Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oconomowoc council advances Marcus Corp. Pabst Farms PD amendment but keeps second reading
Summary
Council advanced a Planned Development amendment for Pabst Farms Town Center (PD‑3‑24) after lengthy debate over road alignment, parking and lot‑coverage flexibility, but declined to waive the second reading and asked staff and the applicant for more traffic and cross‑access details.
The Oconomowoc Common Council voted to advance an amendment to the Planned Development Overlay PD‑3‑24 for the Pabst Farms Town Center but refused to waive the second reading, sending the proposal back for additional traffic, access and lot‑coverage information.
City planner Jason summarized the applicants’ revised plan for about 16.5 acres at the northeast corner of Summit Avenue and I‑94, saying Marcus Corporation had shifted an entertainment use to a more visible central location and made adjustments to access points after Plan Commission review. Staff and the Plan Commission recommended the amendment, including flexibility on lot coverage because a regional stormwater pond serves the area.
Several council members pressed the applicant on circulation and how vehicles would access the cluster of businesses, including a proposed movie theater and other outlots. Alderman McConnell warned the current layout could overload a single primary entrance and expected motorists to use the Fleet Farm parking drive as an unintended egress. Alderman Shellpepper and others expressed concern about a proposed allowance to increase coverage above the underlying ordinance’s 75 percent, noting the council had previously resisted similar exemptions.
Eric Olson, Marcus Corporation’s director of real estate, told the council the coverage request is driven in part by the project’s concept design and that the regional pond on a separate parcel provides engineered stormwater capacity, a trade‑off that can allow greater building and parking coverage on individual lots.
After debate, councilors agreed to advance the ordinance on the council’s agenda but declined to wave the second reading, asking staff to return in two weeks with clearer traffic‑flow analyses, confirmation of cross‑access or easement arrangements with Fleet Farm, and more precise lot‑coverage figures.
Next steps: staff will meet with the applicant and provide the requested information at the item’s second reading, scheduled to return to the council at the next meeting.
