of fact for you to review for the conditional use permit. I've highlighted findings of fact five and six. So five is that the proposed heavy truck parking meets the standards A through G. And actually, I had that right in the staff report. I corrected it when I was working on my presentation today through GII, but it does not meet standards G3. Or there's six, which is the proposed heavy truck parking, it meets all of it. And I'd recommend that you strike one or the other of those. So you do have the option of approving Just outright proving with conditions or denying the conditional use permit. If you choose to approve it with conditions, staff would recommend the following versus that, you know, it is a standards having in there as an additional kind of reference that the conditional use permit shall terminate upon the sale of the property. That's just the standard part of the actual use standards, but having it in there is always helpful. Second one is, if you choose to keep finding fact five rather than six, is that the further screening should be implemented to meet the standards of that. So to the extent of that, I guess it's up to you to determine what they would have to do. But that is staff's recommendation on the proposed use. I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Zoig.

On the front fence, could you go back to that and kind of explain where it would need to be if it was included in the conditional use? So that one where it was coming, yeah, right there. So it would have to cover. Yeah, it would.

New concrete is put there. Yeah, so it would. Where the applicant was showing the truck parking is, you can see where he drew it in on the site plan. So it would be in that area. So blocking it directly from the view would essentially amount to it being pretty much, yeah, right in front of that. That would, but if it were anything short of something like a gate at that point, it would probably just obstruct the applicant's parking. Again, it is pretty much only viewable from directly down the driveway in that instance. It would have to be in that area, but it would have to be a gate or something to not obstruct that, or that's going to cost money. And so this way should note is state statute on it with conditions. So if the commission proposes conditions on a conditional use permit and the applicant is amenable, then it is a shall pass. If they're not amenable with conditions, then it's where you can go and look at denying an application. But that is something to consider when proposing them, and so the applicant will have a chance to discuss any conditions or anything like that, I imagine, because that's state law, and that's a fun thing. Commissioner Brewster?

Thank you, Chair. Am I correct that where we are looking at that picture right now would be from, like, that's the FedEx?

That's correct. That is directly in front of the driveway looking from the street.

There is no more FedEx.

That is technically correct. It's that while the owner was the person at the time, he's actually since sold the property by the time of application. It was still the property owner that owned the FedEx building. But, yeah, it's from that area.

In your estimation, it would stay some sort of larger commercial and or light manufacturing? Yep. Probably.

Most likely, yeah. All right.

Thank you.

Any other questions from Mr. Baumgartner? Seeing none, thank you. Oh, excuse me, Commissioner Lawson.

If we approve the conditional use without requiring the screening to be more private, do we set the precedent then for others to appeal or apply? And would we be stepping on ourselves in the future if we don't require that to be screened?

Well, as this is the very first application of its type, it would be setting any sort of precedent for the future. I mean, we could look back at this in the past, and when another one comes before you, we would give you recommendations based off that, noting that previously it was approved with this, or it wasn't approved, or this was found to be acceptable at this time for this one. So yes, it would.

Any other questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Thank you so much, Mr. Baumgartner. Is the applicant here? Commissioners, plan commission. Good evening. If you could state your name and your address, sir.

Craig Green, RIHN 3014 Seymour Road, Eau Claire. This is the third time I've been before you. It passed the first two times because it went through city council and the parameters didn't match or meet. So I've met everything now. So pretty much the only thing I can say is what you call a screening is going to have to be a fence, which I've got it. It's a rectangle driveway, and the only place you can see it is from the street, which is a truck route, and straight across the street is FedEx. You can't see it from the east. You can't see it from the west. To the north, I built a four-foot brick wall there. And the people that live there, they've signed the petition. They were fine with it. So I'm just hoping you can see your way clear to passing this tonight. I mean, we've been going on 10 months. And I've been in and out of here and in and out of City Hall. And just fingers crossed that to put a screen or a fence don't know what somebody's going to drive by they're going to literally have to when they're driving by they're going to have to turn and look to see my place um jessica shown drives by my place all the time when this first started she didn't even know there was a truck parked there she drives by there every day and she didn't until i until i brought it to her attention and then she saw my truck she didn't even park there because if you're going east or west you have to physically look into my property to see my truck because i'm back far enough and then with all of the parameters, the setbacks and everything, I'm meeting everything that everybody's asked for.

