Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 November 16, 2021 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 2021 PRESENT: Mamadou Coulibaly, Margy Davey, Michael Ford, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Meredith Scheuermann, Justin Mitchell, John Hinz EXCUSED: John Kiefer, Phil Marshall, Brad Spanbauer STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Kelly Nieforth, Community Development Director; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager / City Engineer; Ray Maurer, Director of Parks & Forestry; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner Chairperson Hinz called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 2, 2021 were approved as presented. (Coulibaly/Davey) I. ACCEPT STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF WILSON AVENUE Site Inspections Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests the acceptance of street right-of-way at the western terminus of Wilson Avenue. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The City of Oshkosh is requesting a right-of-way of two segments at the westerly terminus of Wilson Avenue to complete a cul-de-sac bulb. This request originated from a recent vacation of a portion of Wilson Avenue west of this site which connected to Algoma Boulevard. Although the Wilson Avenue right-of-way was dedicated, a street had not been constructed, stopping short of Algoma Boulevard by approximately 175 feet. To meet code, a cul-de-sac bulb is required to provide turnaround area for larger vehicles. The proposed cul-de-sac dedication will have a radius of 37.50 feet which is smaller than the 50.00-foot radii cul-de-sacs typically requested. However, the Department of Public Works determined the 37.50-foot bulb is adequately sized to construct a vehicle turnaround at the expense of having a wider terrace. The first dedication located on the north side of Wilson Avenue. It will be a 484 square-foot semi- circle tying into the curve to the west. Similarly, a second 484 square-foot semi-circle will be dedicated on the south side of Wilson Avenue, mirroring the dedication to the north. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 November 16, 2021 The dedications are included on a draft Certified Survey Map (CSM) under review by staff. The owner of the properties are aware and agreeable to dedicating the land to the public. Once city staff approves the CSM it will be recorded at the Winnebago County Register of Deeds. The dedications will become official upon approval by the Common Council. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Council Member Ford asked if there are any plans to develop the cul de sac or make improvements. Mr. Gierach said that once the subject site to the north develops, they will install the public cul de sac and any inlets that are associated with it. Mr. Perry asked if because it’s smaller than a normal cul de sac if there are going to be parking restrictions once it’s developed. Mr. Gierach said more than likely there would be parking restrictions. Mr. Hinz 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 other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 8-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 November 16, 2021 II. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) & SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 5 DISTRICT (SR-5) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 805 WITZEL AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 5 District (SR-5) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a new Parks Department facility. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant plans to demolish the existing Parks facility building and build a new Parks facility which will include areas for vehicle storage, wash bays, shops, and offices. To accommodate the development, the existing Parks facility site will be combined with two vacant parcels as well as the existing residential property immediately to the south, with the existing residential structures being demolished. Large Scale Public Services and Utilities are a conditional use in the Institutional District. The proposed development will have three driveway entrances off of Idaho St. for access to two parking areas and to an overhead door fronting Idaho St. The parking area on the south and west sides of the building will also be utilized for vehicle and material storage and will be fully enclosed with fencing and a gate for access. A base standard modification (BSM) will be required to allow for outdoor storage within the Institutional (I) District. A BSM will also be required for 8’ tall solid fencing, which is required to screen the storage area. The proposed 8’ solid fencing appears to be located closer to the street than the building and within the required 25’ front setback area. Staff is recommending the fencing/gate be moved back to meet the 25’ front setback requirement. Staff is supportive of the BSM for the outdoor storage area and 8’ solid fencing as it is compatible with existing City facilities to the east and will be a significant distance from the neighboring residential properties to the south, exceeding the required minimum distance of 50 ft. from residentially zoned property. The provided parking for the site is slightly over the maximum of one space per employee on the largest work shift, plus one space per company vehicle normally stored or parked on the premises. According to the applicant, the facility will have 27 employees and have approximately 20 seasonal employees and also expect additional employees in the future and anticipate visitors to the site from the public. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the two additional stalls to meet the needs of potential future employees as well as visitors. The total impervious surface area for the site is 92,647 sq. ft., which is at the maximum impervious surface ratio for the Institutional (I) district. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 November 16, 2021 The applicant is requesting a reduced side (west) setback for the proposed building and parking area. According to the applicant, the reduced setback is needed to accommodate development within the narrow portion of the parcel and meet needs for the building and parking area, while meeting the front setback along Idaho Street. Staff is supportive of the reduced setback as the narrow width of the northern portion of the lot restricts the ability to meet setback requirements. The reduced side setback would meet the required side setback for the UMU district (0 ft.) and therefore is consistent with neighboring UMU zoned properties on the south side of Witzel Avenue. An Access Control Variance will be required for corner clearance on Idaho Street. This will be done administratively. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Council Member Ford asked for clarification on the exterior building materials. The report says the exterior design standards don’t apply to institutional uses, so with the report Plan Commission is given it’s because review is allowed but they don’t have to meet any specifics. Mr. Slusarek said that per code they do not need to meet them but for intuitional uses staff refers to a similar land use requirement for exterior materials. In this case it was compared to commercial design standards. Mr. Lyons said they try to hold city buildings to a standard similar to the rest of the community and staff wants to make sure Plan Commission is aware of what building materials are, even though there are no minimum standards. Mr. Mitchell said that in the workshop they had talked about exploring possible ways to utilize the landscaping as a learning opportunity demonstration area. Something that would demonstrate this is clearly a parks department building and not just a street sanitation building. Has there been any sort of developments or progress in that area that would demonstrate the leadership in sustainability. Mr. Maurer said this design was presented to the sustainability advisory board. There is a bioswale and discussion about having educational signage as people exit the parking lot. Mr. Mitchell asked if the city still has the residential property tax incentive for on-site storm water management. Mr. Gierach said the department public works does take stormwater credit applications for both residential and public buildings. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 November 16, 2021 Mr. Mitchell said that it would be a great idea to have Oshkosh Media come in and to build something to share this information online and have the option where people can apply for that credit. Mr. Lyons said he would follow up with Oshkosh Media. Mr. Hinz said that he noticed they are 700 points below what’s required for landscaping. Is there a reason for that other than space. Mr. Lyons said staff is not recommending to grant them any base standards for landscaping and they will have to add those points prior to site plan review. Ms. Davey asked what the plan was for the rest of the green area shown on the map. This would be a great place to showcase a variety of trees. Mr. Maurer said the landlocked parcel was acquired eight years ago. The intent is to use it as a nursery stock area for the street trees that will go out and be planted. John Wallenkamp, Kueny Architects, said they worked with the forestry department to come up with the trees and species they wanted to see around this site. Working with staff, they made sure the trees were a part of the landscape plan that they wanted to see throughout the city eventually. Ms. Davey said that planning is recommending more evergreens. Could there be variety that would be helpful for the public. Mr. Lyons said evergreen plantings are required for some instances. One of them is for the location of the generator and the utilities on the east side. The other instance is that the bufferyard landscaping requirements do require that. Mr. Slusarek said that all of the landscaping needs to be evergreen to meet the bufferyard points and 50% needs to be on the exterior of the fencing. It would need a base standard modification to allow the points being met with deciduous trees. Mr. Lyons said that if Plan Commission did not want those to all be evergreens adjacent to the residential properties, Plan Commission would have to add a base standard modification otherwise base code is going to require that bufferyard landscaping adjacent to single family residential, include those evergreen planting. Mr. Hinz 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 other public comments on this item. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 November 16, 2021 There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Mitchell to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible to have records of meetings with other boards who may have reviewed this plan. He also wanted to make known that he is excited for this project. Motion carried 8-0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) & SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 9 DISTRICT (SR-9) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD) AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JACKSON STREET & W NEVADA AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Hinz, Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp, Council Member Ford, Ms. Scheuermann, and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) and Single Family Residential – 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow for a new middle school development. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is requesting a zone change to add a Planned Development Overlay for the subject parcels that are currently zoned Institutional (I) as well a zone change for 5 existing residential properties from Single Family Residential – 9 (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). This request is intended to provide consistent (I-PD) zoning for the subject parcels, which will allow the lots to be combined. The Planned Development Overlay will allow for flexibility from zoning ordinance requirements, which are needed to accommodate the proposed site development and the unique shape of the proposed lot. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezoning as it will help to accommodate the development of the site and allow for further review of the proposed development as it relates to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 November 16, 2021 surrounding residential uses. The applicant is proposing to combine the subject parcels for the development of a new Merrill Middle School, combining the existing Merrill Middle School and Webster-Stanley Middle School. This site was chosen for the new middle school through a referendum that was passed in November 2020. Elementary and Middle Schools are considered Indoor Institutional land use and are a conditional use in the Institutional District. A Plan Commission workshop was held on September 21, 2021, with Plan Commission voicing support for the proposed plans. A neighborhood meeting was held at the existing Merrill Middle School on September 9, 2021, with neighbors voicing concerns related to pick up/drop off of students, bicycle access/racks, location of the loading area along Jackson St., and appearance of the site as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed development will have four driveway accesses off of Kentucky Street to two parking areas (main parking area and ADA/guest parking area) and one access off of Jackson Street to a loading area to be used for deliveries only. The loading area will be surrounded by 4’ tall steel ornamental fencing to deter pedestrian and vehicle access to the area. The Department of Public Works has noted that the changes to the public right-of-way will need to be discussed in detail and the City will need to determine if the work along Kentucky Street is going to be approved. They have also noted that the public sidewalks need to be placed at the right-of-way line. The City Transportation Department has noted that a traffic impact analysist (TIA) has been reviewed and supported by the Traffic and Parking Advisory Board. Plans include flipping the one-way pairs of Kentucky St. and Central St., which has also been reviewed and approved by the Board, and the reversal of one-way traffic flow for these streets was approved by Common Council on November 9, 2021. The applicant is meeting applicable setbacks for the Institutional district, with the exception street side setbacks for parking/drive areas along Jackson St. and Kentucky St. According to the applicant, the reduced street side setbacks are needed to accommodate floor area and parking needs without forcing the building more toward the middle of the site, resulting in a need for additional building height. Staff is supportive of the reduced pavement setbacks for the drive areas as it is needed to accommodate access to needed parking and loading areas. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Hinz opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Davey asked where the reduced lighting is. Mr. Slusarek said it is off of Jackson St and the northern portion of that loading area. Ms. Scheuermann asked why reduced lighting is allowed in a loading zone. Mr. Lyons said that it's really the layout of the area. They went from 2 access points to a single access point. They have to have some backup room to get back out onto the street. Allows you to __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 November 16, 2021 enter and exit in a forward motion. It was looked at as the limited capacity and limited use. Plan Commission could require them to up it to code minimum. Mr. Mitchell said that it sometimes pains him when they start a topic and they add the commentary in a way can be interpreted as they are only looking at this small portion of what the plan may be for. All of the sites in particular plan for the other site where the school currently sits and he knows that's not on the discussion. If they get too far along this development and the school district comes back and says, well, you approved all of that. And now we don't have enough space. And so this is our only alternative options for the other plot of land which includes potentially demolishing historically significant building. If they do move forward on this particular proposal today that Plan Commission needs to have some sort of come together or some sort of session where they see the full picture of what they're looking at, what they've considered what's been offered to them regarding open space, parks, space, that sort of thing. Mr. Lyons said that he appreciates the comments. Plan Commission does have a definitive role in this and as staff evaluated this. The other side, whether it is green space, or looks at potential housing from, from our perspective doesn't change the fact of what we're evaluating on this site is if this is an appropriate development for this site. I appreciate the comments and the feedbacks and understanding what they may do. They'll decide in the future, but from our perspective, the land use, and the decision made for this site are separate from that. Mr. Mitchell said when we transitioned from the golf course if we would have said, you know, we're not going to look at a full picture of it all and we're just going look at the gas station they want there. So, we're only going to look at that at that gas station, and not see how it flows with the potential other future developments. Not look how it impacts anything else we would not have been doing