Planning Commision - Regular Meeting

And then... Thank you. Yeah. Yeah.

Go back to

But it's there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you . . . .

.

Thank you.

The August 18th, 2025 session of the City Eau Claire Plan Commission is called to order. If anyone in our audience wants to speak tonight, please complete a public hearing contact form located on the back table and give it to one of our planners at the front right table. I ask that everyone turn your cell phones off or to silent mode. I will call the attendance roll. Commissioner Brewster.

Present.

Commissioner Erickson?

Here.

Commissioner Holzman? Here. Commissioner Leonard?

Here.

Commissioner Reed? Here. Commissioner Zoig?

Here.

and commissioner helgeson the chairs here we do have a form uh... with seven members present 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 intake 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 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. We will move on to agenda item three, which is the, Oh yes. Okay. You'll get some help here, sir. anybody else that wants to fill out a form please do so We will move on to agenda item three. It's the open public comment period for those agenda items that do not appear on tonight's agenda as a public hearing. Items number five, six, and seven are noted as public hearings and have a specific comment period included during the discussion of those items. Item number 12 is a discussion among commissioners only. item four, our consent agenda, and items number eight, nine, 10, and 11, which are public discussions, are open for public comment at this time. Other than the applicants, is there anyone here wishing to give public comment on agenda items four, eight, nine, 10, or 11, or any other comments not related to tonight's agenda? Anyone that would like to speak tonight on agenda items four, eight, nine, 10 or 11, please come forward. Please state your name and address and spell your last name.

Scott Nicastro. My address is S4581 Partouche Road, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 54701.

The spelling of your last name, sir?

Castro, N-I-C-A-S-T-R-O. Thank you. Yes, I'm here to make a request to the commission that you reevaluate the core document to include funding at McDonough Park for the resurfacing of pickleball courts. I started pickleball about 10 years ago, actually learning to play pickleball with Park and Rex here in Eau Claire. and I've been playing pickleball ever since. I'm a member of the board of directors for the Chippewa Valley Pickleball Club, which has about 630 members in the Eau Claire area, and we've been using McDonough Park in conjunction with the city for many years, the last 10 years at least. It's been quite a successful activity. A year ago, we submitted a report or a condition report with regard to this core evaluation indicating that there were serious deficiencies in the court surface. uh... we had paid money to have some of the courts resurfaced were painted over uh... to kind of stop gap that we work with the city to build the twelve uh... six new courts and resurface the old ones uh... several years ago but it's getting to the point now where the courts are becoming uh... more and more uh... delinquent in repairs and the pickleball is exploding in the area and throughout the country and I think it's a valuable resource for all of the residents of the city of Eau Claire. There's about 100 people who use that court almost every day. Some days it's even more. We have round robins on Tuesday and Thursdays. I've been told that over or up to 100 people show up just for the round robins, and that doesn't include the people that come for morning play. The courts are becoming dangerous, and the club has sponsored tournaments in the past with the city of Eau Claire. These tournaments have been very successful, drawing people from all over the area to play pickleball. and our fear is that as the courts deteriorate we're not going to be able to use any or all of the courts uh... as uh... the condition doesn't allow for safe so we strongly urge you to take a look at the allocations in your court document, or the court documents for McDonough Park. We were surprised to see that there is no allocation at all for any repairs, at least until 2030. And I can tell you that the courts won't last that long. So we're asking that you reevaluate that and to include $190,000 funding for the pickleball court surface at McDonough Park. And hopefully we can continue to use that park in the way we have. Thank you for your time.

Any questions for Mr. Necastro?

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Necastro.

Anyone else that would like to speak on agenda items four, eight, nine, 10, or 11, or any other comments, please come forward, sir.

State your name, address, and spell your last name. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeff Lorenz. Last name is spelled L-O-R-E-N-T-Z. My address is 1721 Nicholas Drive in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. I, too, am here to comment in regards to the McDonough Park. I'm a lifelong resident of Eau Claire. I've seen the ups and downs of all our parks in the city of Eau Claire. And we are at a great point in regards to what's happened at McDonough Park the last 10 years. I don't want to cover all the details that Scott's already covered. I am a Monday through Friday, 9 to noon every day there. And the numbers that he spoke about, I volunteer with the Ron Robbins and stuff. A little bit of detail they didn't give you was the original six courts up there that were overlaid have about a 50-year-old substrate beneath them. So it's kind of like a deck of cards where you put stuff over and we're seeing, we just did a $40,000 in the last two years in regards to resurfacing of it, which was basically paint. and some filled the cracks, but it's not gonna adhere. Now those engineers present here tonight will tell you the same thing, but that original six quarts is gonna need some attention. The other six quarts that were built in the last seven years when we did the addition are in need of paint. uh... they're they're getting down to the asphalt themselves and that's going to be something uh... my just stitched up the windscreens not to last for the rest of season so i can tell you when streets gonna need replacement as well so it is zero allocation you know for the uh... park itself seems unreasonable in the proposal so we are here to express uh... the possibilities of getting funding to maintain that the court uh... in a in a good condition because most popular uh... exploding sport on the nation you know is pickleball for a lot of my peers and others as well. Thank you for your time.

Questions for Mr. Lorenz? Seeing none, thank you Mr. Lorenz. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Anyone else that would like to come forward and speak? Please state your name, address, and spell your last name.

All righty. My name is Penny Graham, G-R-A-H-A-M. My address is 3902 White Pine Drive East in Eau Claire. And I am also here to speak on... Agenda item number eight so that you Review all of the comments that the previous two gentlemen spoke about The need that really is getting to be a desperate need to do some resurfacing and repairs at McDonough as they mentioned It's a growing sport and a lot of us seniors play and as those courts crack and become uneven the footing becomes very treacherous and very dangerous for people to play on and it's a fast game and so when you're moving there's a possibility that you can trip on those cracks or the ball can hit the crack and go one direction you're going in the other doesn't always make for a safe footing so uh... we'd like to make sure that uh... in the court plan you uh... ed money to mcdonough because it's so uh... crowded a lot of times a lot of people are they're using it and i know other parks in the city get very very little use and so we would uh... like to see that you uh... at some money to the budget so that we can make improvements and done it questions for miss graham sing them thank you miss graham thank you so much anyone else that would like to speak on the agenda items four eight nine ten eleven or any other

Items not on tonight's agenda. Anybody else that would like to speak during our open public comment period? Mr. Berg.

Lane Berg, Community Services Director for the City of Eau Claire, last name B-E-R-G. And I do agree, city staff does support the request that it was just made by the three previous speakers. We had identified that the surfaces were deteriorating at McDonough and somehow the funding slip through the cracks of this report. We'll work with Ayers Associates to get funding added back into it, but something to keep in mind too, the corp document, it's kind of a work in progress at all times and could be amended at any given time, but I do agree with the speakers. We acknowledge the need for this and do support it as city staff, so thank you.

Questions for Mr. Berg? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Just from a process perspective, is this something that is just going to come in the budget? Or how is the, you know, if the core plan is sort of a plan that we use, that's, at least in my mind, something that would inform our budgeting processes, right? Yep. So we don't actually have to edit the core plan to put that in as long as we consider that budget.

yeah yep this could always be added in the cip it does not have to reside in the court plan but the one caveat to the court plan is if you're looking for any grant funding uh... items have to be identified in the court so and that that's something that we would certainly consider word were entertaining all grant funding possibilities that we can right now, so we would like to get this added in the corp just so it's there, but we do have CIP projects also for sports courts, so we could earmark some of that money towards these courts. Pickleball Club has been a really good partner with us as well, and we certainly would not be opposed to doing some tournaments and doing some fundraising and whatnot to build up a fund for replacement services as well.

Thank you. Further questions for Mr. Berg? Commissioner Zoig.

So was this, the courts, were they already appraised for an estimate done on resurfacing?

Yeah, I believe it was roughly $190,000 for resurface and repaint.

Further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Berg.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak tonight during the open public comment period? Items number four, eight, nine, 10, 11, or anything not related to tonight's agenda. Last call. Seeing nobody, we will close the open public comment period. and we will move on to item number four, which is our consent agenda. Tonight our consent agenda has four sub-items. Item A, the approval of our August 4th, 2025 minutes. Item B, the Prairie West I final plat revision. Item C, the Prairie West II final plat revision. And item D, easements for Archery Park. The entirety of the consent agenda will be acted upon by a single vote. Are there any commission members that have questions, comments, or would like to see any of the sub items removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, we will keep the consent agenda intact and the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Leonard.

I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Leonard, second by Commissioner Reid. Any further questions on the consent agenda? I will call the vote on this. Commissioner Brewster?

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Commissioner Zoig?

Aye.

And the Chair votes aye. That motion passes seven to zero. And we will move on to our regular agenda, starting with item number five. Our staff presenter will be Ms. Kuzma.

Good evening. So I am here to present a CUP. Sandvig Construction on behalf of property owner Anthony Kovach is requesting a CUP to allow a detached garage and covered lounge to exceed the standards for square footage and number of accessory structures within the R1P zoning district. This is at 4769 South Oakwood Hills Parkway, which is located in the southeast portion of the city. As you can see on the projected map, the property aerial is projected as well, as well as the notification map for the property. The property currently has an 848 square foot attached garage. The property owner is now seeking to construct a 2018 square foot detached garage as well as a 480 square foot covered lounge. The combined square footage of all of this together is approximately 3,346 square feet. So according to the narrative submitted by the applicant, the homeowner is looking to add the garage in order to house vehicles and pool equipment for a pool that will be installed, as well as create a new outdoor space with a covered area for grilling and entertaining. The proposed site plan and building elevations are contained in the presentation. we can look those over but because of the size of the structures the cup is required so our zoning ordinance says that no private garage shall exceed a thousand square feet and no combination of attached and detached private garages on a lot shall exceed 1500 square feet without approval of a cup a cup is also required due to the number of structures as only one detached structure allow exceeding 200 square feet is permitted per lot of course if you have over an acre you can get additional detached structures provided you get a CUP from the Planning Commission in terms of other requirements setback height things like that this is it all complies and then finally one other thing to cover is there's the elevations of the garage and there's the covered lounge and we have some renderings as well And then this is the plat of Briar Hills Estate. And the applicant's lot is near the bottom of the screen, lot 28. Thank you, Peter. And you can see in the back there's a no-build line. Actually, two no-build lines make kind of that triangular shape in the rear of the property. So... That's due to steep slopes. Those steep slopes are not called out specifically on the applicant's site plan, so if the plan commission chooses to approve this, it should be made contingent on the proposed structures remaining west of that no-build line, as well as, of course, obtaining building permits prior to construction. So finally, when deciding whether or not to approve this, these are the general provisions, and I can leave those up on the screen. These are also in your staff report. Do you have any questions for me?

Yeah, any questions for Ms. Kuzma? Seeing none, thank you, Ms., oh, Commissioner Erickson.

How would this proposal compare if it was under the upcoming century code ordinance?

That's a good question. So the century code, um, it does allow for larger structures, um, smaller setbacks, things of that nature. Uh, particularly though on lots of one acre, um, buildings can get quite large so long as they meet the setbacks of the, well, bulk and dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district, which this structure, I believe, meets those. So it's, without further review, I can't say that it would be permitted outright, but the code does allow for much larger buildings.

Thank you.

What was the acreage on this property?

1.12.

Any, Commissioner Brewster?

Thank you, Chair. Does this, you know, with the combined surface area, the roofs and the, you know, incoming pool and things like that, is there enough permeable surface remaining on the lot to meet the standards?

There is, yes. So our current code, I think it's 40% that can be covered, and they're under that.

Further questions? Thank you, Ms. Kuzma. Is the applicant here? Sure. Please come forward. Please state your name, address, and spell your last name.

Karina Matthews, M-A-T-H-E-W-S. My address is 391 South Liberty Street, Fall Creek, Wisconsin. So I'm basically here just kind of to represent him. I don't have a ton of information, but I can answer some of your questions. There's not really anything for me to point out other than we applied for it. It's just I'm here to answer anything you guys have.

Yes. Questions for Ms. Matthews? Seeing none, thank you. This item is a public hearing. If you are here to speak to this item, please come forward and limit your comments to three minutes. Anyone from the public that would like to speak to this item, please come forward. State your name, address, and spell your last name.

Name is Jim Seeger, S-E-E-G-E-R. I live at 4759 South Oakwood Hills Parkway. I own the adjacent property immediately to the north and I purchased that lot back in 2016 when the subdivision first opened. It was one of a small group of lots in that subdivision that came with a view and those lots were substantially more expensive than the others because of that feature. A year later I built my home there and have enjoyed that view and some amazing and beautiful sunrises from looking at it from the east. When anyone purchases a piece of real estate they buy it with the understanding that they can or cannot do with that property is subject to certain limitations and those limitations are spelled out in zoning regulations, ordinances, codes and covenants. Those limitations in part are subject are there to protect the value and integrity of the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. I purchased my property with the understanding that those restrictions would be there to protect my investment. My default position has always been that a person has the right to do what they want with their property regardless of whether I like it or not. I believe that to be true up until the point where it has a negative impact on the value of my property. I try hard to be a good neighbor and get along with everyone, and I have no issues agreeing to a variance if it does not have a negative impact on my property, but in this situation, that's simply not the case. I did bring two photos, if I could pass these around. The first one is a photo of currently what it looks like, of the view I have. Then I took the plans, I measured off the size and location of the proposed garage from the plans, and to the best of my ability and as accurately as I could, I superimposed it on the photo to show what it would look like from my vantage point if the variance was granted and the garage was built. I hold no ill will toward my neighbor, but that garage and that location would have a significant negative impact on the value of my property and the properties of those around me. It would also negate the reason I purchased the lot in the first place and the extra money I paid to begin with. So part of the decision to build my home where I did was because the subdivision had covenants in place to protect the property values. There's also zoning restrictions in place to provide that same protection. So for those reasons, I come as being opposed to granting a variance. Are there any questions? Questions for Mr. Seeger?

Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. So the primary problem that you have is the obstruction of the view? Yes. From there? Yep. So if there were to be a nature band-aid covering that, that wouldn't do it for you?

No.

Okay. Just checking.

No. Further questions for Mr. Seeger? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Seeger. Anyone else that would like to speak to this item tonight? Please come forward. State your name, address, and spell your last name.

My name is Quentin Nelson. My last name is N-E-L-S-O-N. I live at 4745 South Oakwood Hills Parkway. I'm one house over from Jim that just spoke. I mirror a lot of the things that he said. The fact that we want to be friends with our neighbors is sure true. He seems like a really nice guy. I met him once. I'd like to pass around the view I would have from where I sit every day and also from our sun porch. And we bought the house primarily because it had a great view. It had freedom back there. We paid extra for that. And we do pay some pretty decent taxes over there. And I'm just looking to preserve what we already have and what we paid for when we bought it. I'll pass these around. You can take a peek at them.

You can hand them to Mr. Baumgartner there, Quentin.

Yeah, we do. It's up there. We'll see if it actually. There's a flat spot on the desk.

Yeah, right to your right there, sir. Oh.

