Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES February 2, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Derek Groth, John Hinz, John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Jay Stengel STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis, Community Development Director; Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Steven Wiley, Associate Planner; Jim Collins, Transportation Director; Brandon Nielsen, Assistant Planner Chairperson Propp called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of January 19, 2021 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Groth) Motion by Kiefer to withdraw Item V General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a Multi-Family Development at 1745 Oregon Street at the request of the applicant. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. I. APPROVAL OF THE GO TRANSIT SITE SELECTION STUDY Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The city requests approval of the GO Transit site selection study. Ms. Jo Anne Olsen from SRF Consulting presented the item with Mr. Andrew Cooper from Oertel Architects. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, GO Transit had worked with the East Central Wisconsin Regional Plan Commission on a planning grant for a downtown transit center site selection and feasibility study. The intent was to evaluate alternatives and select a preferred site, conduct public and private outreach, and identify funding options for a new downtown transit center in the future. This study sets us up to apply for future grants. SRF consultants will be presenting the finished study and their recommendations. The draft study was presented to the Transit Advisory Board in November 2021 and the final was adopted in January 2020. SRF Consultants evaluated a number of potential sites in Oshkosh. They then narrowed the sites down to three finalists. Each of these final sites was presented to a large stakeholder group. Two sites emerged as preferred options with the current site being recommended. SRF will present these findings in their presentation. He recommends that Plan Commission support the site selected and recommendations of the study. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification about the representative work space. Ms. Olsen replied it is the workspace within the front of the building. Mr. Mitchell replied that it was presented as a customer service type accommodation, so he was hoping she could provide further clarification on that. Mr. Cooper replied that it is a customer service representative office space allowing a customer service representative to be on site and have a ticket window for passenger interaction right at the corner there really close to the concrete drive of the busses. Mr. Mitchell replied that it is very exciting and he thinks the facility is due for a solid update. He is in full support of multiple locations that were included in the study. He would like to talk briefly about the facility. The study mentioned a little bit about restroom availability and public safety concerns. He is really happy to see that there are public restrooms being considered. He thinks it is a key feature and perhaps there are other accommodations that would benefit users such as a water bottle refill and the incorporation of a changing station in the male and female restrooms. While public transit serves a wide variety of incomes, there are a lot of lower income families that maybe utilize the service and there’s a concern from public safety about the possibility of people loitering or taking advantage of the temperature controlled space and restrooms and other accommodations because maybe they don’t have a quality alternative option. That can be seen as a negative, but he would love to see that that mentality switched so this is viewed as a great opportunity to possibly connect with these people and connect them with service providers present in the community. One of the ways to do that is to incorporate some sort of shared meeting space like a small office or something so that if someone is clearly distressed or in a crisis situation, but not necessarily a safety threat, then maybe a representative from a service provider could use the space to meet with this person so that the police do not need to be involved and have the person shipped over somewhere else. He sees that as an appropriate asset to this facility in development, so he helps we can look at how best we can serve the people utilizing public transit. Ms. Davey stated that in the plans they had mentioned using a cream buff brick that would blend in with the area. She did see there are a number of buildings with that brick and she thinks it is wonderful to try to do that. She wondered if consideration could be given to repurposing brick that is coming down from other buildings in the area because of this project rather than having to purchase new. She wanted to put it out there now so that it is thought about early enough to become part of the project. The glass made her a little nervous initially, partially because of what happened in Appleton a couple of years ago, but she was glad to see that it was a screened glass offering a higher safety factor for those inside. She asked if they could tell her a little bit more about the safety of the screened glass. Since there is going to be a lot of pavement put down in this area and other pavement ripped up, she thinks it should be taken into consideration to put the infrastructure in for car charing. She’s not saying put in a car charger, she’s saying make sure that when all the electrical is run for the new building that the infrastructure is