PRESCOTT – The March 4 Prescott Planning Commission focused on challenges of the proposed Riverfront Mixed Use Development at 214 Front St. and 20 Orange St. including the inadequate sized turn around on Front Street.

City Planner Carter Hayes described the challenge on Orange Street, citing the singular access that showcases the likelihood of vehicular congestion which would impede fire department access. Due to this, the fire department would require the curbside parking along Orange Street to be removed for increased access. Opposed to losing more downtown parking spaces, the City of Prescott will require those lost parking spaces to be created elsewhere.

“Speaking with the developers, we’ve been kind of working on a solution with them to contribute a proportional amount to compensate for the parking spaces that would be lost on Orange Street,” said Hayes.

He said extra parking spaces could be constructed on Dakota Street at a cost of $8,880.76 per space to be paid by the developer, but the developer doesn’t agree that any parking spaces need to be removed.

 “We’re kind of at an impasse in the development,” Hayes explained. “Right now, it wouldn’t be able to progress at its current state because of that.”

“Are they saying they disagree with the fire department’s assessment?” Commission member John Peterson asked.

Hayes explained the developer is pointing to the other buildings downtown that have parking spaces in front of them.

“They’re just disagreeing with the fire department on this one,” he said.

Commission member Mike Hunter asked if there is any liability to the city if it chooses to bypass the fire department’s recommendation and then “something were to happen.”

“There probably would be liability,” Hayes glanced at City Administrator Matt Wolf. “I think we’d be relying heavily on our mutual aid agreement. Without this fire lane in place, I think our fire department wouldn’t be comfortable responding to a fire at this building if they can’t reach it effectively.”

He again said the city would be relying heavily on the mutual aid agreement with Cottage Grove, Hastings, and River Falls, which Prescott Fire hoped to avoid.

Hunter asked if any dialogue had occurred between the fire department and the developer. Hayes said last year they spoke, but a full agreement couldn’t be reached.

“Thirteen spaces is a lot of spaces,” Commission member Kate Otto said, asking why that many spaces would need to be replaced.

“Yeah, looking at it closer, it would be more around ten,” Hayes answered. “The three spaces along the port wouldn’t necessarily have to get removed but the spaces along the entire front of the building on Orange Street.”

He added the fire department would want those removed to secure access on Orange Street and without alternate access to the street, there is no other option. 

“That’s their real concern is not being able to station their fire equipment where they need to be,” he said.

Otto asked what the difference is with the buildings in the cul de sac behind Orange Street. She wondered if there isn’t an issue with those because they are only two stories high or “they wouldn’t really feel comfortable going back there to put out a fire anyway?”

Hayes responded, “Yeah, I think one is its only two stories, the magnitude of development is a lot less, and two, they’ve been that way for as long as we can remember so there is that element of it too, is that’s the way it’s been but it is a concern on their radar but it’s hard to navigate that if they’re already there.”

Mayor Robert Daugherty pointed out the rest of the buildings are not constructed right up against Front Street as this development would be.

Commission member Steve Most noticed the objections regarding the parking spaces on Front Street are referenced with fire code and FPA code.

“So, they’re not just making it up,” he said, adding the additional parking on Dakota Street is going to be a nice improvement, “But to lose those spots to benefit a private entity doesn’t sound too exciting either.”

“But if they pay for the additional ones, you’re not really losing them,” Commission member Joshua Gergen added.

Wolf reminded the commission that the parking spots on Dakota Street were approved by the council last year but for this project, the proposal calls for Cherry Street to be redeveloped with 10 to 13 additional spaces.

Daugherty asked if the developer would be willing to drop a level on their building. From a profit standpoint it wouldn’t be what they are looking for, Hayes said. The project would be doable as a 50/50 two-story floor space with retail and dwelling units under the C1 zoning code without needing onsite parking but “they didn’t seem to go for that either.”

Otto feels the proposal is good for the downtown and is frustrated they can’t make it work. She asked if the fire code is the state code, community code or “just a suggestion.”

Wolf said the city has adopted both the state and the National Fire Protection standards as part of the city code.

Peterson asked, “So really what’s holding this up is 13 times $8,000? The city doesn’t want to pay for that and the developer doesn’t want to pay for that?”

Hayes said the city could pay for the additional spaces, but the developer doesn’t want to be the reason the spaces are removed because they don’t think they need to be.

Most believes the general public isn’t going to like having the parking spaces removed and moved “up the hill” because it doesn’t benefit them but adds more vehicles to the downtown area.