Right in here.

We'll see if it works.

What would I do with it? What would I do with it? Oh, I see. I see. There's one. The camera's right above you. I see. Okay. Yep.

How about if I pass them around? Is that okay?

As it's being passed around, our main purpose to be there is because of the nice view we have and the nice view of the woods off into the distance and the sunsets and the wildlife that's back there. We really enjoy it and have enjoyed it and really one of the main reasons while we got it, and I guess I never thought we'd have to even deal with something like this because our covenants that we have in our area, along with the rules and regulations the city has to build something like that, I didn't think would be a question ever. So that's really all I have today. Is there anybody who got any questions for me?

Questions for Mr. Nelson?

Okay, thank you very much.

Seeing none, thank you, sir. Yes, please come forward.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Frances Madrid, M-A-D-R-I-D, and I reside in 4775 South Oakwood Hills Parkway, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. So it's basically the lot next to the right of this current lot. And I have the same situation where when we bought this house about three years ago, we bought it for the view. And we knew what we were getting, what we were buying, what's to our left, to our front. And we just recently had new neighbors that acquired this lot where we are discussing today back in March. and none of us neighbors would imagine that something like this would be proposed. It's kind of like a Beverly Hills clubhouse, that it's enclosing the view and blocking the view for all the other neighbors, and it just doesn't seem to fit the neighborhood. It would block our views and reduce the greenery, which can just change the neighborhood's charm and my lower property values. It would also impact our home's enjoyment, especially the children who enjoy playing in their backyards and we would just be seeing buildings next to each other blocking the greenery and the views. So we have a covenants within the neighborhood, which is something that we would never expect that we would get this far asking the city for a permit when we have covenants for the neighborhood in which this is not allowed. uh... and i'm not sure if that uh... at that time of purchasing because they aren't new neighbors has purchased in march if they knew about this confidence but on definitely that's some rules that are stated as well and that's what we would have expected for a neighborhood to continue to be And basically, it's the same situation. I don't have photos from the view of my neighborhood, but I would have that lounge blocking just next to my lot, and it would just totally block the same view that all the other neighbors were showing. I don't know if there are any questions.

Questions for Ms. Madrid? I do have a question. So you're part of a homeowners association?

We, so there's a declaration of covenants for the Briar Hill Estates, which was owned at that time by that developer. But once a developer has finished building all the lots, then us neighbors own this covenant and would enforce it if needed.

So you have the ability to enforce the covenant?

Yes, we would, but we don't know if this was something that the city knows about, and also, I mean, what we don't know is if the city approves it, The validity of the covenant, we are not aware of that. We would have to talk to a lawyer.

Could staff comment on that? The applicability of the covenants in this case to this item?

My understanding is that with covenants is that those aren't something specifically of the city forces. They're typically a private matter between the residents within the area described in the actual document itself. So we could, so companies are allowed to be stricter than city requirements are. They're not allowed to be less strict. So you tonight could go ahead and approve this, and it would still be against the companies, and that's something that is then sort out between themselves after the fact.

Thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. Any questions for Ms. Madrid? Seeing none, thank you, ma'am.

Do you want me to pass along the covenants?

I don't think we need to see them at this time.

Okay, thank you.

State your name, address, and spell your last name.

I'm Dawn Hendel, H-E-N-D-E-L, and I live at 4629 South Oakwood Hills Parkway. And I'm here because we bought this lot in 2018 and built and we have a beautiful woods in the back and it's kind of a, it's a special place. I mean there's really nothing else like it in Eau Claire where you have a view and you have wildlife and trees right in the middle of the city. And the way the street runs is, up where they want to do this and and and close to them i'm not up close to them i'm on the other end of the street around but the street goes around and so my backyard kind of goes this way i mean i can see that way because the and my concern would be if they're building this for entertainment and that's what they said i mean it's a very uh... it's a quiet neighborhood. I mean, there's a lot of retirees. I'm a retired nurse from the community and I would like to keep it quiet and keep it as it is. Like you said, the covenant says that this, and you know, I got a dog, but I didn't put up a fence because the covenant says that you shouldn't do that. And so I just don't quite understand how, you know, they're able to, to build this, um, this compound, um,

Thank you. Questions for Ms. Hendel? Seeing none. Thank you, Ms. Hendel. Anyone else that would like to speak to this item as part of the public hearing tonight? Last call for speakers on this item tonight. Sure. Come forward.

And I guess I... here I know one of the biggest concerns is the view there obviously it would be obstructed by the building but there are other ways as well to obstruct the views such as trees and things like that so I'm not sure if it's the view in particular or what's blocking it that is the majority of the issue but there are other things that could be blocking the view such as if he planted a bunch of trees things like that as far as decreasing the property value I'm under the assumption that this will increase the property value of his home. And when you sell a home in the neighborhood, other homes go for, you know, they use them as comparables, things like that. So I'm not sure that it's going to decrease. It might even increase values. Um, the other thing is from my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, he, he thought this was already approved by an HOA. So the covenants is kind of a new thing for me to hear, but just wanted to state that.

Yeah, we'll keep the HOA out of this discussion tonight, simply discussing it based on the conditional use permit provisions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Anybody else to speak tonight on this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of this item, and the chair would entertain a motion on this item. Commissioner Brewster.

I will move this item to get the conversation going.

Okay. Is there a second second by commissioner Reed? We have a motion, a second. Um, any further discussion? Commissioner Zoig.

Uh, so in the past, I'm pretty lenient on approving conditional use permits, but my head is saying a lot of red flags on this one. This is actually quite a bit more than what we normally do as a planning commission to approve. Uh, you know, 200 square feet is a outbuilding. And I mean, we've approved some garages, but this seems more like a complex than just a garage being put in the backyard. And the fact that we have so many people here, neighbors addressing their concerns and the applicant, unfortunately it wasn't here. I know they have a representative, but, uh, To me, I'm not going to be voting on this conditional use permit today. I just don't feel this is right for what a conditional use permit would be for. CHRIS RODGERSEN.

Any other discussion on this item? I just call your attention again to the CUP provisions. I just, based on the testimony heard tonight, I think CUP provision number B is the critical provision that the uses, values, and enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood for purposes already permitted shall be in no foreseeable manner substantially impaired or diminished by the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use. That's my opinion of what would apply here. We did see people come and speak in opposition. And granted, you know, when you move into a neighborhood, you can't assume that everything will stay the same. But I tend to agree with Commissioner Zoig that this is a very large issue. Very large garage. And I sure hope the applicant would maybe reconsider the configuration or something not to obstruct the neighbor's views. So I would also be voting no on this item. Any further discussion? Commissioner Holzman.

In addition to this idea that there's this construction of this complex, and we've got a complex with a big garage for storage of toys, basically, or vehicles or whatever. But then there's a large swimming pool and two different decks. This is being set up as a major party location in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. And I would see that as having some real significant impacts on the neighbors once they start throwing parties.

For the discussion by the Commission? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Nay.

Commissioner Leonard? Nay. Commissioner Reid? No. Commissioner Zoig? No. Chair votes no. Commissioner Brewster? No. No. The motion fails. One affirmative and six opposed. We will move on to agenda item six, which is another conditional use permit for another detached garage. This one at 1922 Welsh Drive. And our presenter will be Ms. Kuzma.

OK. So this time we have a conditional use permit. JB Consulting and Contracting on behalf of the property owners, Patrick and Arlene Rebman, they're requesting a conditional use permit to allow a detached garage to exceed the square footage standards within the R1 zoning district. The property is approximately half acre in size and it's located in the north central portion of the city as shown on the screen. Again, we also have the property aerial and the notification map. The property currently, I'll go to this here, it currently has an approximately 624 square foot attached garage and the property owner is seeking permission to construct a 1200 square foot detached garage for a combined square footage of 1824 square feet, 1,824. Should be noted that construction of the requested building has already commenced, but is in a holding pattern at the moment until a potential approval tonight and building permits. Here's the proposed site plan. as well as proposed building elevations. So the CUP is required because like the last petition, according to the zoning ordinance, no private garage on a lot shall exceed 1,000 square feet in floor area and no combination of attached and detached private garages shall exceed 1,500 square feet without approval of a conditional use permit. The lot in question, It borders the Chippewa River to the southwest, but due to the location of the accessory building in the front yard, the detached garage is unlikely to be visible from the river itself. on the site plan here you'll see that the building is located in the front yard which according to the zoning ordinance accessory buildings on residential lots may be located in a front yard when the lot has frontage on a lake or river provided that the accessory building shall be subject to all yard setback requirements of the principal building and in this case that requirement is met. It's 30 feet from the front lot line, 10 feet from the closest side lot line. And in addition, it meets the requirements for height as well, not exceeding the 18 foot limitation. So as shown on the submitted drawings, we'll go to the building layout, which is hard to see. It's in the top right corner there. The proposed building consists of a 13 foot 9 inch by 30 foot shop area. So it's important to note that the owner does state that this will be used for personal storage. But in order to prevent any issue, if the plan commission finds compliance with the general provisions, staff recommends that a condition of approval is that no business activity can take place in the detached garage without first securing the necessary approvals for a home-based business. And then of course, like always, the applicant must obtain a building permit prior to continuing construction. And then same as last time, I'll leave the CUP provisions up on the screen. And then I do wanna note that near the end of the day, we got a call from a nearby neighbor, Deborah Peterson at 1908 Welsh Drive. And she did wanna say that she can't attend due to illness, but the building doesn't bother her where it is. It's not blocking the view according to Ms. Peterson. And she doesn't believe that it should be taken down or moved. So if there's any questions.

Questions for Ms. Kuzma? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Kuzma. Is the applicant here? Please come forward. Please state your name and address and spell your last name.

My name is Patrick Redman. We are building a home at 1922 Welsh Drive. My last name is spelled R-E-B as in boy, M-A-N. And I'm here. I have my general contractor with me. I do have additional information. But I guess I'm just here. I'm here for questions. And if anybody wants to speak, I can maybe speak after and address any questions that come up. I will say, just off of her presentation, I barely can change a light bulb by myself. So there's not going to be any kind of the shop area that she referenced. There's going to be no commercial or anything probably any kind of construction or anything commercial going on there.

Questions for Mr. Redman? I had one question. Do you plan to put any vegetation plantings to screen your garage?

I am, yeah. My wife and I were talking about doing a row of hedges or something right in front of it that would just kind of make it a little better looking there right in the front, but yes.

Thank you. Any further questions? seen and thank you mister red this item is a public hearing if you're here to speak this to this item please approach the podium you'd like to speak to agenda item number six yes please state your name address and spell your last name good evening my name is mark lewis i live at twenty thirty well strive

So I am two doors to the north of this property. The homes in this area are single family homes with attached garages for the most part. There are a few single family homes with unattached garages, but as the chair very well pointed out, all of the group and detached garages that are closer to the road than the front of the house are all screened by bushes or trees to the height of the uh... of the top of the rough and because this is so close to clear the roads meet current court and wells drive and it is frankly fairly good size my suggestion would be that if this uh... is granted as a conditional use that there would be screening that would be part of the conditional use to the height of the top of the uh... the garage roof on the east side and the south side The east side would be facing the street, the south side would be facing the neighbors to the south. With that, I'm the last person who would say that someone shouldn't be able to have a place to park their cars, their boats, to be able to enjoy, even on a narrow lot like this, a place to do their work and have their shop tools. but it shouldn't be in the neighborhood's face.

Any questions for Mr. Lewis? Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you. Please state your name, address, and spell your last name.

My name is Monique Stewart. I'm here on behalf of my mother, Carolyn Stewart, who is a resident on Kern Street and has been on Kern Street since 1971. And I also grew up in this neighborhood. It was upsetting for my mother to get this notice because we have watched the construction of this garage all summer. and for something to be constructed and not, is there a building permit? You know, I was sure the house had a building permit but, It just was upsetting to see this.

I'll ask Mr. Baumgartner to advise us on that.

So, yes, a building permit has been officially submitted for the garage. Separately, initially, it was a misunderstanding that both the garage and the house were on the same permit, so they submitted for another one, and it's currently pending the approval to see if we can approve it.

So the construction of the garage is stopped until this issue is resolved. Right, I know that.

Right, we've seen that. But how it got this far was what was disturbing because my mother got this letter on August 1st. And it just was very disturbing is all I can say. And yes, like Mark said, it's right in your face. It's dark. It doesn't, to me it doesn't really flow, but it's their property, thank you.

Would you be okay if the applicant did some significant screening as Mr. Lewis pointed out?

Yeah, the screening would definitely soften up that, presence of that big dark building and I'm not an arborist but I'm just assuming that but they're also power lines right over okay you know right along right inside the edge of the edge of the street there's a made the electrical power for the neighborhood for the whole neighborhood is there so when one branch just a block down or half a block down falls on that line all the power in the neighborhood goes out

We don't want that to happen. So I'm saying is, can we find a compromise situation where some level of screening and we may not be able to plant trees that are that high now. No, but they grow. They would grow. So would you be okay with that?

Yeah, I think my mother would find peace with that. It was just disturbing to get the letter and then thinking through it, didn't they have a permit to begin with? That was the question. Okay.

Okay. We're sorry for the miscommunication.

Thank you.

Questions for Ms. Stewart? Any further questions? Thank you. Staff, could you clarify, did we have screening in the staff conditions on this one? No? So we would have to add that restriction. Mr. Redman, could you approach? Would you be agreeable to some screening on the east and south sides as requested by your neighbors?

We were planning on basically doing that anyway. I guess the only other thing is that my neighbor at 1914, which is the neighbor to the south side there and probably most impacted at having to look at the back of our garage, They actually wrote us a letter saying that I'm happy to share that they have no problem with the garage, and they're in support, and I'm happy to pass that around. I guess some other things that were brought up that if I can, I could just address real quickly. you and I are kind of in the same place in the fact that we did submit a building permit that had the garage on it. There was, I think, some oversight or something, and it wasn't caught. And so we got that far in the garage building process. And then somebody showed up and said, oh, we missed this. You got to stop. And so we were also upset about that. But we're here, and we're working it out. So that's good. And then the only other thing I wanted to bring up is there are, and I'm not arguing against anybody here, and we're happy. We want to be good neighbors. There are five other properties that have attached two-car garage on Welsh Drive and an additional oversized garage. I understand their concern about it being kind of front and center right on the street, but it's not unusual for that street. There are five other properties on the street that have something similar in size that we're doing.

It appears your neighbors at 1914 have some structures.

Yeah, their two-car garage is smaller than ours, so they probably fit within the size. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh, questions from commission? No.

Thank you, Mr. You bet. Uh, anybody else that would like to speak on this item tonight? We will close the public hearing portion and the chair would entertain a motion from the commission.

So move.

We have a motion from commissioner Brewster. Second. Second by commissioner Zoig. Any further discussion on this item? Commissioner Erickson.

A question for staff. Again, how much over the permitted, without a conditional use permit, square footage would this be?

324. So the structure itself would be 200 square feet over the maximum that's all over an individual garage. Overall, it'll be, it looks like, 324 square feet over the maximum allowed between the attached and detached garage and property. So that's between both of them. There's only 300 extra.