our job, nor would of the department and we didn't, we were pretty comprehensive on that. There was a full plan. Nate Considine, Bray Architects, said that it was very apparent in the neighborhood meeting that the existing neighbors, whether immediately adjacent to our site, or across the street from our site were respected a visibility perspective whether that's light levels, aesthetics, fencing. They had some input that we wanted to honor. Not lighting the corner was intentional. Most deliveries would happen when it is light outside. For the exiting Merrill sight, if you look back on referendum documents that area has been shown as a green space and the school district could still see it that way. Its future is still to be determined and Plan Commission will be a part of the plan. Mr. Hinz asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Donald Kalmerton, 1310 Jackson St said he is one of the residential properties that will be surrounded by the new facility. To begin with, I would like to commend Justin Mitchell's comment about not going forward with this until you have all of the information. I personally have attended meetings and have not yet received any straight answers to my questions. I do not know that anyone fully understands what's involved here other than perhaps a few people at the school district, the neighborhood to the best of my knowledge. And all of the people that I chat with are __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 November 16, 2021 not happy with things the way that they are. None of the property owners that are directly, by they proposed construction site are happy with the design or how it's laid out. The variance that the school district has asked for the building, as is designed really shouldn't be approved if you're trying to put in a building of this size into a residential area, it should be able to conform and blend in with the neighborhood. It doesn't. It's going to be a sore thumb. I strongly urged the planning commission to reject this application until a complete full plan of what is going to happen with the property is put before the planning commission and the citizens. I'd like to see that setbacks, even increased from 10 to 10 feet per story of construction. Um, based on the foot traffic and vehicle traffic on Jackson Street that this will affect and probably increase the way the current design is and I believe it will not function as you have it designed. I have asked for somebody to talk with about this and as of now, I still don't know who to talk to about this matter. Mr. Mitchell asked if the meetings that Donald attended were public official meetings that the school district had set up. Mr. Kalmerton said that they were neighborhood meetings by the neighborhood associations and a meeting set up by the school board. The other thing I'm highly critical of the school district. They notify some people of the meetings and not everyone. Mr. Lyons said the meeting that took place at Merrill, the city did the notice to make sure we could identify as many people as possible. In this instance, staff went much larger than normal. It was also sent to the neighbored organizations to help distribute. Mr. Mitchell said that the school board meeting in particular is something that could be valuable in the report when there’s a section on a community meeting and the general sentiment if it was positive. It would be helpful to receive better records. This allows us to make an informed decision on what issues were raised and how they are being addressed and what’s the rationale for not addressing them. Mr. Lyons said that Mr. Slusarek did reference it in his comments. Mr. Mitchell said that it ends up being a one or two sentence comment as opposed to actually seeing records similar to previous discussion about what we’re actually seeing and what the issues that were raised and what was the conversation that was had. It seems there are opportunities where we could be getting more information. Mr. Kalmerton said the response by the staff who prepared the notes for the meeting today are very short on the accuracy of how the local residents feel towards this project. You're looking at a project, which encompasses 2 parcels of property in excess of 154 Million dollars the facts, which the school district have referenced as justification for their actions have not been demonstrated to my understanding to be accurate look at the traffic patterns and the traffic counts. They referred to a traffic study. There was according to the traffic engineer who attended the meeting on Merrill Avenue. There was no study. He merely took the traffic engineer merely took the national averages and put it into his report for supplying to the school district. I think that's totally inaccurate. The lighting of the loading zone is inaccurate based on the heavy traffic on the Jackson __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 16, 2021 side of the street. I believe it's justifiable to reduce the lighting on the rest of the building. Having said that I still go back to a building up this size in this area, which is residential should mean be set back at least 10 feet from the property lines for 10 feet for each story of construction. I have not been able to find anybody to honestly talk to after the last meeting on Merrill school. I was very disappointed about the meeting at Merrill school, because the members of the city staff members of the engineering staff members of the school district, all wore face mask and did not take their face masks off to speak. Their speech was muffled on the microphone. Sometimes you could understand it sometimes you couldn't. And there was no directory who was at the meeting, who put on the meeting and who you could contact. I spent 3 days trying to run down the people who were there to make comments or send letters to and I'm sorry