Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Ald. Jim Binash, Skip Temte, Assistant City Engineer Kevin Schubert

Transcription

1 The Meeting of the Plan Commission Sub Committee was called to order at 4:30 p.m. on. It was noted that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall. Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Ald. Jim Binash, Skip Temte, Assistant City Engineer Kevin Schubert Also Present: Planner/Zoning Inspector Katie Aspenson, City Administrator Eric Rindfleisch Excused Absence: City Engineer Jarrod Holter Item 2 Approval of minutes from previous meeting Skip said the following correction needs to be made to the September 12, 2017 minutes: Line 314 Should read 214 Main Street and not 2014 Main Street. Motion by Skip, second by Kevin, to approve the amended minutes from the previous meeting as printed and on file in the City Clerk s Office. On voice vote, motion carried. Item 3 Public Input (limited to 3 minutes per individual) Ald. Binash called three times for anyone wishing to provide public input and closed that portion of the meeting. Consideration and possible action on the following items: Item 4 Review and Consideration of an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the Sign Ordinance Sections to Katie said that with the Reed v. Gilbert Supreme Court Case decision in 2015, content-based sign ordinances across the nation were declared unconstitutional. City staff and city legal counsel have worked to update the City of Onalaska s code and bring it into compliance with the new rules that are found in Reed v. Gilbert. There were a variety of model ordinances through the League of Municipalities, and city staff has been working through various planning conferences and different municipalities that are reworking their respective codes. Katie described the rewrite as being very extensive. The following are new sections that are not currently found within the existing Sign Ordinance: Section : Statement of Purpose (language added as to why the city regulates

2 signs, how it is doing it, what the intent is) Section : Applicability (more detailed information regarding the granting of an issue) Section : Substitution Section : Administration and Sign Permits Application, Enforcement and Revocation (new granting/issuance language; new enforcement and revocation language; new sign removal language) Section : General Provisions, Design and Maintenance Standard (new protection of First Amendment rights language; new allowance for signage for buildings with a secondary public entrance at rear or side of buildings such as churches and schools; new design and construction standards language to be consistent with state building and electrical codes; new Indemnification of City of Onalaska language for canopies, awnings and projecting signs) Section : Allowable signs in B-1 (Neighborhood Business), B-2 (Community Business, M-1 (Light Industrial), M-2 (Industrial), and M-3 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts. Wall signs for multitenant buildings to have a wall sign for each district and unrelated service. A CUP may be obtained if additional signage is needed). Section : Allowable signs in Special Overlay Districts (Bluff Protection, Municipal Well Recharge Area, Planned Unit Development, Traditional Neighborhood Development, Conservation/Cluster Development, I-90 Economic Overlay, Medical Campus District, and Form District). This allows deviations from the Sign Ordinance per approved plans by the city. An individual may write his/her own code for his/her zoning district in terms of signage allotments and the number and size of freestanding signs. If approved by the Plan Commission and the Common Council, the sign rules run with the land. Section : Temporary Signs. This includes detailed allowance of signs for nonresidential and residential properties, and when Temporary Sign Permits are needed. Section : Severability and Conflict The following are sections where language is being proposed for major modifications in the existing Sign Ordinance: New Definitions: Changeable Copy, Commercial, Community Event, Dynamic Element, External Illumination, Façade, Flag, Government Sign, Height, Integral Sign, Monument Graphic, Nit, Parcel, Peak, Pole Sign, Right-of-Way, Shopping Center, Structure, Temporary Sign, and Traffic Control Device Section : Signs Not Requiring a Permit (updated) Section : Prohibited Signs (reorganized) Section : General Standards for Specific Types of Signs. There is added language from the Conditional Uses Code Section for Electronic Signs and Billboards. Projected Signs are allowed to extend over a public sidewalk/pedestrian thoroughfare for properties

