PRESENT: Chairman Mayor Wescott; Lois Feldman; Karen Aldinger; Elbert Rackow; Bud Flood; Fred Steffen

(Excused, Jeff Zabel)

ALSO PRESENT: Comm. Dev. Dir. John Gardner; City Clerk Victoria Zdroik; Ald. Sevenich, Seiser, Sowieja, Barr, Molski, Phillips & Moore; Jack Worzalla; Dave/Jacquie Morton; Joe and Jerry Kirschling; Mary Kay Larson; Jim Guzman; Casmier & Eileen Danczyk; Nathy Bailey; Brad DeBot; Don Lambrecht; Reid Rocheleau; Jim Nicewander; Henry & Carole Glodowski; Doug Loomis; Dorothy Danielski; Bill Palmer; Rick Rettler; Joan Lecher; Jim & Elaine Jakusz; Greg Ross; George Rogers; Tim Semmen; Robert & Sharon LaBlanc; Police Capt. Dowling; Ed Von Feldt; Cathy Dugan; Barb Martin, Stevens Point Journal; Gene Kemmeter, Po. Co. Gazette; Matt Mattano, WIZD

Index of these Minutes:

1. Approval of the May 6, 2002 Plan Commission Meeting
2. Conditional Use - Expand SPASH Parking Lot - North Point Dr.
3. Two Buildings on One Lot - Corner of Water & Park Streets
4. Annexation - 3 Lots on Kennedy Dr. and "R-2" Single Family Zoning
5. Variance From Sign Ordinance - 5110 Main Street
6. Extra-Territorial Plat Review - Sec. 10 - Torun Road - Town of Hull
7. Conditional Use - Abby Road Apts. - 640 Second St. N.
8. Variance - Lot Split - 2301 Country Club Drive
9. Conditional Use - Sheet Metal Fabricator - Former Point Sporting Goods - 2925 Welsby Ave.
10. Rezoning - North Side of Patch St. Between Church St./Michigan Ave. From "M-2" Heavy Industrial To "R-5" Multiple Family II
11. Review of Conditional Use to Operate Taverns at:

2600 Stanley St. - Partner's Pub
3726 North Point Dr. - Route 66
1009 Clark St. - Clark Place
916 Maria Dr. - Deuces Wild

12. Downtown Plan Adoption

1. APPROVAL OF THE MAY 6, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION MEETING

John Gardner noted Jeff Schuler is unable to be here today but had a few editorial comments with respect to the Comprehensive Plan that will be included in the minutes.

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Bud Flood, to recommend approval of the minutes of the May 6, 2002 meeting and to include the comments from Portage County Senior Planner Jeff Schuler. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

2. CONDITIONAL USE - EXPAND SPASH PARKING LOT - NORTH POINT DR

Rick Rettler, Rettler Corporation, presented a site plan of the project. He reviewed the property now owned by the school district, and indicated the properties with which the district is in the process of negotiations. The new driver's license rules for those under 19 years of age allow only one other individual, other than family, to be in the car which does not allow for car pooling and causes more parking demand. Prentice Street is parked full on both sides between Schofield and Maria Dr., and Schofield also has parking on both sides. There is paid parking for juniors and seniors, but no adequate parking for sophomores. Currently, there are 588 student parking spaces and the proposed plan will increase that parking to 855 spaces. Our goals are to separate bus traffic, provide a parent drop-off loop separate from the bus drop-off, provide handicap spaces directly adjacent to the front of the building, and provide a student parking lot and eliminate the berm and stairs. The proposed ingress/egress points for the student parking would be from Second Street only and remove the access from North Point Drive. The request today is to increase the number of parking stalls and construct the parking lot to the north and south along Second Street.

Ed Von Feldt, SPASH Principal, noted DOT did a count study and found that SPASH is the busiest vehicular site in central Wisconsin, second to the Marshfield Clinic. We have had a number of complaints from Johns Dr. and west because of the street parking in that area. We hope to take parking out of the neighborhoods and hope you will support this plan.

