Planning Commision - Regular Meeting

All right. I don't know.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Someone asked her exactly. It is 6 p.m.

The September 15th, 2025 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 silent mode. I will call the attendance roll. Commissioner Davis.

Here.

Commissioner Erickson. Here. Commissioner Holzman.

Here.

Commissioner Lawson.

Here.

Commissioner Leonard.

Here.

Commissioner Reed.

Here.

And Commissioner Helgeson is here. We do have a quorum 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 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 in 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 open public comment period for those agenda items that do not appear on tonight's agenda as a public hearing items five six seven and eight are noted as public hearings and have a specific comment period included during the discussion of those items. Item 10 is a discussion among commissioners only. Item four, our consent agenda, and item nine, 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 or nine, or any other comments not related to tonight's agenda? Please come forward if you want to comment on items four or nine or any other comments not on the agenda. Seeing none, we will close our open public comment period and move to agenda item four, which is our consent agenda tonight. Our consent agenda has one sub-item, item A, the approval of our August 18th, 2025 minutes. 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, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Commissioner Leonard.

I move to approve the consent agenda. Second.

Move motion by Commissioner Leonard, second by Commissioner Reid. Any discussion on the consent agenda, the minutes from August 18th? Seeing none, I will call the vote on the consent agenda. Commissioner Davis. Aye. Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson.

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Commissioner Reid. Aye. And Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. That item passes seven votes to zero. We now move on to our regular agenda. The first item, number five, is a public hearing. This is related to an amendment regarding the land development ordinance and the LDO applications manual. Mr. Noel.

