Planning Commision - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you.

It is 6 p.m.

The November 3rd, 2023 session of the City of 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 table. I ask that everyone turn your cell phones off or to a silent mode. I will call the attendance roll. Commissioner Brewster.

Here.

Commissioner Davis?

Here.

Commissioner Erickson?

Here.

Commissioner Holzman?

Here.

Commissioner Lawson?

Here.

Commissioner Leonard?

Here.

Commissioner Reed?

Here.

And Commissioner Helgeson, the chair, is present. We do have a quorum tonight with eight 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 and take action on the agenda items before us. The Plan Commission attempts to conduct its public hearings in a relatively informal manner, Within the constraint that we must deal with the issues before us in an orderly and business-like fashion, we give the applicant an opportunity to speak first, and then others are each permitted to speak either for or against the proposal. We do request that everyone restrict their comments to the issues before us, avoid unnecessary repetition, and be prudent in the use of time. We want to be sure that we have adequate time to deal as carefully with the last items on the agenda as with the first. If you wish to view, 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 number three. This is the open public comment period for those agenda items that do not appear on tonight's agenda as a public hearing. Item five is noted as a public hearing and has a specific comment period included during the discussion of that item. Item six, seven, and eight are discussions among commissioners only. Item four, our consent agenda, is open for public comment at this time. Is there anyone here wishing to give public comment on agenda item four, our consent agenda, or any other comments not related to tonight's agenda? Anyone that would like to speak tonight? during the open public comment period. Seeing none, we will close item number three and move to our consent agenda. Tonight our consent agenda has three sub-items. Item A, the approval of our October 6th, 2025 minutes. Item B, a final plat for the Creekside development. And item C, a final plat for the Sherman Creek Landing development. The public comment period for this item was offered during item three and has now expired. 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 those three sub items removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

A motion to approve consent agenda. OK. Second.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Reid, a second by Commissioner Lawson. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will call the vote. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Davis?

Aye.

Commissioner Brewster? Aye. That motion passes, eight affirmative, zero negative. We will now move on to our regular agenda. Item number five is on our regular agenda. It's a public hearing for a rezoning and a site plan for a commercial building at 10 West Madison Street. Mr. Noel will be our presenter. Good evening, plan commissioners.

The item before you this public hearing rezoning and site plan or general development plan amendment to the existing one that was approved in 1997 is before you for your consideration recommendation to City Council Just going through the we have staff report in your packet subject site here is located along West Madison and Shipwell River and Oxford The zoning overlay, it's currently zoned urban commercial, which is the new zoning district for the site. It used to be central business district zoning. The applicant filed under the old zoning code prior to the October 1st effective date of the new land development ordinance. The other thing about the zoning as an overlay, a planned unit development, which was approved back in 1997. So they are subject to those rules. That's that green hashed over the site. Blowing up the site a little more you can see that the steep slope is actually on the city property The site is not in the 100-year floodplain So it's good upland This is just some street views here with Google Street View showing the intersection with Oxford and Madison on the bridge looking down the city trail in the city park land area there and Looking closer into the site to the access on Madison and the rumble strips for the median. Looking at Oxford here now, southbound. Checking the back of the building site. And then some different issues here on site with just some screening and some pavement concerns and access, some dumpster screening and things like that. That will be improved on the project. So here's the existing condition site with material that was in your packet. The lot split, so our understanding is that the landowner would like to split the property into another lot, lot two there, the smaller lot, retain ownership of that. And then my understanding is a ground lease with the owner of the Duncan. And they can explain more about their project and how that all works. So here's the site plan. They're going to bring in water and sewer from Oxford and stub that in. So we will need cross-access easements over the two lots. That especially helps, too, in case the landowner does eventually sell a lot, too, or the other one or both. So we've got those rights retained and also for cross accessibility with circulation with traffic in the site too for access agreements, especially for egress and ingress. uh... the stormwater plan needs to be revised and they've acknowledged uh... as such c engineering in al rica can also speak to this too uh... but one of the the things that we have for our parks and waterways commission who reviewed the project uh... they did recommend denial i think it was nine zero unanimous but one of them was is that no new outfalls highly discouraged on the river just again, to try to reduce those usually non-point kind of chemicals going into the water body there. So the engineering department is looking to have that conveyed more to existing Madison Street, the catch basin there. So they'll need to look at revising those calculations to see if that all works out, also with their grading of the site so that it all flows that way. They do also have the stormwater feature. along the east property line, which provides a buffer to capture some of that and hold it. There's some conditions related to that in terms of retaining all that runoff on site rather than going on the trail. You'll notice that in the conditions. I'll just pause one moment. Al, do you want to speak to any of the stormwater concerns? If not?

I don't have a large concern with it.