also added so that it could be utilized in the future when the need arises. She also asked where people are supposed to park now when they go to the Grand. She knows people are supposed to park somewhere else and ride the bus, but she is wondering where people are supposed to park if they are not doing that. Mr. Collins replied that the gravel lot across the street is one option for parking. If they do a public-private partnership, there could potentially be some type of parking above the bus transfer area. Once they get to a point where they have some funding, then obviously they would get into more details, but at this point it’s more of a concept. The same thing can be said with some of the other comments. Short term they’re probably only going to be able to expand their current restroom to help with some COVID concerns for staffing, break space, and ADA, but they will take all of those things into consideration for the long term. They’re hopeful that long term they will be able to provide public restrooms and some of those things. Those are all valid points and concerns that they will take into consideration. When they get into the short term improvements they’ll return to Plan Commission because it is a public building. Mr. Lyons replied that as Mr. Collins mentioned, as they get into actual design and elevations before construction, it will have to come back to this body for design review because it is a public building. Mr. Coulibaly stated that he appreciated the study. The assessments were rigorous and he fully supports the conclusion and site selection. He was curious about the two preferred sites. He understands that cost was the prime decision making factor, but he was wondering if there is a chance that the improvement of ridership could offset the cost for the site. Mr. Collins replied that they’re hopeful that they’d be able to get additional ridership with either site, however he doesn’t foresee that. It’s about a six million dollar difference between the two sites and the passenger revenue right now only accounts for about twenty percent of their operating costs. They are heavily subsidized and their passenger revenue is between $600,000 and $800,000. He appreciates the question, but the increase in ridership would not be large enough to make up the cost difference. Mr. Adam Bellcorelli – ECWRPC stated that one other thing to consider is that each of the sites are within a quarter mile from one another and so they didn’t figure that it changed the demographic look very much at all. The sites all overlapped as far as their coverage area and so they didn’t find any significant difference in who would have access to the facility. Ms. Propp asked for 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. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Mr. Collins stated that what they’re asking for is support from the Plan Commission for this site selection study. Transit Advisory Board has already recommend approval. If Plan Commission approves, then it will go to Council for approval allowing them to apply for funding opportunities. Interest from private parties for some type of public-private partnership would be ideal. La Crosse and Eau Claire were able to complete projects with a public-private partnership. It’s exciting that it will set them up for some long term opportunities. They are also thankful to be able to do some short term improvements, which will only put a dent into what they need to do down there, but there will be some nice additions coming in the future. Motion by Coulibaly to recommend approval of the GO Transit Site Selection study. Seconded by Mitchell. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Hinz stated that it is great to look this far ahead and he loves the fact that Plan Commission is thinking to the future and also thinking in a fiscally responsible way. His hope is that there could be a few routes that don’t come back to downtown as Oshkosh grows outward to service the 41 corridor or other areas where the City is growing. He is wholeheartedly going to support this. Motion carried 11-0. II. CENTRAL MIXED-USE DESIGN ALTERATION REVIEW AND DESIGN STANDARDS VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED FAÇADE WORK AT 223 N. MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Groth, Ms. Davey, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is proposing façade work on a Downtown Central Mixed-Use (CMU) building which requires a Central Mixed-Use Design Alteration Review and Design Standards Variance. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. In 2018 the owner received a design standards variance for façade alterations on the west half of the façade facing Opera House Square and a portion of the façade facing Commerce Street. The proposed façade work involves changes in the exterior appearance of the North Main Street building façade. The large recess on the first floor would be removed, the awning between the first and second floors removed, and a new glass transom installed at the location of the existing awning. The applicants’ proposal includes opening up the corner of the façade and shifting the entrance from its current location in the large recess over to the corner. This work would maintain all other window and door openings at their current locations. The work would however, include the replacement of three second floor windows with pane windows. The work would not restore the building back to a period appearance. The CMU Design standards in general require restoration and maintenance of period features, and original window and door openings. He said that staff is of the opinion that the proposed work requires Plan Commission review and a design standards variance since it would involve modifications inconsistent with several of the CMU Design Standards. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Ford asked how long the process takes for the fourth condition with Public Works or what the process looks like so that the applicant knows when they can begin work. Mr. Gierach replied that they will need to work them and get plans. He had a call with the architect yesterday looking for some information on what’s going to be required. Obviously there is overhang there now and they need to know what’s going to be there in the future. They will work with the City Attorney’s office to draft the encroachment agreements. It is an administrative process that needs to go through staff for review and signatures, but it shouldn’t take much more than two or three weeks. Ms. Propp stated that as far as she is concerned, with a property like this, she always wants Landmarks input even if it isn’t required. She respectfully requests that buildings like this be reviewed by Landmarks because it is very helpful. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Adam James from Vision Architecture stated that he does not have anything to add, but he is happy to answer any questions. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp 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: The variance shall apply only for work discussed as part of this variance request (ground and second floor of the North Main Street facade). All existing window openings on the second floor shall remain at their current sizes and locations. Any future façade work to be undertaken shall be filed as a separate request(s) and be reviewed by staff and the Plan Commission. Approval of encroachment and hold harmless agreements executed per Department of Public Works policies is required prior to issuance of any building permits. Full construction plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Inspection Services Division prior to issuance of any building permits. Finding: Due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Seconded by Ford. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Lyons stated that the recommendations here are a little different than those included in the staff report, which has since been updated from the version Plan Commission was provided. Staff is requesting that conditions four and five be included as seen on the PowerPoint. No amendment is required. Mr. Hinz stated that this is a really, really neat design for the downtown area where we have a lot of exciting things going on. He is amazed that Plan Commission just got through this entire discussion and not one person brought up signage, which has always been a big issue. The minimalistic view that they took with the signage is obviously well received and he wanted to give them compliments on that. Motion carried 9-0. III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A MONUMENT SIGN AT 150 ASPIRE LANE Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner requests an amendment to the Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) approval for a monument sign at 150 Aspire Lane. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. On September 10, 2019, the Common Council approved a SIP for a senior living community at the subject site. The approved SIP included a 5’8” tall monument sign. However, the applicant did not request a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to place the sign within the front setback at that time. The applicant has submitted a revised sign plan for a 6’ tall internally lit monument sign to be placed at 10’ from the front property line (Witzel Avenue). The applicant is requesting a BSM for the sign to be placed within the 25’ front setback to provide visibility of the sign for vehicles accessing the site from Witzel Avenue. According to the applicant, meeting the 25’ setback would result in visibility of the sign being obstructed by trees for both east-bound and west-bound traffic. He said that staff recommends approval of the SIP amendment for a monument sign as proposed with the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Slusarek asked for Plan Commission input on using a metal or concrete base for the sign as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Lyons replied that usually staff has a pretty good feel for Plan Commission’s preferences, but a metal sign base is not something that they have seen in the past. The current recommendation is for stone or brick because it was consistent with other projects of this nature. Generally when they move a sign forward for site constraint reasons, they usually look for that elevated design. This is obviously a very new alternative, so they did want to get some feedback with potentially being open to modifying this away from the stone or brick. The applicant is here and can express their concerns with the stone and brick option. They have their normal requirement in there for a condition, but there is potentially an option to modify that condition if Plan Commission feels it is appropriate. There were two considerations staff looked at when they determining if it would be appropriate to reduce the setback. The first consideration was the impact on the neighbors, which is why they are recommending the evergreens. They want to avoid a situation where they have two residential properties that have a direct sight line to this sign. They did reach out to the neighbors and it seems like a reasonable request. The second consideration is the elevated design which is something they typically look for when they reduce setbacks. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if the metal would be a muted or matted type of finish because he would be concerned about sun glare with traffic. He asked if the sign required to be off at a certain time each night so that it doesn’t light up the front yard of the residents around it. Mr. Lyons replied that they will verify with the petitioner and have them weigh in on the metal aspect as well. Mr. Hinz stated that there is pretty aggressive planting around the base of the sign. He asked if they wanted to go with something like what they have presented or if it could be something like evergreen that would be around all year to cover the base. Mr. Lyons replied that it is definitely a potential option as well. The concern with perennial type plants is that they’re great for four or five months of the year and then the base is visible for the rest. Evergreen plantings in a concrete base could be another great compromise. Ms. Propp asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Mark Hammond stated that they are well underway on construction of this site. They did always have a monument sign in their plans that were submitted. They did not know to request a BSM for the sign. This is their 16th community. They have typically done brick or stone bases, but they just don’t hold up. They look good for the first couple years, but inevitably they have issues with brick or stone falling off or effervescence dripping down. He doesn’t know what happened with the sign company, but this sign was always intended to have a metal base. They were aware of the suggestion or recommendation to do brick or stone, but just in talking to the owner with the concerns he mentioned, he wanted to use this design that they have used before with a design. He thought it was a nice design and it was really holding up well. It is a little more contemporary than the traditional brick base, so he really wanted to go this route. It is a really good question about whether it would be matte. He wants to make sure that their sign company could get some kind of a matte finish, but he thinks that makes sense and would help make for a better sign. The intent was that this would be a lit sign. In terms of the plantings, they did try to use robust plantings. In terms of the modified landscape plan, he thought that screening made a lot of sense for the neighbor to the west. With that neighbor you can kind of see the corner of their house, so it’s close to their property line. He’s supportive of being a good neighbor and doing the evergreens. They also have more room to work with on that side of the access drive to get the evergreens or deciduous trees which really framed the entrance nicely. For the neighbor to the east, on the corner there is either a shed that is next to their garage or it is a garage and he doesn’t think there are any windows. They’re further away from that property and they have all kinds of overgrown buckthorn tree stuff in there, so they’ve already provided the screening. They are quite a bit further away and having those evergreens kind of squished in would interfere with the deciduous trees that they had proposed there. He is requesting consideration to not have those green trees on the eastern edge, but still maintaining them on the western edge as staff has proposed. Mr. Hinz asked if is there something else that would be more green or stay green for twelve months of the year instead of the day lilies included in the landscaping plan which tend to just shrivel away. Mr. Hammond replied that he hasn’t really thought about it. They like to add little splashes of color to add interest. They use the same landscape designer for all of their projects and he tries to follow their lead. If it was something that kind of helped this body to get a little more comfortable with the materiality, then they could find a way to incorporate some evergreens. He would be hesitant to just do a low hedge of evergreens, but it would be appreciated if the condition for approval would be to incorporate some evergreens. Mr. Perry asked if Plan Commission has ever had a condition on lighting for signs in the past. Mr. Lyons replied that there are requirements within the code. Mr. Slusarek replied that generally for lit signs, it would need to be shown on their lighting plan to verify that it does not cause an excess of .5 foot candles at the neighboring property lines. Mr. Lyons replied it would be a similar standard to what they have for parking lots. They have added additional sign lighting requirements to projects. The big one that he can think of is the arena. They had quite a bit of sign lighting discussion during that project. Mr. Perry asked if Plan Commission could incorporate a condition that after a certain time at night the candle light output be significantly reduced. His concern is that it is very close to that property line he doesn’t see how it wouldn’t encroach upon that property. Mr. Lyons replied that Plan Commission could consider it. It is the same reasoning why staff was trying to put evergreens on the north side as well to help with that same concern. Mr. Perry replied that he is not a big fan of the concrete and that he would be a much bigger fan of the metal. He thinks they should try some things here and there, but he does really believe that it needs to be muted in some fashion. It has to be gunmetal or something where it’s not shining in somebody’s eyes by chance. Ms. Propp replied that she agreed. She is not in favor of shiny metal. Mr. Ford asked the applicant if he would be open to additional lighting requirements and what impact that would have on the project. Mr. Hammond replied that a concern would be wayfinding after that hour how easy it would be to have dim it at a certain time in terms of controls. Mr. Lyons asked if it is an LED lit sign or an internally illuminated sign. Mr. Hammond replied that it is internally illuminated. Mr. Lyons replied that is a little more difficult to dim the internally illuminated signs compared to the LED signs which are computer controlled. Most of the ones with those requirements have been of the LED variety. Mr. Hammond replied that incidents happen 24-7 at their communities, ambulance calls and things like that. He is just thinking out loud on concerns of dropping the lighting after a certain time. Mr. Hinz asked Mr. Lyons if the .5 candle for the edge of the lot is that the same standard that they have for parking lot lighting. Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. There were no public comments on this item. Ms. Propp closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a ground sign with a 10’ front setback, where code requires a 25’ front setback. 165 points of evergreen trees shall be provided along the east and west property lines to provide for screen of the sign from the neighboring residence. Base of the sign shall be constructed of masonry or stone. Final landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development. Seconded by Coulibaly. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry stated that he can completely agree that the base should not be concrete. He is wondering if they can adjust the motion to recommend stone, brick, and/or muted metal so that it is clear that one of those materials must be used. He is also very aware of the need for landmarking with that sign. With the predominately white background, there is the potential to turn it down significantly and still have it be a very visible landmark after a certain point in the evening, but that may require them to switch to a LED sign. It is something that he would also like to have highly considered. Mr. Hinz stated that he thinks they’re going too far with the lighting because there is a lighting ordinance in place for elevated lighting in a parking lot and he is guessing this will not throw off as much as a light for a parking lot. He’d be surprised if they’re right on the edge of that because most signs don’t throw off that much light simply because they don’t need to. Staff is going make sure that they’re within the ordinance, so he doesn’t think that we need to make the ordinance more difficult. Ms. Davey replied that she didn’t have the same concern about the concrete base, but she certainly would acquiesce to the metal. She can see where either of those would probably be much easier to maintain than either of the other options that have traditionally been used in Oshkosh. As far as the light from the sign, she agrees that they might be getting too concerned about that. There is definitely also a safety problem with that for people arriving after a certain time of night. It is not going to be a real easy area to find if you haven’t been there before. She thinks it’s more important to go with the safety aspect of having a sign that can actually be seen so people know where to turn and slow down. Like Mr. Hammond mentioned, it is definitely beneficial for safety vehicles to know where they were headed. She doesn’t have a concern about a lighting on that side and she thinks that will be fine. She thinks the matte metal would be very pretty and even if there’s not total evergreen coverage at the base of the sign, it would still look nice. She likes it. Motion by Ford to amend the third condition to include muted metal. Seconded by Davey. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion to amend condition 3 carried 9-0. Mr. Perry asked how long the petitioner would have to put up the landscaping if it were approved. Mr. Lyons replied that because the project is still under construction, it would have to be installed along with the landscaping for the rest of the site. Mr. Perry stated that his concern is if for some reason the buckthorn growing wild are cut down, then they have nothing. However he does agree that putting them up now with the buckthorn is a waste, so he is kind of torn about where to go. Mr. Ford stated that the phrasing of the condition gives staff a lot of discretion about how to assign points, so he would be fine allowing staff to make that decision. Ms. Propp agreed with Mr. Ford. Mr. Hammond replied that he appreciates the amendment for muted metal and is fine with the ordinance controlling the lighting. The landscaping flexibility is nice, but he is unsure what 165 points means. It makes sense if they would have some flexibility in terms of where these go. If the buckthorn goes away, he doesn’t believe there are windows on the side of the shed or garage. He thinks that providing that buffer isn’t as much of a concern for that neighbor. He asked for clarification on the 165 points. Mr. Lyons replied that the request was for 165 points on the east and 165 points on the west as written. If Plan Commission is open to a reduction on the south, he would recommend amending that condition so that it is clear what Plan Commission wants to see. Ms. Davey stated that if the buckthorn does go away, she doesn’t understand why there would need to be something else there because that would have been the owner’s decision. It is further away and there are no windows, so she doesn’t see how that concern is relevant. She is wondering if they could amend the condition to say however many points for five or six evergreen trees on the west property line. Mr. Lyons replied that for clarification, five arbor vitae equal 165 points. They aren’t looking at large evergreen trees, it is more of the arbor vitae variety. Motion by Davey to amend condition 2 to remove 165 point requirement along the east property line. Seconded by Hinz. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion to amend condition 2 carried 9-0. Motion carried 9-0. IV. SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD PLAN UPDATE – 2021 GOALS Mr. Lyons stated that this is a non-action item. About a year ago at this time there were discussions about including Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) in more of the process to make sure this body really understands what they’re working on so as they’re going through project reviews and approvals, Plan Commission would have an understanding of SAB’s goals and objectives. They decided that they would have an annual agenda item for SAB to show Plan Commission what their goals are for that year. Mr. Nielsen stated that, they held a workshop to work on the goals for 2021 at SAB’s January meeting. There are a couple of items in Q1 of 2021, one of which was just completed last night at the February SAB meeting. Item number eight is already complete for 2021. Last year was an odd year with COVID, but they did complete a number of items including the inventory of electric vehicles, electric vehicle infrastructure, and they completed the sustainability plan update. Every year they work on an annual report for the State of the City which they completed last year as well. Ms. Davey thanked staff for putting this item on the Plan Commission agenda so they can be more informed of what SAB does. This is a very fluid document and so is the sustainability plan. There are already things they would like to accomplish this year that have come up that did not make it on this list, so it is very fluid. If there is anything anyone has questions about, they would be more than happy to answer them if they can. Mainly she wants to say that a lot of the government action items on here they need to have support for. As they discovered at a Council meeting recently, apparently SAB or any boards or commissions other than the mandated ones like Plan Commission don’t seem to have a handle on how things are supposed to be passed through the Council process. SAB did put resolutions through last night that they are hoping will go to Council. She would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Lyons replied that both resolutions will be going to Council next week. Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible to have a year in review once a year in outcomes are reported for the goals that are cited for a particular year. He knows that he has he talked about this a bit, but he sometimes struggles to see the whole picture of the very relevant and important agreements, guides, or policies that might relate to a particular development. He feels that often times the staff reports are missing certain information that should be there. His hope is that if they have a development that pertains to one of these action items that the information would be included in their packets and Council packets so that they’re voting as informed representatives and not solely based on a portion of the relevant information. Ms. Davey replied that they actually do the year in review, but it is usually part of the State of the City report that they do. As to Mr. Mitchell’s other point, years ago SAB had brought forth a green team proposal that they took to Council. It was a workshop and that’s as far as it went at the time. The proposal was that at least once a year there would be a representative from each board/commission/committee and City department that would meet for a round table discussion of what was happening and what was going to be happening. For example, right now SAB would like very much to know more about what’s happening with the Lakeshore because they feel they have relevant input. Particularly in regards to any municipal buildings or improvements, it’s to the City’s benefit to include SAB because they work hard to learn about what they can and they’d like to be sure it’s shared properly. Mr. Lyons replied that if SAB wants to generate a report of accomplishments or outcomes at the end of the year, he would be happy to send it out to Plan Commission. He wouldn’t necessarily want to put it on an agenda because they try to reserve that for as many action items as they can. Mr. Mitchell replied that he was not so much looking at acting on another board’s anything, but being aware that if SAB has a plan and the plan addresses something related to land or farmland preservation, then Plan Commission is looking at that in terms of the appropriateness of the development. He often feels like what they’re provided is a convenient snippet that supports the position that the City is encouraging them to take rather than providing Plan Commission and subsequently Council the full picture of all applicable agreements and plans and what not. He knows it sounds like it could be a never-ending pursuit of these things, but some of them are pretty key like the sustainability plan. There are a couple of those standards that he thinks would be appropriate to provide so that they are casting informed votes. Mr. Lyons replied that he appreciates the feedback. They are always looking at how they can improve their processes. Ms. Propp thanked staff for putting this on the agenda because it is very helpful. V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 1745 OREGON STREET Item withdrawn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:55 pm. (Hinz/Ford) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager