Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening. We will call the Wednesday, June 24th, 2026 Plan Commission meeting to order. We will start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Next up, we have roll call. I'm just going to go down the line. So Commissioner Keller, I'll start with you. All right. Alderperson Wilson.

Here.

All right. Commissioner Francor. Here. All right. Next up.

Grainger. Grainger is here. Next up. Wallner is here.

Excellent. And Alderperson Wells is absent. All right. First up, we have public comment. Is there anyone here for public comment? So note that this is not the public hearing time, but yes, if you want to come up, you know the drill.

I do. Good evening. Lisa Selb, 434 Madison Street. So I am here in regards to the discussion about the zoning code. I see that there were some changes that were made to the map, and now there is a new zoning map, which is dated 6-16-26. What... i want to bring to your attention yet again is that the historic overlay over the blair property has been removed over the bottom half of the property i will remind you that in on june 20th 1994 I have a statement here. It was through the Common Council, and it is for the establishment of a special District H overlay historic district for historic Madison Street. That overlay has been cut off. There is no reason for that to be cut off, and the zoning map should not – be approved with the Blair's property being destroyed like that. We have been fighting so long and we will continue to fight. If this goes through like this, I suggest you remove the September 1st date for getting this approved because we will take all measures that are necessary to protect the historic Blair property. So please be serious when you take a look at this. Again, if you look at the current zoning map, the historic overlay goes through the whole property. And even in 1937, when the police department was built on that area, they avoided that historic area and they built right next to it. They did miss a little bit. There's a little bit of a corner there that is on the Blair property. But this is something that needs to be taken seriously. And I please do hope that you look at that way. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. Moving right along, we have our consent agenda. Is there anything to be removed from consent agenda? Oh, sorry. Thank you. Did I skip something? I did. Approval of minutes. We'll backtrack. Is there a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting? Commissioner Francor?

So moved. All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Commissioner Granger seconds. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

No?

All right. Those minutes are approved unanimously. Consent agenda. Is there anything to be removed from consent agenda? Nope. All right. Then we will move right along to our public hearings. First up, we have the conditional use permit for 202 Westminster Drive. Charlie, if you would like to start, please.

All right. So this is 202 Westminster Drive. It is just to the north of Roberta Avenue on Western on Westminster Drive and near Salt High School. That's in that the bottom right corner of the map there. This is a single family home and it's zoned RS3, so it is in a residential neighborhood and the applicant would like to operate home based business. Selling cigars there and the business will be called bite me cigars. It'll be operated out of a. Humidor in the basement of the house with an area of. Approximately 150 square feet, so this is the, these are the photos that the applicant has supplied. He has stated that he plans to the scars will be shipped to open to Westminster drive. They'll be repackaged for sale there and relabeled. And then they'll be mailed or delivered to customers. So there won't be customers on the property ever. The applicant is an employee, or the applicant, there will be no employees other than the applicant who is a resident of the house. And then all the inventory will be stored within the home, not within any kind of accessory structures or anything like that. So the code currently has two categories for home-based businesses. One is a home occupation, and the other is a home industry. Home occupations are permitted in all of the residential zoning districts. They are businesses that essentially have no potential to have a negative impact on the residential character of the neighborhood. There are a number of conditions which have to be met for a business to be a home occupation. The examples the code gives are home offices, babysitting businesses, or piano teaching. Home industries are businesses which do have some potential to be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood or which can't meet one of those conditions. And those have to be approved by the Planning Commission as a conditional use. So those in front of you are all of the conditions that are required for a home occupation. This one meets all of them except one, that no stock in trade can be kept or sold on the property except that which is made on the premises. So this one the scars will be shipped to the house and then relabeled and and sold individually In spite of not meeting that one condition staff feels that this will have very much the same impact as any other home occupation would So staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for by me cigars at 202 Westminster. With the 1 condition that the applicant must live or tobacco products retailer license from the clerk's office. Along with any other required permits or licenses that might be required by state or federal government.

Thank you is the applicant here? Hi, if you'd like to come up, if you would like to add anything, that would be great. If not, you're fine. Did you want to add anything? Excellent. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this item?

No?

All right, then we're going to close the public hearing. We're going to move on through all of the public hearings, and then we'll go to the action items for everybody that's out here. So next up, we have the conditional use permit for 2211 Southwest Avenue, Thane.

Good evening. So this is 2211 Southwest Avenue. Here we have the picture of the site and aerial image. This is for the Fast Pitch Factory. They are looking to open a youth sports training facility in the southern building on this lot. There are two buildings. The 2 buildings are separated by a gate and this leads to a parking lot in the rear parking area in the rear the applicants would occupy the suites that have been circled and there will be a parking stalls parking spots in front of this the circle suites. There is a for plan that has been submitted for the site. There are two doors at the front entrance on the south side, two more doors on the north side as well as two overhead doors. The facility would have two pitching tunnels on the exterior of the building and then four batting tunnels on the interior. The yellow colored space on this floor plan would be for player staging and the dark green there in the center would be for equipment storage. Here are some pictures of the site that were taken two weeks ago. The images here show the neighboring suite which had a lot of equipment and storage outside. You can see here this is pretty much the face of the suites with the two doors. Here is the rear of the building with those overhead doors. And then a picture looking west at the neighboring suites. The applicant stated that they have in their lease agreement with the lot owner, they have keys to access the gate and park in the rear of this building. However, that would be only as needed parking, but parking would usually be in the front. This is facing a fence that is along the east side of the property. It is used heavily for storage of vehicles, equipment, trailers, garbage. The applicant can work it out with the owner if that needs to be moved or not. So the hours of operation for this project would be Monday through Friday from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and then on the weekends from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Wanted to note that this is largely outside of business hours, so we don't think it will really interfere with industrial or commercial traffic. It would have no employees, as it is just a training facility. Coaches would arrive with team members and access the building to practice. All activities would be indoors. To restate, there would be 16 parking stalls, eight in the front, eight in the rear. The two suites would be about 7,000 square feet. I did call the applicant to clarify the suite situation. This was three suites prior, but one was sort of walled off before the applicants began talking to or signed any lease with the owner. So staff recommends approval for the fast pitch factory at 2211 Southwest Avenue with a few conditions. The parking spaces need to be striped according to city standards and regulations. The building inspection department stated that there should be a licensed professional to do a walkthrough and determine if there needs to be any modifications to the building. This would be sprinklers, bathrooms, anything like that. And then the fire department would also like an egress plan to ensure safe entry and exit.

Excellent. I'll start. Is the applicant here? Excellent. Is there anything that you would like to add at this time? I always like a good pun. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this item? No?

All right. Oh, go ahead, Maria. Not from the public, but for the commissioners, I'd like to introduce Thane, our new intern for community development. Thane's a student at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee studying urban planning, and we're happy to have him here. Yes, and from the mayor, you're doing a great job so far.

Thank you.

All right. Anyone from the public? No? All right, we will move on to our business section. So first up, we have action on the public hearing. So we'll start again with the 202 Westminster Drive, Bite Me Cigars. Are there any comments or questions from the commissioners? Alderperson Moulton?

I agree with staff that this seems like it'd be a business that would not impact their neighbors in any significant way. So I'd like to make a motion to approve the conditional use permit with the condition about the that's written here on this screen.

All right. Is there a second to the motion commissioner greater? All right. We've got a second. Are there any additional comments from the commission? All right, then we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that motion passes unanimously. Moving right along, 2211 Southwest Avenue, Fast Pitch Factory. Are there any comments or questions from the commission? All right, is there a motion?

I motion to approve the conditional use permit for the Fast Pitch Factory.

Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner Granger. Is there a second?

Including the parking, striping the lot, and making sure that it meets all code requirements.

Is your microphone on? Thank you. Now it's on. Now it's on. Sorry. All right. So just to reiterate, you did make the motion to approve the conditional use permit with all of the staff recommendations. Correct. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Francoeur? Yes. You are the second. Excellent. Are there any additional comments? No? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion does pass unanimously. Next up, we have the rezoning petition from RM3 to RM3 PUD multi-family residential with the planned unit development overlay for 600 Maple Avenue. I will let Charlie start.

All right. And so we have both the rezoning, PUD rezoning, and the final site plan and architecture review. And I'll just do one presentation for both of those.

Thank you.

So this is 600 Maple Avenue. It is at the intersection of Maple Avenue and Park Avenue, just across the street from Cutler Park and the Waukesha Library. This is the former, I think it was the first Church of Christ Scientist. But it has been vacant for a number of years. It has not been a church for a number of years and has been vacant. As you can see zoomed in a little on the property, it's primarily the church and then a large parking lot area. in the rear, which currently has two driveways onto Park Avenue. So here, the parking lot is from the ground level. And the applicants would like to remove the church and build a 10-unit apartment facility for families that are experiencing homelessness. Family Promise is an organization that Serves families families that are having housing issues and families specifically experiencing homelessness. And they would like to have a facility. To provide housing for them on an on an emergency basis. So, the, the, the building will consist of 10 apartments on 2 stories. Um, on the, the 1st story, that'll be 2, 2 bedroom units and 1, 3 bedroom unit as well as a community lounge space and an office. 2nd floor will be 2, 1 bedroom units, 3, 2 bedroom units and 2, 3 bedroom units. So that's again, 10, 10 units total. The zoning district for this area is RM three multifamily residential, which in the base zoning there is no restriction on the number of units that are allowed. However, there is a restriction based on the lot area. There's sort of a complicated formula with different lot area requirements based on different units. So the code requires 2,500 square feet per any one bedroom unit, 3,000 square feet per two bedroom unit, and 3,500 per three bedroom or larger unit. apartment units so with two one bedroom units five two bedroom units and three three bedroom units that comes to thirty thousand five hundred square feet that would be required based on that lot area requirement the actual lot has an area of twenty six thousand three hundred forty square feet so it's about four thousand square feet short of that that requirement, which is why the applicants are requesting a planned unit development overlay. That's important also that it's that specific area that's six-tenths of an acre, which does not meet the minimum in the code for a planned unit development. The code requires residential PUDs to have a minimum area of one acre. But the code does allow the Planning Commission at its sole discretion to approve planning unit development districts that are less than an acre, provided the Planning Commission requires and the developer agrees to incorporate supplemental design elements or other site enhancements. So the code states that supplemental design elements and site enhancements can include but are not limited to public art installations, artistic bike racks, enhanced landscaping, upgraded architectural features and materials, fountains, plazas, clock towers, outdoor seating areas, preserved historical features, additional pedestrian elements, or amenities or other design elements. uh so there is quite a bit of leeway for the plan commission to uh to determine whether or not a project meets those requirements so just to go through the uh the design of the building it will be primarily lp smart side composite siding primarily green colored lab siding with brown colored vertical board and batten siding in some vertical accent features around the building. Around the base of the building will be a brick a tan colored brick Mason or tan colored brick foundation course and then also they'll be adding some Awnings and porch areas at the front entrance and at a side entrance facing out towards towards Maple Avenue so this is the that was the the south elevation facing Park and which will be the main entrance and then also this is the east elevation facing maple uh west facing towards the uh towards the parking lot and then to the north will be very similar facing towards the adjacent property and the applicants will be adding a privacy fence to screen the property from the adjacent property property immediately to the north This is the existing site plan. So the green here is the is the parking lot and the red is the existing building. So the parking lot will be reduced quite a bit in size. And it'll be reduced from 2. To 1 driveway entrance onto parks park Avenue. It'll be 18 total parking spaces. The code currently would require 19 spaces for 10, for the number of units based on the, that would, this 18 spaces or 19, I guess, is almost two parking spaces per unit based on the location in the city, near transit, and near other walking, in a relatively walkable neighborhood, and also based on the population. Staff feels that 18 spaces should be more than sufficient, but that is an exception that the Planning Commission would need to approve. Landscaping, the applicants have also one thing to note, there will be some bike parking. There's a bike rack indicated by the number 11 there right in front of the front entrance. For landscaping, the applicants are showing foundation plantings around three sides of the building. They haven't added any at the north side because they don't believe that will be visible with the privacy fence, as well as some ornamental trees in the yard facing Park Avenue. Staff feels that an additional supplemental design element that could be included to get the project to the level that would be acceptable for the smaller lot size for the PUD requirements. Could include additional trees or landscaping along Maple Avenue to enhance that side of the property facing Maple Avenue and facing Cutler Park. The applicants did add some additional landscaping along the parking lot area as well, but they have not added any on the section facing the adjacent property or in the northeast corner because they've stated that a lot of that will be used for snow storage. There's also a dumpster enclosure indicated in the northeast corner of the parking lot. The applicants have stated that that will be a masonry enclosure to match the masonry on the building. One other exception that the plan commission will have to approve is for lighting in the parking lot. There is one parking lot light that's indicated in blue here on this photometric plan where the lighting spillover will exceed the amount required by the zoning code slightly. It's a maximum of a half a foot candle and it will be So that is something that can be approved as part of the planned unit development agreement as well. And staff feels that that is not. Not an issue since it will be adjacent to. Another parking lot for for another church to the West. So, staff recommends approval of the rezoning from RM 3, multifamily residential to RM 3 with a planning and development overlay. And staff recommends approval of final site plan and architecture review for family promise at 600 maple Avenue with the conditions that. Again, the plan commission will need to approve an exemption to the zoning codes, parking requirements. And as part of the to the light spillover and density requirements. The parking requirements can be approved just for a regular. Regular siphon and architecture review that the light spillover. Needs to be part of the. Um, and then the plan commission will also need to determine that the proposed. Development includes supplemental design elements or site enhancements. Which meet the standards for allowing a beauty under 1 acre. The plan commission could determine that that the. Design as submitted meets those that requirement. But if you would like to. require additional elements. Staff recommends adding additional landscaping along the east side of the building facing Maple Avenue. Lighting color temperature may not exceed 4000 K and the applicant should provide detail of the building lights to ensure that they're going to be shielded so they're directed downward prior to issuance of building permits. And then engineering department comments would be addressed.

Thank you. I know the applicant is here. Is there anything that you wish to add? Otherwise, I would love it if you would be able to come up here because I'm sure there are some questions.

Good evening. Brian Griebel with VJS.

Jonas, I'm executive director of Family Promise.

So two of the two of the items I just wanted to further clarify in terms of, you know, the conditions of approval, one being parking. There have been conversations with the neighboring facility about the possibility of some sort of cross access agreement if the parking became an issue because that they have a very large parking lot there. So there have been discussions. Nothing's been formalized at this time for that. And then with the light spillage, it is an existing light. So that one is there. That is not one we put there. So we are not tied to that light either way on that one.

Anything else you wanted to add? Nope. All right. Are there any questions or comments from the commission or motions? Commissioner Frank?

Thank you, Mayor. I didn't remember reading any comment about the staffing of the facility when you have residents there.

So we would not have staff 24 seven. If we did, it would be a volunteer that would be almost like an AmeriCorps type arrangement where they would actually be living in the facility. But that's something that we're working through a bit yet. Staffing during the day, we have family advocates or case managers that would be working with the families and available to them during the day.

