Plan Commission (Meets 2nd Tuesday of each month at 5:00 p.m.)

PLAN COMMISSION Minutes March 15, 2023 Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order by Chair Paine at 4:00 pm on March 15, 2023 in Government Center Room 201. 1 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jim Paine (chair), Dennis Dalbec (vice chair), Brent Fennessey, Lindsey Graskey, Brian Finstad, Anne Porter, Garner Moffat, Tylor Elm, Dave Strum VIRTUAL: ABSENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Planning, Economic Development and Port Director Jason Serck, Planning Assistant Stephanie Becken OTHERS PRESENT: Shelly Nelson, Jeramie Olson (online), Michael Magdzas, Jason Rhoads, Sarah Falwey 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION to approve minutes by Commissioner Dalbec, seconded by Commissioner Elm, carried. 3 OLD BUSINESS 3.1 Review and approval of a special use permit allowing residential in M1 zones. Director Serck explained the request as a continuation from December, 2022, creating a special use permit to allow for residential homes to be built in M1 zones using the same qualifiers as what is required in an R4 district. MOTION to approve adding a special use permit allowing residential in M1 zones by Commissioner Dalbec, seconded by Fennessey, carried. 4 NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Small Business Grant Program Allocation a. Mags Auto Service b. Superior Collision c. Off We Pop LLC d. Twin Ports Build The small business grant applications were introduced by Chair Paine. MOTION to approve all four applications for the requested amounts by Commissioner Dalbec, seconded by Fennessey. Commissioner Strum asked for more information about some applications that looked incomplete. Technician Becken shared the gross total for Mags Auto as $228,918, omitted due to tax season being in the works when the application was completed. The other n/a lines from different applications were due to the business being new. Commissioner Strum also brought up PLAN COMMISSION - 3/15/23 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3rd Wednesday at 4:00PM.) Page 1 of 3  the business plan of one of the applicants, noting they were buying a large building. He wanted clarification on whether future tenants would be able to apply for small business grants. Director Serck said at this time, the Plan Commission does have that discretion and has used it in the past when tenants of buildings applied and were requesting money specifically for their build out and small business area, not for improvements to the building itself. Commissioner Finstad noted the Plan Commission has room in their discussion process to discern the difference. Vote called on motion to approve, carried. 4.2 Review and approval of Small Business Grant Program allocation schedule Technician Becken gave updates on the Small Business Grant Program since 2019. MOTION to approve schedule as written by Commissioner Dalbec, seconded by Strum. Commissioner Elm asked for a comparison of 2022 to previous years. Director Serck said before the schedule was made, the program usually ran out of money by June. Commissioner Fennessey asked how Q1 compared to previous years. Director Serck shared Q1 of 2023 was the highest a Q1 had been so far and attributed it to staff outreach and education for those who were applying. Commissioner Fennessey asked if the money left unspent after the allocation could be diverted or used for something else like support for historical buildings. MOTION to amend the Small Business Grant Program allocation schedule to allow for unspent funds in any given quarter to be diverted to a separate fund by Commissioner Fennessey, seconded by Graskey. Commissioner Moffat shared he would rather keep the funds that have been allocated to small businesses in the small business grant program. Commissioner Graskey thought the historical focus of the money might allow for a more open writing of a grant program to allow for more use in some underserved groups that might not be able to access the existing small business grant. Commissioner Strum shared he wasn’t against the idea of a historical building focused grant but would want to see it created before funding it. Commissioner Elm asked for clarification on how funds would roll. The motion would allow for anything not spent in a quarter to be rolled to a different balance that the Plan Commission could then delegate and use as they saw fit. Commissioner Dalbec shared he wanted to keep any unspent money in the Small Business Grant program. Commissioner Porter asked if this separation would exclude it from future use in the program. Chair Paine said that, as written, the amendment only sets the money aside for future purpose and as written does not give any parameters or limits to that purpose. Commissioner Porter shared how she anticipates needing to prioritize grant money in the future to be more aesthetic focused instead of granting on things like roofs. Commissioner Finstad said if design guidelines and more relief money was provided for the historical side, then diverting money might be a plan, but at the moment, preferred to keep it all as part of the small business grant program. Director Serck shared that Off We Pop—one of the applicants in a known historical property, had consulted with the Historical Preservation Committee and with the BID for design direction. Chair Paine said he supported the amendment, because it was flexible enough to continue to use the money however the Plan Commission saw fit, including a possible new program or just funding the existing one. He added the historical preservation front would likely PLAN COMMISSION - 3/15/23 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3rd Wednesday at 4:00PM.) Page 2 of 3  require more money than would be available through quarterly remainders. Commissioner Dalbec added he supported using the Small Business Grant Program money on roofs as making sure the roof is sound is often the first step in making other cosmetic renovations, especially on older buildings. ROLL CALL VOTE on amendment to allow unspent funds in any given quarter to divert to a separate fund. YES: Paine, Fennessey, Graskey, Porter (4) NO: Finstad, Strum, Elm, Moffat, Dalbec (5) AMENMENT FAILED Vote called on original motion to adopt proposed schedule, carried. 