3 located along Main Street between STH 35 and 4 th Avenue, and located along STH 35 from Quincy Street to Oak Forest Drive. New maximum square footage of 24 square feet instead of 100 square feet. Sections , , and : Reorganized what types of signs are allowed based on zoning districts. Section : Allowable Signs in Transitional Commercial and Traditional/Mixed Neighborhood Zoning Districts. The new maximum square footage for ground/freestanding signs to 60 square feet from 35 square feet for parcels that do not front a FAP highway. New maximum square footage for ground/freestanding signs to 150 square feet and up to 30 feet in height from 35 square feet for parcels that do front a FAP highway. New maximum square footage for wall signs at 40 square feet per building wall per approved use from one wall sign total. The following is language proposed for removal from the existing Sign Ordinance: Multitenant Signs are encouraged to market shopping center destinations rather than individual businesses. Sign regulations are based upon the applicable zoning district in which they are located. Regarding Other Signs, any sign qualifying as more than one of the above-listed types shall meet the requirements for each type. Bills and Posters shall not be posted on the exterior of buildings or windows. Regarding Signs Facing Residential Districts, no sign, except those permitted in Section , shall be permitted to face a residential district within 100 feet of such district boundary. Regarding Search Lights, the Common Council may permit the temporary use of a search light for advertising purposes in any district, provided that the search light will not be located in any public right-of-way, will not be located closer than 10 feet to an adjacent property, and will not cause a hazard to traffic or adjoining properties. Search light permits shall not be granted for a period of more than five days in any six-month period. Regarding Portable Signs/Message Boards, such signs shall be limited in use to 30 days at a time following approval by the Department of Inspection prior to display of any sign, provided, however, that the Department of Inspection shall not give approval for placement of a portable sign/message board if it presents a vision obstruction and said sign not be displayed more frequently than one time per year at any one location. No more than one sign per premises shall be permitted. The maximum size shall be 25 square feet on each face, back-to-back. This information has been relocated to the Temporary Sign Section. Ald. Binash asked Katie what action she is seeking from the Plan Commission Sub Committee. Katie said she recommends moving this item to the Plan Commission because a public hearing is

4 scheduled at the October 24 meeting. Katie also said she can attempt to address comments or feedback today. Motion by Skip, second by Ald. Binash, to forward to the full Plan Commission for a public hearing at its October 24 meeting review and consideration of an amendment to the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the Sign Ordinance Sections to Skip addressed Section ( Prohibited Signs ), Subparagraph 3 ( Signs on Public Rightsof-Way ) and said he has noticed individuals placing garage sale signs in the public right-ofway. Skip asked if the intent is to ignore such signs, or if staff will enforce Section (3). Katie told Skip that this is not a new rule and said the signs are not supposed to be on the public right-of-way. Katie noted staff has not been enforcing this as of late due to the ordinance rewrite and said, We wanted to have our language clear whether or not we re going to be enforcing that rule. We have changed it in another section of the code where it states that you re not supposed to be directing people to your property. You can have a garage sale sign, but it s supposed to be on your property. It is noted in here that if city staff do find any signs in the right-of-way we do not have to notify people. We can just grab the sign. Typically if we do that we hold them for about 10 days. Some residents collect the signs. If they remain unclaimed, we dispose of them. Skip said he believes there will be several unhappy residents if staff enforces this rule. Skip next addressed Section ( General Provisions, Design, and Maintenance Standards ), Subparagraph 2 ( Protection of First Amendment Rights ), and he asked Katie if she has examined some of the recent court rulings related to this topic, citing the example of the removal of a sign placed on a Town of Campbell bridge going over Interstate 90. A court ruling stated that the Town of Campbell had violated the First Amendment by removing the sign. Katie told Skip examples such as the one he had given were taken under consideration. Kevin addressed portable message boards on public right-of-ways, noting that the Public Works Department possibly could purchase such a board, depending on the budget. Kevin asked if the Public Works Department would be required to go through the Inspection Department to install the sign. Katie cited the example of the Police Department putting out a sign informing motorists how fast they are driving, telling Kevin that the Inspection Department does not require a permit for that type of sign as it is a public safety measure. Katie referred Kevin to Section ( Signs Not Requiring a Permit ) and said there are a variety of signs such as city banners on city-owned utility poles, onsite warning signs, and traffic control signs that will not require a permit if that is their purpose. Kevin said he believes the messages that the board would display would fall under Subparagraph