So we do require revisions to the drainage and stormwater control plan and see how that all will function for the catch basin, assuming that that will all work. Again, just a blow up of that bioswale and what was proposed to go to the river. So that would be eliminated in this project. Just elevations here as well. And then we did get kind of last few hours ago, wasn't able to get this out to you guys, but we did get revisions. And the applicant can speak to this too. I believe their architect revised the plans and added more brick. I did have time to analyze all the glass, but this relates to one of the conditions in the staff report. So if you see the proposed and then just more brick, it appears in terms of the change for the facade. That's trying to capture more of that look and feel of the Canary District, playing off of the brick, the older brick that's part of some of the buildings, capture more of a unique sense of identity of the building. floor plan so the parking has been calculated based off the seating arrangement and the new land use would actually meet parking they also meet the stacking lane as well for the drive-through some signage and that all given the set signage a little bit more later so getting into the actual review so again they're under the old code the plan unit development you know obviously they're they're asking for some flexibility here i need to amend the existing plan development uh... but we also have to look at you know the conditions that for review so like number five utilization of site planning principles to come into high quality development is something for your consideration and there's many things this is in your staff report so I'm not going to belabor all the points one of the bigger things is conformance with the comprehensive plan in terms of some of those policies that we want to see in practices urban planning practices as it relates to these areas of the city and what we're trying to achieve especially when we when we talk about more urban development Um, also in the same code talks about improvements to curbing gutters, paving streetlights, landscaping, all of the water sewer lines, um, that are consistent with city code as well. So when somebody amends a, um, plan development, we look at the whole site to see what's not in conformance. And some of those things we've called out, like the screening of the HVAC equipment, the screening of, um, the dumpsters that reside on the site, the pylon sign, the removal of landscaping that was required back in 1997 and so on. This is the waterways plan, so the waterways did meet and reviewed this, and so I'm not going to go through all of this, but the waterways talks about building orientation along the greenway. The facade, or the length of the building is not that long, really, on the facade, so meeting the setbacks, they're all good with meeting setbacks from the Greenway, which is 20 feet. They're more than 20 feet. They can have a drive line 10 feet away from the Greenway property line. So all those rules have been met for building setbacks. Now we go into the comprehensive plan. We look at our downtown chapter. You can see the purple cannery district that is contemplated for downtown expansion and redevelopment. And then blowing up here with the Oxford corridor. or the Cannery District now it's called. And then looking at this corridor specifically, the original plan is called the West Riverside Neighborhood Plan. Now it's called the Cannery District, but before, we actually used to call it West Bank, and then it went into West Riverside and Cannery, so I've been around too long, I guess. But the policy here is that this corridor, Oxford Avenue, and then Madison Street, should really be enhanced with more urban design. And these are just some schematics that were part of the plan. So you can see the subject site really tried to like highest best land use in that site. And the city has tried to work with the landowner in the past for even purchasing the site. But in terms of just kind of showing what it could look like, obviously that's not going to always look exactly like that. Even Brewing Project has some parking lots there where they thought maybe townhouses would go. So anyways, the corridor talked about having mixed use buildings in this corridor, maybe up to four stories in height. Tried again to get more upward rather than outward because it is a redevelopment. And then the policies would be two to four stories in height. So this is not an ordinance. It is actually now in the new urban commercial district. But again, they fall in the old ordinance. But when it relates to the policies in the comprehensive plan, you have this as some consideration. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Again, things in the comprehensive plan, relationship of the building to the street and how that interacts. The proposal is 95 feet away from the front sidewalk. Obviously that helps them to facilitate the drive-through as well on the site. And then it gets more into parking lot screening with different planting materials. And then as we talked about the two stories or the four stories, here's some different ideas we see. The middle one is in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. in Wisconsin and Other options to just talking to the applicant for them. It's cost prohibitive to do an elevator for a second floor We do have examples in the city where we have full second stories as well that looked apart something to consider So that is actually in one of the conditions And then again, the cladding materials where they've already shown some upgrades to that. We actually call out specific percentages that are less than our new code. So keep that in mind in that condition. And then also in terms of integrating site improvements, again, we're thinking high quality development in a downtown, in pylon signs, are recommended in the comprehensive plan to to not be there in our new zoning ordinance we do not allow pylon signs the old ordinance we do allow them they have to be a hundred feet from the next one so they're proposing one that's closer to the bridge and that's within one hundred feet an alternative would be to integrate something more of a monument style like that the dollar general little caesars duncan And so on. This was submitted this afternoon as well. It's hard to see, but the pylon, I think, and they can speak to this, they're looking to integrate it more with existing signage. And I think also have a big cabinet sort of in the bottom where the landscaping is, if I read that plan correctly. And... Yeah, I think that was it. They can talk to this when it's their opportunity. Here's the pylon sign in the comprehensive plan that should not be allowed in the downtown. This is the 1999 landscaping plan that was approved as part of the plan development, which was removed. So again, in downtown, we're looking for screening the parking along the street edges. So again, they have two street frontages And we have some conditions in there. Basically, it would be staff working with them to try to upgrade the screening, the landscaping materials, something, even if it helps to help capture some of that stormwater runoff. So when they revise their stormwater management plan, there may be an opportunity to do that. So we actually recommend in our condition that, back to the site plan here, at the bottom on the south end, their drive aisle is really quite wide, plenty wide, that they would be able to do a 10-foot buffer there and then have more landscaping, beautify that stretch a little more, integrate a new sign, um, in that area while still retaining a 24 foot wide drive aisle, which is code. So there is some room there to enhance. It's tougher on the, on the Oxford side, but five feet as well could be done through there and just working with the parking lot adjustments. So those are different conditions and staff report. This is just a summary of what I just went through. Um, Any questions of me? If not, then we also have the TIA to speak to and Al Rinka can speak to the traffic concerns.