Thank you. and uh... as we discussed if we want to do some screening here uh... we would have to add that the staff conditions can that be part of an amendment or a uh... remotion here or That we require screening on the east and south sides eventually to mature to the height of the building. That'd be sufficient. Commissioner Zoig, would you be acceptable to that? Sure. Okay. So we have a motion and a second with a condition for vegetation on the east and south sides to mature to building height. Any further discussion? Commissioner Brewster?

Yeah, I have a question for staff, if I could. Yes. I guess this is going to be the same question I asked before, but like procedurally, if we ever have one that's in, violation of the permeable surfaces ratio? Is that something that you would tell us? Or do I need to always ask for things like this?

And is this? So, Commissioner Brewster, we would look at that hopefully prior to them getting the bill in the first place, and we would let you know if that was an issue and that's something that they would have to address. In that case, it would be, for a lot of financial standards like that, I think that would have to almost be a variance request rather than just a conditional use permit. So that's something that the zoning board appeals with.

sure yeah I totally understand but this one is also a bit unique in that they already have built it so it might have been another portion of it that slipped through the cracks so I guess I was wondering about this one in particular as well

Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, again, we have a motion with the vegetation screening condition. I will call the vote. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

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

Aye.

The chair votes aye. Commissioner Brewster. Aye. And Commissioner Erickson. Aye. The motion passes seven to zero. We will move on to agenda item number eight, seven, I'm sorry, seven, which is also a public hearing for a rezoning property on Dorrit Road.

Our presenter is Mr. Baumgartner. Good evening, Commissioner. So as Chair Helgeson mentioned, this one is off of Dort Road. It's in the southwest side of the city. And this is partially part of the former Ravenlex general development plan that came for you guys last year. So here's an aerial photo and on there we marked out specifically the area that's being requested to be rezoned, city limits and the three parcels that are ultimately part of the overall development. I should note that the vacant area to the southwest, that's mostly trees, that's something that the owner is retaining at this time that would be coming in potentially under another developer at a later date. I also should note that the lots on the southeast side of the development along Dort, those are the existing phase that was done within the bounds of the existing Ravenlex GDP. So this is a continuation of that plan by the developer. Here is a zoning map that then is showing off that the developments in largely under everything that R2 area is from the Raven Lakes JDP and everything beyond that is temporary non-seward residential and has been quite possibly for longer than I've been alive. We've seen temporary zoning that makes temporary a subjective term. So moving into the development itself, the property is, well this is the notification area, it also has a lot of the same details. So the property itself that they're rezoning is approximately seven acres and it's here for both the preliminary plot and the rezoning. Going over the preliminary plot first, this is the north half of it. Overall the developments proposed be 40 twin home lots in total, so that's 20 twin homes themselves, 20 structures proposed. Something to note with this in particular is the easement that's going across 26 and 25. That might not be quite the correct easement document that was in there because I believe it was actually adjusted to only reflect that's on lot 26. So that's something, so lot 25 doesn't have direct access to the right-of-way. That's something that the Planning Commission will have to approve being there. Other than that, on the south side, it should be noted on the plat itself that there is a temporary cul-de-sac that's meant to be actually turned into real road someday. On the properties, on the roads to the west, on Darmel and Debleen, both of those also have temporary cul-de-sacs, so whenever that third phase comes in, they'll have to connect at some point. There's no specific condition regarding that. That's something that, for connectivity's sake, we'd like to see. So other than that, so it's pretty straightforward on the preliminary plan. It will have to come back for you at another point in the future, and there's a bunch of conditions tied to that, more so on the engineering side of things. Touching on the GP itself, there are three proposed types of twin homes in the development. Only two are shown on there, I should note that. What's the two colors, and don't take that as gospel, the applicants that say that they intend to go and disperse them throughout the development as people go and request them. The setbacks and everything else is designed to fit any one of the three homes, which are actually the existing buildings shown on the northeast side of the screen. It would be the south end of it, that original phase. Each one of those is a different actual home that's proposed to be within this development. Now, overall, the GDP, the applicant's requesting it just for two reasons, really. The first is that twin homes are actually only allowed under the ordinance with the GDP. So by default, it has to go through you guys for rezoning for that purpose. Second is that the applicant is requesting to have a reduced setback in the front yard, reduce it from 30 feet as it is now down to 25 feet. Now, they're proposing to meet all of the other lot dimensional standards. That's the lot coverage, side yard, rear yard, things like that. Let's see if the applicant, for the three different homes that have been showing off, this is the first one actually, and this is a site photo I took of it today. Here's the floor plan for it. So that one is a three-plex with a garage that only extends out six feet beyond the covered porch. So that's actually something under the new ordinance that would meet the garage standard as it sits in there. After that, it is proposed to be designed with a variety of materials on it. As you'll see later, sometimes there is a wainscoting, I want to say it is, of stone on it. So there is one shaker panel that's shown up at the top in the gables over the garage and over the windows. I'd say here is another one of the units. This one's a bit more basic. It doesn't have the gables. It does show the wainscoting on there. That's ultimately up to the applicant. It won't be always shown on the same basic kind of elevations for it. This one's a two-plex. This one doesn't specifically show the covered porch. Clearly, there still is a covered porch to some degree. And the garage would be sticking out only a little bit over, I think that one's 18 feet from the sidewall of the house. It'd be a bit further forward than that. Again, that would quite possibly meet the standards of the new ordinance. And then the final one is this one. This one has the gables. You see it has wainscot. Actually, this one does also have the... Looks like some level of wooden shaker panel or some other sort of material on there. And this one's also two bedrooms. So there is a variety of housing options and kind of design requirements in there. Keeping in alignment with the original GDP for Ravenlux and for the, just making sure that there is a variety of things. Staff is including a condition specifically to cover that fact, I guess, that it's that it really should be a variety of things. It's not cookie cutter, every house looks exactly the same. There is another condition as part of the rezoning that council has to approve specifically rather than just the Planning Commission. There is a requested waiver for the 15% common open space. So typically all developments that are PDs, that are residential, they are required to have some amount of common open space or amenity meant to serve the development and kind of the area around it depending. In this instance, the applicant has committed to doing a walk path kind of around the storm pond that's on the outlot. Is that outlot one? Is it outlot three? I can't quite read it from here. I believe that is... Well, that one, yes. Better I said than I do. Congratulations. So they've recommended that, and they've also noted that Sherman Creek Park, as walking from the extension of Melmar Court, that's happening as part of the plat going around the corner and past the school to Sherman Creek Park, it's about half a mile. So it is within walking distance, and so the applicant is requesting that ultimately the Planning Commission waive the requirement to have it at 15%. It would be up... Essentially what they're offering would be adequate then. Other than that, if the Planning Commission and City Council both approve the developments, then they're hoping to be on construction this fall. I will stand for any questions. Questions for Mr. Baumgartner.

Commissioner Erickson.

Now on lots 25 and 26, it looks like 26 does have frontage on Melmar Court, but it would be 25 that would not?

Commissioner Erickson, that is correct. The easement would be serving as an access and I believe a utility easement for lot 25 to be able to get access.

Okay.

All right. Thank you.

Is that noted in staff conditions or do we have to specifically address that in a motion or an amendment?

That is noted as a condition. It's actually that number one under the preliminary plaque conditions. Okay. Thank you.

Further questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm just wondering if staff has any thoughts as to if this gets built, how they would like to connect Darmel Street into this, or if it will just kind of go around it, or how that will happen if you're looking at the... The bigger, yeah, up a little ways. You know, if we were hoping to connect through to Dorrit Road or whatever, that would likely go right through what is being proposed here. I don't know what that would necessarily look like, but if that was designed to be a temporary cul-de-sac, it might make sense to take that into consideration as to what that's going to look like.

So I guess Commissioner Brewster, regarding Darmel specifically, that's something I know the applicant had tossed that around as a potential, you know, we met with them earlier this year. It runs into a bit of an issue. You can kind of see it on there. Stina, could you zoom in on Darmel, kind of up where it intersects with the property? So maybe it's a bad choice of colors I use, but you can't quite see it. There's not quite as much right of way there. The property to the north actually does own a little bit of land that would have to be dedicated. My understanding is that both the applicant and the current owner of the property have reached out to try to get some land to be able to do that. and they've not had any success at this time. So that's something that it is a little tight there that could potentially be a walk path in the future that would connect through a trail system potentially. As it is right now, that's a phase yet to be had. But based off the layout that the applicant's proposing specifically, it would definitely lend itself more to connect to the Bleen rather than Dar Mill. with how the lots are laid out. So that is something I guess we'll have to wait and see when the future one comes in. Otherwise they'd have to potentially knock out a couple units and that's, you know, I guess I'll let the applicant speak to that and whether or not they would be willing to do that to punch a road through. That's ultimately up to them and for this phase and then the future property owner of the next phase.

Thank you.

Were there questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. Is the applicant here tonight? Please come forward. State your name, address, and spell your last name.

Jeremy Skow, S-K-A-W, 1871 186th Street in Chippewa Falls. Um, I'm here, I'm the surveyor. Um, the developer is here too, so I can, he can kind of field some of the questions without, um, with that. But, um, yeah, Mr. Mr. Bungler did a good job presenting the thing. Um, I guess he had to address the lot 25, 26, you know, up there in the upper left hand corner. Yeah. The, the easement does just serve 26, um, serves 25 by going across 26. Yeah. 25 doesn't have any frontage and discussing, If you wanted to go back, too, to one of the GIS maps. Yeah, like, that one's fine there. Yeah, like Mr. Bumgarner pointed out, yeah, the frontage isn't, the property here now doesn't have full frontage on Normal Street. Thank you. The doubling lane would be more prudent to, to connect to with future phases on this thing, given with the road and set up, you know, how it's set up right now, that it is the lowest, maybe the best spot to turn into once, you know, the road come down here to the south and eventually go to the west and connect with the lane rather than Darmel instead of doubling it back. So Darmel doesn't have all the frontage on it to do that. Kind of like Mr. Bermegarner pointed out, some action between landowners would have to transpire it in order to have the full frontage on Darmel Street.

But questions for Mr. Scowl. Could you just tell me, confirm that there'll be sidewalk, continuous sidewalk on both sides of the new street and on Dorrit? I can let the engineer, he's here too. He can discuss that. Any questions? Commissioner Leonard.

Thank you.

uh... with the potential uh... to connect to darnell would that be something that we could have a space uh... reserved for like a trail or access through the property here at all if we were developing the south half of this too i'd say they'd be a good idea but with the south half being unknown at this point i'd say it's tough to recommend at this point at this juncture tough to have some type of continuation through there even though it makes sense on paper to do it and you know, I'd support like that, but it's tough to project a future cast that at this juncture, if the developer does acquire the self-added property, that's something we'd most certainly accommodate.

Thank you. Further questions? Thank you, Mr. Scalvo. Can we get that sidewalk question answered? State your name, address, spell your last name.

Sean Bohan, E5055 Interlochen Boulevard. Last name is spelled B-O-H-A-N. Yes, we are proposing sidewalk on both sides and... Dora will end up having, has a capital improvements plan, I think in 2026, so next year, that it's supposed to be improved with the sidewalk. And there's sidewalk on Vine, so it'll give the connection and stuff to Sherman Creek Park. And that's, do I have any questions and stuff? I'll surely answer them.

Questions for Mr. Bohan? Thank you, Mr. Bohan.

Thank you.

This item is a public hearing. If you're here to speak to this item, please come forward. State your name and address and spell your last name.

My name is Ann Stremka, S-T-R-E-M-C-H-A. I'm on at 2728 Darmell Street, Eau Claire. So I got a couple things. Got this letter in the mail. These people in gray supposedly were told that this was all gonna happen here tonight. Our entire neighborhood over here, Darmel, Dubline, it's a dead end or no outlet as the sign says. All of us will be affected if these roads go through here. So it seems to me like all these people in this neighborhood should have been notified that this is gonna happen because we don't have sidewalks, it's very quiet, there's very few houses down here that's been like this since it was developed. 50 some years ago, and this would drastically change our thing. And the 15% increase in the number of students area that all these new developments should have, them saying, no, we're not gonna do that, Sherman Creek Park is within walking distance. Well, first of all, anybody walking there is gonna have to cross over Vine, so if you're sending your kids over to this park, they're gonna have to cross Vine Street, which is very busy, and this park is very, not kid friendly, I will say. Like homeless people live down there. You see people walking out of there sometimes that maybe are of somewhat different than what the neighborhood usually has. Coyotes have been seen down there. Who knows, a bear's gonna wander. It's not like this kid friendly park. And when people go early in the morning with their dogs, here, dog, just go run in the park because nobody's around. There's a creek through there. There's water down there. It's not like you're just going to go, yeah, just go down the street to the park. I don't think they should be allowed to disregard the whole 15% thing. And where they're going to put their little holding pond is right behind houses on Vine Street that have been there forever. So all these houses that have been on there forever, here's a big pond with all sorts of mosquitoes right behind your house, and all these new places that are just going in, they don't have to deal with it. Why don't they put the holding pond right in the middle of the houses that are just being built? Why don't they have to maybe deal with it more than people who've been around there forever? Um, I think those are my three things.

Staff, could we see the overview again? Layout.

Uh, and also we don't have sidewalks, so if they're going to put sidewalks in there, when does the city say, Oh, now all of you people have to put sidewalks in too, because if we're going to do pass through there, then you all need sidewalks.

And could we see the aerial view? There's a lot of trees that'll show us Darnell or the dairy. Okay. So Darnell and Dublina are the dead ends to the west.

Yeah. Yeah. It's a whole, that whole neighborhood is right.

And, uh, so tonight we're talking about the new street with a temporary cul-de-sac that staff can you, if you can guide me here, my understanding would be is if there's ever a connection to Dublina or Darnell, there would have to be communication, public communication and another site plan submitted for public comment.

Well, it says in the thing, will future be connected to Darmel or Dubline, one or the other or both. And that's what it says in the thing. So it seems like they're already planning that.

so yes out of future dates when they they do come back to planet and actually connect to those those roads that would have to come before you as another preliminary plan final plot if they're rezoning which i believe it's still zone is temporary non-super residential so they have to they would have to come back as a rezoning public hearing once again so okay we're coming for you to speak your piece again at that time

So in the future, we don't really know what the plan is right now, how to connect that. But you would be notified in the future and be given another chance to come and make comment on the specific proposal. At this point, it's, we don't know what it's going to be.

But it's like, then all of a sudden it's like, Oh yeah, I mean maybe now they could take 15% of that back part that's not being developed that's got trees on because we want to keep trees in town. There's a ton of trees there that they have to take all out. And it's like, well, why not right now make part of that the 15% instead of like in the future? Oh, now we want to develop this. Oh, well, yeah, we were, we didn't have to do that 15% before. So let's not do it now. You know, let's just put a road in and connect and it's just, it all kind of keeps eroding away at what the neighborhood is. But,

We will call on our applicant again to address the open space. Any questions for Ms. Stremka? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Would your preference be to keep Darmel and Dublien as like just?