5 ( Traffic Control Signs/Devices ). Skip addressed Section , Subparagraph 4 ( Address/Name Plate Sign that contains address numerals ), noting he has a plaque with his house number in his yard. Skip asked if he could place this sign on the boulevard. Katie said no, adding the sign can be placed on the property without a permit. Skip said it was his understanding that the signs described in Subparagraph 4 do not require a permit. Katie told Skip he is correct, but she also said that unless the house number is on the mailbox the sign cannot be placed on the boulevard. Ald. Binash addressed the language regarding Portable Signs/Message Boards specifically, that such signs shall not be displayed more frequently than one time per year at any one location and said some churches and businesses have portable signs. Ald. Binash asked where this has been changed in the ordinance, noting that a church or business might hold different functions at different times of the year. Katie said the language to which Ald. Binash had referred was included for removal because it no longer is called out specifically as a portable message board sign. It is now considered a temporary sign, and it is one of the temporary signs that would fall into the nonresidential area. Katie said it would not be necessary to obtain a permit for such a sign. Ald. Binash asked, Is it restricted, like the language in here says? You can only do it once a year? Katie referred Ald. Binash to Section ( Temporary Signs ), Subparagraph 1 ( Non- Residential Districts ) and said, The reason they are written the way they are is because we can t say, You can have a community event sign, because if you go up to that sign and you have to read that it s a community event sign, that s considered content based. You can t write it that way. You can say how big a sign can be, how long it can be there, whether it s lit or non-lit, and the materials it can be made of, but you can t essentially tell anyone what type of sign it is. You can have a political sign here because it s a content-based sign. You can put up a sign [a certain amount of square feet] so many days prior to an election, which is inherently a political sign, but you re not saying it s a political sign, so you remain content-neutral. Katie said a community event is anything that is open to the public, noting that there is no fee for community event temporary sign permits. Staff asks to be informed when such events are occurring. Katie said, We re actually trying to get as many ways that we can think of to allow you to advertise what it is you want to do on your property, within reason.

6 Ald. Binash addressed Section ( General Standards for Specific Types of Signs ), Subparagraph f ( Additional Location and Size Requirements shall be as follows: ), and asked, If you have all kinds of businesses on one side of the block and across from these businesses you have residential areas and these businesses advertise, I see we have that the signs only may be operational between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. But if a business is open longer than 10 p.m. for whatever reason and they have an Open sign on the same message board, how is that affected by this particular section? Katie said she believes this ordinance was changed either in 2014 or 2015 with the times specifically put on there. Katie addressed Subparagraph f, Number 1, which addresses Electronic Message Board Signs, and said, We currently had a rule from where the sign is located, draw a circle around that, 100 feet away no signs allowed for electronic message board signs period. We have had a number of requests come in over the last couple of years where the only way they would be able to put in this type of sign [within 100 feet] would be through a variance. Variances are very difficult to achieve based on state statute requirements for hardship. We are allowing the potential that s proposed that they could come in for a Conditional Use Permit to essentially notify those neighbors to see if they would have an opinion on the matter, which would allow within that 100 square feet, which we currently say, Not at all today. That is more of an allowance for businesses, but we are saying With the Conditional Use Permit, the Plan Commission has the ability to add on additional rules. If you want to let it be from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., that s the purview of the Plan Commission to add those on as conditions. Ald. Binash said, It is somewhat flexible. Katie said yes, adding, Unless you don t need a Conditional Use Permit and you just want to come in and get your permit and you don t need anything special, then you have to follow the rules as they are written. Skip referred to the electronic signs for the Kwik Trip located on Sand Lake Road and asked if they would fall in this area because they are located within 100 feet of residential properties specifically, on the west side of Sand Lake Road. Kevin said that area is Commercial property. Skip inquired about the area located north of Well Street; specifically, on the west side. Kevin said there are two commercial properties on the west side. Skip said a house located on the corner would be located within the 100-foot circle. Katie a sign could be installed only after obtaining a CUP if that were the case. Kwik Trip would have to respect the 100-foot boundary if it could not obtain a CUP.

