Packet

Agenda 2026-1-6, TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2026.PDF Meeting Materials ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA PACKET 1-6-26.PDF 1. Documents: 2. Documents: Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda City Hall Council Chambers 203 S. Farwell Street, Eau Claire, WI 54701 January 6, 2026, 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introduction of New Zoning Board of Appeals Member 3. Approval of October 7, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 4. Open public comment period for items that do not appear on this agenda noted as public hearings or public discussion. 5. Public Hearing – For Consideration and Action by the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-1-2026 – 2504 Truax Boulevard Design and Engineering Incorporated is requesting a variance request located at 2504 Truax Blvd, to allow for the installation of roof-mounted mechanical equipment without the required screening for a property that is zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) for an existing commercial building. 6. Public Discussion - Move the start time for meeting from 7:00 PM 7. Future Agenda Items and Announcements 8. Adjournment If you have any questions concerning any of the Zoning Board of Appeals items, please call the Department of Community Development at 715-839-4914. This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter V of Chapter 19 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Notice is hereby given that members of the City Council may be present at the foregoing meeting to gather information about a subject over which they have decision-making responsibility. This constitutes a meeting of the City Council pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis.2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993) and must be noticed as such, although the Council will not take any formal action at this meeting. In order to accommodate the participation of persons with special needs at this meeting, the City will provide the services of a sign language interpreter or make other reasonable accommodations on request. To make such a request, please notify the City at 715-839-4902 at least 2 days prior to the meeting. _________________________________ Tim Davis, Chairperson c: News Media Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda City Hall Council Chambers 203 S. Farwell Street, Eau Claire, WI 54701 January 6, 2026, 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introduction of New Zoning Board of Appeals Member 3. Approval of October 7, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 4. Open public comment period for items that do not appear on this agenda noted as public hearings or public discussion. 5. Public Hearing – For Consideration and Action by the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-1-2026 – 2504 Truax Boulevard Design and Engineering Incorporated is requesting a variance request located at 2504 Truax Blvd, to allow for the installation of roof-mounted mechanical equipment without the required screening for a property that is zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) for an existing commercial building. 6. Public Discussion - Move the start time for meeting from 7:00 PM 7. Future Agenda Items and Announcements 8. Adjournment If you have any questions concerning any of the Zoning Board of Appeals items, please call the Department of Community Development at 715-839-4914. This notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Subchapter V of Chapter 19 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Notice is hereby given that members of the City Council may be present at the foregoing meeting to gather information about a subject over which they have decision-making responsibility. This constitutes a meeting of the City Council pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis.2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993) and must be noticed as such, although the Council will not take any formal action at this meeting. In order to accommodate the participation of persons with special needs at this meeting, the City will provide the services of a sign language interpreter or make other reasonable accommodations on request. To make such a request, please notify the City at 715-839-4902 at least 2 days prior to the meeting. _________________________________ Tim Davis, Chairperson c: News Media 1 DRAFT-NOT APPROVED Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 7, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers Commission Members Present: Pederson, Hay, Davis, Canfield Commission Members Absent: Gable Staff Present: Petrie, Baumgartner 1. Call to Order Chairperson Davis started the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A quorum was present with four members present. 2. Roll Call and Introduction of New Zoning Board of Appeals Member Canfield Commissioner Hay, Davis, Canfield and Pederson were present at the start of the meeting. New commissioner Canfield was introduced to the board. 3. Election of Officers Commissioner Hay motioned to move Commissioner Canfield as secretary, seconded by Commissioner Pederson and the motion carried. Commissioner Pederson motioned to move Commissioner Hay as vice chairperson, seconded by Hay and the motion carried. Commissioner Pederson motioned to move Commissioner Davis as chairperson, seconded by Hay and the motion carried. 