plan commission meeting monday, august 14, 2017 at 4:30 p

PLAN COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 14, 2017 at 4:30 p.m. Council Chambers in the Municipal Building AGENDA:

1) 420/421 E. Horseshoe Road – Driveway Variance 2) Hunter Oaks Subdivision – Bielinski Homes, Inc. – GDP‐Initial Review & Set Public Hearing Date 3) City of Watertown Code Section 550‐90 Initial Review of Zoning Amendment 4) 111 S. Water Street – City of Watertown – Preliminary CSM 5) Lot 2 on Endres Lane – City of Watertown – Preliminary CSM 6) Site Plan Review Minutes – July 24, 2017 7) Plan Commission Minutes – July 24, 2017

420/421 East Horseshoe Road – Driveway Variance

Background: Clasen Quality Chocolate is developing a 270,000 square feet addition to their current facilities located at 420/421 East Horseshoe Road. As part of the expansion, there will be18 loading docks and 56 additional trailer stalls, as well as expanded employee parking. To accommodate the turning radius of the increased traffic, Clasen Quality Chocolate would like to have driveway access widths of 40 feet. Issues: The following issue was identified by the Zoning Administrator:

Section 550-105J states: Width of Driveways. All access drives shall have a minimum width of 10 feet for one- and two-family dwellings, and 18 feet for all other land uses. All curb openings for access drives shall have a maximum width of 25 feet for all residential uses, and 35 feet for all non-residential uses, as measured at the right-of-way line. Access drives may be flared between the right-of-way line and the roadway up to a maximum of 5 additional feet.

Options: These are the following options, but not limited to, for the Plan Commission based on the information received by the City of Watertown Zoning Administrator:

1. Denial of the Driveway Access Width Variance 2. Approval of the Driveway Access Width Variance without conditions 3. Approval of the Driveway Access Width Variance with conditions, as identified

by the Plan Commission

Hunter Oaks Subdivision – Bielinski Homes, Inc. – PUD-GDP

Background: Bielinski Homes is looking to build 8 – 12-unit multi-family residential buildings located in the Hunter Oaks Development. The proposed units are to be developed in areas: “A”; “Ca” and; B of the original Bielinski Homes’ Hunter Oaks Subdivision General Development Plan. The properties are currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), however, these three areas have no current General Development Plan. In June of 2017, Bielinski Homes appeared before the Plan Commission as part of PUD Step 2: Concept Plan. That step is non-committal for both parties. Bielinski Homes is moving forward on to PUD Step 3: General Development Plan. Issues: The following issue was identified by the Zoning Administrator:

1. PUD Process Step 3: General development plan (GDP), per Section 550-152G: G. PUD Process Step 3: General development plan (GDP).

(1) The applicant shall provide the Zoning Administrator with a draft GDP plan submittal packet for a determination of completeness prior to placing the proposed GDP on the Plan Commission agenda for GDP review. This submittal packet shall contain all of the following items prior to its acceptance by the Zoning Administrator and placement of the item on a Plan Commission agenda for GDP review:

(a) A location map of the subject property and its vicinity at 11 inches by 17 inches, as depicted on a copy of the City of Watertown Land Use Plan Map.

(b) A map of the subject property, showing all lands for which the planned infill development is proposed and all other lands within 200 feet of the boundaries of the subject property, together with the names and addresses of the owners of all lands on said map as the same appear on the current records of the Register of Deeds of Dodge and/or Jefferson County (as provided by the City of Watertown). Said map shall clearly indicate the current zoning of the subject property and its environs and the jurisdiction(s) which maintains that control. Said map and all its parts and attachments shall be submitted in a form which is clearly reproducible with a photocopier and shall be at a scale which is not less than one inch equals 800 feet. All lot dimensions of the subject property, a graphic scale, and a North arrow shall be provided.