but I just couldn't find anybody who could confirm anything this is my attitude on how this has been put forward so far. There are more shadows than facts here and I firmly believe that the zoning board did that, and the planning commission here should not approve this. There's nothing here in front of you, which benefits the school district or benefits the city might in the future but there's nothing there. Now, I believe right now, because of the cost and everything else involved, it will actually do more harm to distribute than benefit. And I, and again, I am more than willing to talk or sit down and explain anything to anybody. Mr. Considine said thank you to all for attending and for the comments that have been voiced. Any questions regarding the referendum as mentioned at the neighborhood meeting can be directed to Dr. David Gundlach, the deputy superintendent of the school districted. He has fielded multiple phone calls and emails. I would encourage any conversation to continue to Dr. Gundlach at the school district. The school district has the best interest in the public, and the community, as it regards to that site and we'll look for further community and engagement and involvement as it relates to the existing building and what that site will do. James Fochs, Oshkosh Area School District, said that an exhaustive traffic study was performed, um, as is necessary for a facility of this size. Moreover, a secondary traffic study was done to try to verify or validate a couple of additional unforeseen traffic patterns by the request of the traffic commission, so there were several meetings with regard to vehicle traffic, drop off with regard to this facility. So again, I do appreciate the concern of the community and the planning commission. Mr. Mitchell said you noted that there were additional meetings and studies and I know that the report indicates that the traffic and parking advisory board discussed traffic analysis. Are those available anywhere. Something that I didn't see it on your website and I certainly don't have that. Is that something that is made available to the public. Mr. Considine say that when we went through the traffic advisory board, that report was made available during that process. I would assume that you would be able to grab it from the cities meeting minutes. Mr. Lyons said he will get those from traffic advisory board. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 16, 2021 Mr. Mitchell said that he feels like those sorts of things are a part of land uses and how it impacts traffic patterns and whatnot. We often talk about restricting entrance and exit and whatnot and that that would be another great thing to have included as we review this. It's a big decision. Mr. Lyons said from a timing standpoint, the reason that went before this is they did wanted council to weigh in on the flipping of the 1 way paired before site design got all the the way to the point for documents being ready for plan commission. So the TIA along with 1 way pairs preceded this part of the project. If council wasn't willing to approve that element of it, it would've substantially impacted the entire design so that's why that element went through its approving body, through the traffic advisory board and then ultimately council prior to the land use and site plan. Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Fochs understands that by moving forward on the proposal today in no way indicates or suggest the support for any sort of idea on the other land and that what we do today, doesn't give a go ahead or has no impact on any other lot that's not under consideration today and therefore it won't later come back and say, well, because you supported this, therefore, we have to have that additional space as blank. That this is a standalone thing. Mr. Fochs said that this is being treated as a completely separate project apart from this building. This building is a standalone project as was pointed out. So we are looking strictly at this facility. The existing parcel that you're referring to that is the existing Merrill middle and elementary school will be evaluated again on a month by month basis. Ultimately, a design standard will be determined in the future a date to which I do not have at this point again, because it is a constant evaluation as to what that will look like. But that will be a freestanding project a couple of years from now. There were no other public comments on this item. There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Hinz closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Hinz asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Mitchell said that I really appreciate the design that they put forth. I think this is a great project and I think it's a great location. I have one kind of real hold up in that we as a body have looked at other developments and there was two neighbors that made concerns and we said no because they couldn't address those concerns. I don't know what the neighbors’ concerns are here because we __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 November 16, 2021 don't have any information on that. I would love to see this body say that bring this back in two weeks, provide us the information so we can see what the neighbors’ concerns are and what's been done to address them. Council Member Ford said that this is a hard one because some of the public comments and public outreach would have been done by the school district as opposed to the city. What is the outreach that has been done on this. Mr. Lyons said that the school district did a number of meetings prior to the referendum. I don't have specific dates or meeting notes from those during the planning process. The city was involved with helping them notice a neighborhood meeting and we sent representatives to the meeting at the existing middle school. There was