Mayor Lois called the Plan Commission meeting to order this Tuesday evening at 6:30 p.m. followed by roll call: Commissioners Bob Schulte, John Thate, Bill Milatz,

John Lynch Jr. and Bob Henney. Commissioner Tom Vos was excused. Also present were City Administrator David Torgler, Building Inspector Patrick Scherrer and Patrick Meehan of Meehan & Company, Inc.

Commissioner Thate moved and Commissioner Lynch seconded to approve the minutes of December 12, 2006. All were in favor and the motion carried.

Citizen Comments – None.

None.

Mayor Lois opened this issue for discussion reminding the Commission of the façade concerns that have been addressed since the last Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Mark Lake, MRED, was present at the meeting to go over the façade revisions.

Mr. Lake informed the Commission that the east elevation (facing the river) now has some added windows as well as the entire landscape plan will be improved. He noted that the façade now has more windows and more architectural enhancements.

Administrator Torgler passed out photos of the Delevan ALDI’s which has a better architectural façade with medallions. Mr. Lake stated that if the Commission would prefer that look it would not be a problem to switch out the bricks. Administrator Torgler questioned where the dumpster would be located and how would it be screened. Mr. Lake informed the Commission that the dumpster would be located below grade level by the loading dock on the south side of the building. He also noted that the tree line, indicated on the landscape plan, would screen the dumpster from view. Administrator Torgler questioned the type of trees that would be planted on the site. Mr. Lake stated that he was working with SEWRPC to determine what type of trees could be put in while still working to meet the City’s high canopy tree requirements.

Commission Lynch questioned how many deliveries would come in to this building daily. Mr. Lake stated that deliveries would be a few times a week. Mr. Lynch also questioned if a fence could be put in to screen the loading area. Mayor Lois suggested possibly installing a retaining wall. Mr. Lake stated that he would have no problem putting in a retaining wall. Mr. Meehan stated that he also agreed with the idea of a retaining wall over a fence as he felt that a fence would eventually collapse.

A discussion ensued regarding whether or not a proposed panel sign could be mounted in the general development monument sign, at the entryway of Buckley Street and Milwaukee Avenue, since the sign code does not permit off-premises signs anywhere within the city. Administrator Torgler stated that he would confirm with the City Attorney as to whether or not the Plan Commission and/or the City Council could permit this deviation from the sign code as part of the PUD approval. If they are able to deviate, then the panel sign would be allowed, and if they could not then the panel sign would not be allowed.

Administrator Torgler also informed the Commission that the City Attorney suggested that Buckley Street is not required to be extended to the property limits and there would be a t-turnaround with out curb and gutter on the property.

Commissioner Lynch moved and Commissioner Schulte seconded to approve a revised Site Plan application and to recommend approval of a Certified Survey Map (CSM) to the Common Council from ALDI Inc., for lands lying west of Buckley Street, north of Lynch Way and south of Milwaukee Avenue (Hwy. 36/83) to allow for the construction of an ALDI’s grocery store, subject to the City Attorney’s recommendation that Buckley Street will not be required to be extended to the property limits at this time. A future extension is covered in the revised developer’s agreement which will be recorded; as well as the conditions as stated in both Kapur and Associates January 5, 2007 memo and Patrick Meehan’s January 3, 2007 memo to the Plan Commission as follows:

• The Common Council rezoning the subject property into the PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay District; the proposed rezoning of the eastern portion of the subject property from the Rm-3 Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District to the B-1 Neighborhood Business District; the rezoning of the existing deed restricted and planned conservancy areas of the subject property (excluding 100-year recurrence interval floodplain areas) into the C-1 Conservancy District; and the redelineation and rezoning of the FW Floodway District boundaries of the subject property.