4.3 Review and approval of Small Business Grant Application updates Technician Becken introduced the changes of formatting to the Small Business Grant Application and the addition of a question about the historical nature of the business property. Commissioner Fennessey asked the purpose of the new question. Director Serck reminded the commission that it was a request they’d made during the last application period when multiple businesses were in older buildings. Commissioner Moffat said he liked the question and thought it was a way to offer resources like the Historical Preservation Committee without making any demands on the applicant. One day in the future, he hopes design guidance may be added. Commissioner Finstad shared he liked the question as long as it wasn’t a requirement and was a venue for a friendly conversation. Commissioner Graskey noted the Historical Preservation Committee has knowledgeable and experienced members to make a positive conversation with business owners. MOTION to approve Small Business Grant Application updates by Commissioner Moffat, second by Elm, carried. 4.4 Review and recommendation of Certified Local Government Status from Historical Preservation Committee MOTION to recommend application for Certified Local Government Status to City Council by Commissioner Moffat, second by Dalbec. Planning staff, Jeff Skrenes, explained the current state of the application and next steps for pursuing Certified Local Government status. Commissioner Strum asked how the change might impact building ability. Planner Skrenes shared it would not make much of an impact unless whole districts were named as historical and, in that case, regulations could be applied regardless of CLG status. Vote called on motion and carried. 5 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM Respectfully submitted by Stephanie Becken. PLAN COMMISSION - 3/15/23 Mtg (Meets monthly on 3rd Wednesday at 4:00PM.) Page 3 of 3  Planning & Development Phone: (715) 395-7335 Jason Serck Fax: (715) 395-7292 Planning, Economic Development TDD: (715) 395-7521 & Port Director Website: www.ci.superior.wi.us 1316 North 14th Street Email: planning@ci.superior.wi.us Superior, WI 54880 APPLICATION FORM Water Quality and Wetland Protection Appeal This appeal process refers to requirements outlined in the City Code of Ordinances, Chapter 122, Zoning, Division 2.1 – Water Quality and Wetland Protection Standards. Applicant Name & Address: Jan Lippitt 18 Saint Albans Road. Superior, WI. 54880 Applicant Telephone: ______________218-390-6917__________________________________ Applicant Email: __________jan.lippitt50@gmail.com_______________________________ Address of Appeal Request: 18 Saint Albans Road Superior, WI. 54880 Is the Applicant the Current Property Owner? Yes or No Legal Description of Property: See lot ID#: 098090521300 Type of Appeal Submitted (Select all that apply): ______ Stream Buffer Encroachment _______ Bluff Buffer Encroachment _______ Wetland Buffer Encroachment Reason for appeal: The required 75ft top of bluff setback requirement does not allow any structures to be built in the desired location on the property. The erosion rate of the Owners shoreline is minor and therefore should not be a concern for additional structures meeting AMI’s bluff line setback recommendations. ***Appeals will be reviewed monthly at the standing Plan Commission meeting with final approval by the City Council. Submit with this application all required plans, reports, drawings and/or delineations as required for your specific property to: City of Superior - Planning Department 1316 North 14th Street, Ste 210 Superior, WI 54880 Or by email to: Planning@ci.superior.wi.us Updated January 2021 May 16, 2023 Allison Johnson City of Superior Planning Technician 1316 N. 14th St. Suite 210 Superior, WI 54880 Re: Jan Lippitt Slope Assessment AMI Proposal No: 231073 Ms. Johnson, On April 27th, 2023 AMI Consulting Engineers (AMI) met with Jan Lippitt on site to discuss future building projects and the slope stability at property located at 18 Saint Albans Road in Superior, WI. The purpose of our visit was to review current survey information, discuss setbacks from approximate bluff line, inspect slope to water’s edge and to discuss the future placement of the proposed structure. In 2019, the City of Superior passed a water quality ordinance that defines the new setback requirements from the bluff, wetlands, and any water’s edge, which closely follows the requirements set by the Wisconsin DNR for safety of new structures. The current rule states the structures on the property shall be placed 75 feet from the bluff edge, unless there is not enough buildable space left on the property once the setback is determined. Because there is some uncertainty about where that bluff line is specifically and how to locate it, AMI performed a survey on site to determine the bluff line using GPS survey equipment. Per the WIDNR, a bluff line is defined as any embankment that rises 25 feet or more above the ordinary high- water level (IGLD 1985 = 603.1 feet for Lake Superior) and has an average grade greater than 30%. A map showing AMI’s determination of the bluff line and 2H:1V stable slope line is attached (see