The Eagle River City Council denied the conditional use permit to place a 52,000-square-foot storage unit on a property just north of the downtown area at Tuesday’s meeting on a 2-1 vote.

The proposed project would have allowed Americo Real Estate Company/U-Haul to erect four self-storage buildings at 1100 N. Railroad St.

Throughout multiple public hearings held by the planning commission, strong public opposition has been on display, as well as serious concerns regarding water runoff in the area.

Alderman Vic Washelesky has a professional background in engineering. He has been following the topic closely and was in attendance at all the commission meetings.

He pointed out a number of errors he found within the plans brought forth by U-Haul. He also had serious concerns about water runoff issues that could occur if the large structure was allowed, as well as the negative impact on the value of area businesses.

These water runoff concerns have been in consideration since the original planning commission meeting in early May. U-Haul brought back more in-depth information to the June meeting addressing those concerns, but the city’s engineering consultant firm, MSA Engineering, did not have time to review the updates prior to that meeting.

MSA’s John Promer shared the firm’s findings during the July planning meeting, indicating some areas they would recommend additional moves be implemented to safeguard from possible flooding. Promer said that while the plans did meet code for one- and two-year stormwater events, there were some areas that needed further updates in the event of large precipitation amounts.

Washelesky indicated during the city council meeting that U-Haul had not met the recommendations set forth by MSA, and that big storms and/or winters with large snowfalls would continue to pose problems in the area. He also stated that he pointed out elevation errors in the plans to U-Haul four separate times throughout the process which were never corrected.

U-Haul representative Shawn Odom called the mistakes a “typo,” to which Washelesky responded, “At some point I just got pissed off about it. I don’t see why these things can’t be fixed.”

Not following recommendations

Promer’s input of U-Haul’s plans showed issues including modeling and soil contradictions, peak flow discrepancies, mismatched software inputs, and soil type inconsistencies. Washelesky asked Promer if he had seen any updates to building plans regarding these errors.

“I have not seen that amended report,” Promer responded to each of the topics, meaning U-Haul had not addressed those issues.

Washelesky focused on the detention ponds in the plans, and the lack of proper overflow in the case of large rainfall or heavy snow winters. The elevation of Bluebird Lane and the two businesses located behind the proposed storage units are low-lying, meaning they are prone to flooding. Both businesses have already addressed some of those issues with various landscaping on their own properties, but Washelesky sees this as a potential problem for the city and property owners in the area.

“My issue with that is that pond is at least a foot higher than the road (Bluebird). So if that overflows, we’ve got water coming off that pond that’s a foot higher than the road.

Everybody’s got issues then,” Washelesky said. He brought up the recommendation that curb and gutter be added to the road, which he noted was not included in any condition placed on the property, asking “who’s paying for that?”

He also voiced the opinion that this project’s scope and complexity was beyond the planning commission’s understanding, and that professionals should have been consulted from the start.

CUP standards

Planning commission members said they were bound by rules of Wisconsin Act 67 when deciding whether or not to issue the CUP, which was something Washelesky discussed during the city council meeting.

According to him, the city’s standards for issuing a CUP state that no CUP will be granted by the council unless the use addresses expected harmful project impacts, and protects the public health and welfare.

Washelesky argued the flooding caused by allowing these units to be built would have a large impact, and also said the city would not be protecting public health with possibility of flooding.

“Are we sure that none of the roads are not gonna flood?” Washelesky asked. “Unless you can point it out to me, I don’t see any emergency overflow going toward Bluebird. And if that thing overflows, it’s overflowing at at least a foot higher than the road. That’s a threat to safety.”

Washelesky also expressed dismay with members of the planning commission for failing to take the series of letters sent in by local realtors stating the project would have a negative financial impact on nearby businesses.

“I was disappointed at the planning commission for dismissing these letters out of hand with no discussion,” he said. “I find these things to be valuable, and in my own mind, I know those properties are going to be reduced in value if this property goes.”

During the July meeting, planning Commissioner Mary Horant voted against recommending the CUP, citing the negative impact on businesses as her reasoning. Commissioner Brad Adamovich cast the other no vote, while commissioners Adam Grassl, Kim Schaeffer, Alex Forer and John Hletko voted yes.

City Attorney Steve Garbowicz was consulted regarding the letters and said that he found some of them were substantial and should be considered. According to Washelesky, who had a conversation with Garbowicz about possibly being sued by U-Haul for disallowing the permit, the attorney was comfortable going to court.

Alderman Dan Dumas thanked Washelesky for deep-diving into the engineering and elevation side of this topic.

As someone who is heavily involved with the Sno-Eagles Snowmobile Club, Dumas said he has spent “countless hours” on that stretch and that the area sees significant snow drifting and snow accumulation due to road plowing.

“That snow has to go somewhere,” Dumas said. “After last season that should be a wakeup call about conditions we can expect from time to time in the area. And that is a major concern of mine.”

Washelesky made the motion to deny the permit and was seconded by Dumas.
Schaffer was the only council vote in favor of allowing the units. Alderman Jerry Burkett was absent from the meeting.