Thank you, Mr. Reen. Are there any questions from the commissioners for Mr. Reen? Commissioner Zoig.

I have two questions, actually. First of all, what is your Your work cycle. How long are you on the road? Are you every night? Are you on the road?

I'm home every night. I leave between 4 and 6 a.m. and I'm home between 1 and 4 p.m.

Okay. So the final phase of this is here, correct? I mean, the city council has made these rules to accommodate this situation. I addressed it in our last planning commission. So the only final piece that is is to put a, by the LDO that we have in place that is for all public, is to have something in the front. So the reason I asked the, our city staff here is what would it need to be done? I don't want to overdo things. I don't want to have you build a building for any of this stuff. I just want to see this completed. with the rules in place that the city council and everyone has established and move on. That's why I'm just asking, I want to clarify so that we're not, so that's where I'm at right now is just, I know you've been here a lot, we've seen you a lot, As of right now, the rules are in your favor, and there's one left exemption, and then it's, I don't see, in my opinion, why we should be coming here again in the next month. So that's all, I had questions for you on that, and I'll let the other members talk.

May I ask a question? Yes. So if this passes without having to have a screening or offense, isn't each application that you would receive throughout the city have to follow all of the wouldn't that be available to be on their applications on a basis you know each by each because the next guy might not have any fences he might have a house up in the corner and his truck might sit right out in the front so then he's got to basically fence it or garage it or cover it on all sides see my initial plan before before any of this started i was building a garage this year and and The truck and trailer would have been inside a garage. I already talked to plan commission, whoever I had to talk to there, to know what I could build, how far, what the setbacks, everything. I had it all in plan until the one phone call. So, I mean, if it has to pass, if you would pass it, and I would need to have a fence, I guess I could figure something out. But because the way it parks, my truck parks further up than my garage by about, 15 feet so i'd have to put a fence across the front and on the east side but back to my garage which how would you build a fence like that because when i back in i take up a lot of my driveway until i get parked in my you know in my parking spot so i'd have to almost be an engineer to build a fence to make it so it would work so

If I may answer the applicant's question on it, is that the same standards would apply equally to every other application we'll get until this is no longer an ordinance requirement to come before you for a conditional use permit for it. Whether or not you choose to approve it with the condition to have a fence or not there, the same standard will still be applicable to every other one just because you decide that this one is doesn't need it or does, that's still a code section that's required for any other application. So it's something that we would kind of keep in the back of our minds for every other one moving forward. It doesn't strike the requirement for anyone else.

Thank you, Mr. Baumgardner. Are there any other questions for Mr. Reen from the commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Reen.

Thank you.

This item is a public hearing. If you're here to speak to this item, please approach the podium, state your name and address, and please spell your last name before you begin your comment.

My name's Perry Woods. I live at 1009 Malden Avenue, resident there since 1993. I watched Craig move into that house in 2015. There wasn't a problem with him parking there all along until somebody complained. and they weren't even from this area. If people can do that and willfully try to take somebody's livelihood away from them by not allowing him to park there, that could happen to you, you, you, you, and you, and all of you in the future. Somebody that isn't even from the area. I was the one that suggested that he go around to the neighbors and get his petition going to get all the signatures on there. We do not have a problem in our neighborhood with him parking there. And I guess that's about all I've got to say about it. A lot of us on my side of the street are elderly. We'll probably either die in them houses or whatever, but we don't have a problem. It's a quiet neighborhood, and I think it's a mistake that Somebody can come along and complain that maybe even from this county complain about something like this and then you know Destroy somebody's livelihood because of it because he's talking about having to buy another house someplace else and move That's just not right Thank You mr. Woods do the commissioners have any questions for mr. Woods Thank you so much

Is there anyone else that would like to give public comment? Please come up and state your name and your address and spell your last name, please.