Thank you, Joe. I was asking more in relationship to parking. If you were going to have staff, was that part of the parking when we look at this?

We're going to maintain the building we have now, and that will be our staff offices. So we won't have staff that will be parking there.

Okay, thank you. Any additional comments? I will say, as somebody who lives in the neighborhood, I'm actually really excited for this project. Yes, Alderperson Moulton.

I think it's a great idea and a great facility and a good use of this space and a good location for having folks have access to various city and county services. So I would like to make a motion to approve the PUD final site plan at 600 Maple Avenue with all staff comments. All right, I'll actually second that one since I'm in the neighborhood. Does the motion need to specifically say that we're approving the number of parking spaces and put this back? Yeah, if you could pull up the comments. We're okay with the number of parking spaces. We're okay with the light spillage and the density requirements. That's all in the motion.

Thank you, yes. And I still second that motion. Are there any additional comments before we vote? Commissioner Francor.

Yes, I'm sorry. I didn't know we were going to go so fast here. Number one, I wanted to ask, in terms of the height of the building compared to the height of the other multi-floor homes in that same area, It's not particularly higher. I couldn't tell from the exhibit.

It's so it's 2 stories, which is common the roof. Since it's a little bit larger, and it is a pitched roof. That that does the total heights. That was something that staff had asked to be the applicant to see if they could reduce it. And they did reduce the total height from 45 feet to 40, I believe. Um, from for the preliminary to final, so it'll be a total height of 40 feet. And then, um, the, as the zoning code defines it, it's to, like, the middle of the roof. Uh, you know, the average of the, the height of the roof. That would be about 30 feet, so it'll, it'll be a little bit higher in terms of the. The total height just based on the roof, but, um. Otherwise it will be generally within the.

And it fits in with the neighborhood, I think, right?

Yeah, there are plenty of two-story buildings.

I just had one other question, comment, Joel, because this is a different use of that land, and it's a different architecture. It's something totally new, a little taller than the other residents. Had you had any discussion about having some kind of, I think meeting sounds too formal, but something that acquaints the neighborhood with what's about to happen?

Yes, in fact, we already met with some of the neighbors. We had about 20 folks show up. The church behind us, ENR, hosted that for us. And there were some questions, but I think after helping people understand what we're about, they were good with that. And certainly when we get to a point that we're about to start construction, we would do another meeting with the neighbors.

It's always helpful to have their support because this is going to the Common Council. Yep. And so it's nice if everybody supports it when it's there. Thank you.

Yeah, and I can back Joe up on that. I was at that meeting, and it was a generally favorable response. You did a great job at answering the questions and concerns of the neighbors, so I appreciate that you were proactive with that, so thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments or questions before we vote? Yes, go ahead.

Is the existing church by any chance on any historic register in Waukesha?

Not as far as I know.

No, we didn't see any historic registry there.

No, it's not.

All right, thanks. Anyone else? All right, then we do have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Is that the rezoning motion?

That was the rezoning motion, yes. So next up we have the final site plan and architectural review. for 600 Maple Avenue Family Promise. Are there any additional comments or questions regarding the final site plan and architectural review? All right, then I will make the motion to approve the final site plan and architectural review with all staff comments for 600 Maple Avenue Family Promise. Is there a second? Alderperson Moulton? Second. All right, just checking. Any additional comments? No? All right. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? All right. Then that does pass unanimously. Yeah, welcome to the neighborhood. Yes.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Next up, we have a final site plan and architectural review for 445 Madison Street, Salvation Army. Charlie? Charlie?

All right, so this is the Salvation Army of Waukesha County at the intersection of Madison Street and 3rd Street, just up the hill from City Hall. Here's their building from Madison Street. As you can see, they have a couple of entrances that face out towards the intersection. The property, the building and the associated parking take up most of the property. The property has an area of, I believe it's under one acre. And as Madison Street is on a hill, Since those areas are level, the remainder of the property is mostly steep hill with retaining walls. The applicants would like to add they have a A vehicle that they use for a disaster relief efforts, which is you can see in the lower right of this picture, it sort of looks like an ambulance, but it's used by the Salvation Army for their efforts. They need to have it stored inside during the winter, and they have had an agreement with the fire department for the past several years, but they aren't going to be able to do that anymore. So they would like to add a new garage on their property. They had considered a number of locations, including one location attached to the small yellow one-story building in this photo, but they have ultimately determined that any of the other locations that they could have considered either would have involved removing a large percentage of the parking or would not have worked because of the hill. So instead, they would like to add an attached garage onto the building facing 3rd Street, right at the top of the hill. It'll attach to the end of the building as it is there. So here you can see it in this elevation. So, again, it'll be a 2. A 2 car garage attached onto the building. That'll be built into the hill at that at that section of the building. And it'll be again, this is from the rear. It'll have an area of about 2000 square feet total, which will consist of both the garage and. hallway attaching it to the existing building as well as a stairway that will lead down to the down to the parking area. Here it is attached to the full building. The building itself will have siding which will match generally an architectural style which will match the existing building. It'll be red brick siding with a Masonry base as well as sort of a mansard roof to to match the rest of the building. Here it is from the from the South. The foundation section will will extend down the hill to the terrace below. So that will be a large section of the foundation, which will match the lower level of the. of the building and again this will face into the parking lot area so they'll have very little visibility from any public any public area and then here's the the madison street facing elevation the applicants have designed this building to line up with the uh with the front of the building as it uh as it faces third street so there will be no visibility from madison street um building it the the new garage itself will be set back 11 feet from the uh from the third street right-of-way and from the third street sidewalk so as you can see in this this overhead the applicants have shown it with the with the vehicle backed into the into the garage, and they've stated that they intend to always back it into the parking area. If they were to drive it straight in and then back it out, the vehicle would be over the sidewalk before the windows would clear the edge of the garage, before there would be visibility. not visibility directly around. This does not meet the 25-foot street yard setback requirement for the I-1 Institutional Zoning District. They did receive a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow this in May. Staff had requested, as part of that variance, adding a condition that they would add a backup mirror, since there's no way to enforce a requirement that they would back in every time. So we've requested that a backup mirror would be added. The Board of Zoning Appeals did approve the variance with that requirement, but we believe that it would be more enforceable if it's also a requirement on the Planning Commission's approval if you do approve a site plan and architecture review for this. So we're recommending approval with that condition as well. So again, here it is from... Third Street, and you can see the sidewalk there. Again, the attention is for the new garage to line up with the front of the building as it bumps forward closer to Madison Street. And the applicants had noted in the Board of Zoning Appeals application that Third Street is a very low traffic street. It is not a through street. There are a couple of houses, one apartment building, and then the Salvation Army's secondary parking lot are the only access onto it. So staff recommends approval of final site plan and architectural review for the Salvation Army at 445 Madison Street with the conditions that a backup mirror will be added to the building at the garage entrance to improve visibility and that engineering department and fire department comments will be addressed.

Thank you. Are there any additional comments from the applicant? I can see that you guys are there. Hi. No additional comments? All right. Are there any comments or questions or motions from the commission? Commissioner Francor?

Thank you, Mayor. If we're ready for a motion. Sure. I'd be happy to recommend the approval of the final site plan and architectural review for the Salvation Army at 445 Madison Street with the following conditions. A backup mirror must be added to the building at the garage entrance to improve visibility and the engineering department and fire department comments must be addressed.

Excellent. I'll second that motion. Are there any additional comments or questions before we vote? Alderperson Moulton.

