_08032026-165

Plan Commission Minutes August 3, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers Commission Members Present: Brewster, Guettinger, Lawson, Lenard, Reed, Wolfgram, Zeug Staff Members Present: White, Ness, Noel, Baumgartner 1. Call to Order – Vice Chair Wolfgram called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call – Vice Chair Wolfgram called roll and a quorum was present of seven members. 3. Open public comment period for items that do not appear on this agenda No one spoke from the public. Consent Agenda 4. A. Approval of July 6, 2026, Plan Commission minutes B. Final Plat (P-1-26) Orchard Hills 1st Addition C. Electrical Easement – County Line Road D. Excess Land of 4 parcels Motion by Commissioner Brewster to remove items B. and D. off the consent agenda and recommend approval of the others. Second by Commissioner Lenard and the motion passed unanimously. 4B. Public Discussion – For Recommendation to City Council Final Plat (P-1-26) Orchard Hills 1st Addition Request: To recommend approval of the final subdivision plat of Orchard Hills 1st Addition to the City Council Applicant: Everyday Surveying and Engineering Location: At the end of Fuji Lane Noel presented the request by Everyday Surveying and Engineering for a recommendation of approval of the final subdivision plat of Orchard Hills 1st Addition. In his presentation he noted that there are a series of conditions related to the new Land Development Ordinance (LDO). In particular, he called out a series of partially wooded lots that needed to have a tree study done and recommended that the Plan Commission add a tenth (10th) condition that the subdivision had to meet the tree preservation standards of the LDO. Daniel Knowlton and Jeffery Stockburger, applicant representatives with Everyday Surveying and Engineering, were asked what the prices of the proposed homes were but did not know. Commissioner Brewster moved to bring the item into discussion by the Plan Commission, Second by Commissioner Lenard. Commissioner Brewster then moved to add the condition to require the subdivision to meet the tree preservation standards in the LDO, second by Commissioner Reed, and the amendment was approved unanimously. The Plan Commission moved to recommend approval of the original motion as amended and it passed unanimously. Plan Commission Meeting August 3, 2026 Page 2 4D. Public Discussion – For Recommendation to City Council Excess Land of Four Parcels Request: To recommend approval of a declaration of excess land for four city-owned parcels. Applicant: City of Eau Claire Location: See Agenda Packet (Parcels 04-0367, 09-1354, 16-0477 & 16-0368) Vice Chair Wolfgram called for a motion on the excess land item. First by Commissioner Brewster, second by Commissioner Lenard. After the motion was made, Wolfgram invited Director White to present the item. White presented each of the parcels in the excess land case covering where they are, how they were acquired, and that there are currently no proposed uses for them. He explained that once the declaration of excess land is complete, the city can invite proposals for final uses of the land. On the Lawrence St/E. Riverview parcels, White pointed out that there are 22 existing unused laterals to the parcels in the well field, that there were 22 existing houses on the fringe of the property so the land was planned to be developed for housing. From a water utilities perspective there was no reason to keep those spaces open. He then touched on the open house that was held a few weeks ago, where 40 residents came to comment with most of them expressing their desire to leave properties open. Commissioner Brewster asked why it went before Parks, Waterways, and Urban Forestry even though it didn’t need to. White explained that it went for review with a cluster of parcels that included a park and noted that the park is no longer being considered. Brewster then inquired on a potential conservation easement that would cover the rest of the well field and asked about the potential process and timeline for it. White responded that there is no timeline, and explained the process that it would have to go through to split off the parcel to the north and that Council could certainly direct them to do some sort of preservation within the space. Commissioner Lawson asked if most of the feedback from the community was only on the areas stubbed in, or if it covered the rest of it. White responded that it was a bit of both. Commissioner Reed asked about the result of Parks, Waterways, and Urban Forestry Commission’s review. White replied that they requested more information and made no recommendation. Commissioner Brewster made a motion to have a separate vote on the Lawrence St/E. Riverview properties, second by Commissioner Reed. Commissioner Zeug questioned why the motion was made to separate this particular item from the others on the vote. Brewster stated that this is an area with people that have concerns and there is value in slowing this particular item down and providing more opportunities for public input. Reed agreed, stating they are different being wooded public land around the well field. With no further discussion, the motion to separate the two parcels from the rest to vote passed with all commissioners present recommending approval, except for Lawson and Zeug. Plan Commission Meeting August 3, 2026 Page 3 The Plan Commission then voted on the other two excess land parcels, recommending unanimously to approve them. Commissioner Brewster moved to postpone the remaining two parcels to give Parks, Waterways, and Urban Forestry an opportunity to discuss them further and have the item come back August 31st. Seconded by Lenard. The vote passed with all members of the commission recommending approval except for Lawson and Zeug. Regular Agenda 5. Public Hearing – For Recommendation to City Council Land Development Ordinance Amendments Request: To consider various amendments to the Land Development Ordinance and rezone two city owned parcels to the P-Public District Applicant: City of Eau Claire Location: City Wide Noel presented noting the city owned properties that were being rezoned to the P-Public zoning district. He then explained the major amendments being made to the text including changes to the locational requirements for three and fourplexes, changes to the parking lot island requirements, and some of the issues with the form-based zoning requirements. He concluded by noting that this was the third round of amendments that were made this year. Commissioner Brewster asked if the live-work units and accessory commercial units would allow for uses with negative externalities. Noel noted that there were several conditions in the code for each of these uses that cover their compatibility with neighboring properties. Motion by Commissioner Brewster to recommend approval of the proposed amendments and rezonings, second by Commissioner Lenard and the item passed unanimously. 