Questions for Mr. Noel? Just to clarify, which side is the front of the building? Is it the east side or south side? The south. South side, facing the street. The skinny side, yep. OK. OK, seeing none, thank you, Mr. Noel. Mr. Rinka, would you?

Good evening, everyone. So yeah, I guess perhaps concerns are a concern for this site. So in discussing this, we don't have the TIA yet. They are working on it. It sounds like it'll be three to four weeks or so before we would see a traffic impact analysis on this site. But with that said, the concerns that I have is westbound traffic on Madison Street coming off of the bridge. Um, right now you currently come up to the, to the stoplights and it is a, they're all shared lanes. Um, so we, and then you come around the radius and you have the quick trip driveway going into the left as, as everything sits right now, there's, um, currently, uh, you know, frequent instances of traffic queuing when somebody's turning left to get into the quick trip driveway about four cars is all you get and they're already wrapping around that radius so in my mind the only way that that could ever be remedied and mitigated would be to add a turn lane on madison street that would have to go into their parking lot Be a full width turn lane come around the radius turn into a bypass lane So you'd almost have like a twiddle lane in the middle so cars turning left a quick trip can sit there while The the other traffic can either turn into this the subject site or continue on north up into the cannery district and it could be cost prohibitive to do that as I heard with an elevator in this site. Um, if they get over that hurdle, then the other concern I would have, and this is a larger concern of mine is exiting the site. Uh, the exit would have to be on the north side of the dollar general building, uh, just to get that exiting driveway out of the influence zone of this intersection. Um, cause the current driveway locations are just too close to her 120 feet from the intersection currently. The north driveway to exit from, the problem with that location is the corner of the existing building is right up to the back of the sidewalk. So as a car were to approach that from within the site wanting to come out on Oxford Avenue, to have sight distance, they're gonna have to creep out over the sidewalk to see if there's traffic coming, then to proceed on to Oxford. One solution there would be to talk to the neighbors to the north and see if they could acquire some property to maybe move the driveway a little bit north to get a little more separation from the building to give them that sight distance that would be required. So those are the big ones. The stormwater, for me, is not that big of a concern. It can be done. The stormwater can be redirected into the current catch basins and directed out into existing outfalls. This site, it does come down to the traffic. So the bypass lane, the right turn lane can be done, but it's exiting this site would be my largest concern that we'd have to see if they can come up with some good alternatives and some creative ideas. Any questions?

CHRIS JERRAMSEN. Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Would it be possible to have the exit from Oxford be the entrance, and then so turn in there and then make a right, and then you're down the, like, order thing, and then it keeps there from having to be a – queuing like loop for the drive-through between the building and the river.

Yeah, the entrance to me isn't as big of a concern as the exit is. I mean, the entrance, it would have to be from Oxford that we would close that Madison Street driveway off. Yeah, I mean, that should probably be done anyway. Yes, that needs to be done. But yeah, entering the site, are you talking enter like across from the QuickTrip driveway where the current entry is now? Or are you talking that northern?

I'm talking about like behind the Dollar General.

Yeah, where I was talking about having the exit driveway. Yeah, you could have them both come in and out there. But again, it's kind of narrow there, that building being so close. They would probably almost have to try and shift that driveway a little bit to the north, give them a little more swing radius, especially for delivery trucks coming out of the site. to swing that radius coming out to head south. It's a narrower cross section there coming out with the curb and gutter there. But yeah, so it's really the exiting of the site would be the more challenging aspect to this property.

And then one other thing, if I may.

Yes, please.

I noticed on the plans there's both an in and out arrow on the Madison Street. And I know technically right now you can exit out of there. There's like the rumble strip separator thing, but it's generally not a good idea. Right. So I just... Just the idea of expanding traffic there, because if you drive by the Dunkin' Donuts, it's up on Hastings. There's usually a fairly good amount of traffic there. I just have a hard time imagining that this intersection is going to be able to absorb that much more traffic.

As the intersection sits now, no, it wouldn't. It's already a problem just with Quick Trip being there. But it can be... It would be spendy, but a turn lane and a bypass lane could be added, and it could be done. Entering the site, and that would alleviate all your queuing issues. Not a problem physically, constructively, but it's the exiting of the site. Again, that's what I keep coming back to is the exiting of the site is how to get cars out of the site with that site distance and that building being so close to the right-of-way there.

Would we continue to allow the Dollar General traffic to exit at the current location?

I mean, as it sits now, that hasn't presented a real large issue. They just don't have that much foot traffic coming in and out of there. We don't have, I did a five-year traffic count, showed seven accidents right there between the two driveways of the Quick Trip and the Dollar General traffic. Just right in the driveway entrance. That's in five years, so not terrible. Overall, the intersections had 22 car accidents at it in the last five years, so you combine that with the seven, about 5.9 accidents per year in the last five years, which is over that minimum five accident per year threshold that we like to stay under.

So if the driveway to Dollar General stays open as a two-way in and out, and you want the new development traffic to go out the north side, you would almost have to have some type of barrier on site to prevent?

Yeah, we would do something, make it a right in, right out. Okay. Yeah, a right in, right out.

Somehow so that the new development traffic can't get to the existing driveway. Correct. Okay. Yeah.

Okay.

Any more questions? Commissioner Brewster.

Yeah. So would it be possible with the exit to have like an only, like only a right out exit? Because there is the traffic circle just a little ways down, so it wouldn't be horrifically tedious to just loop around and come back that way.

