Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, after Bruce, you switched it up on me today. You switched it up on me. How did meeting go last night? Well, the idea is I'm going to get Andrew over here and it's going to be the burgam and bulk and boredom thing. All right. And see what the minutes turn out to be then. It's a good Yeah. challenge. That's a lot of bees.

I want you ready. Okay. All right, looks like we're ready in the back. Uh, good evening. You're at a plan commission of the city of Wasau. It's Tuesday, September 16th, 2025. It is 50:03 p.m. City Hall council chambers. We have a quorum present. Item one up first is approve of the meeting minutes for August 19th. Would entertain a motion. Motion second. Bugamin Barnaman or Bern other way around. Bulan got him off. Got him off.

Motion Balkan and Bugamman second. Questions, comments, changes. All those in favor of accepting the minutes from August 19th signify by saying I. I. Any nos? That's approved. Item number two is discussion and possible action on landmarking Eastgate Hall at Marathon Park. This came to us from historic preservation. I would entertain a motion. Motion from Balkan.

Second from Watson. All right, that one we have our parks director on the line to make a comment on. Do we want to go to that first? Sure. Okay. Can you hear me, Brad? Yeah. Yep. Go ahead.

Okay. All right. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, and members of the plan commission. Uh, this in your packet was a letter that came from the county um, regarding the designation of Eastgate Hall. Um, unfortunately, I had a scheduling conflict of the historic preservation committee meeting that I was supposed to attend to discuss this. Um, and I didn't make it. I had my times mixed up. So, um the historic preservation pushed it through, but I had attended their previous meeting and talked about this building and about um the stone wing versus the whole building itself. The whole building we had gone through had gone through significant changes of the main white part of the building. I know in your packet is pictures of the the facility itself. Um so, there's really two parts to this building. It's the main uh youth building which is the white building um that has gone through renovations um two times now for sure in the last uh 25 years. So it does look significantly different than it was originally built. Um even the inside is much different without the stage um some different windows and everything. And then there's the stone wing um that has not changed. Um it's pretty significant in the stone structure built by uh the youth ad national youth administration and you know the whole building was home to some speeches. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke there in 1967. We have pictures of them in both areas, but we did take to this to our uh park commission as well as our HR finance and property committee at the county and both of them talked about it significantly and about the changes to the buildings. Um both committees are recommending that the plan commission uh change the designation of the building to just designate the stone wing of Eastgate Hall as historically

significant being that it is unchanged the stone significance and how it was built um and not the entire building. And I know the historic preservation commission has done this before. Um at the same meeting I was at previously where they discussed this. they were talking about a church and only did a portion of the church and not the full building. So, um the is respectfully asking the plan commission if you are going to designate um a portion of this building or all of this building that you only designate the stone wing of Eastgate Hall and not the entire facility.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone have questions of Miss Polly? So it it seems that we if we wanted to consider that request, we would have an option to amend this as stated or return it to historic preservation, right?

Yeah, I think there's a few different options. I mean, the way the ordinance is set up, you know, the historic preservation has their criteria. The plan commission has slightly different criteria. So they each give their separate recommendations to city council. So you know it could go on a split vote. Um so it you know if one option could be to uh recommend as the historic preservation commission did for the whole building. Another option could be to just recommend the stone wing as as the parks department uh you know has has said that they would support. And then I mean even if it were a negative vote from this commission, if you didn't want to landmark any of it, then that that still in my understanding would go to council for them to have the final say on whether it is ultimately landmarked or not. So there are some different options for this commission. Um, I guess you know just as some background and Jamie kind of hit on this, but the Historic Preservation Commission did find there's historic significance in the building. Um, at the time they were considering the whole building. Um, so that's kind of their charge is to hold a public hearing and and determine whether it is significant or not. Our criteria is a little bit different here. It has more to do with the development of the property itself um and if it's in line with our plans and if it's going to affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Slightly different criteria, but ultimately we're, you know, weighing in on whether this should be landmarked or not. So, I guess, you know, again, it is possible to have different recommendations from different committees that the council will then take up and make the ultimate decision. I I have a question. Jamie, are you still on?