7 On voice vote, motion carried. Item 5 Discussion and Consideration of amending Chapter 3 Special Districts, Part 5 Form-Based Overlay Districts for Onalaska s downtown commercial and residential areas of the Unified Development Code Katie said a request had been made at the September 26 Plan Commission meeting to schedule a public hearing for the October 24 Plan Commission meeting. Katie said another request was to be as flexible as possible for incoming development in the downtown area. Katie noted that a copy of the original code language was included in subcommittee members packets and no proposed changes have been made to the map as of yet. Staff will work on potential changes the week of October Katie said there still are two districts one that is the Downtown Residential Neighborhood, and one that is Commercial. Katie directed subcommittee members to the new code language located in Chapter 3, Part 5 and said, We re essentially stating that in the Downtown Overlay District, if you want to use the overlay, it would automatically supersede any other underlaying zoning districts that you have. If you have a mixture of Commercial and Residential and Public Park but you want to do a development that would encompass it all, the underlying goes away and we re only focused on the overlay, which is a little different in our area. Katie said she had made very few changes to the Downtown Residential other than doing some reorganization. No changes are being made to the required minimum of frontage the principal structures must have. The width and height of the building remains the same. A single-family dwelling has a 6-foot side yard setback, and either a duplex or a twindo has a 10-foot side yard setback. The rear yard setback is 30 feet. Katie noted there are particular rules related to porches and accessory structures, and she said this allows an additional encroachment beyond the original minimum setback of 15 feet and 25 feet. Garages must be accessed off the alley if one is present. Accessory structures heights were reduced from 18 to 15 feet to be consistent with the Unified Development Ordinance. Driveways must not exceed a width of 24 feet. The following are new sections that are currently not found within the existing Form Based Overlay Districts: Section (c): Conversion from Downtown Residential Neighborhood to Downtown Planned Unit Development. If a single entity amasses a minimum ¼-acre of land, it can come forward to the Plan Commission and Common Council and ask to change it from Residential to Commercial. The entity must submit a letter regarding the plan, a conceptual plan, and architecture. Section : Downtown Planned Unit Development (D-PUD). Only a ¼-acre would be needed in the downtown area. Section : Downtown Planned Unit Development and Design Standards. The

8 Plan Commission and Common Council would consider permitted Conditional Uses and density. Other factors taken under consideration would be building height, environmental design, accommodating for open space, architecture, parking, landscaping, circulation and access, and signage. Section : Concurrent Development Review. This allows for a combination of applications to be reviewed simultaneously. Section : Review and Approval Procedures. This specifies application procedures, submittal requirements for both the General and Final Implementation Plans, and Approval Procedures. This is similar to a traditional PUD. Katie noted that the city s legal counsel has reviewed the proposed language and staff is focused on the language at this time. Katie said there may or may not be proposed boundary changes to the map at the October 24 Plan Commission meeting. Motion by Ald. Binash, second by Skip, to forward to the October 24 Plan Commission meeting discussion and consideration of amending Chapter 3 Special Districts, Part 5 Form-Based Overlay Districts for Onalaska s downtown commercial and residential areas of the Unified Development Code. Skip referred to Section ( Downtown Commercial Building Envelope Standards ), Subparagraph 2a ( Building Height ) and asked if an accessory structure, which shall not exceed 18 feet, may be placed on top of a structure, which may not exceed 45 feet. Katie said no, and she told Skip he is looking at the previous code. Skip asked Kevin if he knows how high it is to the top of the accessory building that is on top of the cupula on top of City Hall. Kevin s answer was inaudible on the recording. Skip noted that the maximum height of a house should be 35 feet, according to Section and asked where this being measured from. Katie said it is the average grade of the four corners of the house. Skip said his grandparents house used to be located on Court Street before it burned down, and he noted it was a two-story house from the front. The house was constructed on a hill, and the back was larger than three stories. Skip noted that this area is very hilly and said there are houses that appear to be two or three stories tall in the front. However, the same houses can be four stories in the back. Skip asked where the 35 feet is being measured from, noting that while a house might be in compliance in the front, it would be in violation in the back. Skip said, I think we have a problem here on that 35 feet.