4. Commissioner Canfield moved to approve the minutes from December 3, 2024. Commissioner Hay seconded and the motion carried. 5. Open public comment period for items that do not appear on this agenda noted as public hearings or public discussion – None. 6. New Century Zoning Code Petrie presented the new zoning code. The ordinance was started in summer of 2023 and then adopted to go into effect earlier this month on October 1st. The zoning code updates all the new standards for the City of Eau Claire. This will affect all variances in the future request moving forward. 7. #ZBA 1-2025 – 1500 State Street Chairperson Davis introduced the agenda item regarding the variance request to allow for a structure to be allowed for 13’ 4’’ rear yard setback instead of the 20’ for the property located at 1500 State Street. Baumgartner presented the request noting this property is zoned NR, previously zoned R-2. He noted the existing bungalow was approximately 13’ 4’’. The variance request is to continue to use the structure for a dwelling unit if approved by the board. The zoning code was originally in 1923; the century code was approved in 2025 but this structure was built prior to the original zoning code for the city. He noted the reduction within the setbacks on the rear yard and the new code is 20 feet instead of the previous zoning code of 25 feet in the rear yard. This structure was built around 1900, and the home and accessory unit was built around the same 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 7, 2025 Page 2 time. He spoke about the hardship of the property and the existing structure to be maintained in the existing state. He noted that the mansion is locally and nationally landmarked known as the ‘Buffington House’. In addition, he noted that the board shall make a favorable finding of facts based on the evidence presented for each. Baumgartner noted that property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were noticed of the variance request. Staff also noticed the Third Ward Neighborhood Board. Commissioner Canfield questioned if the board would not approve the variance request, what could the property owner(s) use the property for. Baumgartner noted that it could be used for accessory use only under the new zoning ordinance and would need to meet all building code regulations. Garlick, EDJ Rentals LLC, property owner and applicant of 1500 State Street, spoke about the variance request and the hardship of the existing property and the historic landmark of the property. He noted the previous remodel and to maintain the property into a better state than when they purchased the property. Commissioner Pederson questioned if the structure was built in 1900 because of the condition it is in and appears to be much newer. Garlick noted over the past few years, his team has been improving the structure to make it livable and replaced the foundation, along with adding new siding and roof for the structure. Commissioner Davis noted if something was to happen to the existing structure, would it be able to be rebuilt as-is. Baumgartner noted that the property owners would have one year to rebuild as-is but after that one year, then the structure would need to meet all zoning setbacks and standards. Commissioner Davis moved to approve the variance request with the finding of facts as noted in the staff report and below, with the added finding of fact/condition that if the building was to be destroyed by natural causes and demolished, and then the new structure should meet all the setbacks and standards if not rebuilt in one year. 1. The existing development is compatible with adjacent properties and uses. 2. The subject structure was built in the 1900s prior to the establishment of the zoning code and meant for residential purposes. 3. The accessory unit is associated with the Buffington House mansion, a historic landmark, that is on the local and national historic registers. 4. The property is one of the few acre-plus lots within the Third Ward Neighborhood. 5. Granting of the variance does not interfere with any abutting neighboring properties. 6. Granting of the variance does not interfere with any public interest. 7. If the building is to be destroyed by natural causes and demolished, and not rebuilt within one year, then all zoning setbacks and standards should be met. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 7, 2025 Page 3 Seconded by Commissioner Hay and the motion carried unanimously. 8. Public Discussion - Move the 7:00 PM start time Petrie noted that this is the only city board or commission meeting starting at 7:00 PM now because the others have changed the meeting times. He noted that staff is open to whichever the board thinks is the best time to meet for everyone, which 6:00 PM was the best time. A short discussion with the members occurred. Commissioner Hay motioned to move the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to 6PM. Seconded by Commissioner Pederson and the motion carried unanimously. 