Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES March 3, 2020 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, John Hinz, Justin Mitchell, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Derek Groth, John Kiefer STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; Steven Wiley, Assistant Planner; Brandon Nielson, Assistant Planner; Mina Kuss, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of February 18, 2020 were approved as presented. (Ford/Erickson) I. EXTRATERRITORIAL THREE -LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 4701 COUNTY HIGHWAY S IN THE TOWN OF VINLAND Mr. Fojtik pointed out that there was a typo in the staff report and the title should be Town of Oshkosh not Town of Vinland. Site Inspections Report: Mr. Mitchell reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is seeking approval of a three -lot land division/Certified Survey Map (CSM) from one existing lot located at 4701 County Highway S, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of County Highway Y and the Oshkosh city limits. The CSM will also officially dedicate right-of-way along County Highway S. Sizes of the proposed lots and right-of-way dedication are as follows: Lot 1 = 469,813 sq. ft. (10.785 acres) Lot 2 = 435,967 sq. ft. (10.008 acres) Lot 3 = 436,534 sq. ft. (10.021 acres) Right -of -Way Dedication = 38,214 sq. ft. (0.877 acres) Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. Proposed Lot 1 is located at the northwesterly portion of the property and contains the farmstead and agricultural buildings except for a shed. Lots 2 and 3 are irregularly -shaped. Proposed Lot 2 contains the aforementioned shed while Lot 3 is currently undeveloped. The application does not state a proposed use for either Lot 2 or 3 but any use must Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 conform to uses allowed by the underlying A-2 District. Access to the site will me made via a single relocated shared driveway located near the center of the property on Lot 1. A cross -access easement is shown on the map which will provide access to Lots 2 and 3. The CSM also officially dedicates right-of-way along County Highway S. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Conservation Residential. Winnebago County's Farmland Preservation Plan identifies this area as an Urbanizing District. The land is not enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program through Winnebago County. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed three - lot Certified Survey Map and noted that the WI Department of Natural Resources has mapped wetlands and wetland indicator soils per the DNR Surface Water Date Viewer website. The Department of Public Works is requesting that any mapped wetlands be shown on the final CSM. He said staff recommends approval of the three -lot land division/Certified Survey Map at 4701 County Highway S with the condition stated in the staff report. Mr. Mitchell arrived at 4:01 pin. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri asked if staff had a sense of where the wetlands may be located. Mr. Nau replied they do and said he checked it out himself and didn't see the delineated mapped areas but there are some indicator soils toward the southern portion of the site. He pointed out the area on the map and said that is where he is guessing the mapped area would be. Mr. Mitchell asked what the landowner's responsibilities are if there are wetlands on the property. Mr. Nau answered prior to any development a delineation may be required which will dictate the extent of wetland boundaries. He explained wetland boundaries are more or less off limits to any type of excavation development. Mr. Mitchell said the application states the proposed land use is not known which he mentioned last time is pretty common with these requests. He asked if there has any progress with including a question relating to loss of farmland due to the zone change. Mr. Lyons replied staff has been asking applicants what their intended uses are but have not been receiving responses. Mr. Mitchell asked if there has been any progress on any that specific question as discussed in prior meetings. Mr. Lyons answered they will be adding it to the application. Mr. Nau added staff is currently revising the subdivision regulations and once that is finalized, they will update the application and ask for more detailed information. Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Condition: Show any delineated wetland areas on the final Certified Survey Map. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell said he wanted to go over a couple things that he thought was important to note on the City language/guidance. He said he feels staff is in a difficult spot because as Mr. Lyons has said, there is not much the City can do but that is not satisfying enough. He said the Comprehensive Plan in some folk's eyes are the accountability and steering document for City planning activities. He said the Comprehensive Plan states that the community goal is the "protection of economically productive farmland and forest". He said it also states "the protection of farmland is critical". Mr. Lyons asked Mr. Mitchell where that section that was located in the Comprehensive Plan because he is looking at the goals and it is not a listed goal. Mr. Mitchell explained the easiest way to do it is to search "farm" in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he did not put the specific page references in his notes. Mr. Lyons said there are references in the Appendix section. Mr. Mitchell explained the "protection of economically productive farmland and forest" can be found at the beginning of the document in the community goals area. He said "the protection of farmland is critical" may be found under the Agricultural and Natural Resources section. Mr. Lyons said he does not see it as a goal in the Agricultural section. Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 Mr. Mitchell said he knows what section Mr. Lyons is referring to because it talks about urban farming activities. He commented it is in one area but not the other. He stated the quote "farmland protection is critical" could be inferred that there is some sort of value or meaning behind putting that specific statement in the document. He read from the Comprehensive Plan the bottom of page D-39. He showed the site subject map and explained how it is directly related to the Comprehensive Plan where it states unfragmented farmland areas. He read more from the Comprehensive Plan. He said the request is probably a great move and this land is probably this farmer's retirement. He stated he understands every individual farmer's effort to at some point want to partition off their land and potentially sell it. He said he thinks what is not being done is that the City is not meeting their responsibilities and commitments as outlined in some of the guiding documents that provide a framework for which the department should be operating. He stated he does not know what those are but it keeps coming back where the language says the City should be doing something but not much is getting done. Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that this property is not enrolled in the Farmland Preservation Program through Winnebago County. Mr. Lyons and Mr. Nau confirmed it was not enrolled. Mr. Palmeri asked if it was optional. She inquired about the change of the land use to conservation residential or zone change. Mr. Lyons clarified there is no change of land use or zoning. He stated the request is only a Certified Survey Map. Ms. Palmeri asked by dividing it by the three lots if it would be going away from what Mr. Mitchell is talking about. Mr. Lyons explained the current zoning district that it is in allows the agricultural split through the Town. Mr. Mitchell said Mr. Nau indicated when reviewing the City document that the application states the applicant does not know the purpose of the proposed land use but said something to the degree of it may it's conceivable that this may be used for light residential development. Mr. Nau explained it was based off the request for the cross access agreements, single driveway and relocation of the driveway. Mr. Lyons commented he understands Mr. Mitchell's concern. He reiterated the City's hands are tied by the State when some of the decisions that were made governing what the City is allowed to do within their extraterritorial limits. He said one of the things they limited the City to was the right to deny subdivisions. He explained staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives within it as a guidance for what they should be doing. He said there is no goal specific to farmland preservation but there is a goal about promoting urban and cultural programs and activities. He explained during the document planning process, it was not determined that it Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 should be a specific goal though it is referenced a number of times in the document. He stated it is not a goal. He explained when staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan, they look to see if it is consistent with the zoning and that it is consistent with the goals of the Agricultural section of which they felt it was. Mr. Ford said according to the Comprehensive Plan, one of the things the County looks at is the balancing of community benefit and landowner rights. He asked Mr. Mitchell if he felt like it was not being done. He said he was trying to understand if Mr. Mitchell thought it was out of balance or inappropriate land use. Mr. Mitchell explained his thinking which is that the community came together and said farmland preservation is important. He said the community added language into the Comprehensive Plan in which when it was created was a great example of citizen participation. He stated it is important and the City is supposed to be taking efforts to protect economically productive farmland and forest. He said it is not specific to this particular parcel but it is the concept in general. He said this is something that is important that should be worked towards and continually nothing is being done. He clarified that he is not saying that this particular lot is not a good candidate. He said it will probably pass and probably should. He said there should be something in the background that is working to implement some of these ideas about protecting and preserving farmland resources. Mr. Fojtik asked as the city projects growth if there has been mapping done to show where farmland should be located. Mr. Lyons replied it was done as part of the Comprehensive Plan when they went through the land use exercises of outlining the different land use districts. He explained conservation residential was something that talking through the Town and County that they felt was an appropriate land use of allowing in essence occasionally in certain areas large lot residential development. He said they felt that was still an appropriate style development for those areas. He stated there was a lot of public participation within the Comprehensive Plan and from the document, goals were produced. He said farmland preservation, which is important, was referenced in the document but there was also a