Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Csms Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waunakee Remodeling CSM discussion deferred; applicant asked to return with parking analysis
Summary
The Plan Commission deferred action on a CSM request from Waunakee Remodeling to split 1001 Frank H Street into two lots, asking the applicant to return with a detailed parking analysis or recorded parking/access easement.
The Plan Commission reviewed a request by Waunakee Remodeling to divide 1001 Frank H Street into two lots. Commissioner Kristen Runge recused herself. Staff explained the split would create two I‑1 light industrial parcels that meet minimum lot size, but raised a parking and access issue: the current business relies on parking on the parcel proposed as Lot 1; if Lot 1 is sold, the remaining property (Lot 2) would lack sufficient parking unless a recorded parking and access easement is provided or additional parking spaces are constructed on Lot 2.
Dan McGowan, representing Waunakee Remodeling, told commissioners the company currently stores roughly 63 vehicles on site overnight and that a division could shift about half of those vehicles to another location or require the owner to expand parking on Lot 2. He said the applicant can add parking on Lot 2 (roughly 23–24 additional spots are possible in identified areas) or offer an easement to secure continued parking access if Lot 1 is sold.
Commissioners asked for concrete parking numbers tied to zoning standards. Lauren (Community Development Director) explained the code: industrial/service uses require one stall per full‑time‑equivalent employee on the largest working shift plus one stall per vehicle owned and stored on site. Commissioners requested the applicant provide a clear reconciliation of how many stalls will be required on Lot 2 under plausible scenarios (e.g., if part of the business moves to a new building or if Lot 1 is sold) and how many additional spaces can be added on Lot 2. Dan McGowan agreed to provide that information.
The Plan Commission did not take final action and agreed to take the item up at the February meeting with the applicant’s supplemental parking analysis and associated materials. Staff noted the statutory 90‑day review clock applies to CSMs; the applicant may provide written confirmation extending that timeline if needed.
Ending: The commission deferred a final recommendation and asked the applicant to submit a parking plan and any proposed easement documentation for review at the next meeting.