That is possible. Yeah, that would be up to the, to the landowners if they wanted to force the traffic to all go right out of that north driveway and go right up to the roundabout and to come back south. If you restricted that left turn, that is a possibility.

Any further questions for Mr. Rincock? Commissioner Lawson.

Do you feel that since the traffic study is not complete yet, are we getting the cart before the horse here with our conversation and making a decision tonight?

I would want to see the traffic study for sure. Yeah, and with that traffic study, as I indicated to their engineer, we're looking for level of service. We wanna see at least a level of service of D or better, or maintain what's currently operating the greater of the two. So even if they can show that the level of service would be adequate at the intersection, still comes down to how is traffic exiting out of that north driveway, because we just can't allow it out of that current driveway.

Any further questions for Mr. Rincon? Thank you, Mr. Rincon. Is the applicant here? Please approach the podium. State your name and address and spell your last name. Can I move this? State your name and address and spell your last name. Michael Cohn, 1744 Bellinamore Place in De Pere, Wisconsin.

Thank you for having me. Good evening. Appreciate you all being here. I'm speaking on behalf of the owner of the property, Legacy Commercial Property. We've owned this property since 1997, as you heard. I've been with the company for 19 years now. I had started with Family Video. We own and operated Family Video. I started there as a store manager. 19 years ago, and here I am now in front of you. Actually had a chance to live in Eau Claire for a couple years, loved it, love what's happening in the downtown area. I think it looks amazing. So I'm excited to bring some development to Eau Claire. As you know, that lot's been sitting empty for a long time. It's been sitting empty since 1997. It does not look desirable. I get it. We've got, as a company, There's a number of leasing agents that we employ, and we've got national contacts, broker contacts. We're in 21 states. We're doing a number of developments down in Tennessee right now, so we've got relationships with a lot of companies. We've marketed this property to almost everybody we work with. Duncan, I was very happy to connect with Duncan on this and we actually got some traction. I'm really excited about this because I think it's an opportunity for us to not only upgrade the property, fix the HVAC screening issues, fix the water draining issues to the back. I'll be honest, we have issues with homeless, trash. This is a great opportunity to not only work with a great company, a wisconsin-owned company but really beautify this property and make it look a lot more attractive than it does now a little bit about tmart operations which is the duncan franchisee mike mead is here as the engineer who works with for duncan you know they're based out of wisconsin dells they own 70 locations they're not some big corporate entity right they're a they're a wisconsin mom and pop company. They own two Duncans in Eau Claire now. And I believe that they've been great neighbors and great members of the community here, as have we as landowners. We own another property up on Gulf Road, which is the Dogtopia, if you're familiar with that one. But yeah, I mean, I'm just here because I'm excited. And I hope to get your approval tonight and ultimately get through city council and bring in jobs and tax revenue and make the property look a lot better, right? regarding dollar general we signed a lease with them a couple years ago so they're locked into our building for at least 20 more years there are some certain limitations that we have with duncan in the lease regarding development regarding ingress egress any significant changes to ingress egress and it will potentially kill the deal so we're just trying to be mindful obviously working with the city with the traffic impact assessments and you know listen we're open to working with you all in that okay having Madison Street completely shut down I think would be out of the question for us but we can talk right in right out and and I think we can find a resolution on that Mike's here. He can answer any technical questions. That's not my job. So I'm here as, again, a property owner. So if you have any questions for me, I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Questions for Mr. Cohn. Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Is there, like, a time reason that this was submitted before the traffic impact study was done? Like, are you under a time crunch to get this done, or is it... Whoever was doing that for you didn't have it done in time.

We've been working on this development for well over a year and a half, almost two years at this point. We had an initial call with the city, a development call, and that wasn't really brought up as a concern initially. The deal got put on hold for a while. bureaucracy right a lot of behind-the-scenes things when we kind of got this back going again we were informed that the ordinance was about to change so in order to get this in prior to the ordinance change we had to move on a quick timeline to answer your question so yes near the end it became a a time crunch the other prohibiting factor was the two-story requirement Duncan has voice their opinion about the two-story. And the second story is never used. It becomes, and Mike could probably put this better, but bad things happen upstairs with nobody watching. Nobody uses it. And there's a cost. Developments aren't cheap anymore. And so to add a second story, you're almost doubling the cost of a development, which

It's not going to happen, right?

So, again, to get it in before the ordinance changes, second story requirement, we wanted to get it in. So, yes. Long way of saying yes, there was a time crunch.

Okay. And then maybe this might be a question for the engineer, but I would like to talk about the viability of maybe having the drive-through operate in a different fashion. Is that the question? That would definitely be him. All right. Thank you.

Any further questions for Mr. Cohn? Seeing none, thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Mead, would you like to approach? Sure. Can you state your name and address and spell your last name?