decision made not to put it as one of the primary goals of the document Mr. Mitchell commented Mr. Lyons is going down a specific list and he understands but something that is maybe important or maybe not but the quote is "protection of farmland is critical". He said the statement is in the document and if the City does not want to follow it then maybe the language should be changed. He said Plan Commission will be reviewing a Sustainability Plan next on the agenda and there is a section on Farmland Preservation. He started to read the section to the Plan Commission. He stated the City keeps putting these things into their documents stating it is important and they want to work towards it and he understands that it is difficult but it does not sit well with him that nothing is getting done at all. Ms. Palmeri asked for clarification that what Mr. Lyons is saying is that because it is extraterritorial that Plan Commission does not have the option to deny it. Plan Commission Minutes 5 March 3, 2020 Mr. Lyons explained Plan Commission can recommend denial but it could still be approved. He stated Plan Commission does not have the final say. Mr. Ford thanked Mr. Mitchell. He said if he understands it correctly, the State requires that the City consider the protection of economically productive farmland and forest when the City develops their specific goals for the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said the City would have considered that during the planning process but chose not to include it as a specific goal. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He explained the front section is what is required by State Law to be contemplated when doing a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ford asked if theoretically it could be updated when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Mr. Lyons replied they could definitely do that. Ms. Palmeri said as she understands it, it could be brought earlier than the cycle. Mr. Lyons stated a Comprehensive Plan can be revised whenever it is needed. He explained the list of the 14 items is what the State Law says should be considered when doing a Comprehensive Plan. He said one of the references Mr. Mitchell was quoting is from the State Statute and not necessarily one of the elements within the Plan after that. He explained the goals are what the City decided they went through their process to choose to put as goals. Mr. Ford asked who would be the appropriate body for revisiting or modifying the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons replied this body would be the appropriate body. He explained the process of amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perry asked for confirmation that a house could be built on any parcel of land out there and Plan Commission would never know about it because it is designated that way by either the Township or County. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He explained any single parcel out there even if it is agriculturally zoned could have a single family home built on it. He stated it would fall under property owner rights. He said property owners would just pull a building permit and be allowed to build it without Plan Commission knowing. Ms. Palmeri asked what would happen if Plan Commission did not approve the Certified Survey Map. Mr. Lyons replied ultimately it still goes to the Town for final approval. Motion carried 8-0-1 (Present: Mitchell). Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 II. APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED SUSTAINABILITY PLAN Site Inspections Report: N/A Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) and staff request approval of the updated Sustainability Plan which provides a series of revised chapters including updated goals, objectives and action items regarding sustainable initiatives in the City of Oshkosh. The plan establishes background and context for each sustainability issue. It examines ways to address each issue and potential partners. The Plan was developed in consultation with the Sustainability Advisory Board. Mr. Wiley presented the item. The Sustainability Plan was updated and reformatted to make it more accessible for the SAB, City staff and the public. Each chapter begins with an introduction to provide definition for each issue and to give local context. Objectives are stated, followed by policy recommendations for each objective. Many of the policies were included because the SAB believes that the City can undertake the policies. The plan is a community plan, so the plan states where other entities should be involved. Recommendations are phrased as action statements. They suggest priorities and directions for the City and residents. The updated Sustainability Plan is consistent with the goals of the recently adopted (2018) Comprehensive Plan. Some of these goals include enhancing environmental quality, promoting environmentally sensitive and responsible utilization of land, encouraging efficient and compact utilization of land, increased economic prosperity and many goals listed in the Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources chapter. The Sustainability Plan also has no conflicts with the City's Zoning Ordinance. He said staff recommends that Plan Commission approve the updated Sustainability Plan based on a finding that it is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Ms. Palmeri pointed out that the Chair for the Sustainability Advisory Board was present. She said she was curious about some of the recommendations in Chapter 5 under the Government section. She inquired about the recommendation relating to Energy Management under Government Objective. She asked if the recommendation would encompass the City facilities. Margy Davey (Chair for Sustainability Advisory Board), 885 Portside Court, explained the entire Government section pertained to municipal buildings. She stated this would definitely be part of anything the city was doing. She said it would be nice if everyone was aware of this Plan and read it. Mr. Lyons asked if the Sustainability Advisory Board was involved in the Central Garage planning. Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 Ms. Davey replied it did come to the board and was the only large project they really had an opportunity to provide input in. She said it did come to them during them planning process and they were able to meet with the architects ahead of time. She said the board recommended to Council that the building be LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified but the Council chose not to certify it because of the cost. She said due to that, the board does not have any data for the next building that they may be involved in. She stated they would still recommend LEED certification or something similar for any building going forward. Mr. Mitchell asked how Ms. Davey envisioned the Plan being utilized once it has been approved. Ms. Davey replied in a perfect world, it would be the basis for forming a Green Team for the City which was proposed to Council about four or five years ago. She said it would be nice to get a Sustainability Director hired but she would be happy just to get people from each board and department together once a year to discuss what they are doing with sustainability. She stated the Board would really like to know about all things going on in the City that they could help with and earlier in the process. Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Davey felt like the Planning Department was the overarching body of the Sustainability committee and if not, who it would be. Mr. Lyons answered the Sustainability Advisory Board is staff liaison through the Planning Department. He said ultimately the Council is the overarching body that makes the decisions on a lot of things that are in this Plan due to the financial impacts of the Plan. He agreed with Ms. Davey that the City could do a better job including the Sustainability Board on projects that are going on in the City. Ms. Erickson asked if there was any mechanism for tracking progress on the Plan. Mr. Wiley replied the closest thing would be their Green Tier Legacy Membership which is through the Wisconsin DNR. He explained that there was a scoresheet of sustainability initiatives and some of those are included in the Plan. He said the Board would score itself and put goals in for the next year. He said the scoreboard is submitted to the State every year as part of the Annual Report requirement for the Green Tier Membership. Ms. Davey added they also have their annual State of the City update as well as their Annual Goals. She referred to the last page on the Plan which showed the 2019 goals. She said they do have updated 2020 goals that they will be swapping out and the idea would be to switch out the goals every year. She said they do track the goals on a monthly basis. Mr. Mitchell said there is a section on Economic Development and another one on Government but was curious where he would find information on development projects in which the City provides financial support such as TIFs. Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 Mr. Wiley replied he thinks it would be Land Use or Economic Development. He explained there were some sections where there was some overlap so they mentioned similar things sometimes twice. Ms. Davey agreed with Mr. Wiley. She said they would rather repeat information rather than miss information completely. Mr. Mitchell said he did not find information in the Plan on development projects in which the City provides financial support. Ms. Davey said they might not have ever considered that one. Mr. Coulibaly commented when he thinks sustainability, he thinks long term. He said he is more concerned about the efficiency of the action. He asked if there was a plan for assessment and adapting to changes that need to be made to adjust goals. Ms. Davey replied they have not put hard numbers on anything. She stated the only time they tracked something with numbers was back in 2008-2009 when they worked on the ICLEI plan. Mr. Coulibaly asked if there was a plan to assess to the action plan and how it is going. Ms. Davey replied she thinks that would be part of the Green Team. Ms. Palmeri inquired about the recommendation about interim community gardens in Section 7 under Promote Local Food Production Sales and Consumption. She asked if there was any public input from the Neighborhood Associations or similar groups about implementing permanent community gardens. Ms. Davey replied the SAB has never been approached by any Neighborhoods about collaboration but SAB has also never reached out to the Neighborhoods for collaboration. She said it should be something they put on their to do list. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was any consideration by the SAB to recommend permanent community gardens instead of only interim community gardens. Ms. Davey replied there was no discussion about taking any land permanently for that. She explained the thought process of SAB at the time and how the interim community gardens became part of the Plan. Mr. Mitchell asked what the steps would be to implement the Sustainability Plan's language into the staff reports. He said it is a planning related Plan and thinks it would be helpful if the language was also present when discussing different projects that the City if proposing such as the splitting of farmland lot resulting in loss of farmland preservation. Plan Commission Minutes March 3, 2020 Mr. Lyons said if Plan Commission would like staff to include a Sustainability section to the staff report, they could. Mr. Mitchell clarified it would only be when it is applicable because it is not always applicable. Mr. Lyons said he would prefer adding it to all staff reports to keep them consistent. He reiterated if it is what the Board wants, staff would be more than willing to add a Sustainability section. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments. Ms. Davey asked the board members to read the plan if they did not already do so because the Sustainability Board worked very hard on it. She said there may be changes that need to be made but it was the best the Board could do at the time. She explained that sustainability changes so quickly but they tried to bring the Plan as up to date as they could with the idea that it is a living document. She said their hope is that the Action Plan that is posted at the end of the Plan will continue to keep it up to date. She said at the SAB meeting last night, they discussed electric charging stations and their infrastructure in the city and how it is needed. She stated that topic was not even on their radar in 2008 and it goes to show how fast sustainability can change. She said they always appreciate input. Mr. Lyons suggested it may be beneficial to have SAB present annually their Action Goals to Plan Commission. Plan Commission agreed it would be a good idea. Ms. Palmeri asked if there was anyone on the SAB that periodically reviews the Council and Plan Commission agendas to see if there is a topic SAB would like to weigh in on. Ms. Davey replied there are several people that do that intermittently but no one is assigned to do it. Mr. Mitchell stated the Sustainability group has been pretty involved in waterfront programming shoreline restoration activity which is part of the Plan. He asked if anyone has approached the Sustainability group for feedback about the extensive planning process involving waterfront activity in the Sawdust District. Ms. Davey replied they have not but Sustainability also has not inserted themselves in it. She said they did make some recommendations for the Lakeshore Park which was not as extensive as they hoped but it was still progress. She stated it is all an education process. Mr. Mitchell stated he knows some of the planning documents such as the Impediments for Fair Housing and the Consolidated Plan talk about racial discrimination and housing and asked if there were any other city document or committee that specifically addresses social and economic opportunity for minority populations. Plan Commission Minutes 10 March 3, 2020 Ms. Palmeri said the Strategic Plan also does reference that and there are half a dozen core elements in which that is described. Mr. Lyons added the Strategic Plan is being updated to include more and the draft will be going to Council in March. He said it will include additional elements related to housing. Mr. Mitchell said Community Support on page 22 starts to talk about some of the things outside of what people often think of for sustainability. He said often times these Plans have a Social and Economic section that tries to address a fair and equitable community for all different types of segments of the population. He suggested if there is not already a body or document that specifically address that beyond housing that maybe it should be something to consider. Ms. Davey stated she is recently becoming more aware of the diversity and inclusion component that should be involved in everything. She said she has other documents she is working with on which are being proof read for making sure they are okay for that. She said they did not put the Plan through a DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) lens. She said it occurred to her this morning that maybe it should go through that lens just because there may be things that they need to update in the Plan but said she would not hold up the Plan for that reason. She commented it would a very good goal to go through the Plan with a DEI lens and see how they can improve the document. Mr. Coulibaly commended the SAB for doing a good job on the Plan. He inquired about the timeline on how often the Plan would be updated or amended. Ms. Davey replied they had a five year goal to update the Plan which would have been in 2017 but did not realize it would take three years to update the Plan. Ms. Palmeri inquired about Triple Bottom Line on page 21. She asked who would be doing the education and promoting. Ms. Davey explained when they wrote it they were considering it would be something the whole city would need to be doing. She stated everyone would be doing the educating and promoting. She said the SAB wrote the Plan for the City of Oshkosh as in the whole city. Ms. Propp thanked Ms. Davey and the SAB for the hard work and for the Plan. She stated the Plan is very comprehensive and readable. She said if people would just read it, it would change how they think. Ms. Davey commended Mr. Wiley for helping to make the Plan look beautiful. She stated a Green Team would be beneficial but even if they do not get that far, just having all departments read the chapter that pertain to them would be beneficial. Mr. Fojtik suggested sending each department the chapter or chapters that pertain to them with a cover sheet instead of the entire Plan. Plan