I'm not overly concerned about having to enforce backing into the garage so you can pull out forward because that seems like it would make the most sense to do it that way. Because I don't think any driver is not going to want to back blind onto the street. So I don't think we need to really worry about that because it makes sense for that location. And given the extreme hill they have, it makes sense to put the garage in the location they chose. Thank you.

Thanks. Any additional comments? All right. Then all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion does pass unanimously. Thank you. Next up, we have the final site plan and architectural review for 1101 West St. Paul Avenue, Ineo.

Doug. Thank you. and let me get this all righty so this is for inio um they've had a couple smaller projects before you on the beginning part of this year and i think very beginning of the year we had a consultation about a larger edition this is now the final plans of that edition there's going to be about 84 000 square feet in size And then also with this, the next item is a certified survey map. So I'll just go through the whole presentation and then ask for 2 motions at the end if you're comfortable with that. So, here's the location in your more commonly known as walking show engine for people have been living here for a while on the South side of St Paul Avenue. Here's the intersection with Prairie Avenue. And then Moreland Boulevard comes in down towards the West end of their main building. The addition is proposed to be at the Southwest end of that main production facility that they have there. There's a sort of a R&D building over to the West that is to remain. The main addition will be to this, again, the Southwest end of this building and take up the majority of this area where there's currently parking in this section. So here's the existing building in brown, and then the new addition here in blue. And then all of the gray that's around it will be redone pavement for the new traffic flow that will be for this facility. They're bringing a new engine line into the facility, and it's gonna be a much larger engine than they've produced here in the past. So they're going to have to change the traffic flow to be able to get these engines out. Currently there's a big, so the production will end at this corner of the building where the blue addition is. It's kind of a steep driveway coming in across from Moreland Boulevard down in they can get empty trailers in, but once they're full with the new engine, it won't be able to make the clearance up with the steep grade there. So the new traffic flow, the empty trailers would come in through across from Moreland Boulevard come to the back of the site. There'd be loading docks back here to load up, and then they would travel further to the east along the back of the building, and then tie into the driveway out onto Prairie Avenue to get out at a much softer grade, and then back up to St. Paul to either go up to I-94 or south to the highways that direction. So there'll be a lot of new pavement put in including a large area of cement in the middle here where the loading docks would be and then the heavy duty pavement around the perimeter to handle the new traffic flow behind the building. So you're just in addition kind of showing the details of where that new pavement will be the additions of the new pavement also with this, they'll be doing a lot of. Utility work, there's currently storm water and sanitary sewers that go through this area that will have to be relocated. Actually, the sanitary sewer in this section between the buildings is a public sanitary sewer. They'll be vacating that and taking it over as a private sanitary sewer and then bringing it around the new addition in a new location and tying back into the public sewer where it crosses under the river. And this is just a close-up then showing where that concrete would be, where the new loading bays would be, and then continuing along the building all the way over to where it ties in with the existing driveways out onto Prairie Avenue. And then I mentioned that utility work. So the areas in green will be the new sanitary lines, which will be going in behind the building and to the west of the building. And then they're all, I had mentioned they'll be relocating the sanitary sewer. The green was the storm sewer. Sanitary sewer will be in red. You can see a new location for that coming down between the two buildings, coming over, and then here's where it ties in to the public sanitary that makes the river crossing, and then on to the treatment plant. With the new sanitary sewer, as you notice, there's a lot of pavement here and then a lot of new roof space. So to handle stormwater treatment, they're gonna use underground facilities to handle that. And they'll be located on the west and south ends of the building. So here on the west, you can see these larger gray portions are gonna be the underground storage facilities for stormwater. And then as you go around farther on the south to the east end of the building underneath the new pavement, there'll be another large underground storage facility for stormwater to help with the water containment and those high storm events. As far as the new floor plan goes, this is a zoom in of that, just the addition, then the 84,000 square foot addition off the southwest corner of the building. That area in gray would be the existing building. You can see on the floor plan, they've colored it up in different areas. So there's, again, 84,000 square feet. They have areas in... Pink for the finished processing areas of the engines also the test cells in blue. This is the main reasons for the. Addition is to get the new test cells in the control rooms are to the south of that on the backside that run the operating the test cells. There's also a new paint booths being added in the purple area as well. And then the shipping areas would be off here in the green side. As far as the architecture goes for the building, mostly will be done with concrete panel, both smooth and striated versions. So you can see on the elevations here where the vertical lines are, it's a little more striated. And then the smooth panels done in a couple of earth tone brown colors. That'll kind of tie in with the old brick and colors of painting that are on the existing building as it is now. Also, there will be some corrugated metal panel. They showed it here in red just to kind of highlight the corrugation. The true color will be this panel to the right, which is a dark bronze, which wouldn't show the corrugation off as well. So it will be the dark bronze, which will tie in nice with the browns that they're using on the building, not the bright red, as you see there. So on this picture, this would be the north elevation on the top that faces directly out onto St. Paul Avenue. They've added a series of clear story windows across the top to further break up that facade. And again, that's the striated on top with the smooth panel below and a couple of overhead doors. As you come along to the... What would be the... East side or south side of the building action or no east. I guess it would be the west side of the building It's labeled East here. It confused me for a second. Sorry. That'd be the west side of the building facing further down st. Paul a couple overhead doors then you can see where the the concrete material kind of blends down and brings the striated version down farther and then further towards the SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND ON THIS WEST ELEVATION IS WHERE THE CORRIGATED COMES IN AND THEY KEEP THE CORRIGATED ALL TO THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING GOING ALONG THE REAR. AND THEN HERE WOULD BE THAT SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO IN WHITE THEY'RE SHOWING WHERE THE CORRIGATED METAL PANEL WOULD BE AND THEN BACK TO THE CONCRETE PANELS AS YOU GO FURTHER TO THE EAST. SO THE CONTROL ROOM AREA AND THE TEST CELLS IS WHERE THAT CORRIGATED METAL PANEL WOULD BE. We did note that the corrugated panel is going all the way down to the ground. And as you recall, they're redoing the traffic pattern. So it's all going to be pavement for the new truck flow along there. Staff just brought up concern that there could be some issues with maintenance if there's any kind of vehicle conflicts with that wall. They felt comfortable in having some bollards in the area to protect that, and so that's what they would like to go with. It will be not visible to the public. I've been at that rear side of the building, so we pointed out that it could be an issue for them in the future, but they are comfortable going with the corrugated down to the ground at that location. From the building is about I think is 42 feet in height. Similar to some of the taller, taller sections of the other portions of the manufacturing building. And then there'll be a couple of new stacks coming up for the. Test cell area, and those will match very similar to the other existing stacks that are on the building now where they've tested other engines. So here is a picture of the current facility here. You can see some similar smoke stacks coming up or exhaust vents. And then here's the currently there's a parking lot in this area and this is where the mine expansion will happen coming off to the. West of the building, and then curving around to the self behind it. And they gave us some renderings to kind of show how this would better look. So here you can see that same view from St. Paul. With the new addition, again, still set back a ways from St. Paul, so it won't be imposing right up to the street like the office portion of the building is as you head further to the north. And you can see then the new building actually hides the new stacks quite well behind there in the back. And then here's the view from the backside. So you can see the darker color that you put in now for that bronze panel, how that ties in nicely with it. And then the new pavement pattern that comes around the south and then would keep on going. They did give us a photometric. You have to trust me, I zoomed in and it does meet all of our standards for the light throws. And then the couple of light fixtures that they'll be using, LED fixtures, of course. And we just wanted to remind them that there'd have to be a color temperature of 4,000 K or less for the LED light temperature. And then I mentioned there is a new certified survey map that's coming along with this. The bulk of the property is on one parcel, but there are two parcels up here along the intersection with Prairie Avenue. And. To avoid them having to make a bunch of cross access easements to themselves to allow this vehicle traffic to happen and for any future development that may occur, I'm just cleaning up all these lot lines made a lot of sense to do with this project, so they're going to turn this all into one lot at this time and that will be a 34 acre 38.77. 75 acre lot when once they bring all three of these parcels under one. And then here's a picture of that new certified survey map all under one lot. Again, 34.775 acres. So at this time, staff is recommending approval of the final site plan and architectural review for the 84,000 square foot expansion. with all department comments and concerns to be addressed. Again, reminder that the LED color temperature must not exceed 4000 K, and that a city engineering department concurrence letter will be required before building permits are issued. And then also just a reminder that if there are any new signage with the project, it will need to get signed permits before any signage were to be installed. and then for that certified survey map we recommend again approval of that with all city department comments and concerns to be addressed thank you um are there any is the applicant here yes do you have any additional comments that you'd like to add

excellent thank you i know that wasn't on the mic so for the public because i know everyone is watching uh there were no additional comments uh are there any questions or comments from the commission uh commissioner keller so the building is going to displace parking and i'm assuming that there's a double shift at this company so you have twice as many cars at some point switching places where does the parking go

They're still looking at options for how they want to handle the new parking. Their main focus at this time was to get the approvals in place to know that they could do this addition. And then their next step is to solve their parking solution. They have some options in mind, and they're looking at other solutions. And they may be at a point where they can address that further, but since my last conversation with them a couple months ago, their main focus was first to get the building approval done. and then handle the parking with the future plans that may be coming back to the Planning Commission.

Okay. I noticed that typically there's a ton of parking on St. Paul, both sides, to support the building. Yes.

With this new engine line, they will be bringing in more employees, though, and they do recognize they are going to have a need for some additional parking.

I guess I'd like some clarification on that in the future.

Did you want to come up and speak to that?

Hi, good afternoon. Ryan Landcore with RA Smith. We're the site civil. To answer the question around parking is, you know, currently right now the staff that's there is pretty minimal in the manufacturing facility. Most of the parking that's actually being used on a day-to-day basis is the R&D building, and those cars will be moved. There's currently plenty of parking for the operations, as kind of Doug mentioned, that There's gonna be a kind of a long ramp up of this facility. So the first part is to get these test cells operational, get that facility up and running. And as things move on, as Doug mentioned, there's things that are being done to bring additional parking once they realize what the full potential, because there's a long ramp up for us. So it's kind of a get this part up and running, get the test facility going, have the new engines coming in, and then as the facility continues to upgrade and more people brought in, the parking will be adjusted as needed.

Yeah, I guess from my perspective, and I don't disagree with you, it was just more of a, if it was one shift, there's probably enough room on the northeast side of the building. But when you have two and three, well, probably third shift isn't a big deal, but first and second shift has to require basically cars for both shifts at one point in time.

So at some point it will be three shifts, and so... One of the things that we that's been discussed is to mitigate that is to will be staggered shift. So it won't be full shift changes where you need to double. So they'll end up being a staggered process. You know, there again. Operationally, that's that's that's the kind of the target they said right now there's plenty for. The foreseeable future until they ramp up further, but when they get that point, they said they're. Additional parking is being looked at. Also, like I said, the staggering of shifts to, like I said, mitigate that surge for parking at that one time to basically get people in and out in a more fluid motion versus everybody in. You need double the park. Basically, you need double the parking. They're looking at, like I said, that's one of the things as part of their facility and moving forward is mitigating some of those concerns. Because they have those same concerns.

Yeah, I understand. Okay, thank you.

that was my question oh excellent that was my question too so perfect that's all right we're all on the same page uh are there any additional comments or questions or emotions um i will make the motion then to approve the final site plan and architectural review for 1101 west st paul inio with all staff comments uh as listed is there a second uh commissioner granger seconds any additional comments before we vote All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, looks like that motion does pass six to zero. Next up, oh, I scrolled too far. Next up, we have the certified survey map for 1101 West St. Paul Avenue, Ineo. Are there any additional comments regarding the certified survey map? No. Alderperson Moulton?

It's not really about the CSM, but thank you very much for your investment in our city. Yes, thank you very much.

All right, I will make the motion to approve the certified survey map for 1101 West St. Paul Avenue, Ineos, with all staff comments. Is there a second? Commissioner Frank is the second. Any additional comments? No. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, that motion does pass unanimously. Next up, we have a consultation for 809 Phillip Drive, the gun company. Am I saying that correctly?

As far as I understand it, yeah.

Excellent. All right, Charlie, take it away.

All right, so this is 809 Phillip Drive. It's right between Century Drive and Prairie Avenue, just to the south of College Avenue. This is a large industrial park area. The Gund Company currently occupies the facility at 809 Phillip Drive, which is on the right. of this overhead. They have office and manufacturing facility. They produce composite materials that are used in electrical components. There was actually, on the Planning Commission agenda last month, you approved on the consent agenda an application to add a new outdoor storage tank at their current facility. they would like to add they would like to add a 110 000 square foot addition which would connect to the this existing building and then take up a large portion of the the lot to the west so obviously that will have to be combined with the two lots will have to be combined um it looks like there is a portion of what would have been railroad right-of-way at one point from when this this area was Served by the railroad, so that will have to be vacated. Most likely the applicant will have to work that out prior to. Bringing this back for any kind of a site plan review. Approval this is the current facility as you can see, there's a small 2 story office portion. And then an additional portion at the other corner of the facility. with the large manufacturing building in between that's partially screened by trees along the Phillip Drive right along the street. Here it is from the overhead. You can see it's broken up by the differences in the building. You can also see the adjacent property to the west. That was from the north, so to the west is to the right in that photo. Going south on the existing facility, moving back further onto the lot where there's limited visibility from neighboring properties, It is just a very standard utilitarian manufacturing building. So the proposed addition would be in two sections. One section would connect directly to the existing building, and then the other one would connect to that section. And as you can see, they would be adding some parking onto the existing driveway area, and then another secondary driveway at the west side of the property, which would run around to the rear of the building. The smaller section, which would attach to the existing building, would be primarily a warehouse space. So you can see that they have some shelving indicated in that section, as well as a loading dock, which would be onto the south side of the building, so the driveway that would run to the west of the existing building, or of the new building, I would connect to that loading dock area on the South side. And then the, this is, I believe, not to scale. But this is the other section, which would include some office at the northern portion of it as well as a large manufacturing area. So, again, they're proposing some new parking as well as some driveways, which would connect into the existing driveways. As well as some pretty extensive landscaping along the north property boundary facing Philip drive. That would include some shade trees and ornamental and evergreen trees. As well as foundation plantings around the building and then plantings in the parking lot landscape areas. In that parking area as well. To the South, there'll be additional parking and then that new loading dock area into the. Into the, the warehouse section of the addition. The, they are proposing a storm water pond. at the south corner of the property, as well as a potentially a driveway connecting this facility to SPX transformer, the SPX transformer plant, which is to the south. The applicants have stated that they do quite a lot of business with SPX, and it would be more convenient for them to connect directly to the SPX property without having to go out onto the city street. There is in between this property and there is a large. Large section of actually city right of way. It's not a street that goes through there, but it is. Right of way rather than rather than easement. And the public works department has noted that that is a. There are 2 sewer lines, which are very large diameter lines that carry. Both storm and sanitary, a large portion of the city's. Storm and sanitary sewer to the water treatment treatment facility to the West. So they are open to the potential of having a driveway that would cross that right-of-way, but they really want to make sure that it's done in such a way that it doesn't impede the Public Works Department access to those sewer lines. the property to the west where the right-of-way continues there. That goes through another manufacturing facility, and they do have some issues with getting into the lines underneath that facility, so they want to make sure that they don't run into the same problem in this case. Going to the architecture of the building. These are the renderings of the north side. So this will be precast panels. That's what they're showing currently around the exterior of the building. And they're also showing. Clear story windows at intervals around the entire exterior. So. This is the north side facing towards Philip drive. And this is the south side facing. Facing towards the loading dock and towards the south of the property. So they are indicating just a standard. Now white panels with again with clear story windows around the entire exterior staff would would recommend that they consider some additional glass, especially in the office section at the north north corner of the building. And then also potentially some changes in color texture to break up the panel. But in general, this is fairly consistent with similar manufacturing facilities in other areas in the city. So this is to the south where you can see the new loading dock area, and then west facing towards some additional, some other manufacturing facilities, and then the east elevation will face towards the existing building. So, the plan commission shouldn't take any action. Tonight again, this is just a consultation, so it's not up for a vote at this point. But you should provide feedback regarding. This will likely be assuming the new zoning code is approved and has an implementation date of September 1st. This would be reviewed with the design standards in the new code, so there will be some exceptions that will likely be necessary. So you should kind of provide some feedback on your willingness to grant those exceptions to the design standards.