9 Katie said the 35 feet is only for residential properties in this area and does not apply to the rest of the city. Katie also said it is possible there were PUDs in other areas in the city that allowed them to have higher homes. Katie reiterated that the house is measured from all four corners and said if a hill is present it is taken into consideration. Skip said a house could be 20 feet high in the front and 40 feet high in the back if it is constructed on a hill. Katie said it is the average height. Skip said the average height would be 30 feet in that case, adding, It doesn t make it clear here how you re computing that 35 feet. That s why I asked about that. Katie said staff follows State of Wisconsin Building Codes. Skip asked, That s the way the state building code is? Katie said yes. Ald. Binash inquired about the area that might be considered as a Downtown Development Area, asking Katie if she knows the square mileage. Ald. Binash asked if it will be limited to one block east of 2 nd Avenue and to the west. Ald. Binash asked, How far north? How far south? Katie said, What we have in front of you is what it is today. I didn t make any changes to the maps. This is what you could do today with the rules that are listed. The green is the Commercial, and the pink is the Residential. We have the ability to change that and to modify it. We could make more Residential or more Commercial or less depending on what the Plan Commission feels is appropriate for our Downtown Area. Ald. Binash asked, If we want to expand further east, we re not going to be condemning buildings, are we? Katie told Ald. Binash there is no condemnation required in any of this and said, If we go further east, this just essentially opens up the ability for them to follow these rules. Ald. Binash addressed the idea of the setbacks, asking how close a residential area may presently be to the street. Ald. Binash said, I see here we re going to have them close to 6 feet and 10 feet for twindominiums. Where are we at now? Katie said that language is not being proposed to change, noting this is how it is written as of today. Katie said, If you don t do the accessory porch or the stoop, the front of your house can

10 be between 15 and 25 feet set back from the street. The accessories and stoop would allow you to go an additional 10 feet closer with a maximum of a 5-foot setback. Ald. Binash asked, So what we re proposing for this area is going to be different than what is the norm for the rest of the city? Katie said yes. Ald. Binash noted he has seen instances where someone has requested to do something to a commercial building and was told he was not allowed to paint the structure a certain color or put up a sign. Ald. Binash said, If we do this in this particular district, they may be able to do things here that they cannot do outside of this district. Katie told Ald. Binash he is correct. Skip asked if the structures in existence today are being grandfathered in. Katie said yes. Ald. Binash said, In this particular area we could have a mixture of Commercial and Residential, but it s highly unlikely that we would want residences mixed in with commercial. That would seem to be the preferred method. If the idea is to develop the downtown area, putting in residential buildings may be Except maybe for apartments Katie said there was a big push for keeping older homes looking as if they are original. Katie said there are a number of properties that are currently utilized as a residence; however, they are zoned Commercial. Katie said it is possible for someone to note that a property is zoned B-2 and express his/her wish to start a business at that location. This individual could raze the house and construct a residence, and he/she would only require Site Plan approval as it already is zoned accordingly. Katie said, I don t think it s preventing that combination of it to happen. That s why if you have a residential area where someone wants to put a commercial business, we re saying potentially, but come in, present your case, show us what you want to do, we ll consider the neighborhood area, there will be a public hearing, and people will have the opportunity to make comments and raise their issues and concerns. Ald. Binash addressed Section (a), which states, An approved D-PUD will supersede any underlying zoning district and rezoning of a combination of dissimilar parcels will not be required, and he asked Katie for a definition. Katie cited the example of someone amassing one-quarter of a block and the underlying zoning district is B-1, R-2, and P-1. The individual would own all three, and Katie said the city typically would require outside of this area that all three would need to be rezoned B-2 before the