Commission Minutes 11 March 3, 2020 Me. Mitchell asked if this would be an appropriate time to make changes. My. Lyons explained it is an internal document for the City and suggested sending the document back to the Sustainability Board to evaluate changes then bring it back to Plan Commission. He said if the change is editorial and simple they could change it at Plan Commission but if it is content driven it should go back to the Sustainability Board. Ms. Davey suggested adding a timeline to anything that would be sent back because the Board only meets once a month. Mr. Lyons stated they would like to get the update approved because it has been a long time since it was updated. He asked Ms. Davey if it was okay if staff compiled the feedback and sent it to SAB. Ms. Davey replied they would appreciate the feedback. Mr. Ford commented he loves the idea of working with the Neighborhoods as an implementation arm. He stated there are all these different Plans and there is always concern about consistency, awareness and implementation and suggested implementing a Performance Dashboard where everyone would have access. He said it would track everyone's progress and help get everyone on the same page. Ms. Palmeri stated SAB does have an Annual Report on the Action Plan and asked if Mr. Ford was suggesting using that as a dashboard. Mr. Ford explained it would be combining all the Plans and their progress in one central location where everyone would have access. Ms. Palmeri stated there are multiple openings for Youth Members on the SAB and suggested using those openings as a potential genesis for a Green Team. Ms. Propp encouraged Plan Commission to pass the Plan tonight. She said SAB does not need Plan Commission to micromanage their plan but stated the SAB does appreciate Plan Commission's input. She said if there is input to send it to SAB but asked Plan Commission to approve the Plan. Mr. Lyons explained Plan Commission needs to review the Plan under their purview which is that the Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said SAB could make minor changes based on feedback before it goes to Council. Mr. Hinz brought up the annual meeting with SAB and how Plan Commission would have additional input going forward. He stated they are already creating more opportunity for input. Mr. Coulibaly said there will be another Plan update in a few years and suggested letting people know so they can start giving feedback. Plan Commission Minutes 12 March 3, 2020 Ms. Palmeri stated this would seem like the appropriate time to make changes and give input rather than Council sending it back because Council is relying on Plan Commission on a consistency basis. She said there was one issue with consistency earlier in the meeting. She asked if it would be appropriate to amend the language at this meeting instead of after the fact. Mr. Fojtik said it looks to him as Plan Commission is asked to find that the Plan is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyons suggested if Plan Commission members feel the Plan is in conflict the Comprehensive Plan then they should recommend language and send it back to SAB. Mr. Mitchell stated it could go either way. He said it could be a recommendation from SAB or they need to look at the Comprehensive Plan. He said as he mentioned before about farmland that they could look at that language. He said the language is in the Sustainability Plan but maybe not to the degree that is motivating for the City to do work on. Mr. Lyons explained as the State Statute is laid out for this body's job, it is to determine if the Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said if members feel it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, they should recommend denial. He said if Plan Commission wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan that it would be a separate discussion. Ms. Propp stated she does not think it is appropriate to amend or micromanage the Plan now. She said she would like to vote to approve the Plan but has to leave. Ms. Propp left at 5:06pin. There were no other public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated they talked a little bit about using a further guide to help in collecting information in being more knowledgeable about the development projects that the City gets involved in, provides financial support and specifically related to the sustainable nature of their development project. He explained his thinking which was that at some point it could be valuable for their checklist or some sort of evaluating tool not to say yes or no or be used to deny or evaluate the credibility of the project but for informational purposes. He said it would be to gather information to get a baseline on the projects the City is supporting. He said an example is the Buying Local section and looking at the LEED standards where they talk about materials or Plan Commission Minutes 13 March 3, 2020 products extracted, harvested or recovered as well as manufactured within 500 miles of project site and their recommendation would be about 10%. He said that type of tool could be something that is in one of their goals. He said it does talk about it in the Comprehensive Plan about promoting conservation of natural resources. He said that would be something if SAB was willing to, to add to the Plan. Mr. Lyons asked if that would materially affect Mr. Mitchell's decision on approving the Plan tonight. Mr. Mitchell replied he is willing to move forward with the Plan. Motion carried 8-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:12 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 14 March 3, 2020