Yeah, thank you. My name is Mike Mead, M-E-A-D, and my address is 90 Lincoln Parkway in Williams Bay, Wisconsin. And as Michael mentioned, I work with T-Mart Group. They're the ownership group that is hoping to develop a site here. And I'm really here to just answer any questions. I think Mr. Noel did a good job recapping. Our architect, MRV, did resubmit plans trying to address comments that we got from the Parks Committee. including the landscaping. I think the legend was left off of the plans. So we've got that resubmitted with the species type and what's required there. I think for stormwater, that is being redone so that we tap into a catch base, which I understand to be on Madison Street. And so those plans are being developed. And as Michael mentioned, we're working on some screening concerns regarding rooftop units and garbage enclosures. As far as traffic goes, we really don't generate that much more traffic. We kind of skim off of the traffic that's already there. And our customers come to us out of just their commuting habits. They tie us into their commuting habits. So really we don't generate that much as a Duncan This development does have a Baskin Robbins, which is an ice cream element So that might generate a little bit of traffic later in the day part. That's more of a late afternoon evening customer So again, we're just really excited to be here I'm here to answer any questions you have and it sounds like there's one having to do with Drive-thru we could start there

Yes, please go ahead, ask your question.

Thank you, Chair. So I guess, you know, with the ice cream component there and, you know, the proximity to the river and the bike trail and everything, it really seems a shame to me to, like, separate the business from the trail and the river and everything with the drive-thru.

Okay.

You know, would there be a way to have the drive-thru come in, like, behind the... Can you scroll that up slightly so we can see the back of the building? Like behind the Dollar General and then curve around into the lane that would then be between the two buildings instead of having it come in, run between the building and the river.

So where would customers be entering the site to do that?

They'd be entering behind the, it would be, well, either a right, I guess a right or a left turn into a space.

Behind the Dollar General?

Behind the Dollar General.

Oh, okay. We would really have to take a look at that. That's...

Then you're past both the backup, the potential backup on Madison Street, as well as the sort of kerfuffle-y intersection with the Quick Trip and the Dollar General. It's right there. Yeah, understood. And you get, in my mind, a much better loop. um where you're not separating the building from the river like you could i bet you know with the ice cream there in the summer and you know you have i bet you would have a lot of people if you had a nice patio there on the river right next to the bike trail yeah no you're right a lot of people but you know if you're sitting there and then you know giant suv goes by you every You know what I'm saying? Sure.

Yeah, I do. That's one of the reasons that we're attracted to this site is that river. It's beautiful. We almost do no ice cream through the drive-thru. It's all coffee for the most part in the drive-thru.

The drive-thru would still be between the patio place and the river.

Understood. The way we've got it now is really the most intuitive pattern and pretty typical of how we develop. That's how customers understand these stores operate to, um, come off of Oxford Avenue and then back behind the dollar general. We'd really have to just study that. I don't, uh, we haven't done something like that before. Okay.

Any further questions for Mr. Mead? Uh, commissioner Lawson.

In our initial write up, there were some questions that weren't answered, but with what came through today and I'm kind of looking over at Mr. Noel also, did we get everything answered as far as colors? Um, clarified and all those concerns that was provided to us last week?

Well, I think we, with the latest plans that we're unfortunately sorry about this, submitted this afternoon, I think we met the material requirements. I think Mr. Noel mentioned he maybe hasn't been able to do a percentage calculation on it, but we've changed the materials to our typical cement siding to a brick material and glass and a cement siding material. So I think if we haven't already with this latest set of plans, we'll be able to address that concern. Further questions?

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mead. Thank you.

This item is a public hearing. If you are here to speak to this item, please approach the podium and limit your comments to three minutes. Anybody that would like to speak, please come forward during the public hearing. State your name, address and spell your last name.

Thank you. My name is Jeremy Greger. Last name is spelled G-R-A-G-E-R-T. My address is 1725 9th Street, which is about 10 blocks to the west of this location. And I go through this area quite often on my bicycle, but I actually try to avoid any of the businesses in the area, partly because it's kind of hard to get to them because of all the cars around just churning. And just making for a dangerous situation as much as I like a lot of the businesses in that area. I just simply avoid them So that's I could see that being a potential problem for the business given like this would only add more traffic, but I But yeah, I think this is a very, I really appreciate that the applicant has looked into this location because I wasn't really thinking of it as a potential kind of redevelopment location for the city. It is a unique spot, but I think from my perspective, it requires that we be very careful about what we do with it, especially since it's on a river, on a trail, in an area with a lot of traffic issues. and car circulation issues. Ultimately, I don't think it is a good choice to have a drive-through land use, which does end up being one of the highest land uses in terms of traffic generation. I'm not sure if Mr. Noel can confirm that, but in all the charts that I have seen of development type, drive-throughs are really a huge traffic generator. One of my Other concerns is really just like kind of going back to the comp plan where we are really trying to make sure our downtown and our waterfronts have urban kind of character, like central business district zoning. This really doesn't do it for me in that way. I like the idea of trying to try to mitigate that, but I don't know if there's a way to possibly do that and still have a drive-through in that spot. I'd also recommend contacting the Upper West Side Neighborhood Association to get their opinion on this and see if it can be on their agenda for an upcoming meeting, because this is within the boundaries of that neighborhood association, the same one that I'm within the boundaries of. Yeah, I guess those are probably my main thoughts. I'm not necessarily against the idea of developing this location because I think there's a lot of potential, but this is just kind of a one story kind of suburban drive through is probably not what we're, but we would maximize the potential of our city. So thanks. Questions for Mr. Gregor.

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Gregor.

Thank you, Chair. Is there anyone else that would like to speak tonight on agenda item number five? Anyone else that would like to speak during the public hearing? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion of this item. And the chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Davis.

I'll second it to get conversation going.