11 development may begin. Katie said, What this is saying is that it kind of wipes the board clean and it puts in a new development. Now you get to name your own rules. It doesn t matter what the underlying zoning districts are, and if they don t match or not. You re creating a new zoning district specific for those parcels. Ald. Binash addressed Section (i), which states that, Parking ratios may vary, but shall be proposed as part of the D-PUD proposal, and he asked, We re not going to be requiring so many spaces for some of the commercial buildings that may go up as we do in other sections of the city? Katie told Ald. Binash he is correct and said the emphasis was to put forward that we want flexibility. Katie noted that the parking ordinance portion has not been updated since the 1960s and said it needs to be updated in its own right at another time. Katie asked, Is it one car per 300 square feet? Is it two parking stalls per dwelling unit? Maybe it s only one parking stall for a one-bedroom, but two parking stalls for a two-bedroom. We re allowing the developer to do their market research to find out, because they re going to want the parking that they need. Either they find a way to do joint parking with another entity or they find a way to put in the least amount of parking that they need or the most amount of parking that they need. We re going to leave it up to them. Ald. Binash noted there are instances when businesses fail or there are changes in businesses, and he asked if the city might be doing itself a disfavor by not ensuring there is sufficient parking if a business changes. Ald. Binash noted that downtown parking already is at a premium and said, I would think we would want to do more to create parking. Katie said if a business is zoned Retail, someone comes in with a new business, he/she does not change anything about it other than a Sign Permit, and he/she obtains a Change of Use Permit, there are no requirements to change [the amount of parking]. Katie said the individual who purchased the former Angelini s Ristorante on Main Street and converted the building to a retail establishment was not required to create any new parking because it was an existing structure and no structural changes were made to the property. Katie said, There are already ways of getting around putting in additional parking based on the use. It s what people have been doing for decades throughout the city. Skip addressed Section , Subparagraph 2c, and noted there is a residence on 2 nd Avenue that has four garage doors showing out on the road. Skip said that would not be permitted under this ordinance. Katie said that is correct. Skip returned to the subject of building height, stating that it troubles him. Skip noted that the City of Onalaska is bound on the west by the river, bound on the south by the City of La Crosse,

12 bound on the north by the Village of Holmen, and now also bound on the east by the Village of West Salem. Skip said it seems to him the city s expansion area is upward because we re not going to be able to go outward much more because of the way the binding is going. The way I see this with having that restriction on there, let s say theoretically somebody came in and wanted to put in a 10-story apartment building at the corner of Main Street and 2 nd Avenue on the northwest corner. I think that s available if a developer wanted to put something in there. Skip inquired about the area located north of the park. Kevin said someone could purchase the existing residential building and raze it. Skip asked if someone who wanted to construct a 10-story apartment complex with two floors of commercial would be able to do so. Katie said if a developer wanted to do it as a Commercial entity, the proposed language, we do not have a building height maximum. Only for the Residential. Skip said, I was looking at this 45-foot Katie told Skip, That s the old code. You have to look at the new code. Katie referred to Section (e) ( Building Height ), which states, Building height(s) of structure(s) may vary and shall be proposed as part of the D-PUD proposal to the city. The city may request cross sections, elevations, and other information from the developer in order to make a determination. City Administrator Rindfleisch said the existing language was left nearly intact to protect the character of the existing Downtown Residential properties. City Administrator Rindfleisch also said there would be a way to create project-by-project PUDs for the downtown area. On voice vote, motion carried. Item 6 Review and Consideration of a Site Plan submitted by Mark Schneider, nd Avenue Southwest, for the property at nd Avenue Southwest, Onalaska, WI (Tax Parcel # ) Katie said this is a request of a proposed site plan that is listed in subcommittee members packets. The property owner intends to construct an impervious surface along the southern and eastern portions of the existing building. The proposal includes a paved surface along the southern portion of the building, and also utilizing recycled asphalt in the rear of the building. The purpose of the project is to facilitate a new occupant to the building that requires additional access for large commercial vehicles. Within the last five years, city staff has required all newly installed impervious surface to either be concrete or asphalt paving. Katie said this request is to