Okay, good evening, Chair and Planning Commissioners. This item here you anticipated before when the original package for the LDO got approved, and congratulations again on that whole process, quite lengthy, but we're done with it. We do have a few minor updates, clarifications, some typos, errors, and things that we were able to catch in the process, and then also some feedback that the DNR gave us, so we'll go through that briefly here tonight. These sections were public noticed. They're on our website for inspection in your packet, the link as well. I'm going to go over kind of the main highlights. There's a lot of little things like number errors and just consistency things in terms of like the right terms. So I'm not going to get into all those little typos unless you have questions, but more to look at the larger issues. kind of things that we added or changed in this update for the LDO. The first one is dealing with the planned developments. Wanted to specify more about those vested rights in terms of the planned developments that have been passed in the past and run with the land so that they're now overlays. So this language was added working with our attorney's office to just note that prior to the date of October 1st, the effective date of this ordinance, that those PUDs run with the land, they're overlay districts now, but if they get amended, they should try to come into conformance more with the current code as well. So that just specifies that they continue in effect going forward. whatever those uh... uh... specific standards were if it was a setback or some density thing or something like that uh... the density thing might not even some of these things might not even apply with the new code in terms of reduce setbacks and no density standards so some of those might just go away but we just give that more of a place in terms of uh... it being recognized so we added that and then uh... with the use standards we this is uh... chapter three in this section with accessory structures they're always kind of um... a topic that requires a lot of staff review and we looked at uh... what was written the first thing was to differentiate between commercial and residential that commercial structures sometimes are very large industrial accessory buildings for storage and things like that so we just made this really about uh... smaller residential and i wanted to add tonight that we would actually have it more for the one through four units so if you agree with this to actually add containing one through four units for uh... residential And then language that says for non-residential and multifamily that the standards in Chapter two shall apply so To clarify that this is really more that low density residential when we're dealing with like sheds Large garages that a lot of times you would have to see as conditional use permits somebody asking for you know over a thousand square foot on a lot and so here we get rid of the conditional use permits you've already passed that but we just talk about when it comes to the large accessory structures over two hundred fifty square feet for over two hundred square feet that is that uh... you could have a maximum of three And it's really subject to this chart here, which we had an air in. The building area maximum that you can do up to 1,500 square feet of accessory structures for these single family houses, up to a fourplex, or 20% of the gross lot area, whichever is less. It should have been, not greater. Because if you have a large lot and you have 20%, you could do some serious large structures for residential. So we just clarified that. So that's basically it for this one. And this is an error that we actually just caught today. So there will be more errors and what I call glitches in this because it's a brand new code. Just working actually with a fire with the historic property of the Drummond building on the corner of State and Summit. So this one dealt with allowing more multifamily, so five units plus in this district. And it should actually said, where I have that arrow, MR district, dwelling multi-unit building in the MR district shall be allowed in the following locations only. It doesn't actually have MR in there. So it should add... with the you are the M R so if you'd make an amendment to add M R then that would keep things consistently a plenty of existing situations I think when we wrote this is more about new development we have plenty situations including the Drummond area that there's other parcels next to it that are M R And MR, if you remember, consolidated two zoning districts, R3, which has apartment buildings, and also MR, which has single families. So it really is a spectrum of housing units. And so this will help clarify that that's still allowed in terms of in an MR district when next to it. So we think that should work. moving on a couple other highlights uh... section five uh... talking some different architects in the community there's an example of menominee food cooperative is a great one where there's spandrel glass and that's kind of like fake glass but it looks the part from the street the cheese kind of design of objectives of you know having more of a facade with windows And so with that one, what we just did to give more flexibility is crossed out number one footnote, all glazing on the principal front and street side elevation of the building should be transparent. So by crossing that out, we'll still get primarily transparent window glazing, but it also gives that flexibility for spandrel glass that might hide in the case of the co-op commercial kitchen behind it. So we think that works better for just more flexibility for the design of buildings. Back to the other amendments. Chapter 10, we forgot to add a flag lot provision, which works really good for unique situations dealing with topography or on a river lot. So we've got that language that we just basically siphoned off from our current code and added in there and made a little bit of a new specification for residential that it should not be less than 15 feet in width. That way you can get a driveway in there. Because of our new lot widths minimums at 30 feet, that works pretty well with that. And then also at no less than 25 feet for non-residential. So that's pretty much the same as it is now, I believe. Is it 20 or is it 25? yeah so a little bit larger for that but again allowing poll lots flag lots to accommodate you know unique situations and those stipulations have not changed they're exactly the same as it relates to the current codes we've just copy pasted that in from current code so again just an omission And then one of the main things that we were waiting for was a floodplain final feedback on some things about the lowest floor, which is clarified in the code. So we were able to work with the DNR to get that approved or accepted. And this is just really dealing with structures that are below the floodplain that have been removed in the floodplain, flood fringe district, which is the 100-year floodplain. So if we get it removed, we can build underneath a parking lot. Garage and we see that a lot in the downtown so that they're not habitable structures, but they're actually they typically have sump pumps They're waterproofed but this allows that per federal code. So we wanted to be consistent with FEMA's code cited there That is pretty much it on the amendments there's other small things if you have any questions happy to go through those and more clarification try to again stay away from policy because this is all stuff that you guys have just approved with the City Council getting into the manual we did clarify from our attorneys office that this does not need a resolution tonight so if you're okay with those two amendments I just explained the text you don't actually have to pass that resolution in your packet related to the manual uh... because the manuals actually cited in code so we've got that are you proved and this is already something we already do if you look at our home page for applications we list it will improve this with the new code how to apply online and then different sort of permits and in in this case we have more cover sheets and better checklists for the development community use and all that will be updated on the back end of our online system called evolve so that the checklists are posted there we'll also back on this page we'll revise it to have sort of an accordion drop down with all these things that they can review ahead of time before they even start to upload project information evolve know what's expected prepare their plans adequately so that we can hopefully just check them off and you know have complete applications now that especially we're doing more site plans internally with administrative approval so We want to guide the development community better with this manual. And this was in your packet, but here's an example of a certified survey map. This is like your first time preparing one of these. Maybe you haven't hired quite yet a surveyor to prepare this. What's expected in terms of process? How does it get done by staff? and then a checklist here as well. We've worked with engineering on all of this as well. So just one example. So any questions about the text amendments or the LDO manual?

Questions for Mr. Noel? Commissioner Erickson.

Mr. Noel, if, for instance, there's a planned unit development that's in existence now and there were certain restrictions put on those, but the restrictions in the new code would be less. Would the like the planned unit development still be enforced with the greater restriction?

Yeah. Okay. Yep. I mean, they could amend it. Say they wanted to go from 25 to 20 for a front yard setback. They could amend it, and then that would come more into greater compliance. But yeah, if it's specified in the PD, a certain setback, we have to go with that. Good. Thanks for the clarification.

Any further questions? If we get to a motion here tonight, is there any special wording you want or just just a motion for approval?

Yeah, just just the I had highlighted it here Amend this section containing one through four units period for non-residential and multi-family. You could just state this as displayed by staff.

Okay. Okay, that's the only one.

We'll capture it in the minutes. That's the only one we need. That one and then this one we caught just today. Okay. Wait, I passed it. Include MR district. in this one and subsection A on a block or area joining a property in the URMR. We think that will work better.

Can we just say what the two amendments proposed this evening or something? Yep. OK. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Noel. 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. Anyone that would like to speak to agenda item five, the land development ordinance tonight? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion of item five, and the chair would entertain a motion.

I motion to amend that which is shown on screen and previously discussed.

I'll second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Reed, a second by Commissioner Holzman for approval. Any further discussion on item number five? Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote. Commissioner Erickson. Aye. Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye, and Commissioner Davis? Aye. That motion passes seven to zero. We move on to agenda item six, which is also a public hearing for rezoning on North Hastings Way. Mr. Petrie, welcome back.

Thank you.

will be our presenter.

Yeah, good evening. Good to be back. Item number six is a rezoning. It's located on the north side of the community. You may be familiar with this project because it's just south of the food court lot. They are looking to do phase two or expand it into the northern lot. That northern lot is actually zoned R1 or R2 right now, and they were going to rezone it to C3 to match the parcel to the south. In your packet this evening is the rezoning request, the narrative. They will need to come back with a future expansion plan and site plan at a later date. The property in question is about 0.55 acres in size. As mentioned, the future land use map does show this as a mixture of pretty much transition between commercial and low density as you head north and to the east. Notification map showing the 300-foot buffer of the people that were notified. The staff did not receive any calls or emails regarding this item. This expansion plan, as I mentioned, will be reviewed with a site plan at a later date. Aerial photograph just shows it as vacant. This is an older aerial. They put the food trucks on the southern lot, but this would be for phase two of that project. This recommendation will be forwarded to the city council on September 22 next Monday. And the applicant is in the audience, and staff can answer any questions this evening.

CHRIS JERRAM. Questions for Mr. Petrie.

seeing none thank you mr petrie oh commissioner davis thank you chair uh mr petrie thank you uh looking at the the cul-de-sac bulb there is that an easement that goes back to those corner pieces or is that what is that uh i do not know that answer i would have to do some research and get back to you on that one you put me on the spot and i just fresh off a leave i don't know the answer to that

But I will get you an answer. I don't know if the applicant would know more. I know they did a certified survey map, but it was not shown on there. But we'll do some research and get back to you.

Any further questions for Mr. Petrie? Commissioner Holzman.

I've got a question. I understand that these food court things are popping up as a fairly common thing these days. What is the requirement for providing for bathroom facilities in a food court?

Yeah, excellent question. We were dealing with this because typically a food court has provided bathrooms like port-a-potties or permanent bathrooms. Talking with the health department, food trucks can park there for up to a day and then need to leave and come back. So it's a temporary. And in Wisconsin, food trucks are not the most popular in the wintertime because of utilities and water and supply. But there's some other ones in the... in the state that have indoor parking and then have restroom facilities, but maybe the applicant will know more what's coming in phase two, but right now it's just porta-potties, or you take your food and go elsewhere and then take it to go, which would not be required to have permanent restroom facilities.

Any more questions for Mr. Petrie? I'm seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Petrie. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Please state your name and address and spell your last name.

Excellent. Good evening, commission members. Mark Erickson with Everyday Survey and Engineering here on behalf of the spot on Hastings Way, Mrs. Liz Lee. Excellent questions here, and thank you, Ryan, for the introduction of this. She does have the lot south of this and has a successfully operating food truck lot right now on it. along with what Brian had stated is true, a food truck can stay there by health department standards for one day period and they must be removed. When she acquired this land, the thought is that she's going to put up two bathrooms, ADA compliant with a little cold storage area and potentially a future kitchen, prep kitchen area, so that these trucks could then stay a longer time period. I'm not a health code expert, expert by any means but we did meet with the team of all the staff of every different division and this is part of the next advent of where she's moving to and expanding to do that. There is water already into the site and we would bring sewer in or she would when the building is to come forth and I think that is still scheduled for this year to be honest with you. Questions for Mr. Erickson.

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Erickson. 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. Anyone that would like to speak to item number six? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of this item, and the chair would take a motion.

Commissioner Erickson. I move approval of this as recommended by staff. Second.

Second. OK, we have a motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Lawson. Any further discussion on item number six? Seeing none, I'm going to call the vote. Commissioner Holzman.

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson.

Aye.

Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Commissioner Reed. Aye. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. Commissioner Davis. Aye. And Commissioner Erickson. Aye. This motion passes seven to zero. We move on to item number seven, another public hearing and another rezoning. And Mr. Petrie will be our presenter again.

Yes. Number seven is located on the northwest of the community along the Chippewa River. This property is currently zoned R1A, which is residential non-sewered. So when this area was annexed into the city, it never got the permanent zone to connect to water and sewer. The applicant this evening would like to move forward with the subdivision of land along with also connecting to the water and sewer, which is in Old Wells Road. Notification map showing the 300 foot buffer and existing aerial. The parcel in question this evening is 5.8 acres in size. The future land use map shows this area is designated as low density housing, which is consistent with the surrounding area, the north crossing to the south, and then they have river frontage as well. They do have an existing easement to access the property to the east, but the property owner would like to subdivide in the future with a certified survey map that staff has seen that would be administratively approved if the zoning is approved by council with this recommendation going forward next week for the council meeting. This area is a desired place to live along the river, and Everyday Serving Engineering is the applicant representing the property owner, Mr. Bush. With that, be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is in the audience as well.

Questions for Mr. Petrie? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Petrie. Is the applicant here? Please come forward. State your name and address, spell your last name.

Again, commissioners, good evening, and I'll follow the rules. Erickson, E-R-I-C-K-S-O-N, no relation to Mr. Erickson up on the podium there. Thank you for hearing this. This is a petition to take a piece of property, as Ryan so eloquently said, an R1A. Oddly enough, this is actually water and sewered lots, both this and the adjacent neighbors. So we're trying to bring in a compliance to that, and prepare for future thoughts of some land division. Very desirous piece of ground as people can see on the Chippewa River and so I'm here on Mr. Bush's behalf to bring this parcel into compliance and then move forward with some future thoughts on what may happen out there.

Questions for Mr. Erickson? Commissioner Lawson.

I'm sorry, sir. Thank you, Ryan. So are we on the bottom screen left? Oh, yes. No, sir. No, he does not.

not the triangle gains access through mister bush's property with an easement uh... the linear east-to-west pieces actually i believe that's excellent as an excellent that before the bypass came through of their power station the south side of three twelve uh... so There's also no access restriction on the original CSM along Mr. Bush's south edge along 312, and then up to that notch in Old Wells Road, there's a lift station in that very, very southwest corner that the city owns and operates. And so there are some other restrictions beyond the easement that crosses Mr. Bush's from west on Old Wells Road to that adjacent triangle parcel on the east side there.

The easement?

That is a correct statement. That is a correct statement, sir. Any further questions for Mr. Erickson?

Oh. i didn't know we did that i think that's cool even though it's empty but at least i think people stopped so hopefully i don't see neighbors here to say anything about it so i trust the therapy with it so i guess i just want to compliment staff in the city for doing that but it's a good way to inform the community what's something's happening there so that's good and then is Those are great questions, sir.

And I do not know for certain. I think there is a potential of probably higher than not that there'll be some land division activities happening on this. to the extent when he is ready, as in Mr. Bush, he has a land that is completely in compliance with the zoning and the use and the water and the sewer and all that. So there could be a person that comes in and would like all 5.8. I can't say that won't happen, but, in a perfect world. If somebody does wanna divide it, we would probably make rectangular lots off of Old Wells Road to an extent that is compliant and working with the existing conditions of either the house on Mr. Bush's land and or the adjacent neighbor to the east. Further questions?

Seeing none.

Thank you, Mr. Erickson.

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. Anyone that would like to speak to the rezoning under item seven? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing for item seven and accept any motions from the commission. Make a motion for approval. I have a motion for approval. Second. And a second. Any further discussion on this rezoning? I will call the vote. Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman? Aye. Motion passes seven to zero. Move on to number eight. We have another rezoning. uh, this time, uh, North Hastings way. And Mr. Petrie is back. Yes.

Number eight is located, uh, North side of community along Hastings way. The parcel in question this evening is zoned, uh, light industrial and they're going to our four. Uh, you can see the parcel does have frontage along Hastings way, but also has access through an easement, uh, to the West.

Um,

This area is zoned industrial. The comp plan shows it as commercial, which in our comprehensive plan does note commercial can go either stay the existing zoning, such as industrial, could go commercial, and then or multifamily. This property owner and group has been owning this property for some years. They did have some issues with the WisDOT large setback along North Hastings Way. That was revised last year, and now they want to move forward with the rezoning. It does have some challenges with it, slope access, and that setback that was on the property. Most of them have been resolved. They're working on getting a multifamily project moving forward. They did provide a concept. to make sure it fits on the lot. Now, with the rezoning, this is just a standard practice, but this is just straight zoning of the 1.4 acres. They just wanted to make sure what building they're proposing would potentially work with the slopes of the land. You can see there is some, difficulties with it as i mentioned they have been working with the owner to the west and getting access and utilities worked out their engineer is in the audience this evening to answer any follow-up questions but there is standards within the comprehensive plan to allow for commercial development or commercial designation as future land use and staff thought that there's residential to the north along Jackson Street with multifamily. This property for semi-access or industrial access is challenging given the slope and the access around for deliveries or large trucks. So potentially rezoning it out of the industrial or commercial and going to multifamily might be the most appropriate land use. This land has been vacant for many years. It does have frontage, like I mentioned, along the frontage road of Hastings Way, but then also to the west, and would be consistent with the development to the north. Final site plan would be reviewed at a later date. And this recommendation rezoning request would be forwarded to the city council next week. Oh, notification map of 300 feet. We did not hear anything from the neighbors. As I mentioned, this ownership group has been working with the neighbor to the west about that easement documentation, utilities, and access. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions this evening.

Questions for Mr. Petrie? Commissioner Holzman.

Would they be probably accessing off the frontage road on this development? Or vehicular access? I can't really tell.

I think they're still working on the final plans. Potentially, I do know that they're going to get access potentially from the west and utility access. There's no utilities on Hastings Way or the frontage road, so they do need to come from Western Avenue, which is actually in the parking lot of the animal hospital to the west. Oh, I would defer that to the applicant. I don't know if they're far enough along in the site plan to determine that.