“I know there’s a statue downtown. Could we take that statue and put parking back there?” Otto asked.

As Peterson chuckled, she added, “I’m not joking. I’m really serious.”

“The parking that we just removed from there?” Peterson asked.

“Yeah, I mean why would we have taken those ten spots out to put the statue there and could we just put it back?” she questioned. “That’s close to the building. That’s ten more spots.”

Daugherty said a grant was awarded for the statue and would have to be given back. Moving it wouldn’t be an easy option.

“That means we’re compromising for them and they’re not compromising for us whatsoever. It doesn’t sound to me like they are. I mean, if the fire department says they don’t want that park(ing) there, then we got to go along with that. We don’t have to, but it’d be in our best interest because then the city has got some liability sitting there,” Daugherty said.

Wolf reiterated the developer won’t move forward with the project if parking spaces are removed and the fire department won’t approve it unless a fire lane is in place to access the four-story building.

“So, we’re at an impasse and we’re being put in the middle as far as giving a recommendation,” Hunter said.

Gergen asked if the parallel parking spaces on the other side of the street could be repainted to gain some extra spaces.

“It’s not going to get you thirteen, but it might get you a handful,” he said.

Daugherty asked Wolf to suggest the idea to the developer.

Wolf said with projects like this, there is usually give and take between both sides but to say no to the fire department didn’t make sense when they are making judgments based on public safety.

“There’s got to be a willingness to both parties to come to the table and if there’s not then I don’t know how you move forward,” he continued.

“Well, if they (the developer) don’t want to move forward, that’s their problem,” Gergen said.

“We can present the alternative of parking on the other side of the street, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable going against what the fire department said,” disclosed Daugherty.

Otto asked about adding diagonal parking on Orange Street to create more parking spaces. 

“I just hate to see us give up on something that would make our downtown pretty, especially if we’re doing this whole new project down on the waterfront too,” she said.

“We’re really not giving up,” Daughtery answered. “It’s kind of like they’re giving up. They’re saying it’s like this or nothing.”

Wolf said he would look into making diagonal parking on the other side of Orange Street.
“Start there and see if they’re willing to budge on anything,” Daughtery reiterated.  

374 Monroe St.

The meeting then moved on to the subdivision of 374 Monroe St. into two lots. Hayes said the property owner submitted a preliminary certified survey map to divide it into Lots 5 and 6.

“The only hiccup with this is the newly created lot which would be addressed 715 Washington St. would have only an accessory structure and not a principal structure which would violate 635-87B principal use to be present,” Hayes said.

The owner submitted plans for a new home to begin shortly after lot division. Hayes said he’s a reputable builder based on past history.

“He really wanted the garage to go with the new lot and he submitted building plans for it, so we allowed him to do so,” he said.

 Hayes if the owner changes his mind and doesn’t build a house on the lot, it may be required to remove the accessory structure from the lot.
Daugherty said when it goes to the council, it should be caveated to add a specific length of time for construction. The motion passed unanimously.

Hunter said he worried about the “me too” effect where other residents complain that they weren’t allowed to do this.

Small box retail

City Attorney Phil Helgeson drafted a proposal ordinance for review regarding small box retail restrictions. Hayes said they’d need a future public hearing to adopt the ordinance pending the Health and Safety Committee review at its March 11 meeting.

Most is concerned the ordinance would exclude other small businesses.

“It seems they worded it in such a manner that that probably won’t happen,” he said.
“They might as well call it the Dollar Store,” Gergen said.

“You’ve only got the Family Dollar left,” Daughtery added.

Hunter asked if the language of the ordinance has been previously tested to see if anyone has been in legal trouble.

Wolf said the attorney reviewed it but there hasn’t ever been a case before the State of Wisconsin to test this type of language so there isn’t a lot of case law “to go on.”

“We’d still be one of the few in the State of Wisconsin to implement something like this,” Wolf said.

The public hearing will be held Monday, April 1.

Zoning error

Hayes talked about the need for another public hearing as zoning changes made last August had two errors. 

“There was an unintentional strike through in 635-55G regarding the number of off-street parking stalls required for the development in the downtown. I removed a provision stating parcels in the C1 District are exempt from these minimum requirements. Second, in 635-21I Section 2 the rear yard setback for the C1 District was not updated to state, ‘None for fireproof construction, ten feet for non-fireproof construction.’”

He said both errors are “pretty important for allowing the density of development in the downtown area to occur” and that a public hearing would be necessary to adopt these corrections into the zoning code.

The public hearing for the zoning corrections will also take place Monday, April 1.