(c) A general written description of proposed PUD, including:

[1] General project themes and images. [2] The general mix of dwelling unit types and/or land uses. [3] Approximate residential densities and nonresidential intensities as described by dwelling units per acre, floor area ratio and impervious surface area ratio. [4] The general treatment of natural features. [5] The general relationship to nearby properties and public streets. [6] The general relationship of the project to the Comprehensive Plan. [7] A statement of rationale as to why PUD zoning is proposed. This shall identify barriers that the applicant perceives in the form of requirements of

standard zoning districts and opportunities for community betterment that the applicant suggests are available through the proposed PUD zoning. [8] A complete list of zoning standards which will not be met by the proposed PUD and the location(s) in which they apply and a complete list of zoning standards which will be more than met by the proposed PUD and the location(s) in which they apply shall be identified. Essentially, the purpose of this listing shall be to provide the Plan Commission with information necessary to determine the relative merits of the project in regard to private benefit versus public benefit and in regard to the mitigation of potential adverse impacts created by design flexibility. [9] A written description of potentially requested exemptions from the requirements of the underlying zoning district, in the following order:

[a] Land use exemptions. [b] Density and intensity exemptions. [c] Bulk exemptions. [d] Landscaping exceptions. [e] Parking and loading requirements exceptions.

(d) A general development plan drawing at a minimum scale of one inch equals 100 feet (reduction of 11 inches by 17 inches) of the proposed project shall also be provided by the applicant), showing at least the following information in sufficient detail to make an evaluation against criteria for approval:

[1] A conceptual plan drawing (at 11 inches by 17 inches) of the general land use layout and the general location of major public streets and/or private drives. The applicant may submit copies of a larger version of the "bubble plan" in addition to the reduction of 11 inches by 17 inches; [2] Location of recreational and open space areas and facilities, and specifically describing those that are to be reserved or dedicated for public acquisition and use; [3] Statistical data on minimum lot sizes in the development, the approximate areas of large development lots and pads, density/intensity of various parts of the development, floor area ratio, impervious surface area ratio and landscape surface area ratio of various land uses, expected staging, and any other plans required by the Plan Commission or Common Council; and [4] Notations relating the written information provided in Subsection G(1)(c)[1] to [6] above to specific areas on the GDP drawing.

(e) A general conceptual landscaping plan for subject property, noting approximate locations of foundation, street, yard and paving, landscaping and the compliance of development with all landscaping requirements of this chapter (except as noted in the listing of exceptions), and the use of extra landscaping and bufferyards.

(f) A general signage plan for the project, including all project identification signs and concepts for public fixtures and signs (such as streetlight fixtures and/or poles or street sign faces and/or poles) which are proposed to vary from City standards or common practices.

(g) Written justification for the proposed planned unit development. (The applicant is advised to use the requirements of the Zoning Map amendment procedure to develop said written justification.)

(h) Written demonstration of financial capability to complete all public and private improvements associated with the proposed PUD.

(2) The process and fees for review and approval of the GDP shall be identical to that for Zoning Map amendments per this chapter and (if land is to be divided) to that for preliminary and final plats of subdivision per the City Code.

(3) All portions of an approved PUD/GDP not fully developed within three years of final Common Council approval shall expire, and no additional PUD-based development shall be permitted. The Common Council may extend this three-year period by up to five additional years via a majority vote following a public hearing.

2. Per 550-152G(2), Step 3 must follow the review process outlined in 550-141 Amendment of Official Zoning Map. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide regulations which govern the procedure and requirements for the review and approval, or denial, of proposed amendments to provisions of the Official Zoning Map (see § 550-18). Refer to the requirements of § 62.23(7)(d), Wis. Stats. B. Initiation of request for amendment to Official Zoning Map. Proceedings for amendment of the Official Zoning Map may be initiated by any one of the following three methods:

(1) An application of the owner(s) of the subject property, lease holders, or contract purchasers;

(2) A recommendation of the Plan Commission; or

(3) By action of the Common Council.

