PRESENT: Chairman Mayor Wescott; Jackie Hoppen; Lois Feldman; Jeff Zabel; Elbert Rackow; Bud Flood (Excused, Fred Steffen)

ALSO PRESENT: Comm. Dev. Dir. John Gardner; City Clerk Victoria Zdroik; Mayors Assis. Louis Molepske Jr.; Ald. Molski, Barr, Phillips, Sowieja, Sevenich & Seiser; Po. Co. Maintenance Supt. Dennis Kolodziej; Dan Mahoney; Todd Grunwaldt; Jaime Klasinski; Jeff Peterson; Mike Wimme; Bill Bayba; Gary Baier; Gene Kemmeter, Po.Co. Gazette; Gena Kittner, Journal

1. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Jeff Zabel, to recommend approval of the September 4, 2001 minutes. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

2. ANNEXATION AND ESTABLISH "R-2" SINGLE FAMILY ZONING - 315 WOOD LANE

John Gardner reviewed his attached memo and stated the annexation will make the city boundary more uniform. Staff recommends approval of the annexation and the zoning classification.

Lois Feldman moved, seconded by Jackie Hoppen, to recommend approval of the annexation and "R-2" Single Family Zoning for 315 Wood Lane.
Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

3. CONDITIONAL USE - HOCKEY/SPORTS COMPLEX - @ SANDPIPER/BADGER
(Note: The Town of Hull will discuss this proposal on October 8 at 7:00 p.m.)

John Gardner reviewed the site plan and said the location is subject to the agreement between the city and Town of Hull for land use and development standards. The proposed location of the hockey rink is in an area recommended for highway commercial uses. The proposed location of the soccer fields is in an area recommended for residential purposes. The Town of Hull will be reviewing this request on October 8. D.O.T. will also be reviewing the drainage plans because they control the drainage structures in Hwy 10. Drainage plans have not yet been submitted but will be required before approval. He reviewed the staff recommendations in his memo regarding parking, screening, building facade, and municipal services. He noted approval is recommended for Phase 1 only with any future plans to be approved by the Council before construction begins. He felt a 66' corridor along the southern border of the development should be preserved for future development to the east. Staff, including the police and fire departments, feel the entire site should be annexed to the city to eliminate confusion for emergency response. As currently proposed, 13 acres of this 40-acre site would be in the city limits with the remainder in the Town of Hull. There should be no confusion as to who responds in the event of an emergency if all the land were in one jurisdiction. The applicants want to be located outside the city because the City tax rate is higher than the Town of Hull. Our tax rate could result in about $2,000-3,000/yr higher tax bill than the Town’s, based on land sales to the west. We recommend approval with the recommendations as indicated.

Jeff Zabel questioned if we approve this with your recommendations, what happens with the annexation?

John Gardner responded the City could approve the conditional use conditioned upon an annexation petition being filed prior to Council action. The conditional use would not be approved until an annexation petition is filed. Or the Council could table the conditional use request until an annexation petition is filed and act on both at the November meeting. We need to check with the City Attorney on procedure.

Elbert Rackow noted this has always been referred to as a "sports complex" and it would be highly unusual that we would ever want to approve a complex in two municipalities.

Lois Feldman noted the city gave them $100,000 and that would encourage her to ask for annexation. Who is developing the Environmental Education Center?

Dan Mahoney, representing Rettler Corp., responded the environmental center was proposed as a joint effort with State Sen. Shibilski. He is unsure where it stands right now.

Jackie Hoppen felt with the amount of money we have given them, she didn’t feel the tax they would have to pay should deter their project.

Mike Wimme, representing Portage County Youth on Ice, questioned if we were to annex to the city and build a park that is to be used by the public, could the taxes be deferred? He questioned the need for an access road to the east because he thought there were wetlands to the east with little development potential.

John Gardner responded he would have to refer the PCYOI to the City Assessor on the tax issue. He said the land to the east may have shallow groundwater but he was not sure whether the land has been mapped as wetlands.

Ald. Phillips questioned the current 1-parking-space-per-five-seats standard.. He felt we should be reviewing the parking standard and size of these spaces.

Dan Mahoney noted with respect to the potential access road on the south boundary, that would have a major impact on building/parking locations from a design perspective if the road could not be located at least partially on the land to the south.

Todd Grunwaldt noted with regard to the parking, the use of the soccer fields and ice rink would not occur at the same time so parking should not be needed for both uses simultaneously.

Gary Baier noted they are not necessarily opposed to the annexation, there are pros and cons. We would ask that the city make it as easy as possible because of the time line for site work. He asked if the Town of Hull would object to the annexation and delay the project.

John Gardner responded the Town of Hull can be asked for input into the decision, but it is really a decision by the city. It is clear in the agreements that we have with the Town that they would not oppose annexations in this area for commercial development.