Yeah, my name is Teresa Lessard, L-E-S-S-A-R-D. I live a couple blocks from this hole, and I just want to say as a mother and a grandmother, it's a whole lot safer when that semi is parked in his driveway and not out on Malden Avenue, right at that kind of busy intersection, because, you know, kids go up and down both ways. And the semi, where he has to park it now, due to the rules, it creates a blind spot for people coming either way. So I'm just saying, as a mother and a grandmother, I think it would be a lot safer when he has it parked on his driveway that he put in and spent a lot of dollars. That's all.

Thank you Mrs. Lessard. Are there any questions for Mrs. Lessard? Thank you so much. Is there anyone else that would like to come up and speak to this item? Seeing none, then I will entertain a motion on this item, and also if you want to state a condition. Commissioner Brewster.

I so move.

A second?

Yeah, point of order on what the condition was. Oh, well that would be a...

The staff condition.

Right, well that would be an amendment. We'd strike one of them after it's already moved.

Yeah, okay.

Are you seconding? I'll second. Commissioner Leonard, any discussion? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you. I would like to move to amend the findings of fact to remove item five, leaving item six intact. The proposed heavy truck parking use meets standards A through G. Additionally I would like to add a note that this conditional use will terminate upon sale of the property.

Is there a second on this amendment? I'll second that as well. Commissioner Leonard, is there any discussion on this amendment? Commissioner Zoig?

So, I know the city council has pretty much made this option in our LDO for this specific incident. I mean, we've pretty much made the rule for this applicant going forth from what I've seen. So as of the rules that the city council created, I mean, he's 98% there. I mean, there is a rule with the front screening. That's not for me to decide how it should be manufactured or made. So, I mean, it's, just remember what we're doing right now. I'd like to make a note of that, that we're, making exemptions to the rules for one homeowner in this facility, and he was, you know, the rules were in place for the last 20 years, and we're going that way, so I just want to note that we should, it ain't going to go anywhere, I know, tonight, so. that we should have the front as well, since it is part of our LDO. And that's what we as a planning commission should go off of and not what we feel is good for one person and not good for another. So that's all my comment to say.

Commissioner Brewster, would you like to speak a little bit more to your amendment in terms of your rationale?

Sure. I think that the intent is to make of, or the spirit of the conditional use requirements are that it not be obnoxious. And in many situations, if you have residential across the street, the idea of screening it in front makes a lot, I would probably be very much in favor of it. This is not a space where across the street is residential. It's not where there's outdoor dining at a restaurant. You know, the neighbors that potentially would have to see elements of it from on Malden don't care. And, you know, there's also a non-zero chance that, you know, by this time next year it's enclosed in a garage, which would maybe be the move to make moving forward. I don't know. But, you know, I just... I'm not somebody that views the laws like wholly inflexible. I understand why that position exists, but I think the spirit of the intent was met here, and I'm comfortable with that.

Any other discussion on the amendment? Commissioner Reed.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that fortunately the way it's written is that it needs to be screened from all public access and there very clearly is a lot of public access that is still viewable here. So yeah, I would be not supporting this amendment just because I don't think it follows the law.

Any other discussion, Commissioner Brewster? Okay. So we're calling the roll on the amendment. Can you state it one more time, please?

Yes, I would like to remove number five, leaving only number six, which says the proposed heavy truck parking use meets standards A through G. And I'd also like to add an item that says this conditional use will terminate upon sale of the property.

Thank you. I'll call the roll. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Excuse me. Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson?

No.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed?

No.

Commissioner Zoig? No. And the chair votes aye. Do you have the numbers on that, Mr. Noel?