a number of neighbors with comments made directly about the referendum not wanting the school. Outside of those comments, the questions were about pick up and drop off and how that was going to take place. There were comments about the design of the building, some neighbors thought it was a good looking building and some didn’t. Council Member Ford asked if there would be a need for another vote on this referendum or anything involved with this new school. Mr. Lyons said to the best of his knowledge the referendum was passed and approved for construction for this school as well as the school at the other site and no additional referendum would be required. Ms. Davey said that we're sacrificing a lot of the landscaping points, and I understand why that's helpful not to have that around a school, but I don't want to see this become a trend. We have those landscaping points on there for a reason and it's a significant amount of points between the two buildings. When there are more parking spaces built, we are encouraging people to drive more. We are not encouraging people to use alternative transportation. I think that we need to really aware of how many parking places we build. Why don't we put some of that money into encouraging people to walk, bike or take buses. We need to be working as a community on encouraging more not car transportation and I don't see that we're doing that. I'd like to see the studies, I guess, to show how that's going to work. If this building had more of a rectangular footprint it could then have setbacks that were greater because there'd be more space available and I think that sometimes we tend to see just from our own viewpoint and kind of forget the overall view. Council Member Ford said that one of the conditions we are placing on this is that the final landscaping plan has to be reviewed and approved by the department community development and related to that within the report, discusses the need to change some of the screens and some of the buffer landscaping. So, presumably those recommendations that are in the report will be covered by that condition. Mr. Lyons said that is correct and the conditions are there to address the non-additional yard landscaping. That is the one that one truly deficient. If you take the yard landscaping out of the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 November 16, 2021 equation, they meet most of them, or we'll have to address those other elements that aren't being met outside of a little bit of foundation. We are recommending that there are some base standard modifications really specific to the yard where we reduce it with just the volume of this building and the site and the way it lays out staff feels that it's appropriate with the higher architectural elements to off some of that with landscaping. 6000 landscaping points is a lot of landscaping points for a site. Council Member Ford asked if there was any way to take away a couple of those parking spots to help get closer to the required impervious surface. It could go a long way to alleviate some concerns. Mr. Lyons said there are PTA and parent associations that say they want enough event parking and they want more parking. So when they come to watch their kids’ basketball game and whatnot, and then we have some of the city codes and our desire to look at sustainable practices that really butt heads and just trying to evaluate what is the best use in each situation. There's a lot more bump out to get cars out of travel lanes to help facilitate some of that waiting area for child pick up. It was significantly discussed as making sure we don't repeat the issues that Traeger had. Mr. Perry said as a property owner in an adjacent area next to the school, I think that the parking lot is probably not big enough on a Monday through Friday during school hours and after school hours. I can't even park within 300 feet of my property because of the street parking by all the staff employees and others. So I have no problem with the parking whatsoever. I also want to remind this board that we're not here to discuss the merits of what the school district did, or didn't do to get to this point. There was a referendum past. We're here to discuss the project that is in front of us right now and I think we've spent far too much time discussing what could, or couldn't have been, or what did, or didn't do we have a project in front of us and this is our duty right here. Ms. Scheuermann said there were suggestions made during workshop and if they had taken them into consideration. Mr. Lyons said they did not. Ms. Scheuermann asked if the plan will come back to the board. Mr. Lyons said that unless it gets tabled or council refers it back to the Plan Commission, it would not come back to the board. Ms. Scheuermann asked what the harm would be to table this for two weeks. Mr. Lyons said that zone change takes two readings in front of council, the 1st, which would be November 23rd. The 2nd would be December 14th. For statutory requirements delaying just the plain development portion of it. Now, the zone change portion of it would need to get done today, but ultimately we could move the zone change portion of it forward separate from the plan development. In the final decision. Date would all still end up in December 14th. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 November 16, 2021 Ms. Propp said that she recognizes this building is an intrusion into the neighborhood but that the current Merrill building is three stories. Delaying will not help any and we will not come up with any different conclusion. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend proceed with only the zone change. Seconded by Davey. Motion to amend lost 3-4. Original Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:31 pm. (Perry/Scheuermann) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager