Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 16, 2024 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 16, 2024 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Meredith Scheuermann, Kathleen Propp, Council Member Nichols, Margy Davey EXCUSED: Kristopher Ulrich, Karl Loewenstein, John Kiefer, Thomas Perry STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Brian Slusarek, Principal Planner; Brandon Nielsen, Associate Planner; Mark Lyons called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. The Chair and Vice-Chair are unable to attend today so we need to start the meeting by electing a Chair for this meeting specifically. Kathy Propp approved as Chair. (Davey/Bowen) Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of July 2, 2024 were approved as presented. (Davey/Scheuermann) I. DOWNTOWN VISUALIZATION PLAN PRESENTATION Mr. Lyons stated this item is being moved to the 8/6/24 Plan Commission meeting, due to low PC member attendance today. II. RELEASE OF SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON PARTS OF 2405, 2425, 2445, 2465, 2485, AND 2525 HEARTHSTONE DRIVE, AND 821 PARK RIDGE AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Scheuermann reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh is requesting the release of a sanitary sewer easement located within seven separate parcels. Mr. Nielsen presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site involves six properties located on Hearthstone Drive and one property on Park Ridge Avenue. In 1981 the City was granted an easement, what is now within the properties listed above, for sanitary sewer facilities that were constructed in 1980. At that time the current parcels were not platted. In 2000 the parent parcel, with said easements, was subdivided into the Sarres Plat. The plat dedicated right-of-way that included the construction of a sanitary sewer main within the street because the Department of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 16, 2024 Public Works determined that it was more desirable to utilize a sewer main in a street versus a main within an easement on a parcel; therefore, this specific section of the sewer main in the easement was abandoned in the year 2000, but the easement remained. The existing utilities will be abandoned in-place, and the City will no longer be responsible for maintenance. Staff recommends approval of the sanitary sewer easement release intersects as proposed. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Nichols asked if there is a sanitary sewer underneath. Mr. Nielsen said there is. Mr. Gierach said that these would have been abandoned when Hearthstone Drive was installed, so he is not sure if they were abandoned in placed or removed at that time. There are currently no functioning municipal utilities underneath that easement. Mr. Nichols asked if there was a chance of the property owners’ backyards caving in. Mr. Gierach said he doesn’t know because it was done in the early 2000s. Staff doesn’t know if the pipes were removed. Mr. Nichols asked if the property owners are aware of this. Mr. Lyons said the request came from a property owner because they wanted to put in a fence, but the permit could not be granted because of the easement. Planning staff and the property owner worked with Public Works to determine the easement is no longer necessary, which frees up some of the use of the properties. Mr. Nichols asked if it is possible for the pipes in the easement to collapse one day because the City is not maintaining it anymore. Mr. Gierach said that it is a possibility, and he believes it would be one singular pipe that is small in diameter and doesn’t expect it to be a major long-term issue. Mr. Nichols questioned that this isn’t a 60-inch-long pipe. Mr. Gierach said that is correct. Mr. Nichols asked if the easement continues across Park Ridge Avenue and the City will keep those to go to additional housing. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 16, 2024 Mr. Gierach said that is correct, the sanitary sewer easements to the north side of Park Ridge Avenue will remain because they are being used. Ms. Propp opened public comment and asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ms. Propp closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 5-0. III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS AT 640 NORTH MAIN STREET Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Scheuermann, Ms. Propp, Mr. Nichols, and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of Specific Implementation Plan Amendment for building modifications. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject area consists of an approximate 0.5-acre parcel located on the east side of North Main Street, north of East Parkway Avenue. The site has an existing building that was previously used as an auto service facility and associated vehicle parking/storage area. The surrounding area consists primarily of commercial uses as well as residential uses to the east. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Center City use for the subject area. On May 25, 2021, Common Council approved a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a gas station/convenience store and laundromat. The approved development has not been constructed. Plans were previously approved to renovate the existing 6,931 sq. ft. building for a convenience store/laundromat as well as a new fuel station/canopy with 6 pumps and associated parking area. The applicant has submitted revised plans for remodel of the existing building with the second floor being removed resulting in a one-story 5,800 sq. ft. building. The building will be used as a __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 16, 2024 convenience store with space for a future tenant (to be determined). No changes are proposed to the fuel station or parking area. A neighborhood meeting was held on July 8, 2024. No neighbors attended