I am. Yes. So, if if we were to make a distinction between the stone part and the other part, aren't aren't isn't the building really one integrated event building? I mean, would how would you manage one piece that's connected to the other? These aren't separated by by some structure, is there?

Um, no, they are connected, but they I mean, when we've done renovations to the main part of the building, we don't do anything to East Hall. So, they are essentially two buildings connected. Um, they can be even used separately. They have separate entrances which we can designate. Um, I mean, really, this comes in into play if we were going to do anything uh major as far as a construction project on the buildings, which I don't really see the county doing. We just did a big upgrade and essentially the building stayed, you know, similar in shape. We upgraded the windows, the floor, the ceiling, um lighting, air, um our heating system, stuff like that, which is part of the building. We didn't do anything in the youth building. So, I guess our our work is a lot or and not in the youth building in the stone wing. Um, it is connected, but it it can be separated. It's kind of two use areas of the building. And I don't know, Brad, you maybe can speak to that better with like that St. John's, I believe it was, that the historic preservation had an addition on to that only designated a portion and not the addition.

Sure. Yeah, we we have 30 some local landmarks in the city right now and there are a handful that actually do distinguish between different parts of the building. East High is one example. It's just the 1936 I believe uh original structure, not any of the later editions, and there's two churches that do the same thing as the original structure. Um, so I think what that does is, you know, signal to future commissions and councils that, you know, that's kind of the most important part of the building. It's they're less concerned with the additions because they're not as historically significant. Um, you know, they're really the important part is a lot of times the original or the older part of the building. Um and again designating just that part you know signifies again that that's that should be of concern uh from a historical significance in practicality. I mean it there is not a lot of difference because you know especially since they're attached if there are renovations to the other additions or the parts that aren't necessarily landmarked it still goes through a similar process because it is connected and there's some language in the ordinance that says you know if it affects the landmark or if it's on the same property as a landmark then it should be reviewed but again that distinction u other commission commissions and councils have felt important just to to let future people know that you know this is this is the part that should be focused on if that makes sense.

So if this were to pass here it still could be changed at council or amended. Yes. Yep. Or they could send it back I guess in theory. Um, but I would say it should no matter what happens here, it would go to council whether that's a split vote or a similar relative to the plan commission's responsibilities.

Yeah. If if we think about the designation of the property interfering with orderly development of the city, how does this or does it conflict with wasn't didn't county approved kind of their west side master plan and isn't that part of that was like 22 or 23 that part of it? Does this conflict with any or does it restrict any of what's already been agreed upon redevelopment plan while not acted on yet? Does it interfere with that?

Yeah, that's that's a good question and that's exactly the type of things that we should be looking for. um you know in the criteria here on the screen you know letter B is how does it affect parts of various plans master plans redevelopment plans um so yeah I mean I guess if Jamie's willing to I don't know if you heard the question Jamie but it has to do with how does it tie into the the westside master plan or the master plan for the marathon park

so I did hear the question thank you Um we actually so the westside master plan identified the updates that we've already completed on Eastgate Hall. So the the westside master plan called for the updating of the facility to enhance rentals of it um changing the front facade on it um adding some pillars and then doing all the things that I mentioned previously. So that project was all completed um a year ago. So, our portion of the westside master plan that deals with this building at this point is complete.

We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any offers to adjust that? Could we Yeah, I'm not sure if we did. Could we clarify what the motion is exactly? If I don't remember that one was made. Was one made? Oh, we we did have a motion. Okay. On the on the as it was presented.

Bruce made the motion. Okay. So, we have a motion. It's what Jamie does. So, we'd be looking at if somebody was interested in offering an amendment, we would take an amendment at this point

because the the way it's written in the packet, it's written as as accepting the whole thing. So, if we're going to change it, we would need to amend that that recommendation. I would move to make an amendment to the original motion to just include the stone or what's it called? The stone wing stone wing and not in the entirety of the building. Okay. Motion to amend from Watson for the stone wing only. Looking for a second. Second from Balkan. Further discussion?