Mike O'Meara, school board member, noted we have more children driving to school because if they have an after school activity, there is no bus or public transportation to get them home. Secondly, we want to separate the bus traffic from vehicular movement.

Chairman Wescott noted there is quite a line after school to exit onto North Point Dr.

Capt. Dowling, City Police Dept., noted their concern is the single ingress/egress point on Second St. We prefer some student access onto North Point Dr. We are concerned with lengthy stacking in the lot and drivers being over-anxious trying to get out into traffic. If vehicles are going to be stacked for long periods of time, it may be more convenient for a kid to park on Prentice St. Will this big increase do what it is intended to do and alleviate the parking in the neighborhood. We appreciate what the school is trying to do to alleviate the neighborhood parking, but if you make it too inconvenient, they won't park in the lot. We are concerned with forcing traffic through residential neighborhoods.

Rick Rettler noted currently on North Point Drive, there is a student access point, a parent drop-off point, and a bus drop-off point and they are all happening together. There is a major conflict when the buses are trying to get out and the parents are trying to get in.

Mike O'Meara noted with the proposal of all student ingress/egress onto Second Street, there will be just one traffic contact point instead of multiple contact points.

John Gardner noted he has concerns with the proposed student parking stalls surrounding the existing home in the southwest corner of the plan. He understands it is the long-term desire on the part of the school district to acquire that property, but until that is done, he has concerns with the impact of the parking on the home. He suggests taking the design in pieces and look at the main lot (746 spaces). We don't have any problems with the proposal for the main lot other than the North Point Dr. access issue. Our recommendation is to maintain access onto North Point Dr. We are concerned with off-site impacts to the neighborhoods.

Bill Palmer, representing the school district, stated the owner of 333 Second St. North has a short-term desire to sell. Impact of parking should not be an issue.

Chairman Wescott noted if the commission were to divide the proposal into two phases, how many additional parking spaces would there be for the phase that is everything east of those two alternate student parking stalls?

Rick Rettler responded there would be approximately 150 additional spaces.

Fred Steffen questioned why don't we extend Schofield Avenue, add two access points, leave North Point Dr. for buses and parent drop-off, and alleviate student parking on the east and west sides.

Elbert Rackow expressed concern with a single access point on Second Street. Extending Schofield might spread the traffic out.

Chairman Wescott questioned what has the Board of Education has authorized?

Bill Palmer responded their plan is for one project, not phases. We have over 350 students on a waiting list for parking and we want to accommodate them if we can. The reason we have alternate projects planned, is we are going to bid it as an alternate bid.

Chairman Wescott noted the voters authorized monies to refurbish and do some of what you are talking about to the existing lot, has the Board authorized these alternatives?

Bill Palmer responded the Board asked them, as professionals, to go up to SPASH and deal with the issues of student parking, drop off points etc.

Chairman Wescott noted as he looks at your finance committee agenda for tonight, the school has a public hearing on the SPASH parking and then a review and approval of the project and revising the bids. Have they approved this? We seem to be out of sequence here. Wouldn't the Board of Education decide what it wants to do and then come to the Plan Commission. He is supportive of what the voters have supported, which is the existing lot. He is supportive of having Mr. O'meara, Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Rettler take a look at the alternative of extending Schofield Ave. He is not comfortable with approving a plan that the Board of Education has not acted on yet.

Ald. Seiser thanked everyone that is working on the parking problem. A big issue is the neighborhood parking. We cannot demolish more of our neighborhoods for parking. She does not want to approve the alternate parking areas. She is in favor of reworking the big parking lot. Students should not be driving from Plover and the edges of our district, we need a second high school back on the table. She wants more kids to take the bus.

Ald. Sowieja stated he concurs with the Mayor, he is uncomfortable with approving a plan that has not been approved by the Board of Education.

John Gardner stated there is a requirement that when you redo a large parking lot, you should have islands in it. The Council can waive the island requirement in favor of extra perimeter screening such as with Lot Q at the University. There is a need for perimeter screening. The required setback is 25'.