Four in favor, three against. Okay.

So that item, excuse me, the amendment passes. So now I will.

So one second. So by the bylaws for the commission, it does need a supermajority to pass.

Which would be five.

Yeah. Was that out of the commissioners present or the total commissioners?

Present.

OK.

So the supermajority of commissioners present would be what?

Just a second. We are figuring that out.

It's important, so we'll wait. Okay.

All right, so the bylaws say that a conditional use permit must be supported by not less than five votes. You need at least five votes for that amendment.

So the amendment would not pass in this case?

Correct. Okay.

So the amendment fails. Can I have a motion on the item without that amendment? And if you're also adding a condition, please state that.

i have a point of inquiry uh inquiry inquiry information point of i have a question about procedure sure um could we put something on there where since this is already the pavement there is already um impermeable so him putting a a shed there that he would park in would not be increasing the impermeability of the lot

Yep, that's correct. A detached garage, if I go back to the aerial photo, would just be covering the entirely paved area that's there already.

Okay. Would something like that that then has a door that closes once he's in or something like that, would that meet the screening requirement as far as you're concerned?

and so that would but there is the other item to consider is that we have maximum area that we allow for accessory structures and in residential that is 1,500 square feet so I don't know how large the existing garages maybe the applicant has an idea but Any structures on there would still have to meet the normal accessory structure standards, so whatever's there would have to be subtracted out, and that may or may not be able to fit the applicant's truck and trailer.

Okay, thank you. I move to include an item. Sorry, I guess I jumped in without being... It's okay. Okay, thank you, Chair. I move to include an item that says this... This... Conditional use will terminate upon sale of the property.

Is there a second to this? Commissioner Reid.

Another point of clarification. As we're looking at it, it doesn't actually specify that it's for any amendments, just that they must be supported. So I guess as we could view it is that the amendment doesn't necessarily need a supermajority, just the final votes for the CUPs, I guess. It could be that the motion for the amendment did pass, then you have to vote on the actual item for it. Yep, so, I guess before we get too far off the rails with making more motions, let's play out the other one first. Learning opportunities are fun.

So the amendment passed, and now we're going to move on the conditional use permit itself. Is there, Commissioner Zoig, is there a second? I'm not second. Oh, I'm sorry.

I have a question here. Okay, go ahead. I feel like we're going in circles here, and I'll be honest with you. I would vote this if there was some type of screening to follow the LDO. I would 100% vote yes if there is. puts a gate with a pole and a little hook that goes into his concrete and blocks it when he's parked and swings open when he backs it in and closes. That's what I would most likely see someone doing. If that was in this conditional use permit with these amendments, I would 100% vote this and move on. I feel like we're we're all trying to do three different things here and it's kind of confusing everyone. And I mean, so that's discussion. I know the amendment was already made. So if the property sale and you had some type of finished gate or screen or whatever in the front when he's parked there, I'd be a hampy clam and we can move on with this and move on and pass this along.

Commissioner Brewster, did you want to comment on that in terms of the wording of your amendment at all?

Commissioner Lawson. I'll just go. I would agree with Commissioner Zoig that I want to see this get resolved also. I don't want to see this drug out anymore. We've spent enough time on this over the last several months. But the rule is screening. And if we don't pass it now, are we going to have problems later? I know it's the first time that we've had it come up since we passed the LDO, but I think we need to stand firm and go with the requirements that were passed in the beginning, just for ease of sake in the future.

Commissioner Brewster, anything additional?

Yeah, I guess for sake of discussion, what would something like that look like to the other commissioners? Would you want to say something like she'll make every effort to figure out an apparatus that would allow screening or what does that need to look like for?

Just meets whatever that says right there that some type of. I mean, he's got, he built all that other stuff, and he was planning on building a garage, and I don't know, a gate seems a lot cheaper than a brand new garage for a semi. So, I mean, that's what the rule is that we have, and whatever that is. So, that's just the conditional use that would be number six, and... in what the staff recommended, so.