C. Application requirements. All applications for proposed amendments to the Official Zoning Map, regardless of the party of their initiation per Subsection B above, shall be filed in the office of the Zoning Administrator and shall be certified as complete by the Zoning Administrator. No placement of the application on any agenda, as an item to be acted upon, shall occur unless said certification has occurred. The item may be placed on any agenda as a discussion-only item, with the permission of the Zoning Administrator, without an application. Upon certification, the official notice regarding the application will be sent to the newspaper by the Zoning Administrator. Said complete application shall be comprised of all of the following:

(1) The City shall prepare a map of the subject property, showing all lands for which the zoning is proposed to be amended and all other lands within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property, together with the names and addresses of the owners of all lands on said map as they appear on the current assessment records of the City of Watertown. Said map shall clearly indicate the current zoning of the subject property and its environs and the jurisdiction(s) which maintains that control. Said map and all its parts and attachments shall be submitted in a form which is clearly reproducible with a photocopier and shall be at a scale not less than one inch equals 800 feet. All lot dimensions of the subject property, a graphic scale, and a North arrow shall be provided;

(2) The City shall supply a map, such as the Land Use Plan Map, of the generalized location of the subject property in relation to the City as a whole; and

(3) As an optional requirement, the applicant may wish to provide justification for the proposed map amendment, consisting of the reasons why the applicant believes the proposed map amendment is in harmony with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly as evidenced by compliance with the standards set out in Subsection D(3)(a) through (c) below.

D. Review by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator as follows:

(1) The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether the application is complete and fulfills the requirements of this chapter. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the application is not complete or does not fulfill the requirements of this chapter, he shall return the application to the applicant. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the application is complete, he shall so notify the applicant.

(2) Upon notifying the applicant that his application is complete, the Zoning Administrator shall review the application and evaluate and comment on the written justification for the proposed map amendment provided in the application, per Subsection C(3) above.

(3) The Zoning Administrator may also evaluate the application to determine whether the proposed Zoning Map amendment is in harmony with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly as evidenced by compliance with the standards of Subsection D(3)(a) through (c) below:

(a) The proposed Official Zoning Map amendment furthers the purposes of this chapter as outlined in § 550-5 and the applicable rules and regulations of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (b) The following factors have arisen that are not properly addressed on the current Official Zoning Map:

[1] The designations of the Official Zoning Map should be brought into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. [2] A mistake was made in mapping on the Official Zoning Map. (That is, an area is developing in a manner and purpose different from that for which it is mapped.) Note: If this reason is cited, it must be demonstrated that the discussed inconsistency between actual land use and designated zoning is not intended, as the City may intend to stop an undesirable land use pattern from spreading. [3] Factors have changed (such as the availability of new data, the presence of new roads or other infrastructure, additional development, annexation or other zoning changes) making the subject property more appropriate for a different zoning district. [4] Growth patterns or rates have changed, thereby creating the need for an amendment to the Official Zoning Map.

(c) The proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map maintains the desired consistency of land uses, land use intensities, and land use impacts as related to the environs of the subject property.

(4) The Zoning Administrator shall forward the report per Subsection D(2) and, if it has been prepared, the report per Subsection D(3) to the Plan Commission for the Commission's review and use in the making its recommendation to the Common Council. If the Zoning Administrator determines that the proposal may be in conflict with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Administrator shall note this determination in the report.

E. Initial review by the Plan Commission and scheduling of Common Council public hearing. The Common Council shall not make an amendment to the Official Zoning Map without allowing for a recommendation from the Plan Commission per the provisions of this subsection.

(1) The Plan Commission shall schedule a reasonable time and place for a public meeting to hear the application within 45 days of the acceptance and determination of the complete application as determined by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant may appear in person, by agent and/or by attorney.

(2) Within 60 days after the public meeting (or within an extension of said period requested in writing by the applicant and granted by the Plan Commission), the Plan Commission shall schedule a public hearing before the Common Council.