Further questions for Mr. Petrie? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Petrie. Thank you. Is the applicant here tonight? Welcome, Mr. Erickson. No need to state anything. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Ryan, for the introduction of this. Our client, Mr. Holland, is a temporary Arizona resident right now. He has had this property for about five years, working very diligently with, like Ryan had stated, the neighbor to the west to especially get the utilities routed up to here. Mr. Holzman, you had a great question there. Vehicular access would be coming off of the frontage road on the east side as a whole, the predominant access. There would probably be some facet of fire safety breakaway bollards that would maybe be on the west edge in case of an emergency or situation that arises, but to keep the traffic out of the adjacent commercial land, it's a veterinarian clinic, That is probably what they're working on trying to figure out how to oblige by access as well as provide those very hopefully unique if slim to none opportunities that they may have to break away a bollard or something like that. The best indications I can say of that is a few folks are familiar with Waterford Place over there off of Highway 53. They have that emergency breakaway bollard system. what would be close to the parking ramp on the east side of 53 business there. It's very compliant with, as we can see by the zoning maps, the R4 is due north of there. And I believe Mr. Holland and his design team are very eager to get this going. It's been a little wait in the time here of getting this thing moving. There was actually a, access restriction on the frontage or the east side that the dot released so it was more than just a building setback it was an access restriction so we took care of that like ryan said in 2024 when we basically csm'd over the lot with an approval document from the dot questions for mr erickson commissioner lawson

I don't know if any of you had a chance to drive by this property, but on my tour today, I did. So I'm in favor of making the change, because as I look at that piece of property, the challenges that you guys have had to lay that out and how you're going to get that in there, good luck. So if they can use that property for something like this, have at it and get it on the tax rolls. So I'll be interested to see how that comes together in the coming year or two. Any further questions?

Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Erikson. Thank you, folks.

And 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. Anyone that would like to speak on item number eight, the rezoning? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion, and I would accept a motion.

I'll make the motion that we accept staff's recommendation.

We have a motion by commissioner Lawson second by commissioner Erickson. Any further discussion on the rezoning? Seeing none. I'm going to call the vote. Commissioner Leonard. Aye. Commissioner Reed? Aye. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson? Aye. The motion passes seven to zero. We will move on to item number nine, which is a public discussion for a site plan of a commercial building on Princeton Crossing. Presenter is Mr. Petrie.

yes uh this one's located off of 53 and north crossing currently it's vacant lots uh north east side of the interchange the hotels are to the north and to the east Security Financial Bank is the applicant this evening along with Heirs Association. This property is 3.01 acres. They're gonna combine the properties into one to allow for the two-story Security Financial Bank headquarters along with branch building. In your packet is the site plan, the building elevations narrative, and also aerial maps. The proposed certified survey map does combine it into one lot. It does allow for access lined up with the adjacent roadway, one access point into the site, and then they're building at 25,000 square feet in size. This will allow for administrative offices along with the bank branch, a community room designed for training, as well as events and community events for the bank and the community. and then they expect to break ground potentially this fall still. This site has been looked at by numerous developers. This was approved as a master plan back in 2013 and originally divided in 2014. It has been sitting there vacant and gateway into the community if you're heading from the north to south along 53. Staff has received numerous calls over the years. Most of them were quick service restaurants. When Costco went in a few years ago, we received numerous calls. But in the end, this is the site plan that's moving forward with a security financial bank and fits within the master plan of the neighborhood and the general development plan that was approved to allow for banks, credit unions as a permitted land use. The surrounding area has been slowly developing This particular spot on the north side of North Crossing, the challenge was for the quick service restaurant was access into the site, especially if you're heading southbound, you'd have to exit, go through two stoplights and a roundabout, which makes it more challenging. There is some lot still available in the development and potentially hopefully in the future would be developed per the master plan. Also in your packet is noting the parking requirements. They are asking for additional parking because of the larger events and training. And if they have community events, street parking is pretty tight here. You'll see on the area photograph, it is a challenge and most of the individuals should be parking on site. for their events, and there would be no parking on North Crossing, obviously, but Princeton Crossing would have limited parking. Also in your packet is the landscape design, which is hand-sketched. We usually don't see this advanced, but this is done by the landscaper, so this will be what the plantings would be. Lighting plan that has been submitted through wall packs and street lighting, or parking lot lighting, Also in your packet is the building elevation, the two-story design, which would be having a good view from on top of the hill overlooking 53 and the Chippewa Valley. You can see the drive-through there. They would have a drive-through branch for the customers and then also walk-in traffic. And then the floor plan does note in there space for offices and, as I mentioned, the community room and the branch office. You can see there's the drive-through lanes for the customers. Mixture of brick and glass throughout the facades. In addition, there is a couple of conditions that need to be met. We are working with heirs associates to meet those conditions, as noted in the report. But overall, staff believes that this is an excellent project for the Gateway community. One of the first things you'll see if you're heading southbound on 53, it will stick out more because it's a lot closer than the hotel is. Granted, it's only two stories, but it's a lot closer to the freeway than the hotel. Other than that, like I mentioned, there's a few conditions that need to be met. The applicants are in the audience this evening to address any questions that the Planning Commission may have, but overall, staff felt that this was a very appropriate site for this type of operation and very attractive building and development, and looking forward to working with them with the building permit and the next steps to move their headquarter building to this location. With that, staff would be available for any questions along with the applicant this evening. Questions for Mr. Petrie.