I have a comment, but you wanna go ahead?

I guess I have a point of information from staff. What are type four and type five buffers, what is that?

So the type four and type five buffers in the ordinance relate to having 10 foot, it's large spaces of vegetation, sometimes with a large wall, sometimes not. It's in the ordinance, Because the short answer is, yeah, that's not the kind of thing that you would typically put in the front of a property. It's like a great big driveway. It's the kind of thing that would be like in a vegetated area between like a school and the residential house next to it for noise, things like that. It's a very large buffer area.

um if it helps i can flip to the page and show you sorry um follow up for staff um would uh would a fence that had a pivot point and a wheel that you just did that and then closed it behind it would that be sufficient your estimation to meet this requirement wholly without question?

That would work for staff as that works for the Commission. And we can work with him further on it too for these specifics. If you just want to pass it as staff recommendation that the screening should be implemented to meet the standards of G3 Then we can work with him on these specifics as to how to get it done, just that you're requiring the screening to actually happen. Whether it's landscaping, a fence, or some other method listed in G3, we'll figure it out.

Is your amendment going to stand as is? So it's going to stand as is?

I mean, it's already been passed.

It's been passed, right, okay. So now we are, we've already voted on the conditional use, correct?

We voted on the amendment.

Now we have to have five votes for the conditional use. Okay, all right. Go ahead, Commissioner Reid.

I was just gonna say, I do support allowing the use if it complies, but I can't vote for the motion finding that the current screening meets the ordinance when the truck is clearly visible from the street.

Thank you, thank you. So we do need a motion now, correct?

We should first go and conclude this motion because we approved the amendment so now it would be on the floor now that it's the proposal to approve it with the striking of five and keeping six. So you should vote on that, and depending on that goes, if it shakes out just how it did with the actual vote to add the amendments, then it would fail, then you'd come back and make another motion to approve it the other way. And then that will hopefully close out the item.

So I will entertain a motion based on what Mr. Baumgardner just said.

I'll make that motion.

Is there a second?

To vote on it? We just need to vote on it?

Oh my goodness, okay, okay.

It doesn't happen very often that the amendment passes and the motion fails. I'm not actually sure what Robert's Rules says about that, to be honest.

Point of order, could we make another amendment to change it to the other option?

Sure. That sounds good to me.

I'll move to amend the current motion to switch it from item 6 to item 5, where we need to adhere to G3, or G-I-I-I.

Okay. Would the motioner be willing to include Planner Baumgartner's language about working with staff too?

Yes.

To include that.

Are you seconding that? Well, you can't because it's your motion. Okay, is there a second? Yeah, I'll second it. You'll second? Okay. Any discussion on Commissioner Leonard's amendment?

Just to clarify. Okay.

Commissioner Lawson.

We're switching, we're amending it to go to requiring the GIII and work with city to adhere to that.

So in the end, we end up with a screen.

Got it.

Okay, I'm going to call the roll on this amendment. Commissioner Brewster. Aye. Commissioner Gettinger. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed?

Abstain.

Commissioner Zoig?

Aye.

And the chair votes aye and that passes. So now we have the original motion and it's a vote on the original motion only, correct? Because even I am getting just a bit dizzy at this point. Commissioner Brewster? Okay. Okay, we'll take the vote on the original motion. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard?

Aye.

Commissioner Reed?

Abstain.

Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye, and that passes.

I vote Roberts. I do too.

So we, we kind of are saying amongst ourselves, we want to clap. So we're going to clap silently. Okay. Calls for acclimation. Don't look that up. Okay. Item number seven, a public discussion for recommendation to city council, the annexation in the town of Washington to consider an annexation. The application is Hall. The location is 4222 East Hamilton. Welcome, Mr. Noel.