So, uh, we have a motion by commissioner Davis, second by commissioner Brewster. Uh, any discussion?

I have a question for, thank you, I have a question for a city staff. If this were to get tabled until the TIA was ready to discuss, what does that do for the applicant? What are the consequences for that?

Yeah, we did ask the applicant if they'd like to postpone and they, they chose not to. Um, I think ultimately they understand city council is a decision making body. You're the recommendation body. Um, so they said three to four weeks. We just found that out in terms of the results of the TIA. Um, you've heard from City Engineer Al Rinka about his concerns with accessibility and things like that so it's up to you guys if you want to recommend approval recommend with the conditions or change conditions recommend denial or postpone and give more time that would be your December 1st meeting you could ask the applicant what they might prefer to as you discuss So it's up to you if that helps. Commissioner Brewster.

My question is also for Planoa. But us postponing it would not impact which set of standards they fall under.

Correct. They still fall under the old code. Yeah, that's what I think they want to leverage as much as possible if you would deny it and Then counsel would deny it. I should cut what even if you had approved it and counsel denied it They would have to then fall under the new code so This is kind of the understand. This is kind of their one-shot chance to do it this way Okay

Any further discussion? Commissioner Brewster.

Yeah, I guess I'm seriously considering making a motion to push this off until our December 1st meeting. I would love to see what the traffic impact looks like as well as give the applicants an opportunity to... sort of consider the viability of an alternative route for the drive-through. As long as it doesn't impact their ability to operate under the zoning code in which they've applied, I don't think that would be too much to ask, especially since traffic patterns there is something of a pretty serious concern.

I have similar concerns.

I guess I'll move to postpone this until our December 1st meeting.

Is there a second on the motion to postpone?

I will second the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

I think the traffic issue really should be better resolved before we approve something here.

Any further discussion on the postponement part? Yeah. we have that on the table i i agree that uh... we need to see the tia we need to see all the circulation i'm also concerned about things that mister noel talked about the urban character because right now this doesn't really fit that and i think i think we need to think about it's great it's great that we've we've seen a proposal here what do we want this to look like we want it as mister noel said auto centric or do we want more urban character? And I would hope perhaps the applicants, if they get a chance, if it's postponed, to maybe rethink that, how they could move toward that urban characteristic slightly and maybe make some changes. So just my thoughts. Any further discussion on the postponement? Commissioner Erickson.

I second this need for a TIA prior to making any decisions on this. That's imperative. We have to know that information. We have to have it at hand and be able to analyze it. Secondly, the orientation and location of the buildings that are proposed in this set, I think, do not comply with the guidelines comprehensive plan need for creating an urban type area I think I think a design could be accomplished where the building is oriented along Madison Street and with a facade that's with you know almost up to the sidewalk in an urban type fashion I think that could be accomplished there's various ways to I think do that and still maintain the full access to the site that the applicants want Of course, pending the TIA analysis. But I think there are some options with putting traffic through the site that could accommodate that. But more importantly, having the building face Madison Street, on Madison Street, uh... is is the most important create urban type area and that's what's being proposed and that's what's coming to fruition history uh... i think we need to it this is a planned redevelopment even though it doesn't fall under the current uh... zoning ordinance as uh... as has been stated uh... because it is a plan we can require things

And I think Postponing it as a is a good idea and I would hope that the developers consider a different orientation and location for the buildings on the site Any Commissioner Davis Thank You chair I'm just gonna echo pretty much what the rest of the commissioners have said and I mean, you know I understand there's a lot of time and money have been put into where you are now. I get it. I do this with that said You know I know trivial items don't kill deals I know that if this is really something you folks want to do you'll be willing to make some concessions because that's just how the world works I would really encourage you to take this opportunity the next month that we have here to talk that neighboring property owner to the north and See what you can do as far as getting, you know, some property to make a viable exit. And just be prepared that, you know, that West Madison Street, I couldn't agree more with anybody else here. That's just, you know, coming in off of Madison Street is not a good deal. I don't think for you folks or anybody in the community. So I'll just take the time to maybe work on that.

Just comment that. If we don't postpone it and we go to a vote and we vote denial, would that be correct that they couldn't come back for a year? How would that work?

Yeah. Good question, chair. You are a recommendation body. So you would recommend just like the waterways and parks recommended to you.

Yes.

Both of your recommendations go to city council.

Right.

And they, they would hear this next week, Monday public hearing as well. So, um, that's not a lot of time for them to adjust plans. Uh, so if you go with postponement, that gives them extra months. We would inform council that, um, this is the recommend, this is what playing commission has chosen to do. If you vote this way with a postponement or if you decide to deny or approve, we would send that to council as well. So council wants your, your, um, your direction here. If council denies, Then if council denies, correct. Then they fall under the new code and they have to do two stories. They have to orient it with a maximum setback of five feet to Mel's point about having that building closer. So it's kind of this gray zone that they're in.

So I feel good about a postponement because I would like to give the applicant a time to reassess this this project. And get more information. Yes, please.

Thank you, Chair. So if it goes to council and it fails, do they have to wait a year to bring it back under the new code?

No, they wouldn't, because under the old code, if they would try to resubmit the same plan, then they'd have to wait a year. But if they make substantial changes, which would be forced by the new code, they could come back sooner. MIKE BOYLE. Gotcha. Thank you, Ned.