No outlet.

No outlet?

Yeah. Okay.

Just wondering.

Definitely.

Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Please come forward, state your name, address, spell your last name.

Jan and Jerry Wagner, 2629 Vine Street. Can you go back to where the... There. No, not that one. The blue and that one, right.

We are on the... We're on Vine Street.

Yeah, we're from door one, two, three. We're concerned about a few things one is water and the animals and The the our view you're right, I'm sorry you're on Vine Street.

Yes. Is that to the right of this?

We're on the third

Yeah, we're halfway between, we're by that outlier and in front of the outlier and the other thing, the outlock.

Do we have an aerial that would show where they live?

It would be on the top. Okay. I see. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So yeah. Yeah. Um, the, the view, we have this really huge, uh, four season sunroom. It's all glassed in. And what do we look at? This beautiful woods. It's very serene.

And we have, I'm sorry. It's trashed. There's all lumber laying down, chopped down trees, laying up against the green lineup on top. It's ugly. And not only that, Water now washes, every time it rains, I have that much water on my lot. Due diligence was not done on the study of that map because the area along Vine Street was wooded. To the right. Yeah, to the north of us. And now it's below our property.

It was above.

My concern now is that all of this is going to be above ours and it's going to wash into ours because there's no sewage. There's no control of the water flow.

We're lower than the land above us that the subdivision is going to be. And then you have that outlot and the infiltration cell. What are they going to look like? What's going to be behind? you know, and we have these tall silver maples. I mean, they are really tall. Are the roots going to be damaged? So they all die on us because some of the trees next to us on those twin homes that were built west of us, some of those trees are dead.

The roots were cut and it's right on the property line. A little portion of the trees were on our, on our lot, but the greater portion is on that new lot. Anyway, the trees are dead. Two trees. Now, on the east side of our house, is that right? East side, is forested. The trees are falling down. Nobody can stop that. They fell on my fence. Guess who's responsible? Me. I mean, the trees fell on my property. what's gonna happen if they kill more trees. These silver maples that we have planted across our property line.

They were built in 1975 when the house was built.

Yeah, they were planted there. Beautiful trees. Now to keep our privacy, we planted 19 thulia bushes along the The other, the newer company on our west side. So privacy's gonna be established. Beauty's gonna be established. Hey now, I'm a Wisconsin native. I also served my country in Madison at Truex Field. I was involved in part of the planning when the Air Force moved out of there and made room for tenants. Well guess what, now the military's coming back. They put F-35s in there. Anyway, there's nothing new here or there. I'm a veteran. I have pride in Wisconsin's property. I have pride in where I live. This proposal is not in my interest, nor is it in my neighbor's interest.

Yeah, they couldn't make it tonight, so.

No, no. The owner of that property right now, what's all forested, is not, he has not, doesn't care. He doesn't care about anything. All those trees, they're piled about five feet high, just a pile of garbage. Then our neighbor on the other side of this proposal has nothing but junk in there, campers. Motorcycles, old vehicles rusted out. It's ugly. Is more going to happen in here? I don't know. I'm concerned. We also have drug activity in our neighborhood. And then we have speeding cars going up and down Vine Street. And I'm not joking. They are excessive of 50 miles an hour. It's a 30 mile an hour zone. Increasing the saturation of people, is that going to invite more speeders? Are those little kids going to get killed out there because they walk close to the street? I have a dog, a small dog. I trained him not to go over the curb. He's protected. We have other people walking their dogs and their kids, and they're not trained. Those little kids, if they ever got loose from their vehicles, I shot her. I shot her at the fair.

What is the back of our yard going to look like?

Yeah.

We want to know. We want to know. There's all different. I looked at all the pictures of infiltration cells and outlots. I know an outlot is sort of a leftover. You can't do anything with it.

So we'll have the engineer explain that in more detail for us.

Are they aware that the roots of a tree equate the same as the height of the tree? So if they come in and pull those, all that property on our next to us, are they going to kill them on my, my trees? Are they going to fall in my house?

Right.

Because right now those trees, if you kill them, and they fall, they're gonna hit my house.

Are there any questions for the Wagners from commission? No questions?

I just want more due diligence done on this.

So do you know what the infiltration cell is?

What is that gonna look like?

Is that gonna be underground? Is there gonna be some big box on the top that we have to look at?

ma'am, I'm going to ask the engineer to come forward and, and, and answer some questions for us. So thank you for your public hearing testimony. Okay. We have one more speaker that would like to speak ahead of time.

Do I turn it in right now?

Sure. State your name, address and spell your last name.

Randy Stanley, 2720 Darmel street. S T a N L E Y. Um, in the documentations that stated that it would be so many cars, We are in the route of Sherman Elementary. Currently right now the pickup line is on Vine Street. I come home from working at another Eau Claire school district building and I can hardly get down Vine Street. The cars are packed all the way up. Eventually what's gonna happen is if they open up Dublin, they're gonna have the car line pick up that way. And so the car travel is gonna be a lot more than what the plan said, 20, 30 cars or whatever they had documented in the plan report, that it would just be noted in regards to how many car pickup traffic. Right now we live in a cul-de-sac and we average, we have five houses on our street, that averages one car, maybe two cars a day. And if that road goes through, it would obviously pick up on it in regards to the safety across getting across that street. Currently also right now we live in a beautiful wooded area we had. three pileated woodpeckers on my house. We have two deer, two fawns, a flock of turkeys, and unfortunately if this and when this does go through, we are going to lose that beautiful wildlife that we currently have that resides in Sherman Creek and came up as you see on Vine Street. We just also destroyed a whole bunch of woods there. and are awaiting another development in that area as well in regards to where I'm at I honestly didn't even get a letter in regards to this and I am in that gray area that's listed on there so I'm not so sure how I can be certain that I do get those letters because I've been residing at that resident for multiple years and just know when we were walking in the neighborhood to know like Previous speaker Anne lives next to me and the people right next to her did not get that letter and it will affect them as regards that we have very little traffic and it's a very close neighborhood which will eventually be open to multitudes of new vehicles and homes coming through. We did previously work with another realtor or dealer. James Rebecca owned the land prior to this development and he met with us at Valley Burger and was keeping us in touch with what was happening and was kind of shocked that this has been resold, but obviously it wasn't needed to be told to us, but this is moving a little quicker than what James Rebecca was doing at that time and he had different plans too. And so I guess that's probably why our neighborhood is kind of a little Blinded I guess by it's because the other developer was in touch with us He sent us letters we met up and he was interested in what we saw or had to say within our development and at this point Obviously we live in a communal thing that it is what it is But it would be ideal to know if Darmel is going to go through or connect as that is where we reside.

Questions for Ms. Seeley?

Stanley, sorry. I'm sorry. That's right, Stanley.

Stanley, Ms. Stanley. Any questions? Thank you, Ms. Stanley. Anyone else that would like to speak tonight to this item as part of the public hearing? Last call. Anyone that would like to speak? Come forward. State your name, address, spell your last name.

I'm going to hand these out. My name is Ryan Seeley I S-e-e-l-e-y is my last name. I own Black Creek builders. I live at e 8 8 2 9 550 5th Avenue in Elk Mount So I am the My partner is in California at a wedding so he can't be here, but we're we're the ones that are proposing this development So basically, as you can see in the pictures, what we're proposing is building about 20 twin homes. Everything is done up to the UDC code and everything. We will, we're going to have to take down some trees. We're going to put some trees back. There's, you know, there's, there's stuff that's going to happen. The land is going to be disturbed, but what we're putting in there are nice, clean twin homes. They look nice. They, We don't, I mean, you can see by the photos, we do them pretty nice. I guess I'm just here to represent us and that's all. We're not trying to mess up anybody's way of living or anything like that. We just, we can see that housing is necessary in town and it's a good place to build. So we've seen on the first three buildings we've built, there's a ton of interest in people moving to the area. So as business goes, that's what we would like to do. CHRIS RODGERS.

Questions for Mr. Seeley? Commissioner Zoig.

So I have one question. What is the reasoning behind the removal of the 15% green space for the facility?

I don't know if that was a question. Okay.

Commissioner Brewster? No. No further questions. We'll have Mr. Bohan come up. Thank you, Mr. Steeling. Mr. Bohan. I jotted some notes down. We'll kind of take it. I've got four things listed. We'll take them one at a time. First, the open space.

Sure. So the main reason that we're doing this as a PUD, again, Mr. Baumgartner hit on this, is because of it being a twin home development. We've done... dozens of them through the city. Ones that tend to end up being close proximity to the park. We have not had to end up meeting that 15% open space. We do end up having a decent sized out lot that we are looking at on improved trail and stuff to go to that to be able to end up connecting to the sidewalk that'll end up being out on Dorrit. There was a proposal that possibly we could do some improvements, but just note that that out lot is gonna be dedicated to the city. So if we end up doing improvements to it, the city is gonna be taking it over. And as of right now, the city doesn't wanna end up having more parks for them to go ahead and take over. But there was a proposal to do more improvements in that out lot.

Second question was from Mr. and Mrs. Wagner, their concern about drainage affecting their property.

So the low spot on this property ends up being on that north end. So it does go along the backside, essentially, of their property. And that's the reason why we end up having the stormwater facilities. We can't go ahead and put those in the middle of the lot where it ends up being the highest point. We're taking stormwater from our development and we'll make sure that anything that's coming from off-site areas ends up going through our facilities and connecting to the storm sewer that ends up being out on Dorrit. So there is storm sewer that's out there right now. There is some grade, differences and stuff of what we can end up getting fully drained, because there are some low spots basically on the very northeast that end up being lower than what the storm sewer ends up being out on Doric. It's an existing condition. It's on another lot. If the city comes through and they end up doing the improvements, maybe they're able to put in some deeper storm sewer to take care of that. but it's not something that we're adding to it. We'll be taking all of our storm water and putting it in through the infiltration area and the wet pond portion in addition to offsite areas.

Third would be the Wagner's concern about losing their trees. Anything that could be done to mitigate that?

We certainly can, when we get into the final design, I'll look to see if we can stay a little bit further back from the property line. and stuff to be able to end up doing that and maybe we can end up locating some of those big silver maples that they were referring to and seeing if we can accommodate them.

And did your plan accommodate for any additional vegetation to screen the ponds?

Typically not to screen the ponds necessarily. I mean we're gonna have vegetation, we have trees that we have to put every 30 feet and stuff along public road. They'll end up being landscaping on each one of the lots. Um, typically I don't, we don't end up planting anything on the berms of the stormwater facilities, um, cause it can just end up impacting and stuff the stability. Um, so we don't want to put them on top of the berms and stuff. Um, but certainly in some of the areas where we don't, we can end up looking at doing some vegetation.

So high, how high would the berms be relative to the adjacent land?

Um, Probably not very high, like maybe two feet, two and a half feet. Again, we don't want to end up blocking drainage. We're going to try getting out as much of it as we can with the elevations that allow us out on Doric.

Okay. Any questions for Mr. Bohan? Commissioner Erickson.

Regarding the outlets for this, there's a wet pond area and there's an infiltration area. But you also mentioned there could possibly be a connection to the storm sewer in Dorrit.

there will be a connection to the storm. So our ponds will connect to the storm in Dorrit. MIKE BOYLE. OK.

So you have an infiltration area, but that doesn't handle all of the infiltration of the stormwater on that site. So you have to connect to Dorrit to do that.

MIKE BOYLE. That is correct. MIKE BOYLE.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Mr. Wagner. I'm sure he'd be willing to speak with you after the meeting. I'm sure he'd be willing to speak with you after the meeting or give you his, give you his card or you could contact him.

Yeah. Cause we didn't do anything.

Okay. So Mr. Bohanna as designed, would you expect any significant runoff to, to impact the Wagners?

Um, not from our side. Okay.

Okay. Okay. So he's, he's saying that he does not expect any significant water to come from this site to, to yours, to your property. Okay. Okay, thank you. I can't remember. Did I close the public hearing or not? Anybody else that would still like to speak on this item? Okay, we will close the public hearing and I would entertain a motion Commissioner Brewster's moves approval. Is there a second second second by Commissioner Reed? Any further discussion on this item? I Commissioner Holzman.

On the issue of preservation of the neighbor's tree, as I understand there, I have seen, I can't remember exactly where it was, some guidelines for how far land disturbance should be from a tree trunk to protect the systems. And I would...

Would you like to make that an amendment or what would you like to do with that?

Sure. I'd like to see that because that way, you know, if he's got 50 year old trees in his backyard, that's given him a lot of shade to his house and his property.

And it also gives us privacy.

Yep. Yeah. This is simply guidance on, on how to mitigate for this. Okay. Would, uh, commissioner Brewster and commissioner Reed be accepted? Yes.

Same.

Thank you. Thank you. So we do have a motion in the second with a friendly amendment to provide guidance on mitigating for tree loss. Essentially. Yes. Protection of existing trees. Yes. Any, uh, commissioner Erickson.

Regarding that, I think as a, kind of a rule of thumb, it would be outside the tree canopy. Typically, the root system and the tree canopy are kind of similar in circumference, so that might be a good way of putting it. Regarding the 15%, I'm a bit uncomfortable with using a stormwater management facility as 15% for recreational purposes. It's not a recreational area. And even if you put somewhat of a path around it, especially in a wet pond, I don't think you want to encourage recreation around that in a neighborhood like this. So I'm not comfortable with considering that as part of the 15%. requirement and I do feel that that needs to be done and I think one thing we're lacking here is future planning for the undeveloped areas to the south on this property. I think that needs to be incorporated so we can have a better understanding about how this is going to work. Now perhaps if 15% was included in an area like that I'd feel more comfortable but right now I don't.

Mr. Bohan, could you again address that open space question? What options we would have, if any, to fulfill Commissioner Erickson's concerns? And if you believe that the next phase would accommodate

that? It's unfortunate that we're tied to this next phase. It's basically a parcel of land that this developer is looking at purchasing. He doesn't have control over that next phase and how it ends up being developed. When it was one property and it was Mr. O'Becky and stuff like that. There was different conceptuals that we ended up showing how the whole thing was being developed, but that's not where we're at right now. There's a parcel of land. We're providing a temporary cul-de-sac. I thought at one point there was another developer that was looking at that, of which we're not part of. So we have not seen plans of how that's supposed to connect, whether it goes out to Dorrit again, whether it connects to the existing cul-de-sacs. and whether they end up having park and open space and stuff like that. Again, there's some areas where we have our stormwater that are flatter pieces just because there's a connection point that ends up actually going out to door it. Again, this is property that's gonna be owned by the city because it has stormwater facilities that are collecting runoff from public right-of-ways. So typically they are used. I mean we did walking paths and stuff like that through Timber Bluff. That ends up going all along through the storm water ponds, along through the wet ponds and stuff and that was being used as open space. We've had other developments and stuff with twin homes where they're within a half a mile of a public park and we didn't have an open space requirement because of the fact that there's a park that was close by. As long as we had connectivity to that, which in this case we have sidewalks, Dorrit's going through the capital improvements plan next year, it's going to have sidewalks. It connects to Vine, which has sidewalks. Um, so we feel that it ends up fitting with what we've done on other developments and what we've provided. Um, again, we, we did end up stating that we could end up doing more improvements. Um, on that, on that piece, it's going to be dedicated, but it's going to be going to the city because the city has taken over that out lot. Um, and that's not something that, um, from what I'm told was something that the, really the city wanted to end up going through and trying to take over as far as, you know, whether it's a tot lot or something like that. Um, so thank you.