Excellent. So yes, we will not be taking action on this tonight. I'm going to start with some feedback that came from Alderperson Wells who couldn't be here tonight. I'm just going to read it exactly as he wrote it so that way it's very clear that it's coming from him and not from me. So Alderperson Wells says, I don't have any significant concerns or comments on the agenda aside from the consultation for the item the Gund Company. My ask of the applicant would be a higher level of finish and architectural detail than we might expect from another light industrial site. Manufacturing tends towards the utilitarian and that has its place like over the bypass at Travis and Wilmont. It can also be more polished and given the proximity to the river and Bethesda Park, that's what we should aim for. I think additional variation on the textures of the walls and robust plantings with depth and height can go a long way to achieve a polished look without an exorbitant cost. I think this development is going to do a lot to set that future tone and standard. Are there any additional feedback items? Alderperson Moulton.

Are you sure those comments weren't related to the Inyo project? I mean, that's why it says to park.

Yeah, actually, you know, that's funny that you say that because as I was reading it, I think that you might be right. So yeah, I think that you are correct in that. So a little late on those, but yeah, I think you're right.

Well, I agree with Alderman Wells. Commissioner Rickford. So for this gun company project, I happen to drive out there and see that they have got plenty of room for a new big thing. I'm so excited that they think that this would be necessary, and I'm very supportive. I did not see anything in particular that I didn't like about the plans. I think what they did is very consistent with the neighborhood, and with the road to SPX, that's kind of between neighbors to me. I don't think... there's much to be concerned with. So I think it's a wonderful project and thank you.

Commissioner Frankfort. Thank you, Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Wells. I agree with Beth's comments. I drove out there today too. I picked the wrong time because as it turned out, when I turned into the parking lot, the western part rather than the eastern entrance. I did the same. Okay. And it was a shift change. Although they were all very friendly, they didn't look like they were in a big rush. But I think if you could help me orient myself, I came in on Prairie. And with regard to Beth's comments and Jack's comments, Commissioner Wells' comments about elevating the finishes and the architectural interest of the expansion, the Prairie site is very lovely with the mature trees and that whole area is, to me, it was a surprise. I've never gotten that far down on Prairie. the amount of manufacturing and industrial business that we're doing in the city in that area. So I think that as they explore that expansion, and I'm thinking that the expansion is where the employee parking lot is on the western side, and then all the greenery that goes further from that. Am I correct about that?

Yes.

Okay, so I think that because you enter on Phillips, I believe, that that is a road and we should have some curb appeal and some architectural interest, even though we don't want to compromise everything, we want to stay, make sure that we understand what the function of the building is, but there are ways to address that. We have Commissioner Keller here who can assist with that and maybe wants to make a comment or two also, because even though you have a large presence, you can do things with color and with some details that give you an inviting appearance and say that this community is interest long-term in its appearance and its function. So it's a treat that they have a reason to expand their business to this degree, and so I support that concept, but I would like to join my fellow commissioners in asking that the architecture and the whole approach be considered to be their A game.

Excellent. Alderperson Moulton.

Just to make the record clear, I believe that Alderman Wells' comments were about the INEO project, so I was agreeing with him about the INEO project. With respect to this specific project about the gun company, I like their design as is, and I do not think that they need to upgrade the design elements. I'm specifically disagreeing with Commissioner Brancourt. Thank you.

All right. I hope we're all very clear. Were there any other comments? Commissioner Keller.

I love disagreeing with people. I disagree with you. So what you got basically is a big white or gray box with not a lot of detail, windows that are monotonous and so forth. I think if you look at all the big box warehouse manufacturing buildings that have been built in the last five to 10 years, they've really spent some time and effort to delineate the exterior, even though they're void of windows and innies and outies and all that other stuff. So this building is a blank canvas that needs to be improved with color, windows, height difference, all kinds of things that are certainly within the purview of the building development. So I would expect this to come back and look much more sophisticated on the next submission. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments for the gun company?

No?

All right. So again, we are not taking any action on this item tonight. So we have provided the necessary feedback. So we will move on to the next... Do you have any questions for us? Please feel free to come up. Yeah, absolutely. If you have any questions, yes, please go ahead.

Good evening. John Kutz with MSI General. We're the design build partner for the gun company. We put the packet together. We've been working with them for a couple years on this project. And they are a national company, and so they've been deciding where to expand amongst a number of facilities that they have. So we're excited that they're considering Waukesha. uh the packet was submitted based on some suggestions from doug and the team to get the feedback you gave so we appreciate that certainly agree with some of the comments this industrial park is certainly this will be one of the nicest looking buildings in that industrial park and we want it to be and so we will come back with a more sophisticated submittal but we wanted to at least get some of the concepts in front of you for feedback we are working with them We anticipate hopefully having a resubmittal in August or September that addresses it. But beyond that, I'm not aware of the new design standards you mentioned, Charlie, so I'll have to make sure we get a copy of those. We've been working under what we've worked under with Waukesha over the last four or five years. I think that's my only question on that is what are the new design standards? So I'm sure we will get that information. Beyond that, yeah, I don't think I have anything else other than thank you for your time and feedback and appreciate you clarifying because I was also noting that I don't think those comments were for our project. So I'm glad we solved that. So thank you.

Yes, so we will actually be talking about our updated zoning code if you want to stick around for a little bit, but otherwise you can definitely talk to Charlie.

Is there any questions for me or anything else?

Commissioner Franker. Thank you, Mayor. Just a short one. When I was there today, on what would be the north side, I believe, there are a lot of pallets. There are a lot of Trash containers, et cetera. So I'm making an assumption and maybe you could comment about this expansion will accommodate some more storage and the ability of the business to. Put the pallets somewhere else.

Sure. That area is zoned. There are zoning accommodations for outdoor. Storage like you saw, so I, we're certainly working with them, but they're. They're a high-volume business, and so they do have pallets like that moving in and out, and I believe there may be some screening requirements we have to look at, but to say that they're going to eliminate that at that particular facility probably isn't going to happen, but we can certainly work with them on maybe some other ideas. You'll notice right next to them is a large refuse company source, that their business is dumpsters, so they're moving things in and out. But that is heavy industrial zoning that has those allowances currently. Maybe it's changing. But yeah, good comment. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you.

Hopefully we'll see you in a few months.