No, you we'll we'll vote on the original. So, any questions on the amendment? Any other comments on that? Is that clear? Okay. All those in favor of of amending to accept the stone portion only of the East Gate Hall signify by saying I. Any opposed?

We have one no. Okay. Now we are on the main motion and that is to accept the landmarking of East Gate Hall as amended to mean the st the stone portion only. Any further on that? All those in favor of landmarking east gate all as amended signify by saying I. And those not in favor.

And one no. Okay, that passes. That'll go to council. Uh, item three is discussion and possible action on landmarking Irving School, 833 South 3rd Avenue. And that again coming from Historic Preservation. Would entertain a motion on that one. [Music] I'll make that motion.

Motion from Balkan. Not seeing a second. Last chance for lack of a second. That fails. That is not uh it does not fail. We are not taking it up. Item four, discussion and possible action on approving a sculpture on the River Edge Trail Parks and Wreck. Uh, it came from Parks and Recreck and Arts Commission. I think it passed unanimously in both. I'm not sure what the motion from Bugamin.

I'd second it. Second from Watson. Discussion. Brad, you want to give a little overview for the public?

Sure. Yeah. So, yeah, last night the arts commission did take this up. We didn't have the minutes ready, but um ultimately they did recommend in favor of approving the sculpture at the proposed location. There was just some discussion about some of the details uh around, you know, the making sure that it's historically accurate. Um they had a couple suggestions but nothing to to hold up the approval of the process. Uh parks and recck committee previously also looked at it and uh recommended approval as well. So um we've always run it through plan commission prior to council um based on a statute that we've cited before. Any dedication of statues, memorials, etc. should come here for approval. and uh go to council. And I guess just a final note, you know, we will be looking at a written agreement with the foundations, the Walter Alexander Foundation and Jud S. Alexander Foundation are funding the sculpture in its entirety. Um they're just asking that the city relocate the boulders that are on the site currently and then help them with running the electricity to the base of the sculpture. Again, all of that, the base and the sculpture itself will be provided by the the foundations. So, um I guess that's it in a nutshell. If anyone has any questions,

questions on that, Mr. Balkan. Um I didn't have my uh my uh grand overview of the uh Riverlife area. What is that space that's outlined? What is that proposed? That would be right behind the proposed sculpture. That's the potential Wangguard project. So, it would be a resident uh apartment, two apartment complexes there similar to what Riverlife is size-wise.

Yeah. And that zoomed in area that right now there's a junior achievement uh pl there's plaques there for junior achievement. It it would be separated by a landscape buffer right behind there. This is the the node to Barker Stewart Island. There's a bridge out there. So, it' be on the the uh river side of the trail, so it wouldn't interfere with any private development. Uh again, the only thing that's there is are the boulders that that can be relocated.

Brad, I do have a question. We talked a little bit about this. You know, every time anytime we get something donated to the city like the uh splash pads and the fountains, uh we're going through the budget right now and it's it's a great asset to have, but when you look at the maintenance and the water usage, for example, on the fountains, it adds up to big money. Uh are there maintenance concerns with this moving forward? Is it a set it and forget it or is there some Sure. Yeah.

Yeah. So, um the sculpture would be made of bronze, very similar to the uh the kayaker sculpture that's out on Washington Street. And right now, Parks does maintain that in-house. It just requires washing and waxing that they do every year. And so, it could potentially be done inhouse depending on their schedule and the complexity with this one. I don't if they can get to the top. It's over, you know, 10 feet tall. Um, we have discussed that with parks. Um, they may look to contract that out in the future for this one and the kayaker. Um, I'm working on getting more concrete estimates. There's a a sculpture cleaner that I've talked to that's coming to Wasa to do some other sculptures. I'm going to meet with them and get more concrete uh, you know, estimates. But from what I've gathered, and we talked with the Liyaki Museum as well, they have a bunch of bronze sculptures that they maintain. Um, the maintenance is usually once a year. It maybe could be extended to once every two years depending on how dirty it gets out there um and how, you know, shiny and and new we want to keep it. you know, some sculptures develop a patina and and that's okay um generally as long as it's not too much. So, depending on how well we want to maintain it and um and you know the budget, it it's h could be extended every couple years and and from what I've seen, it's it may be a couple hundred dollars to maybe $1,000 each time per sculpture. again if we did uh contract it out for it from a a national cleaning person. Um but again that that's kind of variable and it nothing would really be required until

you know a couple years in the future this assuming they get the approvals from the city they would u the sculptor would would build it within the next 11 months and deliver it to Wasa and it wouldn't need a cleaning for another year or more after that. So, it would be a couple few years in the future that we'd need to do the first cleaning, I guess, and otherwise maintenance otherwise would be minimal. Um, they're asking for a spotlight to be they're going to look at the light, but we're going to run electricity to it. So, um, really there's there's not much maintenance to go into it once it's there.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else on that? All right. with a motion and a second on accepting the or approving the sculpture on the River Edge Trail. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Any opposed? Uh, Mr. Chair, I apologize for my lateness. I was out of town and I did not get back in time. All right. Well, you're here for the next item. All right. Uh, so we didn't we didn't log a vote for Mr. Larson on that last one. I think I I don't know when I didn't see him come in. I don't know. Lou, you voted on this one, right? But not the previous. Correct. Okay. Okay.

All right. So, item five isformational presentation to summarize the zoning review completed by SoulMart Krie Edmonson.

Yes. Thank you, Chair Denny, members of the planning commission. So we are embarking on souls smart designation at the request of the sustainability energy and environment committee. Um this is a pretty common designation. It's similar to bicycle friendly community um tree city USA or bird city. It provides a benchmark criteria for us to see where we fall in comparison to other municipalities um in terms of how solar friendly we are. and we have done a lot of really great work um and have a lot of great things in place um that will likely work in our favor. I mean I think with with pretty little commitment we will do pretty well in this category. Um the areas that they look at are permitting and inspection, planning and zoning, government operations, community engagement and market development. A lot of the work is around permitting and inspection and planning and zoning. that that's a lot of what they look at and provide feedback and help technical assistance on ways we can improve. Um so the one of the first items they've done is a zoning review. So they basically take a look through our zoning code and hold it up against what they feel is the most important and see where we land. And overwhelmingly in all categories we did well um in roof mounted solar, ground mounted accessory use solar, ground mounted primary use solar. Um, the only thing that they felt like we could improve on is our zoning code doesn't contain a purpose statement, which this is a relatively minor thing. I mean, this is kind of an aspirational request, you know, that in our zoning code we we make this statement. Um, we certainly agree that that would be helpful. We just the layout of our zoning code doesn't really lend itself well. There's not like a great place to put this. Um, we have some overarching goals in the zoning code, but they they tie in a variety of things. they aren't really spelling out, you know, line item by line item things that that we're

trying to accomplish. So, we are thinking it would be a better fit in our comp plan because sustainability is one area that we wanted to build out more in our comp plan and that is due for an update in 2027. So, we're looking at a rewrite of that next year. So, we're thinking maybe this language would be better suited there. and they just asked us to review their feedback and sign it and return it to them. But we thought it'd be helpful to provide to the planning commission and also just to share that they they did think that pretty overwhelmingly that our zoning code was solar friendly. So we'll continue with next steps and um move through the process with them and then see where we fall for the soul smart designation. And I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any questions. Who approves the complaint when that comes up and you guys start?

Who's preparing it?

Council, but it would go through planning commission first, I would think. And then DOA is the one at the state that looks at it. Department of administration. Satisfied. Thanks, Carrie. Uh, next meeting is October 21st right here again at five o'clock. Would enter anyone issues with that date time? All right. Entertain a motion to adjurnn. Bugamin Watson. All those in favor? See you later. I thank you.