Chairman Wescott summarized that through the last referendum, the voters have authorized approximately $660,000 to refurbish and expand the existing parking lot. If we can resolve the access issue either off of North Point Dr. or by exploring extending Schofield Ave., he is supportive of moving ahead with that phase of the proposal. He is really uncomfortable taking any action before the finance committee or the Board of Education has made a decision. We know money is tight and if the school board makes a decision that it wishes to proceed with the acquisition, that is an issue that we will deal with in the future. In fairness, the voters did overwhelmingly support one high school and we have to be sensitive to the voters.

Chairman Wescott moved, seconded by Fred Steffen, to approve refurbishing and expanding the two faculty lots, new driveway openings on North Point and separation of the faculty lot and the bus drop-off area, the existing student parking lot (east of and excluding the proposed alternate student parking), and encourage Mr. Rettler to work with city staff on the entrance/exit to North Point Dr. or explore extending Schofield Ave.
Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

Chairman Wescott stated we are not rejecting phase 2 of the proposal. We are simply
saying the Board of Education has to make decisions regarding expansion on Second St. and acquisition of property for a parking lot, then he encourages them to forward them on to the Plan Commission.

3. TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT - CORNER OF WATER & PARK STREETS

John Gardner stated the proposal is to construct a second building on one lot. The proposed building meets setback and parking standards. The drainage will need to be worked out. The parking now goes to the north line along Water St. He suggests that because this commercial property abuts a residential property, that they remove 10' of blacktop, which would not result in any loss of parking, and then parking would line up with the building and allow for extra landscaping. He further suggests that two of the three driveways (northerly and southerly) be closed that face Water St. when Water Street is reconstructed. The land on the southwest corner of Prairie/Parks Streets is still gravel and needs to be paved or top soiled and seeded.

Bud Flood questioned the height of the proposed building.

Jim Guzman, representing Mr. Opiola, responded the building would be 12'-17' in height. He disagrees with the 10' of screening. There is a 6' high cyclone fence and 6'-12' cedar trees along there. City requirements are only 5' of screening and he proposes 5' of setback. They propose to start towards the end of June and complete the project in September.

Bud Flood noted with regard to the 10' of screening to line up with the building, it appears from the photographs supplied by Mr. Guzman that the cedars are doing an adequate job. The 5' seems adequate. The problem seems to be along the building where you run out of screening.

Reid Rocheleau, neighboring property owner to the north, noted at first glance it seems like this might be a good deal however, history has shown there have been a lot of problems with this property. He put the cedar trees in at his own expense. The fence gets knocked over and doesn't get repaired. He has not cleaned up the property good since the fire. Mr. Opiola doesn't even come around the property anymore to monitor it. He starts things and doesn't finish them. How do we know he is even going to do it, they need a time limit for beginning construction of the building.

Jim Guzman responded he has a signed contract with Mr. Opiola.

Ald. Phillips expressed concern with the existing dumpsters and suggested they be moved to the southwest corner of the building.

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Karen Aldinger, to recommend approval of the request for two buildings on one lot at the corner of Water and Park Streets with the following conditions: 1) the parking lot on the Water St. Side of the building include 10 feet of screening between the existing lot and the home to the north, 2) close the southerly and northern-most driveways to Water St. When Water St. is reconstructed, 3) drainage concepts have been reviewed by city engineering - final plans to be reviewed and approved, 4) land on the corner of Prairie and Park shall be top soiled and seeded with turf or a parking lot as approved by the Inspection Department, 5) the dumpster be moved to the southwest corner of the building, and 6) approval to expire on December 31, 2002 unless construction has begun. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

4. ANNEXATION - 3 LOTS ON KENNEDY DR. AND AR-2" SINGLE FAMILY ZONING

John Gardner reviewed the attached memo and stated the owner lives on one lot and proposes to build single family homes on the other two lots with municipal utilities instead of wells. Staff recommends approval.

Doug Loomis, 4033 Kennedy Drive, noted he does not want to be included in this annexation. Is it just these three lots or would you come in the future and include more.

John Gardner noted annexation is controlled by State law, the majority rules. In this case, Mr. Pitsch and his wife have signed only their home and two vacant lots. Only owners can initiate annexation, not the city.