Drawing C1.0 in Appendix A). AMI performed a general assessment of the sites’ slope stability. Inspections of the shoreline and bluff show no signs of movement, tension cracks, nor slope degradation where the proposed structures will be located. The slope has good deep rooting vegetation and tree cover to help prevent shallow slope failures (see Photos #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 in Appendix B). Additionally, neighboring properties appear to have stable slopes and healthy vegetation densities. As some areas of the shoreline in the bay have been experiencing erosion, most landowners have resorted to installing riprap along the toe of the slope to prevent further erosion and potential future slope failures. The zones experiencing the higher levels of erosion are on the outsides of the bay bends which experience the impact from wind and boat induced waves. Jan’s property is set back over 100 feet from the actual water’s edge making the toe of her property’s bluff line unlikely to experience wave induced erosion unless the still water level in the bay rose above elevation 604.0 feet above the crest of the land barrier separating the St. Louis River from the pond on their property. The proposed structure location is located at an interior location along the bay where currently no waves reach the toe of the bluff. For shorelines along the St. Louis River, AMI typically targets a maximum 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), or 50% grade, slope in our designs as it has historically provided a very stable environment for deep rooting vegetation, for controlling erosion, and overall slope stability. The current slopes along the bluff line do exceed the 2:1 slope to between 80% and 90% grades, but because the site is sheltered from prevailing 91 MAIN STREET PH: (715) 718-2193 SUPERIOR, WI 54880 FAX: (877) 761-7022 winds and waves, has stable native soils, and the shorelines have deep rooting vegetation and tree coverage, the slopes have remained stable in this steeper condition. At a 2:1 slope and with the elevation of the site taken into consideration, the safe setback at this site from the edge of a potential slope failure is approximately 20 feet. This setback is shown on the site plan. If the building foundation and any auxiliary structures remain behind this setback line, no vegetation is removed along the slope, and still water levels in the bay remain below 604.0 feet, AMI has no concern about slope stability relative to the future structure. If the any of these conditions shall change in the future, the slope should be reassessed for future stability and safe setback limits. As shown on the drawing, the structure will be located behind the 20-foot setback line. Since the structure is relatively small and is set back from the top of bluff line, it will not cause additional loading to the top of bluff line and could be easily moved in the event of a slope failure, AMI does not see any issues with placing the structure near the 20-foot setback line. AMI believes the current orientations as shown on the plan will best fit the site with minimal impact to the slope and bluff. Additional concerns about stormwater and roof runoff will be addressed in the building permits for the structures. The collected stormwater should be directed away from the slope to minimize slope and bluff erosion or contained and transported down to the pond at the bottom of the slope. In addition to stormwater collection, AMI would recommend the toe of the slope be monitored by the Owner once a year to document any erosion occurring at the toe of the slope. If erosion does begin to occur, a qualified marine civil engineer shall re-assess the situation to determine if shoreline protection or slope stabilization should be installed to prevent a slope failure. In summary, AMI has studied the site and believes the impacts from the new structure’s placement will have minimal or no impact on the stability and erosion potential as long as proper design and collection of stormwater is completed, the building foundation and any auxiliary structures remain behind this setback line, no vegetation is removed along the slope, and still water levels in the bay remain below 604.0 feet. On behalf of the Owner, you will find the attached application form for the water quality and wetland protection appeal form in Appendix C. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, need more information or additional clarity, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully Submitted, Ryan Dagger, PE Marine Civil/Coastal Engineer Reviewed By, Zac Morris, PE Coastal Department Manager Attachments: Appendix A - Proposed Property Layout Conditions Appendix B - Existing Site Photos Appendix C - Planning & Development Appeal Form LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073 Appendix A – Proposed Building Layout LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 3 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073  20 40 SITE LEGEND: GENERAL PROJECT NOTES: REV. BY: DESCRIPTION REV: DATE: R Know what's JOB No: DATE: DRAWN BY: DESIGNED BY: SHEET:  Appendix B – Existing Site Photos LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 4 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073  PHOTO 4 PHOTO 3 PHOTO 2 PHOTO 5 Photo #1 LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 5 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073  Photo #2 LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 6 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073  Photo #3 LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 7 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073  Photo #4 Stakes installed by others. Photo #5 LIPPITT SLOPE ASSESSMENT PAGE 8 OF 9 AMI PROPOSAL # 231073