Yes. We are going to make you stick around for the next part of the discussion. So you can work with Charlie. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Review Impossible Action on a Request by Habitat for Humanity. to waive impact fees for the construction of two new single-family homes. Jeff?

Yes. No, my slides just disappeared.

My screen is broken again.

Did it turn off again? No, it's good.

All right. Why does it keep turning off?

There we go. Okay, I think it's, now it's working.

Okay. So, I'll just kind of go over their next phase, next thing that they're working on first, then I'll kind of go over their request. So, as they're wrapping, Habitat for Unity is wrapping up the Domenica Park subdivision over on the kind of southeast, the southeast side of the city, the redevelopment of the arrow shade property. As they're finalizing that, ProHealthcare had purchased a lot of properties in the vicinity of Waukesha Memorial Hospital. And some of those properties they ended up not needing for their... You can kind of see the new expansion project where they have the entrance, the new entrance there. So they have a few properties that they acquired that they... Tore the houses down but no longer need them so there are two properties on Caldwell 128 and I apologize that's 126 so there's two properties on Caldwell each one of those will have a single family home and then there's one on Madison Street and that would have a duplex on it. So their concept would be sort of similar style to Dominica Park. Neighborhood scale, like fits in with the existing neighborhood, detached garages, they'll have a shared driveway on the Caldwell property. And then the duplex in Madison also looks very similar to the ones that they have in Dominica Park. Again, trying to keep in with, same thing they did over there, trying to keep so the houses fit in with the existing homes in the neighborhood. So typically when you, pull a permit uh... impact these are assessed at the time of building permits animals impact fees cover future facility needs to can be covered can use it for like the other regular but operating budget but for facilities for uh... parks playgrounds athletic fields and then indian any additions are improvements to the uh... wastewater treatment plant and the library and police uh... and police department um one of the things that is allowed is we can waive those fees but what would have to happen is the plan commission would make a recommendation to the common council who then makes a decision on waiving the impact fees and we feel that the justification there's two two justifications we have here one is um since we can waive them for lower cost housing the income level of habitat families is between 40 to 80 percent of the area and median income which would definitely fall into that category of low-cost housing And then all 3 of these lots previously had homes on them and well, typically you wouldn't assess impact impact fees to a redevelopment like that. Our code doesn't specifically call that out. So we think that there's justification here to waive those impact fees for under the low cost housing criteria. The other thing of note is we've done this with other habitat developments, Prairieville and the homes on White Rock, as well as Domenica Park. Those were done via planned unit development. We wrote into the PUD ordinance, which was approved by Planning Commission and Council. In this case, there's no PUD. They're just doing straightforward development, so they have to go through the waiver request this way. So with that, we would recommend granting the waiver for all impact fees for the new homes being developed by Habitat for Humanity at 128-134 Caldwell Street and 909 Madison Street.

Thank you. Are there any comments, questions, or motions from the Commission? Commissioner Frank Ward? Commissioner Granger?

I motion to approve the waiver for the impact fees for the new homes being developed by Habitat for Humanity. Excellent. Commissioner Frank Ward?

I'd like to second it, but I have a question. Jeff, we're not talking about a lot of money here.

Are we? I mean, each home is, I think it's almost up to $5,000 per home that they'd be assessed for impact fees.

Really?

Yeah.

Okay, that makes the second even stronger here.

So yeah, and it's one of the ways that they can cut the cost of low-cost housing is impact fees is a good way to reduce that. And again, given that there were homes on here before and the facilities already took into account those, we don't see the need to...

almost they didn't do impact fees back when these homes were developed in the area but that's another justification for it thank you yeah i'll agree with commissioner francourt i think that this is the perfect reason to waive these impact fees so thank you are there any additional comments all right then all those in favor of waiving the impact fees for 128 134 caldwell and 909 madison street for habitat for humanity please say aye aye aye uh all all those opposed all right that motion does pass unanimously next up everyone's favorite the zoning code update i will let charlie take it away

All right, um, as all of, you know. The plan commission council city staff and consultants have been working on the zoning code. Rewrite since January of 2024, you've reviewed. Numerous drafts of the code and the entire code was was. In front of you all at the beginning of April for recommendation of approval to the council. And you did both to recommend approval. It's been reviewed by the Council since then, and we're hoping to bring it back to the Council for the final approval, finally, on July 7th. But we do have a couple of things that were fixed since the April drafts that you've reviewed. So we just wanted to bring them back for you to review those one more time. So first the we've had a couple of updates the zoning map This is so from the the zoning map that you review at the beginning of April It did not properly show the existing planning and development overlay areas So this is just an example. There were a number of other areas throughout the city where it wasn't properly shown but the area that circled is uh the uh glen at standing stone at the end of 10e avenue both sides of 10e avenue there should be should have the pud overlay and then the section that where it does properly show the overlay in that april map it didn't show the underlying zoning so that has now been corrected in the the current map it does show all of the existing pud overlays we're not changing any any of those overlays or removing or adding or anything like that And then the other significant change to the map was the mixed-use node overlays in one of the last last changes to the to the code the Acronym for those districts have been changed from. Where it's currently S, or it's shown here as S M U N dash. Oh. So suburban mixed use node overlay. District we thought that was a little bit of a, um, a mouthful. Uh, same the same goes for the regional commercial note overlay where it was. R. C. N dash. Oh. that was corrected in the code as of April, but had not been corrected on the map. So that correction has been made as well. So that now properly shows it as SN and RN-O. And then the map has been updated to show all of the PUD overlay areas. So you can see those are the the kind of angled dash areas of the map so that Glen at Standing Stone area has been corrected as well as a number of other areas that just in this section of the map, as well as the rest of the PUD areas throughout the city. One other change that was made since April or this spring, we've had the rezoning for 223 Southwest Avenue. So that has also been included, so that's now It has been rezoned to B1 from its previous residential zoning, so that would be added as the mixed-use commercial zoning in the new code. As at the same time, the city attorney's office has been going through the entire code and reviewing it, making sure, updating the formatting so that it can be added into the city's muni code system, but also doing sort of one last double check uh to make sure everything uh meets the standards that that they feel are appropriate for legally defensible code there are a few sections where they've recommended and we've made some changes they've emphasized that none of the ideas in the code have changed from what was reviewed earlier but there are some sections where the wording they feel is more meets their standards. So this is just one example. I'm not gonna go through every single example, but one example where, and I have one more where they have made a couple changes. This is to the sign section. So this is exempting certain types of signs that are exempted from regulation by the zoning code. So this, at the top, the subsection A, the code exempted public signs. They didn't feel that public signs was clear enough, so they reworded that to government and utility signs, which was the intent. And then there were two sections where when we had redone the code in 2019, the attorney's office had wanted to make sure that we added Exemptions for signs that are carried by individuals. So, for. For instance, individuals who are protesting. They did not want the city to be to put in a position where. Somebody is saying, hey, you need to you need to be telling all these people that you can't carry any signs. And then also murals and works of art that don't advertise any business product or service. Those are not considered to be signs and they don't have to meet the same sign area requirements. So they wanted to make sure that that those exemptions were included. They had been left out as an oversight, so those have been added back in. Another example, they had reworded several of the definitions throughout the code. All of them are in the definition section, but they had reworded a number of them. uh to be a little more a bit more clear this one example is to the definitions of yards the drafts that had been previously reviewed had included a definition which is very similar to the definition in the current code and the attorney's office felt that it doesn't properly design define a yard since it's a definition of the shortest horizontal distance from the street to the building And it also leaves a. Sort of an area that's in between the edge of of the defined yard and actual yard. This, the new definition is an actual definition of a yard. Which means it's, it's the portion of the yard that. Extends across the full. portion of the lot and it is inclusive of the area between the line that's defined in the structure. So just to give an example, this was something that the board of zoning appeals reviewed earlier this year, where there was a street yard that was defined by the code and side yards. but there's a whole section of what is actually yard that is not included in that definition. This is an issue in the current code and it just hadn't been fixed. So they fixed it to make sure that that's included. So there have been a number of small changes like that. Again, none of the ideas are changed, but it is enough of a change that we felt that it should be brought back to the Planning Commission for your review. Before going to the council, we are anticipating that that would go to the council for a final vote on approval as well as a final public hearing on July 7th. And then we are still hoping to have an implementation date of September. 1st. Subdivision standards. When this was brought for previous approval, or previous review, we had noted summer of 2026, as we are in the summer of 2026, we're not ready to bring those back to you for the final approval for that section yet. That's subsection eight. Currently it's the standalone chapter 23 of the current code. So that will be later this summer. Potentially early fall and then. Chapter 23 can can exist as a standalone chapter until then. And then, as we had noted previously, expect further updates. There will be sections that where the changes don't work exactly as they're anticipated. There are sections where we're trying something new. and we may want to revise the way that it's being tried. So we will expect this to be a living document. We expect to have updates both in the near term and in the long term. So staff recommends approval of the new zoning ordinance to replace chapter 22 and chapter 27 of the current code.