the meeting. Staff received a phone call from a neighbor who was unable to attend the meeting. They stated that they would prefer an 8’ tall CMU fence rather than the proposed 8’ tall cedar fence along the east property line to increase the buffer for their residence. No changes are being proposed to the existing site design or landscaping. The applicant has not submitted revised signage plans. The existing SIP included a Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow a 15’ tall electronic message board sign to be placed 94 ft. from a residentially-zoned parcel, where code requires a 100’ separation from residentially-zoned properties. Wall signage and canopy signage must be compliant with UMU district signage standards, which allow a maximum of 1 sq. ft. of signage per linear foot of building frontage. Ground signage must comply with UMU signage standards or match the approved sign of the existing SIP. No changes are being proposed to the approved landscaping plan. However, the applicant has modified proposed fencing for buffer yard requirements from the approved 6’ solid CMU fencing to 8’ tall cedar fencing. Staff does not have concerns with the fencing revision as buffer yard requirements do not specify material of the minimum 6’ tall solid fencing. The approved building elevations of the existing SIP consisted predominantly of Class I materials (brick veneer/storefront windows) on all facades along with a split-face CMU knee wall. The applicant has submitted revised building elevations that consist of brick, storefront windows, and LP Smartside. The proposed building elevations slightly exceed the 50% Class I material requirement on the front (west) and side (south) façades. The applicant is requesting reduced Class I materials on the north (side) façade. Staff is supportive of the Class I material reduction on this façade as the building is built to the property line and it is anticipated that future development on the property to the north of the site will result in minimal visibility of this façade. To offset the requested Class I material reduction, the applicant has slightly increased Class I materials on the south and west facades and included variation of colors and entrance awnings for added detail and have included enhanced materials (brick) on the canopy columns. Staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation Plan Amendment as proposed with the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons said the applicants came back with this request because they are aware of The Corridor development to the north that will be coming forward in the near future. They didn’t think the design they had blended well with that project. They requested the concept elevations for that project, although not approved yet, but wanted to match the cohesiveness of the area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 16, 2024 Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp opened public comment and asked if the applicant wanted to make a statement. Laura Kroll, 500 N. Commercial Street in Neenah WI, said that the project is a convenience store with a gas station. It was previously approved by Plan Commission, but materials were changed to be more cohesive with the building to the north. They are proposing a change in the fencing from a six-foot high masonry to an eight-foot-high cedar fence. She is not aware of any city codes that would require a masonry fence. The current proposed eight-foot cedar does meet code and it’s less expensive. Ms. Propp asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Barb Kagak, 637 Jefferson Street, stated she has been at her residence for 22 years. She is concerned about having a large building behind her that will have public access. She said Main Street is not known for having nice or quiet public guests. She would rather have the masonry fence instead of the cedar. She doesn’t care what it looks like, but would prefer her privacy. Ms. Propp asked the applicant about the fence change. Ms. Kroll stated the original proposal was cedar fence. During the Plan Commission meeting in 2021, it was changed to masonry. It has now been changed to a cedar fence. Ms. Propp asked if it’ll be an eight-foot cedar fence. Ms. Kroll said that it will be an eight-foot cedar fence instead of a six-foot masonry fence. Ms. Propp asked when this project would start. Ms. Kroll said that pending approval, it will start at the end of summer. Ms. Propp closed public comment. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Bowen asked if the CMU fence was something that the applicant had proposed or something that Plan Commission requested. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 16, 2024 Mr. Lyons said that the primary discussion back in 2021 in regards to the fence, was six feet versus eight feet. Code requires six feet as part of the bufferyard standards, but it allows up to eight feet. The approval was only for the six-foot CMU style fencing. What is currently being proposed exceeds code as an eight-foot cedar. The neighbor, considering the proximity, would prefer to see an eight-foot CMU. There were a number of base standard modifications that were granted as part of the original approval for this gas station to be on the small lot. Granting these BSMs allow Plan Commission to question if an eight-foot CMU is necessary or is the commission comfortable with eight-foot cedar. It’s up to their discretion. Mr. Bowen asked if when this originally approved, if the focus was less on the material and more on the height. Mr. Lyons said there was a discussion about if the fencing should be eight feet instead of six feet. The original material was noted as CMU. Mr. Bowen asked if that was proposed by the applicant rather than required by the Plan Commission. Mr. Lyons said there is nothing in the minutes from that meeting that specifically changed it to CMU. Ms. Scheuermann asked if there is a noise buffer difference between the two types of fencing. Mr. Lyons said he cannot comfortably answer that since they have not evaluated the noise suppression of wood versus CMU. Mr. Nichols asked for confirmation that the proposed fencing currently is exceeding code. Mr. Lyons said that is correct, that six-foot solid fencing is the standard requirement. Ms. Propp wanted to know what a CMU fence is. Mr. Lyons said that CMU is essentially concrete blocks. Mr. Bowen said that CMU is a concrete block wall, maybe similar to what is around the Paine. Ms. Propp does not like the CMU fence. It would not be appropriate in that neighborhood. She would prefer an eight-foot cedar fence, which is what is being proposed by the applicant. Ms. Davey asked if having an eight-foot cedar fence doesn’t preclude anything that goes on behind that fence. She asked if there could be other barriers. Mr. Lyons said that is correct, the owner could do something in addition if they chose to. Motion carried 5-0. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 16, 2024 IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM 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 A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AT 600 MERRITT AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Scheuermann, Ms. Propp, Mr. Nichols, and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Single Family Residential - 9 District (SR-9) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD). The applicant also requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan to allow a multi-family residential use. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site is the Marian Manor apartments located on Merritt Avenue, Boyd Street, and Monroe Street. The site is currently a legal nonconforming site. It is zoned SR – 9 which does not allow multi-family residential. There is currently 121 apartment units on the site. The applicant is requesting a zone change to Institutional District with a Development Overlay (I-PD). The Planned Development Overlay would allow them to request to make their legal nonconforming use allowed, and allow them to expand it through that planned development process. Staff is supportive of the proposed rezone as it will be consistent with I-PD zoning of neighboring properties to the south, Saint Mary’s Church, and west, Boys and Girls Club. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the site design or exterior of the site. They are proposing an additional six apartment units within the building. The existing site is housed by very low-income persons, with most being older adults and persons with disabilities. They are going from 121 units to 127 units, and no changes to the building exterior or the site design. Apartments are not permitted in the Institutional District. A Base Standard Modification (BSM) is needed to allow the additional apartment units. Staff is supportive of a BSM to allow the additional apartments as it is consistent with the existing use of the property and the relatively minor increase in number of residents should not negatively impact the surrounding area. Tenants are not anticipated to have personal vehicles, so no changes are expected to existing parking on the site or traffic in the surrounding area. Staff recommends approval of the zone change, General Development Plan, and Specific Implementation Plan with the findings and condition listed in the staff report. Mr. Lyons stated this is a clean-up. It was a nonconforming use. They want to remodel their office into six more units. We took a look at the zoning to see if multi-family would be appropriate. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 16, 2024 However, design characteristics of the building do not meet multi-family, so we would have created a different type of nonconforming use. We felt it was appropriate to use I-PD given the I in the surrounding area, the style of development, and the PD be in place for any future development. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make a statement. Wade Foley, of 1100 West 20th Avenue, Director of Maintenance for the Oshkosh Housing Authority. The project is pretty much ready and during the appraisal for financing this popped up. We have to get it resolved. Ms. Propp asked about the area being remodeled into apartments. Mr. Foley stated the community area being remodeled is more of a tv lounge. There are two other community spaces in the building which will remain. Ms. Propp asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Due to time constraints, items V.A & V.B were presented together with discussions after. V.A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM CENTRAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT WITH RIVERFRONT OVERLAY (CMU-RFO) TO CENTRAL MIXED-USE DISTRICT WITH RIVERFRONT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (CMU-RFO-PD) FOR PROPERTY AT 400 CITY CENTER Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Scheuermann, Ms. Propp, Mr. Nichols, and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 16, 2024 The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Central Mixed-Use District with Riverfront Overlay (CMU-RFO) to Central Mixed-Use District with Riverfront and Planned Development Overlay (CMU-RFO-PD). Mr. Slusarek presented the items 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 from the existing Central Mixed-Use District with Riverfront Overlay (CMU-RFO) designation to Central Mixed-Use District with Riverfront and Planned Development Overlay (CMU-RFO-PD) for the subject property. The requested Planned Development Overlay designation is intended to allow for flexibility in the zoning ordinance to accommodate a new use on the property. The applicant has submitted plans for a personal storage facility, which will be addressed as a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) review to follow. Staff is supportive of the proposed zone change to include a Planned Development Overlay as it may serve to accommodate future development needs for the site. The Planned Development Overlay will provide flexibility for future development or redevelopment plans as it relates to the unique lot configuration with four street frontages. Staff recommends approval of the zone change with the findings listed in the staff report. V.B. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR A PERSONAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 400 CITY CENTER Site Inspections Report: Site Inspections Report: Mr. Bowen, Ms. Scheuermann, Ms. Propp, Mr. Nichols, and Ms. Davey reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for a personal storage facility. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant is proposing to remodel the northern portion of the City Center building for a personal storage facility use (Extra Space Storage). The applicant is requesting a base standard modification (BSM) to allow the personal storage facility use as it is not permitted in the CMU District. According to the applicant, the site will have four overhead doors for customer vehicle access and approximately 35 customer cars per day anticipated. The storage use will result in a reduction of parking demand for the site as it will only need 4 parking spaces as compared to commercial uses which have a higher parking demand. The applicant feels that this will help with future needs for the site. A Plan Commission workshop was held on May 21, 2024 to discuss the proposed plans. Plan Commission was generally supportive of the plans. Staff has concerns with allowing a storage use within the Central Mixed-Use District as the zoning ordinance only allows this use within industrial zoning districts and may not fit the character of a downtown area. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 July 16, 2024 The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Center City use for the subject area. Storage or industrial uses are not permitted uses based on the Comp. Plan. The site is located within the Downtown Outer Core subarea of the Imagine Oshkosh Plan. Industrial and storage are not listed as desired uses for the area within the Imagine Oshkosh Plan. Staff understands the applicant’s difficulties filling the vacant building space based on current market demands. With the proposed use being prohibited in this zoning district, staff recommends Plan Commission determine if granting a Base Standard Modification (BSM) for the proposed use is appropriate for the site. The applicant provided a landscape plan. They are proposing to remove all existing landscaping that surrounds the building and install new landscaping. The new landscaping will result in 136% of the existing landscaping points. This would serve to offset the BSM if granted for the storage land use. The applicant is proposing to close the loading dock, provide glass overhead doors, paint concrete panels, and utilize metal cladding. Staff is supportive of the proposed exterior modifications as all existing window openings will be maintained and the proposed metal cladding features are of a comparable material class to the existing concrete panels. The applicant also proposes using spandrel glass in window openings to shield the view of the storage operations within the building. This serves to limit the industrial appearance of the site. Staff has concerns with allowing a prohibited storage use and is recommending Plan Commission determine if and how the industrial use meets the criteria for a Planned Development and required findings. Should Plan Commission recommend approval, staff is supportive of the proposed landscaping and building exterior modifications. Mr. Lyons stated because this is inconsistent with our underlying plans for the area, if Plan Commission chooses to recommend approval, they will need to articulate their exact findings on why this should be approved. The normal findings we use cannot be used in this instance, so Plan Commission and Council will have to articulate specific reasons and findings for why, if recommending approval. Ms. Propp opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Bowen and Ms. Scheuermann wanted clarification on findings. Mr. Lyons stated if there is a motion to approve, there must be findings articulated as part of the motion. Findings are basically your specific reasons why you have come to that conclusion. Findings become part of all ordinances and resolutions. Mr. Nichols wondered how the findings are handled by Council. Mr. Lyons stated Council could adopt the findings that Plan Commission recommends, or they could choose to make their own set of findings. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 July 16, 2024 Mr. Nichols wanted to know how many housing units are proposed, right now, for the downtown area. Mr. Lyons will research that. Ms. Propp referenced pages that list findings in the staff report. Ms. Lyons stated findings A through J in the zoning ordinance are examples for a planned development as listed in the ordinance. It gives you some criteria, and types of things you can consider. They are by no means the only things you can consider. Mr. Nielsen stated when staff recommends approval on other planned developments, the findings used are applicable to the specific property/development so they vary. Ms. Propp opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Kurt Koeppler, of 1726 River Mill Road, resident of Oshkosh for fifty years, and one of the managing partners and owners of City Center. We purchased this property in 2001 and at that time it had a seventy-five percent vacancy rate. Since the purchase, we have invested over twelve million dollars in improvements. The project we are bringing you today is a critical part of our property. The market for large office space is virtually non-existent. Due to Covid more people are working from home. This previously was