13 allow a deviation from city staff s interpretation of the Unified Development Ordinance due to specific site considerations, including: The industrial nature of the property. All the properties are zoned M-2 (Industrial). There are very few industrial properties throughout the community. The adjacent properties, which include other industrial businesses and railroad property that would abut the proposed recycled asphalt location. Additional considerations as detailed in the letter provided by the property owner/applicant. Katie said if the Plan Commission chooses to recommend approval of the use of recycled asphalt for this particular project at this particular location, staff recommends the following two Conditions of Approval: 1. Obtain a Site Plan Permit prior to construction of drive. 2. Follow all other standards associated with redevelopment/development including, but not limited to: provision of required landscaping, installation of a code compliant refuse/recycling enclosure, et cetera. Katie said the applicant will attend the October 24 Plan Commission meeting. Motion by Ald. Binash, second by Skip, to forward to the October 24 Plan Commission meeting with the two conditions of approval listed by staff review and consideration of a Site Plan submitted by Mark Schneider, nd Avenue Southwest, for the property at nd Avenue Southwest, Onalaska, WI (Tax Parcel # ). Skip asked if State of Wisconsin approval is required to the presence of wetlands. Katie said no. Ald. Binash asked if the recycled asphalt is a surface that will be crushed and mixed with other organic material, or if the recycled asphalt will be crushed and matted to the ground. Kevin said it is his understanding that the recycled asphalt will be crushed. It will look like gravel, it will be put in place and then compacted in place. There would be no additional treatments. Ald. Binash asked if recycled asphalt will work better than gravel, and also if it is more costefficient. Kevin said recycled asphalt can bind together a little better due to some of the excess oils that are still coating the particles. Kevin also said that because the rocks are coated in asphalt, they tend

14 to repel water a little more than a limestone crushed rock. Kevin said recycled asphalt tends to sheet water better and make it act more like a paved surface. Kevin also said the slope in the area where the recycled asphalt will be placed in a nearly flat area and there are no concerns with heavy rains causing erosion that travels offsite. Kevin noted that the city has utilized crushed recycled for various applications and said it is very durable and sometimes holds up better than regular limestone gravel. Ald. Binash asked Kevin if there are any concerns regarding pollutants. Kevin said no, noting that most of the asphalt is hardened and emulsified. On voice vote, motion carried. Item 7 Discussion and possible consideration on amending Zoning Code to allow foodbased businesses as an allowable use in P-1 zoning Katie said there is consideration of having a food truck program throughout the community and on city-owned properties. Katie said staff is examining how the city s Unified Development Ordinance currently applies. Food trucks are considered a restaurant/food store use, which is outright permitted in the Transitional Commercial (T-C), Neighborhood Business (B-1), Community Business (B-2), and Light Industrial (M-1) Districts. Katie said this is the bulk of the commercial areas throughout the community. Katie said a food truck would be allowed to operate in a parking lot if the property owner granted his/her permission. The city would not have any zoning regulations associated with this. Katie said the way the city s ordinance is currently written, a food-related business is considered a Conditional Use in the Public and Semi-Public (P-1) and Industrial (M-2) Districts. A majority of the city parks and city-owned properties are considered P-1. A food truck owner who wished to operate at City Hall or the Great River Landing would need to obtain a CUP for a particular site to operate there. Katie said there is discussion that the City of Onalaska could apply to create food truck hub. This would allow different food trucks to come to city-owned properties such as the Great River Landing, Community Park or City Hall and operate. The CUP would disappear within a calendar year if no one reserved locations. Katie said the city has two opportunities: Continue utilizing the code the way it currently is written, meaning vendors would need to obtain a CUP to operate a food truck on city-owned property. The city could change its code and allow food-related businesses outright on P-1 properties. If this occurs, there are other properties in the city zoned P-1 such as churches and schools. Katie said they also could allow food trucks on their property without obtaining a CUP.