Could I have city staff comment on that? The, uh, open space and maintenance, uh,

Yep, I can chime in on that too. And we have looked at this plan set and discussed it in depth. Currently, we're not looking to add park space. As you'll find out on our next agenda item, the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, it identifies that we have a plethora of acreage of land for park space, and we just don't have the personnel to maintain that adequately. So we did discuss that as part of this project. There was an initial proposal for possibly some playground equipment and whatnot, but we declined because of the fact that we just don't have staff to maintain that right now.

Thank you, Mr. Berg. Questions for Mr. Berg? Anybody? Thank you. Any further questions? Any further discussion on the motion at hand and the amendment for tree protection guidance? Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. I guess one thing that I was wondering is, like, just because it's undeveloped doesn't mean it necessarily has to be park space. Like, you know, I guess I'm looking at this from above and if... It's not something I'm prepared to go to bat for, but I just wonder if keeping a boundary of trees before you get to the drainage pools, before the development starts, Like, to me, that would suffice as, you know, public open space and requires minimal maintenance and just, you know, kids who live wherever can just go and play in the woods as kids do. I don't know. Just something I was thinking about. And then I also have a question for staff, if I could.

Yes, please.

Is this something that we looked at last year for a totally different development plan thing? And then we had, like... like a 45-minute discussion about sidewalks. Is that this one?

Okay. This was an event we looked at last year for an extended period of time. Actually, this area came through twice. Once was for a twin home that was actually built to the north of the property, and then it was for that Raven-Lexe development I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. That was one from James or Becky that came through. We spoke with the neighbors, and that was a larger discussion last year. Okay, thank you.

Any further comments? Commissioner Zoig?

I have a question. Lot 25 and 26, how much of that square footage is a percentage of this development? So if 25 and 26 were removed, would that be 15 or more percent of the development? Because right now it seems like we're, I'll be honest, it looks like we're trying to squeeze in one last house in this development and use easements to get through. so that way they can build that. So I'm just questioning that. Is 25 and 26 roughly percentage-wise of the development?

Less than 15. The engineer might know that. Otherwise, I'll just put the math on it.

It's 11,000 square feet out of seven acres, roughly.

Just looking at it, I think it's less than 15%. Yeah. Yeah.

The reason I ask is if you were to remove that, you would have your 15% with your per se out lot and leave that 8, as you said, with trees. And we've made everyone happy except the developer that is having one less building to build. But I mean, we have rules in place for development. I feel like we're just trying to do what we can to not follow them. I mean, we've well questioned the 15% on this development. multiple times, and this seems to be an issue that I think we should address before we move on.

So I'm getting that's about 3.6% of the lot area between those two lots. And I should note that regarding that commission for a labor in particular, that is something that is just a recommendation specifically that is going to council for all to make consideration on that one.

Would that be a friendly amendment in this case? Is that what he would need to propose?

Well, that would be a recommendation line.

I mean, obviously it's a further discussion than me just saying it right here in the spot and without, you know, all parties involved, but yeah, I mean, just looking at this, it seems like a logical solution. Obviously, I'm not the one who owned this property and is trying to develop it and making a profit. I don't know what their margins are, so I don't know that. But I'll be honest, I mean, we're getting rid of that special easement and we're including green space. That may not be 15%, but at least we're making some effort because no one knows who's gonna own that property to the south and we can't foresee the future of Holt, they're gonna put 15% green in there and I mean, it's a half a mile to Sherman Creek from that, from Dorter Road and Mellon Court. I wouldn't want my kid walking down Vine Street half a mile for some green space. So that's my opinion. I can make the friendly amendment if you guys.

finding that but at this point let's i'm not opposed to it but let's talk have a chance to talk about it a little bit before we sure would you like to start sure sure um i'm also not opposed to it um i'm not sure uh what the land looks like there but it might allow for some flexibility with regards to how the the outlot and the holding tank and everything might give it some space to be a little bit further from those houses and potentially preserve some larger trees that are there. I don't know. It's hard to zoom in and get a really good assessment of that on Google Maps here. Figuring out what tree species is at 80,000 feet is a bit of a challenge. but that would also potentially leave an open space to have a sidewalk connection through there to vine to connect to the development as well.

Yeah. You were an original motioner. Would you be... accepting that amendment that he's talking about?

Mr. Baumgartner. Yeah, so an amendment of this scale goes a bit beyond the scope of a typical friendly amendment. We would actually want to see a full vote and an amendment actually being made for it then. Okay.

So then it is not friendly.

We need a separate amendment? Yes, we would want a separate motion for this amendment to then go on to the main one.

Would anybody like to make a motion on that?

I'll make a motion. Second.

Could you just spell out your, spell out your motion again?

My motion to remove lot 26 and 20, 25 and 26 out of the site plan to accommodate the green open space that is part of the laws.

So we have a motion and a second to remove lots 25 and 26 to accommodate open space.

Any further discussion on the amendment?

Commissioner Erickson, yeah, it's been seconded. Commissioner Erickson.

Mr. Wagner previously stated There were trees piled up along his south property line. Have trees been removed already from this area?

That was what we built on Vine Street. I built the one on Vine Street, too, right next to Jerry's. Don't need to state my name again.

No, go ahead, Mr. Seeley.

I built the one on Vine Street right next to Jerry's place. And when we bought the property from James, we bought it as a cleared lot. And he hired somebody to come in and clear the lot. Their version of clearing the lot was push all the trees in a pile behind the lot. So we did spend several days clearing that up. And we took it out to, I mean, it's out in the field where we're building now and we'll get rid of that. There might be some leftover, but you mean we put a huge dent, but I do have pictures, but I don't have them here. We put a huge dent in what was there. There was, there was a big pile. I mean, Jerry and I stood and talked about it all the time and we took care of it, but yeah, there might be some remain. It's also woods. There's downfall and stuff that, I mean, that, that happens.

So these trees that were removed for not from this property. No, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

I have a quick question. Uh, commissioner Brewster question for Mr. Seeley.

Yeah. Was that the address of the house that you built previously? Is that, uh, 26, 37 and 26, 39. All right. Yeah. Cause from the, from the sky view, it looks, still looks wooded. So this must be from a few years ago.

So we just, yeah, we just, uh, built it last year.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

So we have an amendment on the table at this point. Any further discussion on that amendment? Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote for the amendment. Commissioner Leonard? No. Commissioner Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Zoig? Aye. The chair votes aye. Uh, commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Um, the amendment passes, uh, by six to one, uh, which is then added to the main motion. Um, Is there any further discussion now on the main motion with the amendment added to it? We've already added this amendment on the tree protection guidelines. Commissioner Erickson.

I just want to clarify with Mr. Zoeg's motion that that would then be an out lot. Is that correct? 25 and 26 would become an out lot.

Whatever the green space that is required for any development, yes. Okay.

Any further discussion? Okay.

I mean, we have to be clear that this would still be part of the development, but an outlot, not be transferred to the city as part of the stormwater facility. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you.

Any further discussion? I will call the vote. Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Zoig. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Uh, commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Holzman. Aye. Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Motion passes seven to zero. We will move on to agenda item number eight, uh, which is a public discussion on the comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Uh, Presenter is Ayers Associates. Mr. Selewski?

Selewski, but that's all right.

Okay.

It wouldn't be the first time it was mispronounced, that's for sure. Well, thank you all for having me today. My name is Chris Selesky. I'm a landscape architect at Ayers Associates. If you haven't heard of us, engineering firm in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. I've been part of this corp planning process for just over a year now. We started that in early 2024. I'm here today to give you an update as to where we're at, hit some key points, and then also ask for you guys' vote of adoption at the end or a vote on the end. So just really quick, the agenda that I'm going to go through today, and Aaron, I know you've seen this at some other meetings as well, so three or four times. You've been involved in quite a big portion of this long process. So I'm going to run through just high level what the process looked like, what a corp is, the community engagement we went through. We went through an online survey, and we held in-person community engagement events in 2024 as well. Some key takeaways from that in our assessment, challenges to deal with, and then essentially next steps. So our four-step process as part of any corp that we go through is this. Collect, connect, consider, commit. They're all listed as C's because my name's Chris and it starts with C's and C's are fun. But collect is the portion where we do an in-person assessment of all of the parks. We put boots on the ground. We basically document what's there, what exists, what condition it's in. and we look at all 55 parks. So we spend a lot of time, a variety of my staff, including three different members, visited all parks. We used what's called a usability index. Essentially, we documented what's there into different categories and then assessed it in a five-tier ranking system to try to determine which parks are the most usable based on the infrastructure that exists around it. Obviously, parks like Carson Park are gonna have more infrastructure, gonna be more usable to a broader demographic of the community. Parks with less infrastructure, still valuable to the community, but not listed as highly in the usability index. After that's done, we get into connect. That's where the community engagement portion comes into place, and we also try to meet with a variety of user groups. Consider is where we start to get into looking at different potential improvements, what are some of the challenges with the overall park system, and making broad recommendations that will eventually make their way into the corp. And then we get into commit, which is where we're at now, right at the end. So this is where we're hoping to streamline the process through adoption and basically get it through and adopted in the future.

Uh-oh, what did I do?

So going through the process along with the community engagement, there were a few touch points that we had with City Council, Waterways and Parks. The one on the left is City Council, the one on the right is Waterways and Parks Commission. We tried to stagger these a little bit, so we're going between the two different groups, and then we did have held a work session between the two different groups too. The Visioning Workshop was where we kicked things off with City Council on March 12th, 2024, which was a little while ago now. After that, we went to a feedback session for Waterways and Parks on September 25th, 2024. This was after we got most of the community engagement results, trying to hear what Waterways and Parks would like to see in the corp and what would be needed. After that, we went to a process update on March 24th, 2025 to city council. And then you'll see on both of those, we held a, on July 8th, 2025, we held a workshop with city council and waterways and parks members to discuss different scenarios with the park system and what might be some potential resolutions, sort of a team building process. I'll go into a little bit of detail on that as well in a second here. And then I just want to note that on July 23, 2025, Waterways and Parks did vote to adopt the court plan as presented. During that workshop with Waterways and Parks and Council, we reviewed three different scenarios related to the park system. These scenarios were developed based on the challenges that were in front of the park system. The first one being deferred maintenance dilemma. Essentially, there is a lot of deferred maintenance within the park system. You think of Carson Park Bandshell, you think of Carson Park Stands, Owen Park Bandshell, the beach house over at Half Moon Lake. there's some pretty big ticket items that need to um be be accomplished or paid for in the future so the goal was to essentially try to how can we work together council waterways and parks and come to a shared resolution as to what some tangible ideas we can move forward with scenario two is reinvestment versus strategic repurposing this looked at uh taking parkland and um what would be the potential result of repurposing or reinvesting into that parkland And then scenario three is staffing and operations. So you may have heard this already. Staffing levels are a little bit low. Operations is challenged and stretched thin. For a park system of this size, I would definitely say they have a lower number of staff, and I do have some stats to help support that, and that's in the corp as well.

From the workshop, I pulled out, what is it?