F. Common Council public hearing and referral to Plan Commission. The Common Council shall hold a public hearing on the requested Zoning Map amendment and refer the matter and public hearing minutes to the Plan Commission for its recommendations to the Common Council. The applicant may appear before the Common Council in person, by agent, and/or by attorney. Notice of the proposed amendment and the public hearing shall conform to the requirements of § 62.23(7)(d), Wis. Stats. Said notice shall contain a description of the subject property and the proposed change in zoning. In addition, at least 10 days before said public hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall mail an identical notice to the applicant, to all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property as identified in Subsection C(1) above, and to the clerk of any municipality whose boundaries are within 1,000 feet of any portion of the jurisdiction of this chapter. Failure to mail said notice, provided it is unintentional, shall not invalidate proceedings under this section. G. Review and recommendation by the Plan Commission. The Common Council shall not make an amendment to the Official Zoning Map without allowing for a recommendation from the Plan Commission per the provisions of this subsection.

(1) Within 60 days after the public hearing (or within an extension of said period requested in writing by the applicant and granted by the Plan Commission), the Plan Commission shall make a written report to the Common Council stating its findings regarding Subsection D above and its recommendations regarding the application as a whole. Said report shall include a formal finding of facts developed and approved by the Plan Commission concerning the requirements of Subsection D(3)(a) through (c).

(2) If the Plan Commission fails to make a report within 60 days after the filing of said complete application [and in the absence of an applicant-approved extension per Subsection G(1) above], then the Common Council may act on the application within 30 days after the expiration of said sixty-day period. Failure to receive said written report from the Plan Commission per Subsection G(1) above shall not invalidate the proceedings or actions of the Common Council.

(3) If the Plan Commission recommends approval of an application, it shall state in the minutes or in a subsequently issued written decision its conclusion and any finding of facts supporting its conclusion as to the following: that the potential public benefits of the proposed amendment outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the proposed amendment, as identified in Subsection D(3)(a) through (c) above, after taking into consideration the proposal by the applicant.

H. Review and action by the Common Council. The Common Council shall consider the Plan Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map. The Council shall hold two readings of the ordinance unless the Council votes to waive this requirement. The Council may request further information and/or additional reports from the Plan Commission, the Zoning Administrator, and/or the applicant. The Council may take final action on the application to amend the Official Zoning Map following the second reading or may continue the proceedings, at the Council's or the applicant's request. The Common Council may approve the amendment as originally proposed, may approve the proposed amendment with modifications (per the recommendations of the Zoning Administrator, the Plan Commission, authorized outside experts, its own members, or public input) or may deny approval of the proposed amendment. If the Common Council wishes to make significant changes in the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map, as recommended by the Plan Commission, then the procedure set forth in § 62.23(7)(d), Wis. Stats., shall be followed prior to Council action. Any action to amend the Official Zoning Map requires a majority vote of the Council. The Common Council's approval of the

requested amendment shall be considered the approval of a unique request and shall not be construed as precedent for any other proposed amendment. I. Effect of denial. No application which has been denied (either wholly or in part) shall be resubmitted for a period of 12 months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of factors found valid by the Zoning Administrator. J. Fee. A fee is required for this procedure. Refer to § 550-157

3. Set the public hearing date before the Common Council on September 5, 2017

4. The Site Plan Review Committee will also review the PUD-GDP, all

recommendations and minutes will be submitted to the Plan Commission for use during the final review.