15 Skip noted there already are food operations in P-1 and said, I think this is a good way to go because don t we have concessions at the Omni Center? Do they sell food there? Don t all the schools have lunches and serve food there? Katie said she would not consider a school lunch program a business. Skip said he considers it a business from a technical standpoint, stating, They charge money for a lot of things. I think what you re doing is in the right direction. I m saying I think we should expand. All we re doing is legalizing something we already say approved. Ald. Binash noted that this had been discussed at the October 4 Administrative and Judiciary Committee meeting and said, What we re interested in doing is controlling the hubs where a mobile food source can come in and serve. I like the idea of the city establishing the Conditional Use Permit, the reason being they can come in and we can regulate the areas where the food trucks are going to be allowed to come in. They would get their permit. They are regulated, food service wise, through [La Crosse] County, which would inspect them. We would just require they get a permit, then we have a certain section where we know they re going to be not that they would go anywhere that they want where there s parking available. Katie said a vendor would not need a permit to operate out of a retail business that allows them to do so. Katie noted that staff would know where vendors would be on city-owned properties and said the city would not have any control over the vendors if they are appropriately zoned elsewhere in the community. Ald. Binash said it is his understanding that a vendor would not need a permit if the city did a CUP. Katie said the permit is to the city, which would operate the program. Katie said the vendor is licensed through the city, and he/she would have to work with the Parks and Recreation Department on reserving spots at the hub created on city property. Katie said vendors would need to obtain a license, and the city would handle the permit. Ald. Binash said he believes the door would be opened to other entities having food trucks on properties, and he asked if they would need to obtain a license. Katie said she believes the intent is to license them if they are in the city, but the city s reservation program for a hub would not be utilized. City Administrator Rindfleisch said the Administrative and Judiciary Committee could look into a Transient Sales Permit, but he added he does not believe that was the intent in the past. City Administrator Rindfleisch said the intent was to do a licensing program to allow vendors on cityowned P-1 properties and then enter them into the higher-demand areas such as the Great River

16 Landing. City Administrator Rindfleisch said a possible direction to explore would be to look at a license for any business. However, City Administrator Rindfleisch also said there are questions regarding enforcement. City Administrator Rindfleisch noted that chicken ques are currently allowed and said a determination must be made as to whether the ordinance is being rewritten to make an allowable use, or if the city is utilizing the CUP. If the CUP is utilized, City Administrator Rindfleisch said a determination must be made as to whether churches need to obtain a CUP on an annual or an event basis. Ald. Binash asked if someone outside of city-owned property who wanted to operate in a P-1 District would need to obtain a license and a CUP. Katie said yes. Motion by Ald. Binash, second by Skip, to forward to the October 24 Plan Commission meeting discussion and possible consideration on amending Zoning Code to allow food-based businesses as an allowable use in P-1 zoning. On voice vote, motion carried. Adjournment Motion by Kevin, second by Ald. Binash, to adjourn at 5:37 p.m. On voice vote, motion carried. Recorded by: Kirk Bey