Okay, this one should be straightforward for you. Not a mind bender. This is an annexation request that was on hold with that Town of Washington Corporation that failed. So it was resubmitted. The property owner has a home that the Septics failing so would like to get on city water and sewer hence the annexation request the state has found in public interest to Annex and to reduce the irregular boundary within this particular area of the city in the town of Washington That's all that we have for staff Any questions from the commissioners for mr. Noel Thank You mr. Noel is the applicant here

There is no applicant, okay. This item is not a public hearing. It is a public discussion amongst the commissioners. I will entertain a motion on this item.

So moved.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Zoig. Any discussion on this item from the commissioners? Seeing none, I will take the roll. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? He stepped out. Oh, excuse me. Commissioner Zoig?

Aye.

The chair votes aye. Commissioner Reed?

Aye.

And the item passes. Thank you. Item number eight is a public discussion for consideration by the plan commission, a site plan for an industrial building The applicant is ISG and only, excuse me, Ole Americas, 6120 Venture Drive. Who is the staff? Oh, okay. Welcome, Mr. Baumgartner.

My apologies, I was discussing next steps with the previous case. So this is a request for approval of a site plan for industrial building to be located out on 621 Venture Drive. This has had somewhat of, you know, to do in the city. It's come before the city council, at least, there was the whole outreach with it. So this is, so here's where it's, here is the, aerial map of the property showing the proposed site plan. It is for an industrial building, as I mentioned. That is a currently platted but not yet executed extension of Venture Drive. See, it's a very large property. So the property is currently zoned light industrial. The plan development overlay, it's the same overlay that covers the entirety of the Gateway Industrial Park, or this might be Gateway West. It's, so this is only coming for you tonight because it is part of that plan development. Typically site plan approvals are just done administratively now. However, since the plan development is a series of zoning entitlements that carry with the land until it's amended out, they are still applicable. So there are instances in the report where it refers back to specifically Title 18. Title 18, of course, no longer exists. However, since it was officially adopted into the plan development as part of it, they are still applicable. So this is an example of site plans kind of being a hodgepodge of various requirements from the past and the present. So the zoning is a little complicated with that in mind. The property itself is a 68.7 acre lot. It does meet all the basic requirements to be industrial and allow things to be built on it. Your site plan, it shows an approximately 13,000 square foot industrial building that's divided up into a couple floors and part of the building is a four story dryer building. Let's see. The report doesn't quite follow things the way I laid out my slides. Here is a 3D isometric view of the building. It shows off the 106-foot actual dryer building for us. It does also show that there is some rooftop mechanical equipment on there. This is an example of the new ordinance now requiring it to actually have it screened from the right of way and from public view where the old ordinance didn't specify. So that's one of those examples. Just going back to it. Site plan, here's a closer view of the site plan showing the parking access off of Venture Drive. It does show a gravel drive going around the property. In this instance is something that the the applicant is requesting a waiver to under 18.25 of course the old code, it did allow for temporary waivers be made for gravel parking areas, as long as they were going to be going away this instance, as you can see there's a specific. There's some outlines of a next planned phase for the structure, so it would be going away in the future. It would just be a temporary gravel area if the second phase does come to fruition. So that is something that you'll have to be looking at as part of the actual application. This is a view of the grading drainage of the property. Generally speaking, it will be draining to the north to a pond that's meant to serve that entire development area. If I flip back To it, it's further north. There's currently some floodplain wetlands. It's an area that's been designated to serve as the regional stormwater holding area for the actual developments. The... So with this being a multi-phase plan, there are some specifics related to phasing the landscaping. The ordinance does require that there be street trees one per 30 feet along the entirety of the development, and this is a three-fronted lot. So the applicant is proposing as part of their plan that it specifically, the landscaping be phased with it. This instance, only the trees that are actually shown on there so they're not grayed out or anything that are being proposed as part of the plan. We're also showing some additional trees that would be screening at the loading bay for the development as sorry that's that is that way you can see the loading bays on there they would be facing out towards the street typically that wouldn't be allowed unless they're screens they're not supposed to be able to see them from the street regardless of whether it's commercial or industrial so that's a standard and that would be how they're proposing to solve that so the application does show that there are 28 proposed parking stalls that are, if I'm flipping to that, across, 28 proposed parking stalls across multiple phases. Parking standards are, let's see, that's old code. Just a second. Fun of not writing a report yourself. The park didn't cover that at all. So parking standards under the old code are related to specifically the number of workers on a shift. Parking standards under the new code are related to one per however many square footage. I don't have that directly in front of me. So the applicant will have to meet the parking standards for it, for the number of spaces. Copy the landscaping plan already. So with the phased landscaping plan, that's something to note is that as future phases come in or property gets subdivided further, that various things are shown that may or may not be applicable at that time. As this is just the first phase, future phases will still need to come before you for actual approvals. We'll see how the landscaping plan matures over time. Any future signage will have to be reviewed in the future as part of the sign permits. They're not being approved tonight. And the lighting plan will have to be revised. They did submit a lighting plan that was related to the new code that had a photometric plan. It had the bug rating things like that. The bug rating didn't quite meet the standards. That's something that can be revised pretty easily. Here's the floor plan for the structure. And staff recommendation. So the first three recommendations for conditions came from our engineering department related to the five foot concrete sidewalk section through the driveway. That's pretty standard. Provide curb stops and other structural abutments. That's in the standard ordinance requirements under the old code. It's there now. The third one is something that should be removed so the third condition in particular refers to a code section that has been amended as part of the ldo update however it's not currently on our website for that particular amendment so it's there but it's not So the approach requirements are actually done administratively through administrative adjustments, and those are approved by either the zoning administrator or the city engineer. So that's something that the city engineer will be working with the applicant to determine if that is appropriate. So that one, I guess you could either choose to remove that one or just ignore it. That's not something that should be decided here tonight. There's the requirement for the rooftop mechanical. That's something I covered already. The future expansion, look at later dates. All the rest of them are pretty typical requirements. That is all I have for you on this myself night.

Thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. I'm assuming since it's not mentioned in here that staff does not have a problem with the phase one use of a crushed gravel access.

No, that is something that you'll have to, we don't have an issue with that in particular. That is something you'll have to side on as part of that waiver I had mentioned. That's one of those old code requirements specifically that allows you to approve a temporary waiver for the, that was in the report, but it allows you to approve a temporary waiver for gravel parking areas or gravel drives with the idea that it'd be going away in the future as part of a future, as a phase, or let's say it's winter and they can't actually go and pave it now, so they're requesting to put gravel in temporarily until it gets to spring, things like that.

Yeah, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Commissioner Zoig in the, no, yes, Commissioner Zoig. I'm sorry, Commissioner Reid.

Oh, is it me? Okay, sorry. I was just curious, does Phase 2 have a date yet for construction?

That is, I'm unaware of a specific date for that. I know the applicant is here tonight, and they'll be able to answer that much more eloquently than I could attempt.

Commissioner Zoig. So I don't know if this will be an answer for you or the applicant. Is there going to be a proposed second driveway for this facility, or is this all going to be one driveway?

My understanding at the moment, it's just the one, but I'll ultimately defer the applicant to their future plans.

Thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. The applicant can come forward. Good evening. Good evening. If you could state your name and address and spell your last name, please.

Yes, my name is Daniel Rutledge, 40 Canterbury Court, Mankato, Minnesota, 56001. Last name is spelled R-U-T-L-E-D-G-E. Is there anything that you'd like to add, Mr. Rutledge? No, I think that Mr. Baumgartner hit it fairly well.

Are there any questions from the commissioners for Mr. Rutledge? Commissioner Zoig.

On any of these future phases, is there on your site plans for a second driveway onto Venture Drive?