1. Postpone PUD-GDP public hearing to a later date 2. Set Public Hearing for September 5, 2017 Common Council Meeting

Amend Section 550-90 – Initial Review Background: Currently the City of Watertown uses Wisconsin Statute NR 115.05(b)(1) for navigable streams setbacks. Section 550-90, Drainageway Overlay Zoning District, covers setbacks for non-navigable streams. Currently our code is stricter for non-navigable streams compared to navigable streams in regards to areas with pre-existing development. The Building, Safety & Zoning Department is requesting this proposed amendment to create more uniform standards for all waterways, regardless of navigability type. Issues: The following issue was identified by the Zoning Administrator:

1. Wisconsin Statute NR 115.05(b)(1): `Shoreland setback.' Except where exempt under subd. 1m., a setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of any navigable waters to the nearest part of a building or structure shall be required for all buildings and structures. Where an existing development pattern exists, the shoreland setback for a proposed principal structure may be reduced to the average shoreland setback of the principal structure on each adjacent lot, but the shoreland setback may not be reduced to less than 35 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of any navigable waters.

2. Proposed Ordinance amendment (changes are underlined):

A. Definition. Drainageways are nonnavigable, aboveground watercourses, detention basins and/or

their environs which are identified by the presence of one or more of the following:

(1) All areas within 75 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of a "perennial stream," as

shown on a detailed on-site survey prepared by the applicant [see § 550-145C(8)].

(a) Where an existing development pattern exists, the drainageway for a proposed

development may be reduced to the average drainageway of the principal

structure on each adjacent lot, but the drainageway may not be reduced to

less than 35 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of any “perennial stream.”

(2) All areas within 50 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of an "intermittent stream" or

"open channel drainageway," as shown on a detailed on-site survey prepared by the

applicant [see § 550-145C(8)].

(a) Where an existing development pattern exists, the drainageway for a proposed

development may be reduced to the average drainageway of the principal

structure on each adjacent lot, but the drainageway may not be reduced to

less than 35 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of an "intermittent stream"

or "open channel drainageway."

3. Zoning Code Amendments, per Section 550-140E & 550-140F:

E. Review and recommendation by the Plan Commission. The Common Council shall not make an amendment to this chapter without allowing for a recommendation from the Plan Commission per the provisions of this subsection.

(1) The Plan Commission shall consider the application at a regular or special meeting open to the public, which date shall be deemed the date of filing with the Commission, within a reasonable period after the acceptance and determination of the complete application as determined by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant may appear in person or by agent and/or by attorney.

(2) Within 60 days after the public meeting (or within an extension of said period requested in writing by the applicant and granted by the Plan Commission), the Plan Commission may make a written report to the Common Council and/or shall state in the minutes its findings regarding Subsection D above and its recommendations regarding the application as a whole. Said report and/or minutes may include a formal finding of facts developed and approved by the Plan Commission concerning the requirements of Subsection D(3)(a) through (d) above.

(3) If the Plan Commission fails to make a report within 60 days after the filing of said complete application [and in the absence of an applicant-approved extension per Subsection E(2) above], then the Common Council may proceed per Subsection F below. Failure to receive said written report from the Plan Commission per Subsection E(1) above shall not invalidate the proceedings or actions of the Common Council.

(4) If the Plan Commission recommends approval of an application, it shall state in the minutes or in a subsequently issued written report its conclusion and any finding of facts supporting its conclusion as to the following: that the potential public benefits of the proposed amendment outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the proposed amendment, as identified in Subsection D(3)(a) through (d) above, after taking into consideration the proposal by the applicant.

F. Review and action by the Common Council. The Common Council shall consider the Plan Commission's recommendation regarding the proposed text amendment. The Council may request further information and/or additional reports from the Plan Commission, Zoning Administrator and/or the applicant.

(1) A public hearing before the Common Council will be schedule to consider the application within a reasonable time after receipt of the written recommendation from the Plan Commission. The applicant may appear in person or by agent and/or by attorney. Notice of the proposed amendment and the public hearing shall conform to the requirements of § 62.23(7)(d), Wis. Stats. Said notice shall contain a description of the proposed text change. In addition, at least 10 days before said public hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall mail an identical notice to the applicant and to the clerk of any municipality whose boundaries are within 1,000 feet of any portion of the jurisdiction of this chapter. Failure to mail said notice, provided it is unintentional, shall not invalidate proceedings under this section.