six key points of feedback from that workshop that I thought were really telling. The first is maintenance of high-use parks. So on the operations side, trying to focus maintenance towards some of the more high-use parks like Phoenix Parks, Carson Park, and letting some of the more natural areas go. And I think you're already starting to see some of that with some of the lawn areas being pushed towards native planting and figuring out where can we carve out less areas to maintain. Parkland use and distribution. One of the key things that we came through when you look at overall saturation of the parkland is there is a high density of parks in the urban core of Eau Claire and there is a few small gaps around the surrounding perimeter of Eau Claire. You think of some of the suburban areas that were probably developed, it's not uncommon to see less parkland over the the 80s, the 90s, the early 2000s, not much of that being developed during those times. So this is looking at potentially a strategic reinvestment to make sure that the saturation levels of parkland are equitable across the community, but also be realistic that you can't maintain everything all the time, and that if you keep continuing to add more and more parkland, staff are going to be more and more stretched. So this was from that feedback session, a potential solution to look at a net neutral overall distribution of acreage across the city, but also trying to repurpose that park land for the community good. And I think both groups, Waterways and Parks and Council, were definitely for exploring that potential solution in the future. next one is public process for parkland changes whatever happens with parkland distribution in the future if there is parkland that is potentially repurposed for another use i think everyone on the board and everyone in council and everyone in waterways and parks agreed that a robust public engagement process should happen as part of that before anything and then on top of that just like any other land that's being repurposed or sold for the city that city owned Title searches need to be done. There needs to be research on the property to make sure that it legally can be sold. Trail system evaluation. So as part of the process one of the recommendations that came out during that workshop is Repurposing the trail system as more of a community transportation corridor that would offer operations some opportunity to look at efficiencies between Roadways improvements trails kind of are a bit more like roadways for improvements and parks having to do less maintenance on those Alternative funding mechanisms, looking at supporting additional, potentially looking at a referendum in the future, but trying to balance that with, I think, communities' exhaustion of referendum. So the timing of that in the future, if it does happen as a potential solution to help fund park improvements, would have to be all about public's perception and timing is important and how that's being narrated to the public. If a referendum in the future is an option, public process and community engagement in that approach would have to be pretty robust. Okay. So as we get into CORPS and the CORPS process, one thing came to light that we needed to look at is operation side. So during the process, we separated CORPS and an operation brief to help solve some of the challenges related to operations and look at some of the things that were key in operations. The CORPS itself, for everyone's, and you're going to hear me mention this a few different times, The corp is a living document, essentially. Its main goal is to assess what exists there, base improvements off of what the community needs and wants, what user groups need and wants, but at the end of the day, they're recommendations, not requirements. Oftentimes, they are amended during the process to include new things that may come up as the next five years evolve. During the process, we held three community engagement sessions in 2024, all aimed at trying to reach different groups at different times and different locations, but try to maximize the amount of people we can get in touch with. The first one was at Phoenix Park during a summer concert series. This was probably the best, most well attended one. We don't have specific numbers on the amount of people we talked to, but I would say it was well over 100, just given the sheer amount of traffic we had. The next one was at Carson Park during a baseball game. Definitely less engagement at that one, but we got a different, I'd say, group or user group feedback on that one, being at Carson Park during a baseball game. I'd say it was more like 30 or 40 people. And the last one was the Fall Festival in downtown Eau Claire. And that one was pretty well attended. Again, different user group, different time. All in all, those in-group, in-person sessions, well over 200 people we probably talked to. What we heard from all of those, I'll summarize at the end here as kind of between the survey and the in-person engagement. We do have raw survey results that we can share with everyone, but here's some key points I pulled out. From the online survey that we had in 2024, 494 survey responses came in. 90% of those responses live in the city of Eau Claire, and then the other 10% live in the surrounding area, Chippewa, Altoona, and other townships around here. I think there was maybe one person who responded from overseas who just happened to grow up in Eau Claire and was just interested and somehow found out about it. 70% of the respondents answered walking trails and paths were most liked as an activity. Community events, though, also played in at 40%, and playgrounds at 31%. 90% of the respondents said the parks are available and convenient for them. 46% said they would like to see trails, see more trails. 39% said they would like to see more restrooms. 48% natural habitat and 20% benches. 20% of benches, trash receptacles, cans, and pavilions are all separate. So 20% for each one of those. 83% of the respondents said agree or strongly agree that the parks are connected to the community and are easy to travel to. So some positive feedback that we heard from, you know, when you look at summarizing all the online engagement and person engagement is walking trails and paths are highly valued community assets. Community events and programming opportunities are ample. Picnic areas that encourage social connection and timing in nature. Bird watching and unique. People love the habitat aspect of that and that kept coming up. Accessible park spaces, reservable community spaces in public events and private gatherings, clean and well-maintained parks, sustainable practices including parks and recreational facilities, increased public access, water-related recreational opportunities. I want to stress that there is a lot of good there. This is about optimizing what is good. The desired improvements, there's a lot here that's very approachable in terms of potential improvements. And we list a lot of those in the core, but list a few at the end as well. But some of the main community feedback things that we heard were improved accessibility within and between park facilities. There are a few park facilities that do have some poor accessible circulation routes. And there are some points of connection that did miss that we noticed. But it wasn't a common thread throughout the engagement, I should say. Additional seating options, including accessible benches, tables, and chairs. That one came up over and over and over again. You think of the picnic tables at Carson Park. They're pretty weathered, pretty old. And there's a lot of that happening throughout where it's just not in close, convenient locations. They're not options. Food Truck Friday at Phoenix Park doesn't have any seating downtown. It's those sort of things. Luckily, those are pretty small hills to climb. More trash receptacles throughout the park system, increase and upgrade drinking fountains. Drinking fountains kept coming up over and over and over. I don't know if it was because of the hot summer or what it might have been, but that kept coming up. Upgrades to restroom, additional restroom facilities in key parks, more shaded areas in parks, so more natural planting most likely is a great solution for that. Enhanced dog-friendly amenities within existing parks, more flexible open lawn space for community parks, upgrade and modernize playground equipment. All of those came back as desired improvements. So some of the key takeaways from the entire process, community engagement, our analysis, in-depth review, is uh on the very positive side public input reinforced uh eau claire's park system is well maintained and highly visible for residents the strong community connection underscores the importance of continued investment in stewardship we saw that too when we put boots on the ground a lot of the parks from our different people who visited them they felt very safe they never there's think there was only one park that hit on the safety level all of them looked very well maintained wilson park All of them are very well maintained. There's not trash anywhere, so while the desire to have more trash cans is there, it's not like it's just trash spread out everywhere. In the in-depth assessment, there are certain amenities that we did notice would be great improvements to add, but again, most of them aligned with what the public was saying as well. uh... data data analysts panel analysis uh... overall there's a couple of key points in the dive into here uh... the distribution and amenities within the park system or overall pretty good but there are some key things that hit on downtown court does have a bit of a saturation of park parks and public spaces when related to surrounding areas. Not uncommon for a downtown, but it is an area of optimization. I think that could be improved. And as a result of that, some of the additional improvements that were done most recently were focused more around downtown. So maybe some of those additional improvements should be focused further out of downtown. So some of the challenges as things progress for the park system, aging infrastructure is definitely high on that list. It didn't come up in a lot of the engagements as a problem, but from a functionality and aesthetic standpoint, and just sheer liability, there are a few things that need to be improved, including Owen Park Band Chill, The grandstands, I've mentioned them before. Parkland to population ratio. You guys are high on this list. There's one key point I'll pull out here. The overall number of acres of parkland per the population is in the upper, quartile compared to national average. Staffing limitations, I know that budgets are a real thing and money only exists and goes so far. Staff limitations are real and stressed right now. You're just below the national average for number of staff of a community of this size, but from what I've seen, they're doing a lot of maintenance for what they have. And then not sacrificing tomorrow just to save today. Making long-term solutions and decisions for long-term results I think is one of the major challenges. So operational analysis that we got into, and this is some of the key data points related to national averages that we pulled out. Operating expenditures per capita, you can see Eau Claire right here at $81.68 compared to national average, your national average being $94.77. We also pulled out Waukesha and La Crosse as comparables just to give you guys for reference. Eau Claire, as you can see, spends less than those others per capita. Full-time staffing level, you can see that on the right. National average is 38 for a community of this size. Waukesha and La Crosse, I would give disclaimers on both of those. Waukesha has some unique parks, some very large acreage, almost like county park-sized parks that they try to maintain. La Crosse has a unique situation as well, so keep that as a... Disclaimer in the back of your head, but I would say the Eau Claire at 17.5 is slightly below where you guys need to be, but not alarmingly below. So operational analysis, residents per park. So there's three or four different, three different national averages we can pull out for the next two categories and comparable. The lower quartile from the national average is 1,487. The upper quartile is 4,048. Eau Claire at 1,312 of residents per park is well below the national lowest. What's that? Say that again?

Did you say per park?

Residents per park, yeah.

The size of it doesn't make a difference?

Mm-mm. And these are just national averages, so it's pulled out as a blend of a lot of different communities across the country. The next one being acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, it's a similar way to gauge essentially the same thing, but it reiterates the same thing essentially that a lot of residents or a lot of parkland per resident. So there's a lot of opportunity, and we heard that from a lot of community members, to get out into parkland throughout the community, which kept coming up inaccessible in a lot of community responses. So what that tells me is that there's a lot of parkland to maintain, staffing levels are low, staff are stretched to maintain that large amount of parkland. Some high points of things that we put into the corp to try to help. And again, I'm going to say that these are recommendations, not requirements. Every one of these things would have to go into essentially a CIP to be as an improvement. But like Lane said earlier, if they're listed in the corp, it does position you guys well. It's that first checkbox you got to get to for a grant. Number one, kind of broke these into different categories, revitalization. Owen Park master plan is something I think the community and improvements that would be strongly encouraged. A master plan setting a vision for the playground, the band chill, water access kept coming up. And Owen Park is a staple downtown. That's the don't sacrifice tomorrow just to save today. balance so improving feeding seeding throughout the park system and trying to strike a balance between what you do in one location and giving Improvements just your ability equitably across the system while that seating requirement I think we heard over and over I think taking a close look at where that's actually done in the next steps is a good step forward and there are recommendations to within the corp on on how to approach that and Optimization prefab restroom at Otter Creek Dog Park. This is another great use of, I think, a great location. There is no actual storm water or sanitary or water in that location. However, it is highly used by dog owners, and I think giving a prefab restroom will help with staffing levels and maintenance into that area. So Keys Park, you may have heard on the south side, improvements there to optimize use. There isn't much there currently, but there are a few improvements that would help to support the community's use of it. And then Connect, wayfinding signage within the park system is definitely something that's lacking. as a consistency throughout, and that could go into the trail system and into future waterways improvements, but doing a master plan that graphically shows the standard and then also gives a good location for every one of those key markers is, I think, pretty important. All right, so where do we go here now that the landscape architect took, geez, that took like 20 minutes. Hoping for a vote tonight on the court plan. And then after this on the 26th, we'll go to city council for potential adoption there. And I'll open up to questions if you guys have them.

Questions for Mr. Selesky. Good job. Commissioner Brewster.

I got a couple. Thanks, Chair. So how much total community engagement would you say you got? Like somewhere in the neighborhood of like 700 responses? Yeah. like from both the online and from your interacting with people face-to-face?

I would say it's probably closer to 800 when you count user group conversations and just general email feedback.

Yeah, so I have a little bit of a background in data science, and that's not what we would call statistically significant. I'm not saying that that's what you're claiming either, but is there... Are there things that you would expect if you're getting, it's like people hop on and do this if they really like something or they really don't, you know what I'm saying? And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about sort of the profile of the average person who provided feedback.

That's a really good question. We tried to get into user profiles as much as possible, but also not be too specific and sensitive to people's privacy. We did ask in the survey results ethnicity, and primarily it was white, but there were a few other ethnicities that did respond in general. The distribution even on the age side, I think, was primarily 30 to 40 and then 40 to 50. I think both of those were about 30% each. So all in all, it's not uncommon from what I've seen elsewhere. That's why we try to do the community engagements, because if we force people to respond, they tend to respond. I would say... The results, while the number is not really, really high, I would have liked to have seen it around 2,000 responses for a community of this size. I think the variety was good. I think from what I saw on athletics, trails, biking, trail recreation, water recreation, the distribution of the comments were not specific to any one particular area. So it helped support other things like seating as a general improvement, restrooms as a general improvement, just a variety of different user groups. And you had also the nature enthusiasts in there too.

One more if I may? Sure. Yeah, have you worked on a lot of corporate plans in the past? Yes. Any for Eau Claire?

No, not the Eau Claire one. That was before I came to Ayers.

Yeah, I was looking briefly over a couple of the past ones, and it... Are the ratios, have the ratios shifted recently as to what's normal for national and everything like that? Or was that just not something that we cared about that much in past court plan?

It wasn't readily available as it was in the national averages. Plus, we did a better job of actually just picking up the phone, calling people like La Crosse and Waukesha to get their data. The national averages, though, most recently in the last two years, they've done a better job of publishing, and other communities have done a better job of supplying data points for reference, and it just continues to get better and better.

Okay. Thank you so much. Any further questions?

If you're interested in those, all of those are public on the National Parks and Rec Association's website if you want to see what those look like.

Commissioner Erickson.

I wonder if areas that are owned by the city but not part of the park system but that operate similarly in a sense that they become de facto parks, because people do use them, volunteer trails, things like that. I think of the City Wells area, I think of the Plank Hill area, places like that. How are areas like that addressed or can they be addressed in the corp?

They certainly can be addressed, but I would assure you that there's quite a few communities that deal with the same sort of thing. Balancing what do you adopt as a park versus not adopt as a park, because as soon as you adopt it as a park, it comes with strings attached to it. There's certain areas I would recommend you probably don't like the area between Archery Park and Boyd Park being a significant waterfront to potentially maintain and come with responsibilities but has a challenge because it's not easy to maintain, has a challenge to build on it. Plank Hill is a unique situation where that should maybe become a park in the future. What I would do though is not necessarily look at should this area become a park, but what area, what does this, if it does become a park, what use does this serve the community? Because that's what I feel like most parks should provide. And you don't want a bunch of parks in one location that only serve the nature enthusiasts, and then a bunch of parks for a neighborhood in one location that only serve neighborhood parks, and then this park desert in another location where they have nothing. You want a good broad distribution of variety across the community. And that's what you guys really do have right now with some caveats of maybe accessible playgrounds in suburban areas a bit more.

One of the things I do find is that when these areas function like de facto parks, people walk in them. They create paths in them. there are issues that come up with them because there's erosion. The trails are there, but they're not kept up. There may be hazards in them. And so how does a city deal with that when it comes to the fact that they're not a park, so they're not part of the park system, and they're not funded in any real way to maintain, and yet they're being used, and there's problems associated with them. How do you deal with that?

The best tool you guys have in your toolbox is community policing through environmental design. It's a sept head tool. standard the more eyes you have from a community standpoint on that park the safer the park is you staff can't obviously be they're stretching in the way it is they can't be everywhere all the time if you make that public space i'm going to say public space not particularly park if you make that public space a place where people want to be from a few different check boxes you'll it'll be a much easier park to maintain there's a There's a, what's the name of the, is it the gravel pit? I can't remember the name of it. It's an old gravel pit on the northeast side, just over off of Highway 53. Oh, no, it's an old shale pit, I think, is what it is. There's not much there. It is defined as a park, but it is an amazing natural space that gets well used because it's well-traveled, and there's people there and eyes on it.

Further questions?

There's not a lot. Unfortunately, there's other public space land that's just city-owned. There's not much you can do with it. Veterans Park, it is a park land. It's right on the Eau Claire River. no one's gonna there's no reason to get rid of it no one you can't repurpose it for anything else but it's deeded as parkland so you have to you're you'd have to keep it but you couldn't like because it's in a floodplain sell it and develop it for another opportunity by any chance further questions

uh... so the the corp and the operations brief are we approving just the court just the court dip ok understand So thank you, Mr. Selesky. This item is a public discussion, and the open public comment period for this item was offered during agenda item three, and it's now expired. This is now a discussion among the commissioners. Do you want me to step here for any questions? We might call you back up. Sure. Um, I just wanted to point out that we had three people that commented during the open public comment period during, uh, agenda item three, uh, Mr. Necastro, Mr. Lorenz and Mr. Ms. Ms. Graham, uh, all from the Chippewa Valley Pickleball Club. in regard to improvements to the pickleball court services at McDonough Park. Mr. Byrd, would it be appropriate for us to make an amendment to the corp stating something to that matter?

Yes, I believe it is appropriate, and now would be a really good time to do that, so.

Yep. Okay. Do we need to move this into discussion first?

Yes, we can move in.

Yes. If we're going to do that, one thing I need clarification on that came up in those comments was, is this... refinishing the old and the new courts or is this building a new pickleball court where the old courts, the historic courts were? One of those two things.

What they asked for was rebuilding, reconstructing the six older courts that were built over tennis courts and then a surface repainting on the newer six courts. Perfect. No new courts.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

So again, that was asking for $190,000. I'm assuming, Mr. Berg, can the details about when that money would be programmed, could that be worked out between you and the Pickleball Club?

Yes, absolutely. Your group does not have to define any timeline on it. It simply would be to suggest adding this to the corp so that it can be recognized and we can apply for grant money. okay yes yep right absolutely yep and it doesn't have to be you know spelled out 100 perfect just it needs to be in there that you know we're looking to do these additions so and i just want to take a second to thank chris zaleski and his his team at airs associates they have put in a very high level of effort on this document we've been through the all those steps with them and uh it's a lot of work and they've really poured their hearts into it so i just i want to thank them for that and And as I mentioned earlier, it's very easy to amend the corp as we go along. So if something comes forward that we didn't see at this moment in time, it's very easy to add that. So just keep that in the back of your mind.

Thank you, Mr. Bird.

Thank you.

Uh, so, uh, looking for a motion for approval for the general corp and then after that possibly an amendment commissioners.

Can I just one question? Yes. Where would we put this in the corp? What section? I just, I don't know. Do we need to have that as an enhancement or general?

A general amendment would probably be okay.

Are you talking about the pickleball improvements like McDonough in the corp underneath? Um, McDonough park, every park is evaluated and has its own section. We could put it directly underneath. McDonough park is a listed improvement.

I would like to move discussion of this item.

Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Leonard.

I'd like to move to amend the court under the section McDonough Park to include $190,000 for the previously discussed improvements to the pickleball facilities.

Could we specify that it's pickleball court surfaces?

about court services and I believe NETs were part of it as well. I would just say improvements to the facilities or court facilities. I'm fine with that.