9. Future Agenda Items and Announcements – None. 10. Chairperson Davis adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m. _____________________________ Paul Canfield, Secretary 4 Staff Report To: Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing Date: Zoning Board of Appeals: 1/6/26 7 p.m. City Hall From: Community Development File No.: ZBA-1-2026 Agenda Item: A variance request to not screen the proposed rooftop mechanical system of a multi-tenant building on a CC (Corridor Commercial) zoned property located at 2504 Truax Boulevard. Applicant & Property Owner: RTST Inc. Area: 1.82 acres Surrounding Land Use: North: Vacant/Industrial East: Mail Service/Vacant South: Credit Union West: Auto Body Shop Existing Zoning: CC-P Proposed Zoning: Same Existing Land Use: Sub Shop/Vacant Tenant Bay Proposed Land Use: Filled Tenant Bay Analysis: Design and Engineering, Inc on behalf of property owner, RTST INC., is requesting a variance to allow proposed rooftop mechanical equipment to remain unscreened over the unfilled tenant bay of a multi-tenant building with a shared roof. Attached are the proposed application, narrative, new site plan, approved site plan from 2015, building elevations, floor plans, and an aerial map. Background: In the summer of 2006 the subject property was zoned out of the Gateway West Business Park to C-3P to allow for a future bank and future commercial development. In May of 2015, the site plan for the subject property was brought before the Plan Commission for the approval of a multi-tenant building with the intent that half of it would be used for a drive-up Jimmy John’s Restaurant and half of it was intended to be a retail store. Looking at building permit records, the construction of the shell building began in July of that year and the final inspection of the buildout of the first tenant bay (Jimmy John’s) occurred in November of 2015. The second tenant bay has remained vacant since 2015 with building permits having been pulled for a tenant buildout of an ice cream shop in 2019 that did not move ahead. In October 2025, the C-3P zoning designation was changed to CC-P as part of the adoption of the Land Development Ordinance and the Century Code update project. The property owner is now seeking to move forward with a new tenant in the vacant bay, a Buffalo Wild Wings Go restaurant. Under Section 17.04.02 D. 2. of the newly adopted Land Development Ordinance (LDO), in instances where either a change of use is occurring or new roof-mounted equipment is being 5 ZBA-1-2026 Page 2 installed on a building without an adequate parapet wall or mechanical well, the new equipment shall be screened with a central corral. Said corral shall be of a material or color that minimizes visibility and contrast with other roof materials. In this instance, the proposed installation of new/additional mechanical equipment on the roof to meet the building code requirements is what is prompting the addition of screening. In the applicant’s narrative they state that they cannot add the required screening due to non- standard design of the existing shared roof system, noting that it was designed as economically as possible with a 4’ deep wood trusses on a 2’center that were fabricated specifically for the job. They go on to say that the existing roof was initially designed for the proposed additions to the mechanical system, but no further loads were considered. As a result, the truss system cannot support the weight and wind load from new screening walls or the reinforcements required to support the extension of the existing parapet walls. They further noted that the option to add screening walls not attached to the exterior walls would require additional structural walls and interior columns that would interfere with the proposed tenant layout/operations and increase the project costs to the point of making it financially unfeasible. In its review of this variance application, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall use the following authority as directed in Section 17.12.15 (D): Before any Variance is approved, the Board of Appeals shall make a favorable finding of fact, based upon evidence presented by the applicant, that each of the following criteria has been satisfied: 1. The proposed Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the regulation and this LDO. 2. There is an unusual hardship in meeting the requirements of this LDO that is not the result of any action of the property owner or applicant. 3. The plight of the applicant is due to such unique circumstances that the proposed Variance will not serve as a special privilege but will alleviate some condition not shared by other property in the same district. 4. The proposed Variance will not alter the essential character of the area. 5. The proposed Variance will remedy a standard that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or would render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. 6. Loss of profit or pecuniary hardship shall not, in and of itself, be considered unnecessarily burdensome or grounds for granting a variance. 