• The drawings and documents submitted by the applicant for Parcel 2 (the ALDI Food Store)

• The applicant addressing the following items prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:

The proposed canopy trees must be increased in size to 3" caliper and a revised Landscape Plan submitted to the City indicating their new size.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 315-26(N) of the City Zoning Ordinance, numerous requirements are set for outdoor storage. However, no outdoor storage is shown to be on the premises at this time. If that would change in the future, the requirements of Section 315-26(N) must be met.

All trash dumpsters must meet the various requirements of Section 215-26(O) of the Zoning Ordinance including the provision of sight-proof fencing (wood or masonry). Based upon the drawings submitted by the applicant, it is the understanding of Meehan & Company, Inc. that the trash area is to be enclosed with rough sawn cedar fencing.

A "Letter of Credit" for all improvements must be submitted to the City before final approval is given by the Common Council for Parcels 1, 2, 3 pursuant to the requirements of Section 315-43(K)(2)(b) of the City Zoning Ordinance.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 315-64(D) of the City Zoning Ordinance, on-site directional signs cannot exceed three square feet in area. However, no such signage is indicated in the application. If such signs are installed, the requirements of Section 315-64(D) must be met.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 315-71(C) of the City Zoning Ordinance, the maximum total sign area of freestanding signs for a parcel such as the subject property in the B-1 District is 150 square feet and the maximum height of such signs is 15 feet. In addition Section 315-72(4)(a) requires that:

"All freestanding signs shall provide a landscaped area with appropriate natural plant material ground cover and other landscape plantings located at the base of said freestanding sign equal in area to the sign area. When earthen berms are used as part of said landscaping, the earthen berms shall maintain a side slope of no greater than 3:1 with a maximum berm height of three feet above adjacent surrounding grade. When earthen berms are used, earthen berms shall count towards the maximum permissible sign height. The use of railroad ties as a landscape or construction material at the base of freestanding signs shall be prohibited."

In addition, the proposed Landscape Plan for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 must indicate the required landscape plant materials surrounding the base of any proposed freestanding sign.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 315-71(D) of the City Zoning Ordinance, the maximum total sign area for all wall, fascia, awning/canopy, marquee, and graphic signs for a lot or parcel in the B-1 District is 1.40 square feet proportionally per 1 linear foot of exterior storefront wall width that fronts on a public street; however, no sign for any 1 exterior storefront which fronts upon any public street or no sign for any 1 tenant which fronts upon any public street shall exceed 200 square feet in area. However, no such signage is indicated in the application. If such signs are installed, the requirements of Section 315-71(D) must be met.

The building height in both feet and stories must be indicated on the Site Plan or building elevations.

• The applicant addressing any issues raised by the City Administrator, City Engineer, or City Attorney.

• The course "South 83º24’05" East 35.36 feet along said westerly line" was omitted on the 4^th line of the metes and bounds description, in the Surveyor’s Certificate.

• The total square footage and acres do not equal the sum of the lots and outlot. Outlot 1 area must be revised.

All were in favor and the motion carried.

Mayor Lois opened this issue for discussion.

Commissioner Milatz commented that there seemed to be a lot of empty rental property throughout the City and wondered if this property would be better zoned single family. Mayor Lois informed the Commission that the Stockham study that was done on the property stated that this is a Two-Family District property. He also noted that the neighbors preferred the Two-Family Zoning and it will be the consumers who will dictate the market.

Commissioner Henney moved and Commissioner Lynch seconded to recommend approval to the Common Council of a rezoning request from the Community Development Authority of the City of Burlington to rezone the property known as Lots 1 and 2 of Certified Survey Map 2733 from M-2, General Manufacturing District to Rd-2, Two-Family Residential District (Bel-Mur site). Ayes: Henney, Lynch, Thate and Schulte. Nays: Milatz. The majority was in favor and the motion carried.

None.

Commissioner Schulte moved and Commissioner Henney seconded to adjourn the meeting at 6:57 p.m. All were in favor and the motion carried.

Adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

Recording Secretary – Angela M. Hansen