(2) At the next Common Council meeting, the Council may take final action on the application at the time of public hearing or may continue the proceedings, at the Council's or applicant's request. The Common Council may approve the amendment as originally proposed, may approve the proposed amendment with modifications (per the recommendations of the Zoning Administrator, the Plan Commission, authorized outside experts, its own members, or public input), or may deny approval of the proposed amendment. If the Common Council wishes to make significant changes in the proposed text amendment, as recommended by the Plan Commission, then the procedure set forth in § 62.23(7)(d), Wis. Stats., shall be followed prior to Council action.

(3) When the Common Council takes affirmative action on the application, it shall state in the adopting ordinance its conclusion and any finding of facts supporting its conclusion as to the following: that the potential public benefits of the proposed amendment sufficiently

outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the proposed amendment, as identified in Subsection D(3)(a) through (d) above, after taking into consideration the proposal by the applicant and the recommendation of the Plan Commission. Any action to approve or allow the proposed amendment requires a majority vote of the Council. The Common Council's approval of the proposed amendment shall be considered the approval of a unique request and shall not be construed as precedent for any other proposed amendment.


1. Postpone PUD-GDP public hearing to a later date 2. Set Public Hearing for September 5, 2017 Common Council Meeting

111 South Water Street – Preliminary CSM Background: The City of Watertown, as part of the Watertown Riverfront/Downtown Development Initiative, is looking to develop a currently vacant city parking lot located at 111 South Water Street. As part of the development process the City has initiated the creation of a CSM for 111 South Water Street. The highest elevation on 111 South Water Street is 824 feet above mean sea level. Issues: The following issues have been identified by the City of Watertown Zoning Administrator:

1. South Water Street is not identified in the 2009 City of Watertown Comprehensive Plan as having an expanded Right-of-Way, this means that the Right-of-Way should be 66 feet (33 feet from centerline)

a. The Preliminary CSM properly indicates a right-of-way dedication of 66 feet for South Water Street.

2. Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limits development on Lot 1 to 968 feet above mean sea level. The City of Watertown is looking to maintain the proper height restrictions within the Airport Approach Protection Zone under Wisconsin Statute Section 114.136(1)(a) which states:

POWERS OF MUNICIPALITIES. (a) Any county, city, village or town that is the owner of a site for an airport or spaceport which has been approved for such purpose by the appropriate agencies of the state and the federal government may protect the aerial approaches to such site by ordinance regulating, restricting and determining the use, location, height, number of stories and size of buildings and structures and object of natural growth in the vicinity of such site and may divide the territory to be protected into several areas and impose different regulations and restrictions with respect to each area. The provisions of such ordinance shall be effective whether the site and the lands affected by such ordinance are located within or without the limits of such county, city, village or town, and whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence on the effective date of the ordinance. Such regulations, restrictions and determinations are declared to be for the purpose of promoting the public safety, welfare and convenience, and may be adopted, enforced and administrated without the consent of any other governing body. Any ordinance adopted under this section may be amended from time to time in the same manner as is provided for the adoption of the original ordinance in sub. (2). The authority granted in this section shall be independent and exclusive of any other authority granted in the statutes.

a. The CSM should State:

Note: Lot 1 has an Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limit of 968 feet above mean sea level for all building, structures and object of natural growth; whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence.

3. Meander line would comply with Wisconsin Statute NR 115.05(b)(1)


1. Denial of the Preliminary CSM 2. Approval of the Preliminary CSM without conditions 3. Approval of the Preliminary CSM with conditions, as identified by the Plan

Commission: a. Note: Lot 1 has an Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limit of 968

feet above mean sea level for all building, structures and object of natural growth; whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence.