Thank you. I'm going to start with my question. So under the signs, under exempt signs, specifically calling out murals and other works of art, as everyone in this room very likely knows, we have a number of murals, especially in the downtown area. How specific are we getting with the term advertising? And I might be getting nitpicky here, but we have a number of murals that have the brand name Les Paul. We also have a mural or at least two murals that I can think of off the top of my head that include signage for Carroll University, which is a private entity as you enter lot three from Clinton. And then also the one that's on the building for discount liquor includes reference to discount liquor. Um, is, are those things considered advertising? I would argue that they don't, but I just want to make sure that we're being very clear about what is considered advertising when we're, when we're looking at this.

Right. And yeah, this is a longstanding exemption. Um, generally when we have murals, they, you know, they're reviewed by the public art committee, not as signs and they don't They don't have to be reviewed under the, they don't need a sign permit or any of those kind of reviews. Most of those are longstanding enough that I don't have personal memory of them. I know the discount liquor one, I think we did make them have a sign permit for just the discount liquor. I remember a code enforcement issue with them many years back, but I don't remember all the details. We have had other applications. In some cases, we have people that are trying to get around the requirements of the sign code, putting up, I think there was a large mural for a Taco Bell where they had some taco art on the building, and we said that that would have to be reviewed as a sign, so they didn't end up doing it. But in general, if it's artwork, It's not reviewed as a sign, and there is a little bit of discretion there, but if there's a logo, we would generally require it to be reviewed. Yeah, go ahead.

I got a little bit to some of those ones downtown when they did the Guitar Town murals. They did allow, I think when we brought it through Public Art and Planning Commission, we allowed tiny, like if you look at the cornucopia one on River Friends, where there's a tiny pick-and-save logo, I think we allowed a really small one on those. and that was kind of they paid for the mural so i think that was some sort of negotiation between the council and the guitar town group and then we've also made exemptions for things like exempt brands so if you look at um down on arcadian i can't think of the bar what's the bar name down there by john's root beer um I can't think of the name. Billy Dee's. Yeah, Billy Dee's. So on the outside of Billy Dee's, you look and they have a bunch of beer signs, but it's all for brands that no longer are being brewed. So there's a few different things. So we try to make sure, yeah, that it's not being used for signage, but that was kind of the history on how the names got on some of these other murals.

Right, like the fox head that's on Discount Liquor is another example. I figured that was true of extinct brands, and I would argue that a lot of them are representing iconic aspects of our community, so I can see why they would be exempt even though they're representing brands, so I appreciate that clarification. I believe Commissioner Frank, where you had a comment or question?

I have a question. Charlie, when you started, you talked about overlays and so forth. Do you have a comment about the request or the question that was posed in the public comment section tonight about the elimination? It sounded like something was present in an old zoning code and it was removed. Is there really a relationship between historic designation and the zoning code?

Well, so we do have the historic preservation overlay is shown on the on the zoning map. You can see it in the. In this this section that you can see the edge of the College Avenue and Laughlin Avenue historic districts there as well as a couple of. Individually designated properties, so that's the purple line on this. uh this section of the of the zoning map um the we are not changing the historic preservation at all overlay at all the uh the sections that are shown we are very confident are the existing locally designated historic districts and individual local landmark properties there is a map that has been connected to the zoning code in the past which is it shows every property that's ever been surveyed for potential eligibility to the National Register, including any that were found to not be eligible, as well as some that are on the National Register but are not local landmarks. Those are separate designations. The Madison street historic district. When it was created, it ran. Through what was the property at. 434 Madison street at the Blair house property. The Blair house had an individual designation, which predated the. The Madison street historic district that was only a national register designation, not a local designation. That did include the whole, what was at that time, the whole property, but the Madison Street Historic District ran through it with the same boundary that the National Register District has. So it did not include any portion of the property that was later split off, or that was later When 430 farm Madison street was split off when it was conveyed to the solves when the city. When the city transferred the property to them. The portion below was not included. The section that was 130 Delafield Street did not have any historic designation at the local level, which is why the proposed apartment project did not go to the Landmarks Commission when it was up for review. That is a confusion, I guess, that might exist because that map had been shown along with the zoning map when it was printed in the past, but that was never designated there.

So this comment about something was there and it was removed because of what we're doing is not accurate?

That's right. The Madison Street Historic District, when it was locally designated, followed the lines of the National Register District. And it, at that time, went through the property at 434 Madison Street. So it's consistent with the current property boundaries. Actually, if anything, this is showing it a little wider than it is because the boundary added a little bit of a triangle that was not in the designation, but that doesn't really matter for the local designation since the Landmarks Commission doesn't review site work, and you wouldn't be able to put a building there.

So to clarify, because I know we've had extensive conversations about this, there was a map that included essentially information about potential historic districts that aren't actually historic districts that were attached at one point to one of the many agendas that we've had on this item.

Well, it was attached to previous zoning maps that were, you know, that would be... Got it. Yeah.

So it was information that was out there that was attached to the zoning map, but isn't actually the correct historic overlay, which is what we're seeing in this item that is the accurate historic overlay. Nothing has changed. It's just that... other documents are representing something else that may provide some confusion for for people including us probably right so thank you for that clarification does that answer your question for uh commissioner franklin thank you sorry i asked the same question earlier any other questions or comments uh commissioner keller

Charlie, can't you just, regarding signage, can't you just grandfather the existing signs that's in existence now and then go forward with signs that aren't considered advertising?

Yeah, existing signs would be considered, would be grandfathered.

So it gets all those large wall murals and carol and so forth, it's out of play, it's not an issue. Going forward, it's different.

Yep.

Okay.

Any other comments or questions?

Do you need a motion?

Yes, if you have a motion, that would be great. I just wanted to make sure everybody was able to say their piece.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Francoeur, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. I would move then that the Plan Commission approves of the new zoning ordinance to replace Chapter 22 zoning and Chapter 27 signs and outdoor advertising in their entirety, and I believe recommend that to the Common Council.

excellent commissioner granger i think he's got the second all right any additional comments before we vote all right all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed no all right closing the chapter on that one well until it goes to council all right uh is there anything else from uh community development i know jennifer's not here but maria do you have anything All right. Thank you all. I really appreciate it. Unless there are any objections, we are adjourned.