Okay. At McDonough Park. At McDonough Park. I'll second that.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. we need to vote on a motion separately on the amendment separately or yes. Okay. Uh, any further discussion on the amendment? We'll vote on the amendment first. Any further discussion? Commissioner Brewster.

I just want to say that I, uh, When I was running for council, somebody asked me about pickleball. And I was like, I will eat my shoe before I vote for money for more pickleball. Because I hate the noise it makes when it hits. And whatever. But we have such an active community here. I don't get to vote for stuff that's just me.

Your shoes look delicious. I'll enjoy watching this.

They're fairly new. I might want to put ketchup on that. Yeah, ketchup and barbecue sauce. No. Any further discussion? All plastic.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, I will call the vote on the amendment. Commissioner Zoig. Aye. The chair votes aye. Commissioner Brewster. He did it. Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Holzman. Aye. Commissioner Leonard. Aye. And Commissioner Reed. Aye. The motion passes seven to zero. Now, uh, the, I was for the amendment. Now we will go back to vote on the main motion, which is approving the court plan. Any further discussion? Commissioner Brewster.

thank you chair you know i've been you know as as a mr zaleski can attest i've been very skeptical about the idea of getting rid of parkland i'd much rather see it go fallow or you know just return to a natural space until some time that we that we need it but i am encouraged by the inclusion in this of the of the robust public policy or the robust public input session before any of that is done. And so with that, I will be supporting this.

Any other discussion? I will call the vote. The chair votes aye. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. And Commissioner Zoig? Aye. The main motion passes seven to zero to recommend the corp with the amendment. We will move on to item number nine, which is a public discussion. to approve a site plan for a rehabilitation hospital. Mr. Baumgartner.

Good evening once again, Commissioners. We move on to the exciting site plan portion of the meeting. So this one is, as you mentioned, for the Clear Sky Rehabilitation Hospital. It's on the southeast side of the city off of Bolts Farms Road. As you can see, it's in the middle, more or less, of that brown area on the map that's shown. You might recognize this area for what's actually across the street. Across the street was those apartments that you guys had approved earlier this year for a site plan. So with this, this is current, I believe it's still currently two lots. I'm not sure if the CSM has gone all the way through yet. So it's something I'll have to put back, actually put together. This whole area started off its life back in 2007. It was a whole master plan general development plan that zoned the entire area. Some areas such as the development to the northwest actually had zoned out of it because they were differing from what would normally be considered to be found in a business park. The proposed use of the property, which is that rehabilitation hospital is something that you might typically see in business parks across the country. So it does ultimately align with the general development plan. Regarding the actual use itself, it is a, and this is the grading for the property. There is a very large sloped area off to the southwest. Going to the actual hospital itself, it is a single story, 36 bed inpatient physical therapy hospital. It's a total area that's kind of proposed to be 43,000 square feet for the building. So it's just under an acre in size for that. That's gross square feet. And they do have properties that are, they have multiple clinics in the state of Wisconsin and they do actually have multiple clinics in multiple states. So the use of properties along with general development plan, the applicant did submit a full suite of things for the site plan regarding landscaping, which I didn't include the specific, uh, individual call of species. It was too big to fit on the page and actually show the entire landscaping plan at one fell swoop. But they do break it down more details on it. Something you'll note on here specifically is parking. There is a large amount of parking on the property. So the required amount of parking for the use is typically 68 stalls. requesting put in 108 stalls. That is a 63% increase on things. Now, they did submit a full parking study for it, actually going back to those other properties they have across the state and across the country. So with that, they find it's best for their use to have one space for patient room and one space for each peak staff member that's on shift at the time. So they have found across their multiple facilities that they do actually need to have the... the extra parking to be able to accommodate everyone at the same time. So that is something they're requesting is the waiver from the normal maximum 25% that staff is allowed to actually do administratively for increased parking beyond the minimum. Here is a rendering of the actual structure along with some signage on it. Here's the facades of the facility. I only included one page of them. The materials are ultimately all the same throughout it. It's a mix of brick and various colors of ephus that ranged around it. You can see some of the signage on there, and there's more of the signage right there. They're proposing a monument sign and small signs. There weren't any specific details provided for the wall signs on the property and monument signs as long as it's meeting these setbacks i don't recall actually you can see it right there on the plan specifically it looks like it's at about the uh might be at about the specific setback line for it i'll have to take a look at the plans for that myself signage is something that we'll address at a later date ultimately with this project Other than that, they did spend a full photometric plan. And actually, that's that was interesting was in the lower right hand corner of its photometric plan actually shows how much to be rating out the site. So it's really not going beyond the bounds of the property. So it's there's that's many photometric plan that would be within the bounds of the actual ordinance. And you know, that's And there's some of the pictures of the various sites. There's one in Texas. There's one in Toledo, Ohio, one in Lafayette, Indiana. They do have a couple others in the states, I recall, from a previous discussion with them. This is a product they can't put around the country. It does seem to work for them to have that much parking. I will stand for any other questions. Questions for Mr. Baumgartner, Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. This is going to be my standard question. With the extra parking lot space and stuff like that, it looks like they have to be coming pretty close to our permeable services limit.

So right now in commercial districts, there is not a specific, uh, permeable surface limit or impervious surface. It is with commercial properties and industrial, you're allowed to go as much as your stormwater plan supports.

So that's, um, down at the bottom at about six o'clock on the map that you have in front of you. Is that like a, a retention pond or what is that?

About six o'clock. Yes, that is a stormwater facility they're proposing on the property.

Okay. Thank you.

Further questions for Mr. Baumgartner?

Commissioner Leonard. Hi. Could you clarify on the parking study that they had done? From what I was reading, it seemed like they were looking at when staff changes happen as the peak in terms of that maybe 10-minute period where we might have a shift A and a shift B with all those patients.

Is that accurate? Unfortunately, I don't have that specifically in front of me. I'll have to defer that to the applicants ultimately.

Thank you.

Further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Baumgartner. Is the applicant here?

Yes.

Please come forward. State your name, address, and spell your last name.

My name is Brad Flayton. I live at 817 8th Street, Argyle, Texas. And my name is spelled F-L-A-T-E-N.

And would you like to add to Mr. Baumgartner's presentation?

Well, first I can answer your question towards the parking. It's, it's that typically shift change is not a 10 minute occurrence. Usually occurs over a 30 to 45 minute period of time. And you don't want those park, you know, those, those spaces, those parking, those cars in the, in that shift change, you know, ending up in neighboring parking lots or queuing up in the streets. So typically that ratio of parking is what's worked best in almost all communities. So that's what we come across, the specific number of 108. It's what we've seen work functionally for our facilities as well as the neighboring community.

Anything else you'd like to add about the proposal?

Well, honestly, we're excited. This is our second one in Wisconsin. We just finished one in the village of Cleveland, just north of Sheboygan. We think we've gotten to really like working in the state of Wisconsin. Most of the offices we deal with are going to be state departments of health and quality assurance. But we've had a lot of good work, and we hope to provide good services.

Questions for Mr. Flayton?

Commissioner Erickson? Mr. Flayton, there's an area just to the north kind of tucked into the little cross area. What is that? Is that a... just to the north of the building. Yeah, right in there. Is that, it looks like sidewalks over to your right there. Yeah, that area there.

Okay, that is our outside rehab garden. So they'll have a, because this is a physical rehab, so you'll have stairs, ramps, things where people can learn to, you know, new, mobility in an outside setting so that's a that's a therapy garden and that other little square off to the i guess plan yeah that one right there that is a bulk oxygen storage tank area thank you further questions seeing none thank you mr platon thank you

Again, this item is a public discussion and the open public comment period for this item was offered during agenda item three is now expired. This is now a discussion among the commissioners and the chair would entertain a motion.

So moved.

We have a motion by Commissioner Brewster and a second by Commissioner Zoig. Any further discussion on the rehabilitation hospital? Seeing none, I will call the vote. I'm sorry, Commissioner Brewster.

You knew it was going to be.

Sneaking in on me.

Thank you, Chair. I like the location for this, actually. There's a lot of things that I like about it. I don't get to talk about how much I like things all that often, so I'm going to take a minute and say, you know, based on the space that's there now, it looks like they'll actually be adding to the tree cover based on their landscape plan, which is kind of cool, and also having a recuperation facility that close to some hotels seems to be a good synergy for people that want to come visit their loved ones in recovery. The only thing I wonder, looking on the map, it looks like the closest transit stop is about 0.7 of a mile away, and I'm wondering if that's something that, if we were able to shift that a little bit, if they'd maybe be able to do it less parking, but... That's more of just a thought out loud, not something I'm prepared to act on.

Did we report on transit in the narrative or in the?

So I don't know if you remember, but this is going to be, that end is going to at some point be a bridge across to the new development on the other side of 94 as well that we've approved in previous meetings, so.

I think that's. But is there a plan to be, I mean, even if the transit stop is on the other side of that bridge, that's still quite a distance. Yeah.

So, yeah, the comment in the report is the proposed project is not likely to impact transit. This project is located on bus routes number six, Putnam Heights and Mall, and located 0.4 miles from Margaret and Mall.

0.4.

Commissioner Erickson. Mr. Rinka, the proposed connection across I-94 to the south, do you see that as in the future being a potential bus route?

Yeah. I mean, with transit getting their comments, I would see that. Yes, as a potential.

So there's a potential then that this could be served in the future if that were to come to fruition.

Yes.

Thank you. Yes.

Any further questions? Otherwise, we will call for a vote here. Commissioner Brewster.

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Zoid. Aye. And the chair votes aye. That motion passes seven to zero. We move on to item number 10, which is a public discussion for a hotel on Scully Drive. Ms. Kuzma.

Okay, so on this one, Everyday Surveying and Engineering, on behalf of the ownership group of the fountains at Otter Creek LLC, is requesting site plan approval for a commercial hotel located on Scully Drive, and this is near the interchange of I-94 and Highway 53. And we can see the proposed location on the map there. We also have the property aerial and the site plan, which we can go through here. So the proposed site plan shows a new four-story select service country in its suites. The total area of the proposed building is approximately 46,470 square feet. As you can see, the parcel is quite large now, so a proposed certified survey map will be reviewed at a later date. The zoning of the parcel is C3P, so this proposed land use is a permitted use and it's consistent with the general development plan on the property. Per the site plan, 87 parking spaces will be provided, and this is based on the number of guest rooms, employee parking, and delivery parking. This number should be right on with the zoning requirement that for hotels, five spaces are required plus one space for each sleeping room or suite. The hotel will provide a mixture of queen beds, king beds, and king suites throughout. There's approximately 78 guest rooms along with a pool area, fitness area, and a breakfast area. So then we move on to the proposed elevations which show the building facade with a mixture of materials approximately 52 feet in height. Signs for the proposed development will be reviewed and approved by staff at a later date. The landscape plan shows a mixture of street trees, parking trees, and foundation plantings. Outdoor lighting and dumpster look to be in compliance with city standards. So in terms of grading and drainage, calculations must be submitted by the project surveyor that indicate adequate on-site detention and best management practices. And these should be submitted prior to constructing the proposed improvements. In terms of utilities, water and sewer is available to the site. Traffic... The traffic generated by the proposed improvements should not adversely impact traffic flow in the area. And then in terms of transit, the project is not likely to have an effect as there is no bus service within a mile of the project location. So if the plan commission finds the site plan consistent with city code, staff recommends the following conditions. So, of course, engineering department approval of drainage, erosion, sediment control, things like that. Proposed survey map should be recorded prior to building permit. And then outdoor lighting should be shielded and in compliance with city standards.

Questions for Ms. Kuzma? Seeing that, Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. It looks like there's a big parking lot right across the street from that. Is that just the storage place for RVs?

Yeah, that's camping. Part of camping.

Yeah, that's camping world. Camping world. Okay.

Commissioner Erickson.

Is that lot to the southeast, did we approve storage facilities there in the past?

It was not storage. It's a bunch of, sort of an incubator for small industries.

Okay, yeah.

Any further questions? Thank you, Ms. Kuzma. Is the applicant here? Please state your name and address and spell your last name.

Alex Paternos, 1220 East Fillmore Avenue, Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Last name is P-A-D-R-N-O-S. Happy to be in front of you guys tonight. I appreciate you guys approving that hospital. That's great for hospitality folks like us. So I'd just like to answer any questions you guys have.

questions for mister patterns get okay uh... commissioner brewster any demand generators that oklahoma has it's it that the days of seeing it

Highway hotel and stopping is they're long gone. Everybody just goes on Google and so it's it's what the city brings as a whole To attract people to the town and then they pick their hotel based on their own criteria price loyalty, you know all that stuff Yeah, we sold that piece of the property to that developer Any further questions?

seen and thank you sir thank you uh... this item is a public discussion in the open public comment period for this item was offered during agenda item three and is now expired this is now a discussion among the commissioners uh... is there a motion on the item approval second from commissioners like Motion and approval. Any further discussion on the hotel? Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. The chair votes aye. And Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Motion passes seven to zero. We move on to item number 11, another public discussion for an industrial warehouse building on Hogarth Street.

Mr. Baumgartner. Good evening for the third time, commissioners. Welcome to the last action item for the evening. Congratulations, you've made us. So this one is for a industrial warehouse building that's up on the north side of the city. It's actually a bit to the east of the airport. It's the closest landmark I could have. It's a little too far north of the DMV to make it a relevant landmark for it, things considered. So here's the property. It's a collaboration of three properties and a portion of a fourth one. The applicant will have to do a CSM at some point in the future to combine them for the purpose of doing the developments. What they're proposing is a 75,000 square foot moving facility that's supposed to expand the already existing facilities to some degree for Eau Claire moving and storage. The property is currently zoned I-2 Heavy Industrial. It's one of the few vacant properties in the city that are still zoned that. And all things considered, a storage warehouse for a moving company is a fairly light use of an actual I-2 property. So the use of the property itself is allowed there by right. You will note that it is just to the south of a residential area. And it's right across a small, it's almost an alley. It's owned by the city currently. So it's not quite an alley. Moving on that, here's the existing conditions on the site. You can see there's some topography. There is an existing easement for utilities that will have to be removed at some point in the future. At one point, the city was planning expanding the road. At this point, the property's developing. That's not going to happen, so that's something that will have to be done at a later date. Here's the site itself. So you'll note that there is screening up to the north side. That is a that's done at 30 foot street tree screening that will be bulked up and staff does have a condition that's done more to alignment with the normal landscaping manual standards for having bulk screening that's across a small city property from a residential area. The use itself, they are proposing to have approximately five employees to start. And there will be three trucks that will be and three drivers that will be actually going out and doing things. They're proposing to have the use specifically operate Mondays through Friday between 8 to 3 PM. And they'll have approximately 10 to 12 trucks coming and going most days. Oh, Craig, I found your typo. Something about hotel parking there. Yes, that was the typo that you had mentioned earlier. So please disregard the portion of the staff report that talks about hotel parking. That's not exactly relevant to the use that we're discussing tonight. And the parking standard for a use like this, it's warehousing, it's significantly smaller than the 87 stalls and guest parking that it's actually mentioning in the staff report. Warehousing parking is required at a rate of two stalls per three employees During the peak shift, with it being 10 to 12, they would need a 10 to 12, 2, 3. So you're looking at, what, 6 or 9? I'm failing at math on camera, so that's always fun. So they're proposing that. Otherwise, this is pretty straightforward from a planning perspective. Here's a closer look at it. You can see the 10 parking stalls. Looks like they do have their ADA stall. They will have to bulk up. Last thing, there's the elevations. It's a warehousing building. It's pretty straightforward, as is the interior they're showing at the time. It's a large box, as you would expect from a warehousing style building. And, you know, that's it on it. Planning staff really only has the one condition, and that is for the landscaping to be bulked up, as I'd mentioned. Otherwise, there's the normal series of boilerplate conditions you'd get from engineering, such as final approval grading, drainage plan, stormwater plan, drainage agreement, provide revisions to the private sanitary sewer design, eliminate back blowing, things like that, revisions to the parking lot showing compliance with Ordinance 1825080, which, let me ruminate on that for a second, because the staff report doesn't quite help on that one with the 87 stalls and 78 guest rooms that it mentioned. But, yeah, they will have to make sure they meet normal parking standards of the actual use and zoning district as required. I'll stand for any questions.

Questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Commissioner Brewster?

So looking at, thank you, Chair, looking at the, like, rendering of what the front and rear of whatever, this is going to be quite a tall building. It looks like more than probably like three times the height of a semi-door building. situation, roughly. I mean, I've been over on Runway Avenue because I had some stuff that I was, we were looking at the housing authority and these are, these are like single story homes. This is going to tower over that like pretty significantly. Is there anything else that you could imagine that might, you know, soften that slightly?

Well, so it's, bulking up the landscape on the north side at the start, you're planting evergreens, it's going to take them probably 15, 20 years to get to an appropriate height that would adequately screen it. I mean, they could paint a mural on it. Or they could dress up the facade a bit. I mean, it's not abutting right of way. It's abutting a city property behind it. So there's not the same level of requirements that we have for it as compared to some other properties. Like if it were abutting a street, break up the facade, because it is technically in the rear of the property, even though it is directly abutting that. So it does put it in a bit of a weird spot as far as what we can and can't do with it under the current ordinance. And I was joking on the mural, I guess. I mean, I suppose you can do that if you really wanted. But I mean, there might be certain varieties of trees that grow up faster that could do it. What the landscaping manual requires for evergreen screening for commercial industrial uses to residential is evergreens at five foot intervals going across. They have to be a minimum of five feet when they're planted. So that is a fairly hefty starting point for them. I mean, it's five feet, so it's going to be up to about here on me or somewhere in there. So those are going to be fairly tall trees going in the first place. It will take time, and it abounds what the ordinance actually says right now. It's straight zoning. I'm not sure there's too much we... can do on it, really.

So there is green space on this property behind the building, correct? It doesn't abut the property line.

It's correct. It's not directly abutting the property line. There is room for the trees as they're proposing it. It does get fairly close to it. It's not marked out on any of these plans specifically that I can see. And that's even with my glasses on. This just looks to me that there's quite a bit of green space

North of the building to the alley.

Yes, there's a good going up the scale 50 to 100 feet.

And then you've got the alley. And then you've got the homes which are facing away from the building. So it just appears to me that there's quite a bit of a buffer there.

It is a sizable thing. I think our normal buffering requirement thicknesses are less than 50 to 100 feet. There's opportunities to have more in there in the future. That is where the drainage goes and something to note on the plan actually that there is a drainage swale from It actually connects all the way back around the building back to the south to the existing pond infrastructure for it. So there's only so much they can do within that space and guarding the stormwater and drainage plan because they don't want to disrupt that in some way in the future. So it's.

Any further questions for? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah.

So I think the towering effect would be less with a 100-foot buffer. It wouldn't feel like this building is right on top of you to me. Are there any further questions for Mr. Baumgartner? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Baumgart. Is the applicant here tonight? Please state your name, address, and spell your last name.

Excellent. Good day, Chairman and fellow Planning Commission members. I'm on the wrong day. I'm almost into the next one right now, so I'm thinking about tomorrow. I am Mark Erickson with Everyday Survey and Engineering. Thank you for hearing us. I also have Mr. Hanson back there, one of the owners of Eau Claire Moving and Storage in this facility. So really appreciate your time again. I guess your normal question is, do you see the conditions? Do you review and approve them? And I kind of would like to go through them along with some of the things that Mr. Baumgartner brought up and he did a great job of taking the reins on this project because I believe Mr. Petrie reviewed this. So on item number one, revise the landscape plan, as you've all seen, was just talked about as well here. So that alleyway, we have it marked out in 30 foot spacing, i.e. an alleyway being a roadway. We were planting trees at the spacing appropriate for that. So we'll go in a little more depth on that from the rear north face of the building to what would be the alleyways line is 66 feet. Pardon me, 60 feet, 60 feet, six zero feet. So there is a horizontal element there. In addition for security and or additional buffering and screening, there will be a fence that we were notified after the plans were done that will be going around the perimeter and the peripheral of this area. So in regards to mr. Brewster's question and not specifically just you but in a relativity of height The rear north faces building is gonna be around 28 feet tall So in some cases very similar to the roof peak of a single-family house Not a two-story house perhaps a one-story with a stiffer pitch on it or something a little bit more older perhaps in that now we're doing 312s 412s what have you know, but It's not going to be a monstrous structure with regards to the buffering, the screening of the fence, and then having a 60-foot offset from the adjacent alleyway. I think the... The structure won't feel as out of place, I believe, as could be perceived by maybe the plan set, let's call it. So yes, I think we would elect to acknowledge the additional screening in the back and have more engagement with city staff on how we're proposing, at least now, 30 foot space on what would be street trees. We'll continue on with that. Item number two is a very boilerplate. You've seen this many a times. We have submitted drainage calculations. With all respect to the engineering staff, Mr. Rink and his team, reviewing and approving those prior to this committee hearing this and approving it could be a waste of time or what have you. So we'll work and engage fully with Mr. Rink and his team on reviewing the engineering calculations for stormwater management discharge and all that. kind of keeping that in circle with one of the other items that's with all due respect not mentioned was brought up in this Mr. Baumgartner's dialogue is this area is currently for parcels. We will perform a CSM in combining all four parcels. With that being said, in the language of either the CSM's face or in a subsequent document, we will allow the drainage from the north property, which is all owned by one family, but Lark Enterprise, drain across 5D on the south and allow that through a legal document to happen so that we can release. The only release area for us to... have stormwater run as itself all the way to hogarth where existing stubs and or six storm service systems has the capacity to handle this type of runoff meeting all the dnr in the city's requirements so uh... that was three four years i'm not quite certain uh... i printed actually the plan commission's plan sheets and they're missing two sheets in here i should go to my desktop and printed it uh... mister rink and his team and i will look at item number four about No one does want to have sanitary drain towards the building and create a problem, so we will go over and eliminate or concur on a solution that no backflow is gonna happen with sanitary. Likewise, you had a little trouble with number five. Number five is unique for this situation. Parking standards and what we call, in my lack of better terminology, correct me if I'm wrong, Team Eau Claire, is this northwestern industrial park. It's one of the only places in town actually a surface can be left and maintained in gravel. To elaborate, about 182508 is a a code that specifies peripheral perimeter parking elements curb and gutter stop blocks different things like landscape wall or vegetation to try to keep people on the surface of asphalt i did some looking uh... even matter of fact the dmv and the smattering of other buildings i looked at do not have peripheral now two wrongs don't make a right my friends i'm i'm not naive like that in regards to the cold is to manage and maintain drainage well the parking lot we're proposing is actually high on the outside internally draining to low points manufactured so we're not going to have site runoff that just happens to keep across a little piece of lawn of the neighbors were manufacturing to drain in specific spots to drain to the ponds and or to the swales i guess um... I don't want to say it contentiously, but I think we would like to have item number five resolved in an equitable manner of all, most all the facilities up there. We just built one. I say we lack of better term, the builder for these folks and us being engineers has built one off of Hogarth and Lois Lewis, um, that, uh, there's a need for peripheral curb. to collect stormwater and run off and or if it was like a mega mall or a strip mall setting multi-tenant building where it's incurring a lot of consumer-based traffic that may not be knowledgeable of the function of the lot or the land then that would be appropriate for that situation but i do not believe we need peripheral parking retainage or guidance in this situation this is not a consumable space by a person or patron of the business. It's the back end of the business. It's where the sausage is made essentially back here. It's not where people are gonna come and just mosey on through the parking lot and say, it looks like a great place to park. So we would like to humbly and hopefully acknowledged by the city, humbly request the consistency of perhaps removing or eliminating condition number five.

So in regards to the gravel parking areas that we got under 1825080, the Planning Commission is able to grant a permanent waiver to that where it finds that the limited use of parking does not warrant the need for hard service. Parking is not required. It's not required parking, or it's a storage area, or were other such existing parking facilities not hard surfaced, and requiring such a hard surface for the property question will result in a hardship?

Mr. Rumgarner, you're 100% right on that. We're not asking for gravel parking. We're not. This site is going to be paved for cleanliness, snow plowing. It's in 18-2-5-0-8-0, a similar nature about peripheral too, but we're paving this for dust control. I had trouble finding that too. It's like letter D. Yeah, letter D. I thought I was speaking wrong again. But we're paving it. It's not going to be gravel. My for instance is this is a uniqueness of this area that gravel has been accepted in the past. i.e., also likewise, peripheral perimeter directional curb for either consumers and or drainage has been relaxed in this area before. That's what I was saying. We're paving it. It's going to be paved.

But you're requesting no peripheral curb? Is that what I'm following?

That is correct, sir.

Okay.

That is correct. Is it letter D there, Peter?

No, that's fencing in Burlington.

I got it on my phone. I can look it up. And we can discuss a little bit more in earnest with the...

Sorry.

And it wasn't so clearly referenced in here what letter it was. Once again, we got back to hotels pretty quick like there. So... No, no, no need to do that. So... I think we can acknowledge items one through four as being appropriate conditions. We're asking for five to be relaxed. Also addressing screening with the implementation of a fence for security and for privacy on the northern lines and most likely around the buildings on other sides as well.

Questions for Mr. Erickson? seeing none. Thank you, sir.

I should thank you. I show his disclaimer. He doesn't want to own me. We're not related. We're not related. Thank you folks. Have a great night and we'll maybe get home for the nightly news, huh?

Yeah. Here we go. Uh, this item is a public discussion and the open public comment period for this item was offered during agenda. Item three is now expired. This is now a discussion among the commissioners. Uh, Staff, would you like to comment on Mr. Erickson's request for a waiver on number five?

I would like to comment on that specifically as soon as I have a direct answer for you on that. It doesn't call it out specifically as something that a waiver can be granted for the same way as gravel parking, as I saw Alvin write off earlier.

I guess.

Could we simply state perhaps that there will be further discussion between staff and the applicant?

I think so. I can give some leeway towards making sure that is still done appropriately. Okay. There really doesn't have to be a strict requirement. It has to be a discussion with staff.

Yes.

Thank you.

I did have one question, Mr. Erickson. Will these trucks be semi-trailers or single-unit type trucks?

Great question. I think I know the answer, but I'm not going to guess, so I'll let one of the owners answer that for you, sir.

Hello, gentlemen. Carl Hansen, 1042 Bradley. Hansen, H-A-N-S-E-N. Yep, semi-trailers.

Okay. Is there enough driveway throughout here to accommodate those semis?

You as an engineer would ask that great question, and we do believe there is. We have turning templates through AutoCAD that have manipulated and make the vehicle turns and allow for either cab size, trailer size, all these, and on this we used a sleeper cab, 53 foot long, big beast of a Wisconsin legal max semi.

Okay, thank you, thank you. Any further questions for the applicants? Seeing none, thank you. Entertain a motion.

So moved.

I'll make a motion to approve. Okay. Second. Seconded. Motion by Commissioner Zoy. Second by Commissioner Brewster. And I don't know if it requires a formal motion, but you have agreed to discuss number five with the applicant. Would you like that in an amendment? No.

I think for it to actually get all the results in an official waiver of it at that point, it would actually have to state that it would be conditioned to do so and give us the power to do that because otherwise it's specific. Otherwise it would have to come back to amend the site planning if there would be a condition otherwise.

Okay. How would you propose we word an amendment for this?

Could I take a crack at it?

Yeah, absolutely. All right. I move to amend that we approve this. Part of our approval is that we can give staff the ability to And after further consultation with the applicant, staff have the ability to eliminate the curb requirements for water control as needed.

And you were one of the motioners. Does our initial motioner agree? Yes. So we have an agreement on the amendment that will go with the motion.

We'll get to it and make sure that's something else that we actually do moving forward with it.

Okay. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion, Commissioner Brewster?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I guess, you know, I plan to vote for this. I guess just one thing, you know, that I always look at. I carry a soapbox around with me, and I have a little bit of a platform to use it, so I'm going to. But, you know, we see this all over the place with, you know, industrial areas right next to low-income housing. And, you know... It makes me a little uncomfortable just in general. It's something that we've decided is something that we want to do as a society. If this was in a place where there were expensive homes or something, there wouldn't be an industrial corridor right there. And so this has nothing to do with the applicant, really. I'm just stating my displeasure that this is something that we do in the United States on a fairly regular basis, and the negative effects that come along with increased pollution and industrial corridors and stuff like that for low-income people. But that being said, I would like to, instead of... going for the gravel with the extra dust, I would like to say I do appreciate the intention of the applicant to pave a surface that they could have very easily decided that they could just not do that or apply to not do that and generate a bunch of extra dust. So thank you for that.

Any further comments? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Commissioner Zoig? Aye. Chair votes aye. Commissioner Brewster? Aye. Motion passes seven to zero. We move on to item number 12, future agenda items and announcements.

Mr. Baumgartner? Aye.

Well, I guess we don't have anything to in particular as far as that goes. The Century Code was passed at the August 12th meeting, so that is something. It's been three or so years of working on it since I've started. So that's a pretty big deal. It's supposed to go into effect come October 1st. There is some other smaller things that will be coming in the future regarding some minor cleanups. That's going to be a living document. There will be the land development ordinance user manual will be coming. At some point that will define more specifically requirements for applications, things like that. So that's a future thing to look at. But otherwise, that's pretty much it. The next meeting will be on September 15th. The deadline for that was last Friday. We do have a list of items for it already, so it will be another busy and fun meeting, I'm sure.

For the tree preservation, could we put a... I'm going to date myself. A flow chart or something... so that people can just go and easily determine whether they need a permit or have to pay or whatever. Would you consider something like that in there?

That is something we'll try to look at for the manuals, as far as that goes. As I was so quoted in the news, that is a complex topic. Yes.

Thank you. There's going to be edits coming for that, too.

Most definitely.

I think there's been a lot of... I was in the news. Everything I said was correct. After three hours and 25 minutes, we have completed our agenda. We are adjourned.

All right.