7. The proposed Variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the streets, increase the danger of fire or crime, diminish the value of nearby property, nor impair the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, or general welfare. In making a decision based on the above criteria, Staff provides the following information to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): The proposed variance does appear to be in harmony with the general purpose statement of the Land Development Ordinance from Section 17.01.04 Title Purpose and Applicability and as 6 ZBA-1-2026 Page 3 thus meets Criteria One. Criteria Two requires that the hardship in meeting the requirements is not due to the result of any action of the property owner or applicant. Looking at sheet C1.2 of the approved site plan for the building from 2015 it explained that the structure was designed with the intention of having a restaurant on one side of the building and a retail store on the other side, with parking having been provided based on the two different uses. The building would have been designed and constructed with that in mind including the existing rooftop mechanical equipment on the east side. This is evidenced by the fact that they are having to reinforce the roof to support the newly required Make-Up Air Unit (MUA) for the restaurant as denoted on Sheet S101 (page 4) of the attached plan set for the buildout of the vacant tenant bay (submitted to Building Inspections for review by the applicant). The ZBA will have to determine whether or not the change in use from what was proposed at the time of site plan approval and construction constitutes a self-inflicted hardship. If they do determine it is self-inflicted, then Criteria Two is not met. Criteria Three requires the plight of the applicant to be due to such unique circumstances that the proposed Variance will not serve as a special privilege but will alleviate some condition not shared by other property in the same district. The applicant does argue in their narrative that there is a unique circumstance in that the project is an infill buildout of a vacant tenant bay in an already existing building that was built prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, and, due to how it was constructed, it can’t support raising the parapet walls or installing screening walls. Having to meet new ordinance requirements due to the retrofitting of an existing vacant tenant bay to a restaurant use that it wasn’t initially designed for is not a requirement that is unique to the subject property. The same would apply anywhere else. For example, if the proposed restaurant were going inside the credit union to the south, they would be subject to the same HVAC standards, thus similar screening would be required. The ZBA will have to determine whether or not this is a truly unique circumstance and not a special privilege. Criteria Four addresses if the request will not alter the essential character of the area. As the applicant states in their narrative, multiple other businesses in the area, such as Menards, Arby’s, and Dollar Tree, already have visible rooftop mechanical equipment. All of these buildings would be considered to be legal non-conforming with the requirement to screen rooftop mechanical equipment as the requirement did not exist prior to the passing of the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) in October of 2025. As thus granting the variance would not alter the essential of character of the area and Criteria Four is met. Criteria Five requires the proposed variance to remedy a standard that would unreasonably prevent the owner from using the property for a permitted purpose or render conformity with such restrictions unnecessarily burdensome. The applicant argues in their narrative that requiring substantial structural modifications to screen rooftop equipment would likely prevent new tenants from occupying the space, undermining the intended use of the property. The installation of the screening would not prevent new tenants from occupying the space as other permitted uses, such as a retail store, do not have the same extensive exhaust requirements that the proposed quick service restaurant (QSR) has. These other uses could potentially move 7 ZBA-1-2026 Page 4 in without having to install any additional equipment that would prompt the need for screening. Additionally, looking at Sheet S101 (page 4) of the attached plan set for the buildout of the vacant tenant bay (submitted to Building Inspections for review by the applicant), it notes that they are already structurally reinforcing the roof to support the 1,300 lbs. MUA (Make-Up Air Unit) that is being installed. Installing further reinforcement for the screening walls is something that could be done at the same time. The applicant notes however, it would lead to the revision of the floor plan to work around any vertical load bearing elements and the cost would be financially impractical. The ZBA will have to determine whether or not this Criteria is met. Criteria Six requires the loss of profit or a pecuniary hardship to not be, in and of itself, the grounds for the variance. For the ZBA to find Criteria Six to be met, they would need to find that Criteria Two and Three are met as they would establish that there are unique circumstances and an unusual hardship outside of the cost of retrofitting the building to provide the screening. Criteria Seven is met as, regardless of whether or not the rooftop mechanical equipment is screened in accordance with the standards of Section 17.04.02 (D) 2., as it is an aesthetic standard that would not cause the creation of any new negative externalities that the business would not already be creating itself. If a decision to deny this variance should be made, the Zoning Board of Appeals should note within the motion the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant made a complete application. 