At this point, the second drive would be determined when we start to look at future phases. The plan right now is currently to where we could extend this to be able to have access all the way around so that truck track could be separated from personnel traffic. But at this point, we would re-look at that when we get to engineering for future phases. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions for Mr. Rutledge? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Given that we're looking at the crushed gravel access for phase one, I have vague recollections, but I'd love to hear from you what you feel like the time frame for that would be, like five years?

for having that and then it would be replaced with something else are we talking like a year from now or as far as future phases on when the expansions would occur and when that would be removed at this point working with our client which is only america's we know that they're looking at utilizing this first phase as kind of a proving ground for developing out the future expansion so um We know that they have plans in mind, but it still just needs to be able to come to fruition financially in order for it to move forward. So I can't state with any confidence on what that's going to be, but we do know that they have some suggested timelines in mind.

Any other questions from the commissioners for Mr. Rutledge? Seeing none, thank you so much. Yeah. This item is not a public hearing. It's a public discussion amongst commissioners. I'll entertain a motion on this item. So moved. Commissioner Brewster, a second.

Second.

Commissioner Reed. Any discussion on this item?

I have a point of information for staff. um if we approve the phase one with the gravel access and there's never a phase two what are our options for at some point getting that paved if they need that access that commissioner brewster that is a good question i see your whole ordinance

Simple way, there are standards that will be met if they don't do phase two or phase three in regards to venture drive extension and some other requirements. Those are written and drafted in the DA and approved by council already. So we can look to implement those at that point in time. There is a timeline triggers within the DA. I don't have those in front of me, but there are some, I believe it's two years, a year and a half or two years to see phase two. So those are defined within the DA and there would be some recourse to do at that point.

Thank you.

I guess on the part of the ordinance in particular, it doesn't actually set a specific timeline for when that would have to expire per the waiver. It's, I guess, up to the commission to determine if a particular timeline is appropriate or not. When the next phase comes to fruition, Or if it's, it just mentions that it's with a future development or change in use in the property that would remove the parking area and require it to be paved.

Any other discussion? Commissioner Reid.

Yeah, I would propose, since the phase two is speculative at this point, I would propose requiring they change from a gravel lot to a paved lot after two years, since that's already the distinction made. I don't know if there's any thoughts you guys have.

Would you consider making it three or four? Yes.

Is that an amendment then?

I'm happy to make an amendment to the motion, yes, if I have a second.

Is there a second to that amendment?

Specifying they would be three years, two years, four years. My amendment is for four years.

Point of information on that. Is that for either removal or improvement within four years? I mean, as long as it's within the code.

Is there any discussion on the amendment? So we all take the roll on the amendment. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Gettinger? Aye. Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. The chair votes aye and the amendment passes. Now I have to do a motion on the actual item. Okay.

But there was a point of information. There was also something that Planner Baumgartner had recommended about item number three, and that was that that should just be removed.

That is correct. As that's no longer actually a code requirement to have it go before the plan commission, it can be administratively improved and said that that should be removed as a condition.

All right. I move to... remove item three from the list of recommendations.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Zoig, is there any discussion? We will take a vote on that. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Commissioner Gettinger? Aye. Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. Chair votes aye, that passes. Now I'll take a vote on the item. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Commissioner Gettinger?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. And the chair votes aye, and that passes.

item number nine is future agenda items and announcements we just have one for you the comprehensive plan publicly kicks off tomorrow with staff doing outreach at the national night out event in carson park so we'll be out there working with families public to get the word out the website will launch as well so we'll let you know we'll we'll send that out to you guys also so that you can spread the word there'll be um interactive map built on there post comments of like concerns questions um there's email put your email in there for a subscription to stay following the process and we'll have some poll questions on there as well so if you're out at national night out come stop by our booth to learn more that's all we have for staff

Thank you. I feel like this has been an episode of Survivor. It is 7.40 and our meeting is adjourned.

My, oh my.