Commissioner Erickson.

Mr. Petrie, that view of the proposed building, or the previous one.

Oh, sorry.

That one? Yes. Would that be the view that faces the roadside, the Highway 53? Yes. Okay.

Correct. Yeah, if you go back to the site plan, you'll drive in and then take just to the right and then get into the drive-through lane. I believe there's two drive-through lane and an ATM lane. And this would be facing 53, which is very attractive facade.

Further questions for Mr. Petrie? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Petrie. Thank you. Would the applicant come forward? Please state your name, address, and spell your last name.

See if I can get those all. Gareth Shamble with Ayers. Last name S-H-A-M-B-E-A-U. Our office is at 3433 Oakwood Hills Parkway. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to present this very exciting project to all of you Staff did a great job. So I don't need to rehash it. I don't think in any great detail We're aware of the conditions working through some of those conditions pretty typical things for where we would be at this point in the process Getting the last of those items cleaned up so I can really just hear to and answer any questions Any of you all might have both project questions for mr. Shambo

Mr. Erickson, you have meeting facilities in there or a community room, I think is how you put it, perhaps? Something like that?

Yeah, there's some open space that would be available for community gathering type spaces. If you go to the rendering with the large glass, it's kind of on that side of the building. I actually don't think the floor plans maybe made it into the packet to show that. But yes, there'd be some spaces available. That could be so if someone from the some organization from the community wanted to have a space like that They could potentially contact them and get approval to use that that may be a better question for the owner and exactly how they if Maybe you could talk to a little bit to how you envision that use being utilized

Please state your name and address and spell your last name. Mark Oldenburg, O-L-D-E-N-B-E-R-G, representing Security Financial Bank. We're currently at 4813 Keystone Crossing. Yes, this room would be available for non-profits, Boys and Girls Club, you name it, to be there. We also, of course, would be hosting some business after five, some chamber stuff, things like that.

Great, great.

Any further questions for the applicants?

Thank you.

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. Is there a motion on this item? Commissioner Davis? Make a motion to approve. Motion for approval. Is there a second?

I'll make the second.

Commissioner Lawson, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the site plan for Security National Bank? Did I get that right? No. Security Financial Bank. Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the vote. Commissioner Reid? Aye. Aye. Commissioner Helgeson votes aye. Commissioner Davis? Aye. Commissioner Erickson? Aye. Commissioner Holzman?

Aye.

Commissioner Lawson? Aye. Commissioner Leonard? Aye. That motion passes seven to zero. Thank you, gentlemen. We move on to item number 10, future agenda items and announcements from staff. Mr. Noel? Aye.

October 6th would be the first language meeting under the new code. So you may have projects that are designing the new code or projects that still can submit under the current code. So that might be kind of an interesting meeting in terms of some of the reports. But other than that, we have no other announcements.

Okay. We have completed our agenda. We are adjourned.

Yeah, well, you never know, right?