2. The property is zoned as CC-P, Corridor Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. 3. The building was reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission in 2015 with the intent that half of the structure be a restaurant and half of it would be retail. 4. The building was constructed in 2015, a decade prior to the adoption of Eau Claire’s Land Development Ordinance. 5. The variance request meets Criteria One, Four, and Seven that were laid out in Section 17.12.15 (D) of the Land Development Ordinance. 6. The variance request does not meet Criteria Two, Three, Five, and Six from Section 17.12.15 (D) as noted in the staff report. 7. There is not a hardship in that the project is an infill buildout of a vacant tenant bay in an already existing building that was built prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, and, due to how it was constructed, it cannot support raising the parapet walls or installing screening walls without further structural reinforcement. 8 Eau Claire Variance (Checklist Items 3-9) Parcel Number: 1822122710123209007 Variance or Appeal requested: 17.04 D.2. - Intermediate and Minor Redevelopment/Change of Use/Installation of New Equipment We are requesting a variance to allow newly added rooftop mechanical equipment to remain unscreened on a multi-tenant building with a shared roof. Unique circumstances applicable to property: The building is a multi-tenant structure with a shared roof serving both this Tenant Infill project and a Jimmy John’s which is open and operating. The existing building’s roof structure is designed with 4’ deep wood trusses at 2’ on center, which were fabricated specifically for this job. Had the building been constructed in another manner, such as steel beams and columns, or with known lumber sizes, the roof structure could be analyzed. Trusses of this type are designed as economically as possible, i.e. without accounting for any additional future loading. The mechanical equipment that is proposed for this project was included in the initial design, but the weight and wind load from new roof additions was not considered in the roof truss designs. Therefore, any new equipment screen walls cannot be supported from the existing roof structure. The existing building’s roof has short parapets that do not fully screen current equipment. Raising the parapets would increase the wind face of the building, so the new parapet height would need to be supported. Typically, this is done by adding kickers back to the existing roof structure. This is not an option as the kickers would add additional load which the trusses were not designed for. An alternative to using kickers would be to remove the existing finishes and wall sheathing from the roof level down roughly 5 feet, then “sister” new parapet studs onto the existing studs below the roof diaphragm. However, the building relies on shear walls for lateral stability. Removing the finishes and sheathing would compromise that stability during construction until the new sheathing is installed. This approach can work in new construction or in a vacant building, but it isn’t practical for an existing shell with an active tenant. Describe unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty in strict application of ordinance: Given the unique conditions of this building, new rooftop screening cannot be achieved by raising the parapet or by supporting a new screen wall from the existing roof structure. The only remaining method for supporting additional rooftop loads would be to introduce new interior beams, walls, and columns. This approach is common for tenant-infill projects when the new loads are primarily vertical, because beams, columns, and walls efficiently resist gravity forces. A screen wall presents a different challenge. The controlling load is wind acting horizontally on the wall. For a 6-foot-tall screen with posts at 8 feet on center, each post must resist roughly 750 pounds of lateral force. That force acts about 5 feet above the roof deck, and because the existing roof structure cannot be used to resist it, a new structural system inside the tenant space would be required to take a 9 moment of nearly 7,000 ft-lbs per post. Achieving this would require a continuous, floor-to-roof interior wall or column directly beneath each screen-wall post. This solution is not feasible for two reasons. First, new interior walls or columns placed directly under the screen wall would interfere with tenant layout and operations; particularly for a QSR user. Second, constructing a new structural wall system of this scale would significantly increase project costs, likely to the point of making the project financially impractical. Why is variance necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right: The shell building complied with code at the time of its design and construction and was intended to serve two tenants. One tenant, Jimmy John’s, is currently operating, and Buffalo Wild Wings GO is proposed. Requiring substantial structural modifications to screen rooftop equipment would likely prevent new tenants from occupying the space, undermining the intended use of the property. Reasons variance won’t be detrimental to public welfare: From the site’s parking lot, existing and proposed rooftop equipment is minimally visible. Equipment is located near the center of the roof, and the parapet provides partial screening. Nearby roadways are elevated above roof height, and rooftop equipment from surrounding businesses (Menards, Arby’s, Dollar Tree) is already visible. Granting this variance will not introduce new impacts related to noise, glare, height, or visual appearance beyond what is already typical in the area. Other reasons for variance similar to previous questions: This request arises from the unique circumstance of a shell building constructed under prior code requirements. Only part of the building is included in this Tenant Infill scope, making structural modifications to the entire roof or wall system impractical. Allowing the proposed rooftop equipment to remain unscreened addresses the hardship while maintaining consistency with the existing condition of the shell building and nearby businesses. 10 11 12 PROPOSED BUFFALO WILD WINGS GO EXISTING JIMMY JOHN'S DESCRIPTION SCALE 1" = 40'-0" BUFFALO WILD WINGS GO 2504 TRUAX BLVD., EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703 N 13 1/DD-3 2/DD-3 3/DD-3 BWWGO TENANTINFILL ADJACENTTENANT (NOTINCONTRACT) NEWBWWGO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT EXISTINGJIMMYJOHNS DRIVE-THRULANE EXISTINGJIMMYJOHNS DRIVE-THRULANE SHAREDTENANT PARKING SHAREDTENANT PARKING BWWGOENTRANCEEXISTINGJIMMYJOHNS ENTRANCE EXISTINGDUMPSTER ENCLOSURE N PROJECT#: DrawingTitle DRAWINGISSUE PERMITSET PC#: ENTITY#: PRELIMINARY NOT-FOR-CONSTRUCTION DD-3 BWWGO- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ANDSITEPLAN2504TRUAXBLVD,EAUCLAIRE,WI54703 BWWGOCONCEPT 08-0237 BUFFALOWILDWINGSGO BWWGOJETPROTOGO-V25.1.1 1471VALLEYESTATESRD BWWDESIGNTEAM MONDOVI,WI54755 715.832.5018 SCALEDD-3 1 BUILDINGELEVATION(FRONT) SCALEDD-3 2 BUILDINGELEVATION(BWWGOSIDE) SCALEDD-3 3 BUILDINGELEVATION(REAR) SCALE 3/32"=1'-0"DD-3 4 SITEPLAN NO REVISIONDESCRIPTION DATE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION FOR VARIANCE: ZBA-1-26 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Eau Claire: WHEREAS a hearing was duly held before this board on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, upon the petition by Design & Engineering, Inc., on behalf of property owner RTST Inc., for a premise addressed as 2504 Truax Boulevard, Eau Claire, WI 54703, described as parcel number 14-1467; to allow the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment to remain unscreened over the unfilled tenant bay of a multi-tenant building with a shared roof. It appears that property owners within 300 feet of said premise were duly notified of said hearing non of whom attended to oppose this request. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The applicant made a complete application. 2. The property is zoned as CC-P, Corridor Commercial District with a Planned Development Overlay. 3. The building was reviewed and approved by the Plan Commission in 2015 with the intent that half of the structure be a restaurant and half of it would be retail. 4. The building was constructed in 2015, a decade prior to the adoption of Eau Claire’s Land Development Ordinance. 5. The variance request meets Criteria One, Four, and Seven that were laid out in Section 17.12.15 (D) of the Land Development Ordinance. 6. The variance request does not meet Criteria Two, Three, Five, and Six from Section 17.12.15 (D) as noted in the staff report. 7. There is not a hardship in that the project is an infill buildout of a vacant tenant bay in an already existing building that was built prior to the adoption of the new ordinance, and, due to how it was constructed, it cannot support raising the parapet walls or installing screening walls without further structural reinforcement. The Board having given the matter due consideration and having been fully advised BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the petition be denied based on the above findings of fact. Zoning Board of Appeals Signed _______________________________ Attest ____________________________ Timothy Davis, Chairperson Paul Canfield, Secretary Adopted: January 6, 2026 28 203 S. Farwell St., P.O. Box 5148, Eau Claire, WI 54702-5148 www.eauclairewi.gov COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Economic Development: (715) 839-4914 Inspections: (715) 839-4947 Planning: (715) 839-4914 Fax: (715) 839-4939 January 7, 2026 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Ryan Petrie, Associate Planner Re: Agenda Item Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Start Time Currently, the Zoning Board of Appeals meetings start at 7PM, which would now be the latest start time for any public meeting for the City of Eau Claire. Previously, at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting members thought that 6PM start time was appropriate. This should be a motion, discussed again and officially voted on by the Commission. If approved, the next meeting start time will be 6PM. Staff will be available for any questions during the discussion. Sincerely, Ryan Petrie Associate Planner City of Eau Claire 29