Any further comments on the postponement? Commissioner Leonard.

Thank you, Chair. I think I'm more leaning towards not recommending this for City Council, allowing it to go to City Council with our non-recommendation, and then if they see that being something they want to deny at that point, it goes through the process and gets through with the new code. It seems like a lot of the concerns we're bringing up are things that we've addressed with the new code. And I think anything that we were trying to fit into a comprehensive plan is better defined with that code. So I think I'm leaning more towards that rather than postponing.

So just to clarify, you would rather not postpone. You'd rather see a vote taken?

Correct.

OK. Any further discussion on the motion, which is a motion to postpone? So Commissioner Reid?

Thank you, Chair. I'd be more than happy to either postpone or deny. It sounds like our group has more issues than just the TIA. I would be totally willing for them to come back and give them plenty of time to make these changes we requested. Yeah.

Any further discussion on postponement before we call the vote? So I will call the vote. Yes means postpone. Nay means do not postpone. So if the postponement's voted down, then we will go back and vote on the initial motion of approval or denial. Commissioner Reid? Aye. That's for postponement, correct? OK. Commissioner Leonard?

Nay.

Commissioner Lawson?

Aye.

Commissioner Holzman? Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Davis. Aye. Commissioner Brewster. Aye. And the chair votes aye. The postponement is approved by a vote of seven to one. Thank you, gentlemen, for representing your business and hope that you might be able to reassess and work with the city staff. We'll move on to agenda item six, which is a discussion item on the approval of the 2026 work plan.

Okay, we wanted to bring this before you. We're actually seeing that we have a pretty light agenda, or maybe no agenda. Sorry, now we actually have this item. So you will have a meeting December 1st. But if that didn't happen, then you would have had no meeting. So we brought the work plan for you. Our major accomplishment was the zoning code update right the LDO so kudos to all of you for being involved in that process Multiple year undertaking so you can see I get to that in your packet and Um, just all of the things that were struck out that were related to zoning code, including the parkland dedication that council passed, um, form based, you know, we even came up tonight about the urban commercial district, about the maximum setbacks that we have now in place to, um, make more effective our plans the policies in our comprehensive plan so uh... again all that's been done and now we segue into our comprehensive plan which would be in twenty twenty six so we need to find a consultant for that uh... we actually have how's a living as part of that consultant already through money that was appropriated through the American Rescue Plan that we had to obligate by last year, end of last year. So they will be doing a lot of land use already for us. And then the larger project, we need to select a consultant. We would assume they would apply as well for that, but we wanna make sure we've got the best consultant for the job when it comes to the overall project. So that will be... in some way shape or form public engagement You know that whole process and as well working with our stakeholders working with you guys working with council So that's the exciting project for 2026, which is why the work plan is a little bit you know smaller now, but it's that large project and We also left in there planning commissioner training. So if there's things that you guys want to get trained on more and understand more of the nuances, feel free just to reach out to me and we can try to find that training for you. It's always a good thing to be proactive. And... We're already starting to catch some small tweaks to the land development ordinance that would better clarify what we met with this. We haven't caught any emergency issues, fingers crossed, after one month implementing it. So, so far, so good. But we will bring forward to you, as we've got proposed now, third, fourth quarter of 26, kind of like a new cleanup package of more related to like, Oh, this could be explained a little bit better than the code or maybe we need a new image or something like that. I'm trying to stay away from policy because that's going to be looked at more in the comprehensive plan. Um, so you spent a lot of time developing, um, or using the existing comprehensive plan policies to make the zoning code. So we don't want to undo that right away. and other than that urban sewer service area plan update that's led by our regional plan commission so hopefully that's been delayed a little bit but that will give us a little bit better understanding of the room that the city wants to grow into with all of our boundaries and how our sewer service can actually supply those growth areas so that go that fits like a glove with the comprehensive plan so that's another project that Really, hopefully, we would have liked to have it done already, but it's led by the Regional Planning Commission, who's hired by the DNR. We also, I'm not sure what we'll bring before you, but we also have the Tower of Washington Incorporation. So depending on how that all shakes out, we might even give you some updates on that. So stay tuned on that. They have not, our understanding talking to legal today, they have not actually filed their petition to begin the review with the internal review board with the Department of Administration. So we'll keep you updated on that.

uh... any questions about the work plan uh... on the comp plan update i'm just i'm just looking at what what do you think is going to be required of the commissioners like we had the seat back are we going to have a similar process where uh... there would be additional meetings in addition to the plan commission meetings uh... on this and how long would that straight yeah we we we find talking to consultants that the z pack model of whether it's zoning or uh...

like plan development is really useful because you guys are at the table throughout and maybe it's not, I mean, maybe it's not all 18 of you, but it's like a select group of four of you and then four of council members or something like that or five or something. We don't really know, but if that's something that's of interest again where you're a little bit more at the table so that you can be along the whole process, um, After all, you guys are the land use decision makers. But we would still, if you want to go that route, we would still do our stakeholder meetings, workshops with the public, open houses, make sure that we have broad public engagement too.

Wouldn't you think if we were involved, when would our involvement begin?

Yeah, we would start that up probably like February. Oh, okay. Yeah, once we get the contract all taken care of and whoever's selected.

Do you think in another two-year process?

Probably a year to a year and a half. Yeah. The good thing about our comprehensive plan, it's got a good foundation. So I don't see it unraveling our main growth strategy. You know, it's been basically – Reinforced by our new zoning code to in terms of compact development, you know, we want more mixed-use So, you know, but we still are growing outward as well So I don't really have I mean a year year and a half maybe sure thank you not as long as the zoning Okay Any other questions?

Commissioner Erickson? I think the ZPAC model has merit. Like you say, maybe it's not the full-blown one, what we did for the zoning ordinance, because there's a lot of technical aspects to that that it takes a lot of understanding. This is more policy-driven and in a bigger picture. Not that it's not as important. It certainly is, but it maybe doesn't take the full... group of both bodies at the same time that said then it would require regular uh updates to those people that weren't there at a at a city council or plan commission meetings to make sure that everybody understands what's been discussed and what's decisions that have been made and that sort of thing. But I think it has a lot of merit. I think it brings the two groups together in really a cohesive fashion and we can hash things out and there aren't any surprises. And it's very helpful. So that's my thoughts on that.

Commissioner Brewster.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, the one thing that I've found, and in general I agree with everything Commissioner Erickson said about that. The one thing that I found was a little, I don't know, maybe tedious is, like, people coming in partway like myself, and then, like, decisions have already been made that I disagree with, and the time is already over that I even have a chance to have input. So maybe the finding people that, you know, have – significant chunks of their term left, and those would be the people that, so you don't have a rotation through or something like that, if that makes sense to other people.

it'd be ideal and we could you know when we go out to request for proposals we could we could suggest if this sounds kind of like you like that model you know here's here's something that the city is kind of interested in again but also tell us other ideas that you might have because we're always open to what other consultants are doing elsewhere what might have worked that we're not aware of so if that if that works for you

I like the, when we started doing the survey questions during the ZPACs, instead of just a few people nodding their head, it gave everybody a chance to vote. And I think that really helped. So everybody kind of.

Yeah, everybody felt like their voice was heard instead of a group think. Yeah.

I think the other thing it does is it gives the public to get involved, if nothing else, to hear from the policymakers in a little less formal fashion than a meeting of the plan commission or a meeting of the city council. And it gives them a little more comfort in understanding just attending those meetings and seeing how the thoughts come together and the decisions are made rather than in a very formal session before the city council or the planning commission. So I think that helps the public also.

So did you guys like that element? I mean, we kind of played with it on the front end of the meeting, in the back end, where it would be open for public input. I know some, we were actually told by council, you know, to try to have some more of that engagement as part of that meeting so they could interact, so you could hear what they were thinking as well.

Chair, if I could, if I could add in as well, sir. Yes. Something to keep in mind is this, we're going to, this, The steering committee that operates this is likely not going to be just elected and appointed officials. If you look at the last time it had stakeholders from the community, because there are elements required in the comp plan that are well outside the purview and the expertise of either of those two bodies. So this is likely going to be composed of folks, not just the planning commission and council, but other stakeholder organizations through the committee. We're not going to be as large as the last one. It was 50 members in the steering committee. I've not heard anybody who said that was a good format, but it is gonna be a little more diverse than just city council and planning commission members as well.

Thank you, Mr. White.

I actually was part of the last one, and I really liked it. Yeah.

There was one person who has liked it.

We've... Traditionally, we'd have a body of 40, I don't know, Mel, if you were on it in the past, but 40, 50, and it was, you know, you would have people that were real engaged, others that would be kind of not always there. So there's models where you could have your technical advisory group as well, like almost what we did with the zoning, make sure those industry experts, land developers, you know, they're as well there. What's really hard is like, because we have a lot of neighborhood associations, right, is If you have all of them there, that's a lot of different viewpoints. They're all meaningful. So do you just say, well, we want only two? Well, then you offend the four other ones that wanted to be at that. So one way to maybe, you know, is more of focus groups. or put them on a technical committee from the neighborhood's point of view, again, with developers or environmentalists or bicycle advocates. You name the group, and how do you blend that into the decision makers, so you guys and council? So how does all that feed feedback? So if you like the ZPAC model, if you want to call it, we could suggest that, but then also what Aaron talked about, and then also variations on the same theme. It's always interesting in terms of what the consultants think that's most effective.

Could commissioners email their thoughts to you? Oh, definitely, yeah. If you want to think about it and share your thoughts, that'd be good. So how about the 2026 plan commission schedule?

Yeah, so that's in your packet once a month. So that's different. And that's why these guys got a whole month that they have to wait now, because you usually have one coming up here on the third Monday. So the idea behind that is that there's less conditional use permits, like for large garages. more site plan approvals for staff to do. And right now, we're not getting a lot in, actually. There was nothing that came in for your December meeting except for this postponement. So it's kind of quiet right now. Is that concerning? I'm not really sure why that is. It's just the time of the year.

Traditionally, like this time of the year, last year was this way?

Yeah, it's slower, but you have a lot of build-out. I mean, you just had two final plats that you just, you know, on consent agenda. And there's Orchard Hills. There's a lot that's already been kind of platted. And then a lot of apartments that have been approved, too, that still need to be built, like Paragon. And so there's a lot in the pipeline. It's just that you're not seeing a lot of new stuff on the front end.

Mm-hmm. That's right.

Future agenda items and announcements? That's all. Okay. That's all we have. Okay. We are adjourned.

Okay.