Lois Feldman moved, seconded by Bud Flood, to recommend approval of the annexation of the three lots on Kennedy Drive as proposed with AR-2" Single Family Zoning. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

5. VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - 5110 MAIN STREET

Chairman Wescott reviewed the memo and noted the purpose of the grandfathering clause is to have all signs conform to the ordinance over time. Routinely granting variances would not accomplish this goal.

John Gardner noted the request was initiated by the franchise and not the owner.

Nathy Bailey, manager of the motel, stated they are happy with their present sign.

Bud Flood moved, seconded by Fred Steffen, to deny the request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance at 5110 Main Street. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

6. EXTRATERRITORIAL PLAT REVIEW - SEC. 10 - TORUN ROAD - TOWN OF HULL

John Gardner reviewed his memo and stated we have a request for extraterritorial subdivision review. The requested subdivision will create 8 lots on 16 acres. As a comparison, we approved Hunter Oaks Subdivision in the City which was half the amount of land but contained 3 times the number of living units. This is a waste of land. City utilities are only 2 mile from the site. The proposed large lots will make extension of utilities economically impractical.

He suggests tabling this and work with the officials of the city, county, and town and the owners to redesign the subdivision to 1) possibly cluster the lots on a smaller area of the land and keep the balance of it open until such time as sewer and water gets there, or 2) divide the land up and locate the houses on the lot in such a way that the land can be re-subdivided in the future.

Elaine Jakusz questioned whether there is a date for the extension of sewer and water?

Chairman Wescott noted that is the intent of tabling this to encourage working with officials on this to provide these answers.

George Rogers adjoining property owner reviewed the history, and expressed concern with the high water table in this area and the experience of surface flooding to the north.

Fred Steffen moved, seconded by Lois Feldman, to table this request to allow meetings between the county, city, and town officials with the property owners.
Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

7. CONDITIONAL USE - ABBY ROAD APTS. - 640 SECOND ST. N. - No action. Item was tabled to resolve drainage easement question.

8. VARIANCE - LOT SPLIT - 2301 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE

John Gardner stated the owner wants to split the lot into saleable lots or as a condominium plat. Lot splits would require Council approval because the interior lots do not front on a public street. He recommends approval in concept. There will be changes when the final plan comes back.

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Bud Flood, to recommend approval of the lot split in concept with the final plans to come back. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

9. CONDITIONAL USE - SHEET METAL FABRICATOR - FORMER POINT SPORTING GOODS - 2925 WELSBY AVE.

John Gardner stated the owner proposes to lease the southern portion of the building to a firm that produces sheet metal duct work at the site. All work will be indoors and will be in the portion of the building away from the residents. The proposed use is a conditional use in industrial zoning. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request until December 31, 2004, with the condition that no outdoor storage be allowed.

Ald. Barr questioned whether this would preclude metal stamping?

John Gardner responded this use should not lead to metal stamping.

Fred Steffen moved, seconded by Elbert Rackow, to recommend approval of the conditional use request for a sheet metal fabricator business at 2925 Welsby Ave. until December 31, 2004. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

10. REZONING - NORTH SIDE OF PATCH ST. BETWEEN CHURCH ST/MICHIGAN AVE. FROM AM-2" HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TO AR-5" MULTIPLE FAMILY II

Chairman Wescott noted the owners of 2188, 2208, and 2216 Patch Street have petitioned the city to rezone their property from industrial zoning to residential rezoning. The purpose of the request is to make their homes conforming uses. The following homeowners join that petition: 2180, 2172, and 2108 Patch Street. There are a number of owners that are not in favor of the change.

John Gardner reviewed the attached memo. He noted another owner on Patch St. petitioned for rezoning because they could not finance their home in its nonconforming status.. Now we have additional owners that want to keep there homes residential. Not all of the property owners agree with this. He met with many of the owners and discussed the pros and cons of the rezoning. Industrial zoning requires a 40' sideyard setback. For a 50' or 100' lot, it is not practical to redevelop the property with a 40' setback. Commercial or residential property has smaller setbacks and makes redevelopment more practical. Property owners are concerned that a downzoning may decrease their property value or their current commercial use will become nonconforming. Commissioners have 3 options: 1) rezone only those properties that request it, 2) rezone all properties to AR-5" Multiple Family II, 3) do nothing, and 4) rezone all properties to AB-1" Neighborhood Business Zone.

Fred Steffen noted he doesn't have any problem with this, except if the concrete company wants to expand their land, and they buy the immediately-contiguous property, will they have the right to rezone?

John Gardner responded if we rezone the contiguous property, the concrete company would have to request upzoning.

Jacquie Morton, petitioner from 2216 Patch St., noted they originally petitioned for AR-5" zoning. In talking with others, AB-1" would also work and is favored by those wanting rezoning. There are now a total of seven property owners that would like the rezoning. We would have no problem if Mr. LaBlanc, next door to us, sold his property to County Concrete.

Robert LaBlanc, owner of 2240 Patch St., noted they bought their property for the zoning because it fit their needs. He has a retail outdoor power equipment business and would be against rezoning unless it would permit his use.

Ald. Sowieja noted he is concerned that there are several property owners that are against the rezoning. He would support rezoning those who requested their property and leave the other properties alone. He prefers AB-1" Neighborhood Business.

John Gardner stated if we rezoned only those that have petitioned for rezoning, the homes would not be protected from the incompatible uses allowed in M-2..

Fred Steffen felt we should not be spot zoning. It should all be uniform or leave it alone.

Joan Lecher, 2148 Patch St., stated she talked with Mr. Beckland gave me a letter indicating he is against any change in zoning.

Bud Flood questioned why the Duranso property is not included in the rezoning.

John Gardner responded Duranso is an industrial use and because it is contiguous to the railroad he would not include it.

Mary Kay Larson, owner of property at 2124 and 2132-344 Patch St., stated if the whole block was one thing, she would favor AB-1".

Mark Tummett, representing County Concrete, stated they are no longer manufacturing concrete block at this location, but that is not to say that at some point in the future that technology would change.

Chairman Wescott feels the neighbors need more time to work on this.

Fred Steffen moved, seconded by Elbert Rackow, to table the request to rezone the north side of Patch St. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

11. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE TO OPERATE TAVERNS AT:

2600 Stanley St. - Partner's Pub
3726 North Point Dr. - Route 66
1009 Clark St. - Clark Place
916 Maria Dr. - Deuces Wild

John Gardner noted they have had no problems, the liquor licenses have been renewed, and staff recommends approval.

Fred Steffen moved, seconded by Bud Flood, to recommend approval of the conditional use request to operate taverns at 2600 Stanley St., 3726 North Point Dr., 1009 Clark St., and 916 Maria Dr. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

12. DOWNTOWN PLAN ADOPTION

Jack Worzalla, representing Gady Worzalla of 1416 Main St., reviewed previous studies and reports done on the changes that have taken place downtown over time, especially with the cul-de-sac. He stated Gady Worzalla opposes the opening up of the cul-de-sac at the east end of Main St. If the city allows the cul-de-sac to be opened, she will ask the Historical Society do another report to see what is happening and it will cost the city money.

Dr. Robert Jean, 1501 Main St., stated he would like to see the diagram of what is proposed for the cul-de-sac.

Ald. Seiser stated she liked the Plan overall. She appreciates that the recommendations not included by the task force were left in. She requested a copy of the original document. She feels the former Wisconsin Public Service site is primary riverfront property and it should not be used for parking. The consultants have recommended 2 parking garages and the task force has indicated following through, at this time, with the one closer to the county-city building. She encouraged getting that started. She noted the development previously discussed for the former Lullabye site does not seem to meet the criteria indicated in the Plan. She preferred keeping the roads as part of the grid which would be good for walking, biking, and slowing cars down.

Elbert Rackow moved, seconded by Lois Feldman, to accept the Downtown Plan and place it on file. Ayes all; Nays none; Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 6:30 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.