a US Bank back-room office complex. They downsized because most of their people are working from home. We have had the property on the market for two years and have received no interest. We think that Extra Space Storage will be a great fit for our property and the reasons are as follows: they’re a national chain with over thirty-five hundred locations; they have the largest self-storage facility in the country; parking is a problem at our property when we are full; US Bank tenant required two hundred parking stalls and US Bank (maybe meant to say Extra Space Storage) will require four, so it is a significant downsize of our parking requirements enabling us to offer more parking to future and potential tenants. Extra Space Storage operates more as a retail destination. They have limited access with overhead doors with controlled entrances. Customers will drive up, open one of the overhead doors, pull in, close the door behind them, unload, and then exit. There will be no storage outside of any vehicles. No trailers; no semis; everything will be inside. Will average about thirty-five cars a day. That is the normal car load that would be arriving. We have done extensive research on Extra Space Storage and believe they will be a great asset to our property and to the community. Apartment living has become a way of life for many Americans and the need to put their excess items in storage has become a necessity. Extra Space Storage fits that need. I have toured some of their sites. I have even used some of their sites, and they are first rate. They are well lit, safe, clean, and they couldn’t run a better operation. We plan to make improvements to the exterior of the building to facilitate this need. For the sake of clarity, Mr. Koeppler asked staff to put up the elevations on the screen and he then discussed them in detail. This will be a great upgrade for us. I can’t explain how important it is to our site, to let us maintain the current budget plans that we have that allow us to keep it looking as good as it does. Thank you for your time. I want to commend you on the workshop __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 July 16, 2024 idea. I have been doing this for a lot of years, and have come before the Plan Commission on numerous occasions. I think the workshop is a great addition to what you guys do. Eric Welhouse, of W2646 Buchanan Road in Appleton WI, is an owner of several Extra Space Storage sites, and the developer working with Mr. Koeppler on the City Center location. Will go over some highlights. This facility will be staffed. There will be access hours, which I think were indicated before in the workshop. The typical hours of operation for staffing are from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Saturday is 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The access hours are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. So, it is not like it is open 24/7. It should eliminate loitering and keep everybody’s stuff safe. These are Class A storage facilities. It’s really a different product. Most of the time when people hear of self-storage they think of long buildings with multiple doors, and poorly lit. This is completely opposite. There is LED lighting, it is staffed, and hours of operation. Extra Space Storage is the largest self-storage operator in the United States. They know what they are doing and they do it very well. They coexist in multiple urban settings like this throughout the nation. I can give you examples of those if you’d like. Ms. Propp asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ms. Propp closed the public hearing and public comments. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Item V.A: Zone Change Motion by Davey to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Scheuermann. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Item V.B: GDP and SIP Motion by Nichols to approve the General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan with the following findings: 1. Does not detract from the physical appearance of the area and actually improves the look of a building that is a long-term staple of our downtown area. 2. Produces a logical use for a downtown area that has limited storage opportunities. 3. The continued growth of the downtown area for residential use with multi-family housing will necessitate increased convenient self-storage. Seconded by Scheuermann. Ms. Propp asked if there was any discussion on the motion. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 July 16, 2024 Ms. Scheuermann is overwhelmingly in support of this, mostly for the general look, feel, and need. If you look up the franchise you instantly get a warm feel. This feels more like a business to me, with hours of operation. Less cars coming and going. Seems like a no brainer to me. Mr. Bowen wondered if the social security office is staying in City Center, or if the storage encompasses that area as well. Mr. Koeppler stated that will be staying, as they have a long-term lease. The storage will just be in the old US Bank portion of the building. Mr. Bowen stated activating this space and making sure it remains relevant is a better use than it being vacant and dragging down everything around it. This is something I can definitely get behind. Ms. Davey wondered if they would tear down the building, if their proposal did not pass. Mr. Koeppler stated no. Ms. Davey asked if there are four overhead doors. Mr. Koeppler stated yes. Ms. Propp thinks it is important to maintain the whole City Center, which has become a really important part of downtown. The architecture on this building is unique, and was done by a noted architect. I want to support this. Motion carried 5-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm. (Davey/Scheuermann) The workshops were moved to 8/6/24 Plan Commission upon request of the applicants. Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager ML/km/hs