Ald Molski stated because of existing irregular boundaries on the east side of the city, she is in favor of annexing the whole thing

Chairman Wescott noted if a petition for annexation is filed by the time of the council meeting, the council could just move forward based on the conditional approval being granted today and could finalize within two weeks. He doesn’t see this as inhibiting the time line at all.

Bud Flood questioned whether this is within the sewer service area.

John Gardner responded the hockey building is in the sewer service area.

Jackie Hoppen moved, seconded by Elbert Rackow, to recommend approval of the conditional use request for a hockey/sports complex at Sandpiper/Badger with the conditions as noted in the staff report and contingent upon an annexation petition for the entire parcel sports complex site being filed. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

4. CONDITIONAL USE - TEMPORARY PARKING LOT - 1530 STRONGS AVE. - VACANT LOT SOUTH OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER

John Gardner stated the building was taken down and was graveled in anticipation of the site being used as a staging area for the Lincoln Center project. It appears the Lincoln Center project will not begin until next spring and the county is requesting permission to use the site as a temporary parking lot until May of 2002. This doesn’t mean the site will be a parking lot forever. Staff recommends approval and that temporary barriers be placed to direct traffic and protect the tree.

Myrna Stevenson, 1541 Elk Street, questioned whether they could place an orange snow fence or a barricade between her property and the parking area because there is only 1½' between the properties. Last winter, they plowed the snow into a huge pile and it was onto her property. She is concerned about her garage.

Dennis Kolodziej, Po. Co. Maintenance Supervisor, stated they don’t want to interfere with her property and would address her concerns. He will give Ms. Stevenson his phone number.
Ald. Seiser expressed concern about how tacky this will look with no screening.

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Bud Flood, to recommend approval of a temporary parking lot and a construction staging area on the vacant lot south of the Law Enforcement Center with temporary barriers to be erected to direct traffic and protect the tree. Approval is granted until October 1, 2002, at which time this conditional use shall expire.
Ayes Rackow, Flood, Zabel, Flood, and Ch. Wescott. Nays, Feldman.
Motion carried.

5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE

Jon Gardner noted the county-wide household surveys were mailed. There was an error by the printer and the date for returning the surveys was not changed as directed. That was corrected by mailing a postcard indicating the correct date. There also have been other errors. Some households did not receive all the intended information. Those who did not receive the full survey should contact the County Planning office for a survey.

He distributed a chapter from the book "Planning for the End of Sprawl" entitled "Public Policy and the Regional City" for the commissioners to review. This section addresses the need for a regional approach to city planning. Cities function as complete units and municipal decisions should be made understanding the regional implications. The Mayor has pushed for a regional approach in our urban area.

The author recommends that both physical and social issues be addressed in comprehensive planning. Transportation and land use issues should be planned together because they are so strongly related. Development should be encouraged where it is most appropriate.

Social issues to be addressed include not allowing concentrations of low or moderate income residents in defined areas. It is important that people of all incomes be encouraged to live in all areas. This has a social equity element as well as tax collection implications. The city has more lower income residents as a percentage than do neighboring municipalities. We have older housing and more population in 65 and older age categories. It is important that the city not be limited to only older and dependent populations.

A second social issue to be addressed is urban area wide education. That is not so much an issue here because of the large school district we have.

A third social issue to be addressed is tax base sharing. Communities make land use decisions based upon the perceived tax collection potential. This sometimes skews decisions in a non productive direction. It also is a means to collect for services provided. The daily population of the city is much higher than the 24,000 resident population. These people use city services but do not pay real-estate taxes to support the service. Tax base sharing would be a means to address these inequities.

Portage County has a unique opportunity to make significant changes for our future. The state has awarded the highest grant, $500,000, for our planning program. This program will be unique in the state. We are the only ones having all the municipalities participate in one plan. Each municipality must adopt a plan by 2010 or not enforce any land use regulations. We can adopt a plan that is very simple and doesn’t address any controversial issues and doesn’t make a difference. Or we can adopt a plan that is the product of significant work and really make a difference in the future of this community.

This chapter outlines significant challenges for our planning effort.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

The meeting minutes reproduced on this website are derived from the computer files used to produce the official minutes for the City of Stevens Point, but are unofficial. The minutes on this web site cannot be certified under s. 889.08, Wis. Stats., and cannot be considered prima facie evidence under s. 889.04, Wis. Stats. Certain tables, maps, and other documents that are a part of the official minutes are not included in the files reproduced on this website. Please consult the printed minutes, available in the City Clerk's Office, for the official text. The decisions made by City of Stevens Point boards, committees, and commissions (other than the Police & Fire Commission) are advisory only and are not binding on the city until affirmed at a meeting of the Common Council. Some of the minutes on this web site might not be approved by the Common Council as of today.