Lot 2 on Endres Lane – Preliminary CSM Background: The City of Watertown’s West Side Industrial Park continues to develop with expansion of industry. To pro-actively accommodate future expansion, the City of Watertown has initiated the creation of a CSM for the eastern most property located in the West Side Industrial Park. The parent lot was a total of 24.287 acres, the preliminary CSM breaks that parent lot into 3 parcels. Lot 1 is 3.776 acres, Lot 2 is 16.186 acres, and Lot 3 is 4.325 acres. Lot 1 and Lot 3 contain stormwater ponds, which are currently owned and maintained by the City of Watertown. Lot 2 is dedicated for industrial development. The highest elevation on Lot 2 is approximately 880 feet above mean sea level. Issues: The following issues have been identified by the City of Watertown Zoning Administrator:

1. Endres Lane is not identified in the 2009 City of Watertown Comprehensive Plan as having an expanded Right-of-Way, this means that the Right-of-Way should be, at minimum, 66 feet (33 feet from centerline)

a. The Preliminary CSM indicates a right-of-way dedication of 70 feet (35 feet from centerline) for Endres Lane. This is right-of-way dedication is sufficient for Endres Lane.

2. Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limits development on Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 to 975 feet above mean sea level. The City of Watertown is looking to maintain the proper height restrictions within the Airport Approach Protection Zone under Wisconsin Statute Section 114.136(1)(a) which states:

POWERS OF MUNICIPALITIES. (a) Any county, city, village or town that is the owner of a site for an airport or spaceport which has been approved for such purpose by the appropriate agencies of the state and the federal government may protect the aerial approaches to such site by ordinance regulating, restricting and determining the use, location, height, number of stories and size of buildings and structures and object of natural growth in the vicinity of such site and may divide the territory to be protected into several areas and impose different regulations and restrictions with respect to each area. The provisions of such ordinance shall be effective whether the site and the lands affected by such ordinance are located within or without the limits of such county, city, village or town, and whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence on the effective date of the ordinance. Such regulations, restrictions and determinations are declared to be for the purpose of promoting the public safety, welfare and convenience, and may be adopted, enforced and administrated without the consent of any other governing body. Any ordinance adopted under this section may be amended from time to time in the same manner as is provided for the adoption of the original ordinance in sub. (2). The authority granted in this section shall be independent and exclusive of any other authority granted in the statutes.

b. The CSM should State:

Note: Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 have an Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limit of 975 feet above mean sea level for all building, structures and object of natural growth; whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence.


1. Denial of the Preliminary CSM 2. Approval of the Preliminary CSM without conditions 3. Approval of the Preliminary CSM with conditions, as identified by the Plan

Commission: a. Note: Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3 have an Airport Approach Protection Zone

elevation limit of 975 feet above mean sea level for all building, structures and object of natural growth; whether or not such buildings, structures and object of natural growth are in existence.

SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE July 24, 2017

The Site Plan Review Committee met on the above date at 1:30 P.M. in Room 2044 of the Municipal Building. The following members were present: Jacob Maas, Tim Gordon, Doug Zwieg, Eric Diels, Mayor John David, Robert Schwerer, Kevin Freber, and Curt Kleppin. Also in attendance were Secretary Nikki Zimmerman, Jason Schmid of CQC, Dan Shea of Maas Brothers, Mitchell Baker of Graef, Bryant Stempski of Graef, James Lisak of Graef, Ken Keeley of Graef and Jake Batterman of Watertown Daily Times. Chairperson Jacob Maas called the meeting to order. 1. 420/421 E. Horseshoe Road – Clasen Quality Chocolates – Industrial Expansion Project Clasen Quality Chocolates is proposing an estimated 270,000 square foot addition for warehouse and trucking use to the

existing 230,000 square foot facility. Items involved with this project include:

A) About 18 loading docks B) Additional concrete and asphalt C) About 56 additional trailer stalls D) Additional drives for material transports E) New driveway approaches which Clasen is requesting 40’ widths vs. the 35’ width allowed by code F) Existing employee parking and visitor lot to be significantly increased G) The elevation of the new addition will match the existing 877 ½’ elevation of the existing buildings H) Clasen representatives will work with the City for erosion control permits I) Utility work will consist mainly of storm water J) The new plumbing will be in the southwest corner where the 6” lateral will tie into the current sanitary lateral K) There will not be any new water services L) A gravel pass will match the existing for emergency vehicle access M) Knox Boxes will be installed at fire access lane gates N) Fire hydrant relocations are being worked on and will utilize existing water services O) The new structure will be fully sprinkled P) Existing drainage will not be altered Q) Crosswalks and additional sidewalk will be installed with the new parking lot addition for employee and visitor

access R) A 4’ berm will be installed at the west leg of Horseshoe Rd. on the north and west sides of lot S) The existing berm will be widened to allow for new tree plantings.

The Engineering Department stated that Ruekert Mielke was reviewing the storm water plans and the charges for this service will be billed back to the applicant. Zoning Administrator Jacob Maas stated the landscape plan looked good as did the photometric plan. It was clarified that the only lights on the south side of the building would be at the entrance/exit doors. Building Inspector Doug Zwieg stated that the building plans will have to be reviewed at the State and then submitted to the City with the building permit. It was clarified that there is not currently any planned added signage.

The Fire Department confirmed with the applicant that the new sprinkler system will be tied into the existing system. They will also require a 20’ wide access road instead of the proposed 16’ wide road. The gravel on the access road must be able to handle the weight and load of the ladder truck and snow removal must be completed down to the gravel at each snowfall. Also, the Fire Department will have to verify with Clasen once the building is completed that the City radios will still function. If not, Clasen may have to incorporate a radio repeater with this project.

Motion was made and seconded to recommend approval inclusive of the items discussed and stated above and the condition that the applicant must obtain a variance from the Plan Commission for the driveways they are proposing. Unanimously passed.

2. Site Plan Review Minutes – July 10, 2017

Motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.

There being no further business to come before this committee, motion was made and seconded to adjourn. So ordered.

Respectfully submitted,

Nikki Zimmerman, Secretary

NOTE: These minutes are uncorrected and any corrections made thereto will be noted in the proceedings at which these minutes are approved.

REG vviN , FILED

I/Plan Commission Minutes--July 10, 2017

The Plan Commission met on the above date at 4:30 p. m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall withthe following members present: Mayor John David, Alderman Fred Smith, Sherry Cira, and RickTortomasi. Also in attendance were City Engineer Jaynellen Holloway, and Zoning AdministratorJacob Maas.

1. Preliminary CSM Review for High Road: Loeb and Company, LLC would like to create a 1- acreparcel from a 31. 63-acre parent parcel. The new parcel will be zoned A-3, which allows for a

residential building. A motion was made by Mayor David, seconded by Jaynellen Holloway, toapprove the Preliminary CSM conditioned on an Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limitof 968 feet above mean sea level. The motion passed unanimously.

2. Preliminary CSM Review for N8471 Witte Lane: Dopke, LLC would like to create a 3- acreparcel from a larger parent parcel. The new parcel will be zoned A-3, which allows for a residential

building. A motion was made by Sherry Cira, seconded by Rick Tortomasi, to approve thePreliminary CSM conditioned on an Airport Approach Protection Zone elevation limit of 968 feetabove mean sea level. The motion passed unanimously.

3. Approve Site Plan Review Minutes of June 22, 2017: A motion was made by Mayor David,

seconded by Sherry Cira, to approve these minutes and the motion was approved unanimously.

4. Approve Plan Commission Minutes of June 26, 2017: A motion was made by Sherry Cira,

seconded by Jaynellen Holloway, to approve these minutes and the motion was approvedunanimously.

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned atapproximately 4:42 p. m.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred Smith

Alderman

plan commission meeting monday, august 14, 2017 at 4:30 p

Documents