6. Public Hearing – For Approval by the Plan Commission Conditional Use Permit (CZ-2603) – Heavy Vehicle Parking Request: To consider an application for a conditional use permit to allow for heavy truck parking on a residential lot. Applicant: Kraig Rihn Location: 3014 Seymour Road Baumgarter presented the request for heavy truck parking on a residential lot, noting that the land use was new to the ordinance and that the applicant was able to obtain all of the signatures that he needed and that his proposal met the majority of the use standards associated with heavy truck parking. He highlighted that it did not quite meet the standards of standard g.iii which related to screened from adjacent public views. The commission would have to decide whether to strike Finding of Fact 5 (relating to it not being met) or Finding of Fact 6 (relating to it being met), and which conditions they would include. Pictures were viewed of the property looking down the driveway. Kraig Rihn, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He said you cannot see the parking area from the east or west, only from directly to the south. He was eager to get it approved after a long process. He stated that he did not agree with the idea of having to install the gate or landscaping in front of the driveway because people cannot really see with the setback and existing landscaping. When asked by the commission what his hours of operation were he Plan Commission Meeting August 3, 2026 Page 4 replied that he leaves early in the morning and comes back in the afternoon. He concluded that he did not see the practicality of the gate with backing in and out. Perry Woods, 1009 Malden Ave., stated the applicant moved in 2015 and there was not a problem until someone complained. He was supportive of the applicant’s request. Tersea Lessard, 3117 Dedham St. was supportive of the truck being parked in the driveway rather than on Malden Ave. since it creates a traffic blind spot. Commissioner Zeug was concerned that exceptions were made to allow a conditional use permit for this use in the first place. Commissioner Brewster stated that the use should not be obnoxious, and in this case, it seems acceptable as it is meeting the spirit and intent. Commissioner Reed did not support the amendment because it is still visible. Commissioner Brewster made a motion to strike Finding of Fact 5 and leave Finding of Fact 6 and add the condition that it will expire upon the sale of the property. Second by Lenard. The amendment passed on a vote of 4-3 with Lawson, Reed, and Zeug voting nay. After the amendment passed, staff informed the Plan Commission that their bylaws required a super majority of their membership, five (5) commissioners, to vote in the affirmative to pass the conditional use permit (CUP). After further discussion on the item, Commissioner Lenard made a motion to modify the approved amendment to keep Finding of Fact 5 and strike Finding of Fact 6 and add a condition to require the applicant to work with staff to make sure that standard g.iii. (such as installation of a gate) is met. Second by Commissioner Brewster. The amendment passed with six (6) commissioners voting for it and Commissioner Reed abstaining. With no further discussion on the amendment or the original motion, the original motion passed with six (6) commissioners voting for it and Commissioner Reed abstaining. 7. Public Discussion – For Recommendation to City Council Annexation (26-1A) – Town of Washington Request: To consider the annexation of 4222 E. Hamilton Avenue into City Limits Applicant: Hall Location: 4222 E. Hamilton Avenue Noel presented the request due to the applicant’s septic system failing. He noted the State found the request to be in the public interest and that it reduced the irregular boundary between Eau Claire and the Town of Washington. Motion by Commissioner Brewster to recommend approval of the annexation to City Council. Second by Commissioner Zeug. The motion was carried unanimously. 8. Public Discussion – For Consideration by the Plan Commission Site Plan (SP-2607) – Industrial Building Request: To consider a site plan for an industrial building Applicant: ISG & Ohly Americas Location: 6120 Venture Drive Plan Commission Meeting August 3, 2026 Page 5 Baumgartner presented the request for approval of a site plan for an industrial building being proposed by ISG Engineering and OHLY Americas. He covered the location of the structure, the blend of standards from the old ordinance and the new ordinance due to the general development plan, the phasing plan, the landscaping plan, and the request for a temporary waiver to allow a gravel access drive around the building. Baumgartner did note that there was a condition on the site plan related to the Plan Commission approval of a wider driveway apron that should be struck. He explained that with the passing of the new ordinance, that was now something that could be approved administratively and that staff will work with the applicant to find a solution. Daniel Rutledge, applicant representative with ISG clarified a second driveway would be determined when they start engineering for future phases. Commissioner Brewster asked what the timeframe for the gravel drive will be? Rutledge explained that timing of the second phase is based on when it comes to fruition financially, so he could not state when it will be. Commissioner Brewster made a motion on the item, second by Commissioner Reed. Commissioner Brewster then asked staff when the applicant would have to pave the drive if phase II never happened. Baumgartner stated that there was not a specific date and Director White clarified that there are standards that were part of the Development Agreement (DA), including that phase II would have to start within two years. On the temporary gravel parking waiver, Commissioner Reed moved to require the gravel drive to either be removed or paved in four years. The commissioners all voted in favor of it. Commissioner Brewster made a motion to remove condition three from list of conditions. Second by Commissioner Zeug and approved unanimously. With no further discussion, the site plan was approved unanimously by the Plan Commission. 9. Future Agenda Items and Announcement Noel announced the August 4th public kickoff of the Comprehensive Plan update at the National Night Out and that staff will have a booth. 10. Adjournment The commission adjourned at 7:40 p.m. _________________________ Josh Zeug, Secretary