Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 June 20, 2023 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES June 20, 2023 PRESENT: Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp, Margy Davey, Mamadou Coulibaly, John Kiefer, Karl Loewenstein, Council Member Esslinger EXCUSED: Ed Bowen, Meredith Scheuermann, DJ Nichols STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager; Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager; Kay Qualley, Assistant Community Development Director, Emily Tardiff, Grants Coordinator; Brian Slusarek, Planner; Jeff Nau, Planner; Chairperson Perry called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of May 16, 2023 were approved as presented. (Propp/Kiefer) I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lyons explained the Plan Commission needs to vote for officers. He called for nominations. Ms. Davey nominated Mr. Perry for Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Declaration of Mr. Perry as Chair. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Mr. Perry as Chair, 7-0. Mr. Coulibaly nominated Ms. Propp for Vice-Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. Mr. Perry nominated Mr. Kiefer for Vice-Chair. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Ms. Propp withdrew herself from nominations __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 June 20, 2023 Declaration of Mr. Kiefer as Vice-Chair. Plan Commission members unanimously approved Mr. Kiefer as Vice-Chair, 7-0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL USE BUILDING ADDITION AT 621 EVANS STREET (SOLUTIONS RECOVERY) Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit amendment for a building addition and site improvements for property located at 621 Evans Street. Mr. Nau presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site consists of a 0.9-acre parcel with frontage on Evans Street, East Parkway Avenue and Bowen Street. The site is currently used by Solutions Recovery which was granted a Conditional Use Permit on December 11, 2007 (Res. 07-376) to offer recovery opportunities for adults in a group setting. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends a low-density residential use for the site. The site is surrounded predominantly by single family residential uses. The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 3,500 square foot addition to the existing building. The addition will also provide an elevator for ADA- compliant access to the second level. There was a neighborhood meeting conducted prior to this project moving forward. Staff is recommending approval with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked how staff will ensure that the addition is made of similar materials. Mr. Lyons said that during final site plan review they will get the exact type of brick that will be used. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. William Aubrey, W816 Spring Rd, Hortonville, said he is available for questions. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 June 20, 2023 Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0 III. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SIGNAGE at 515 EAST PARKWAY AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Davey, Ms. Propp and Mr. Kiefer reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) amendment for signage at 515 East Parkway Avenue. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject site consists of the existing Boys and Girls Club site, located on the south side of East Parkway Avenue, with additional frontages along Broad Street and Monroe Street The site is zoned I-PD and the adjacent parcels are zoned SR-9 and the surrounding area consists primarily of residential uses along with mixed uses to the south and an active railroad track to the west. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plans recommends Community Facility for the site. On January 22, 2019, a zone change was approved to add a Planned Development overlay along with General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for increased playground area and a community garden on the subject site. A Specific Implementation Plan Amendment was approved on March 12, 2019 to allow two new electronic message center signs on the site. On June 14, 2022, a zone change was approved for 11 residential parcels located on the west side of Monroe Street to I-PD, which were subsequently combined with the subject site. A Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) was also approved for site modifications including: - Interior remodeling of the Head Start building - Additional vestibule on east side of Head Start building - New administration with associated parking lot - Elementary Age Program Building addition - Reconstruction of maintenance garage on south end of site and additional parking - Gymnasium addition The applicant is proposing a total of 14 non-lit signs, including one ground sign, two fence- mounted signs, and eleven wall mounted signs. Total signage area is within the maximum allowance for both wall signage and ground signage. Eight of the wall signs will include logos of __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 June 20, 2023 corporate sponsors of the Boys and Girls Club. The applicant is requesting a base standard modification (BSM) to allow these proposed off-premise signs as code prohibits off-premise signage. According to the applicant, the off-premise signage is being proposed to give recognition to donors who contributed to the improvements to the site. Staff researched other area Boys and Girls Club sites and found that West Green Bay, Greater Green Bay, Fond du Lac, Sturgeon Bay, Stevens Point, and Wausau have exterior (text) sponsorship signage but do not have logos, Menasha (newly built), Appleton, and Berlin do not have exterior sponsorship signage including text or logos. Staff recommends that Plan Commission determine if approving off-premise advertising is appropriate for this site. A base standard modification is also being requested for two 32 sq. ft. signs to be placed on fencing, where code prohibits signs from being placed on fences. One of these is on the fencing enclosing the playground area facing Monroe Street and the other is inside of the fencing enclosing the grass turf play field on the south side of the site. Staff is also recommending that Plan Commission determine if a BSM is appropriate to allow the fence signage. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Ms. Propp asked if there are any other logo sign fencing on other sites. Mr. Lyons said that the only place fencing logos exist are on interior fences where the sign faces inward towards the development, like what you would see at a baseball field. The code does not treat those as signs. Currently there is no fencing with exterior signs in the city that staff is aware of. Mr. Lowenstein asked for clarification on where the applicant is proposing exterior fence signage. Mr. Slusarek said that one fence sign would be facing Monroe St and the other one could either be facing west, which would not require a BSM, but if it was facing the east, it would as it is visible from the street. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Tracy Ogden, CEO Boys and Girls Club, 8021 Cavendish Rd, Neenah; stated the Boys and Girls Club is investing 18 million dollars into this project. There is a lot of signage because there are five entrances and the signage helps to keep the kids safe. The logo signs are for four businesses that support the club and is not something that is going to be changed next year. They want to make sure that the businesses are recognized for their generosity. In regards to the fence signage, there was no decision made on where on the Monroe St signage would face, but it would more than likely face the building. The courtyard fence signage could go either way since it is in memorial of someone. Mr. Coulibaly asked if the sponsors are picky about placement of the logo signage. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 June 20, 2023 Ms. Ogden said that there were no conditions placed on sponsorships when it came to donor signage, but we want to be thoughtful of those who are generous. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Council Member Esslinger said there is a considerable amount of money that was donated to the organization and those who do it of their own free will should be thanked. He doesn’t think this will be detrimental to the neighborhood. The advantages outweigh any disadvantages. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Esslinger to adopt the requests from the applicant as necessary to accomplish the proposal with findings listed above. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp said she disagrees with the motion because it would be a precedent allowing the logos. The names are respectful and well done. Since this would open the flood gates, she will be voting no. Ms. Davey said that she will also be voting no. She agrees with the naming rights and the text, but the logos are not a good idea. It’s precedent setting and the logos could cause confusion. Mr. Coulibaly said he agrees with Ms. Propp. Setting precedence is risky. If they are not being asked to add the logos and there is no contingency with the sponsorships, it is not necessary to create a situation that is not sustainable. He will be voting no. Mr. Kiefer said that if this is passed, there are definitely other developments that could use this to their advantage. The logos are aesthetically pleasing compared to the other centers. With the money that has been donated, it is something the donors would deserve. Even though he’s concerned about the precedent setting nature, it does add something extra to the development. They could opt to put the logo signs inside as well. Mr. Lowenstein said that he is fine with the logo signs on the building, but he’s more concerned with the precedence of the fence logo signage. The building logo signs are a reasonable request within reason, but the external facing logos signs could be an issue if they are on property lines and it could be unsightly to the neighbors. He says he opposes the resolution as it stands, but is open an amendment. Ms. Davey said she agrees with Mr. Kiefer in that the development could choose to thank their sponsors with logo signs on the inside of the building. She is not comfortable with external logo signs. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 June 20, 2023 Ms. Propp said that she would like to not see any signage on fencing, but if the signage is inside, then maybe it’s not considered signage. Mr. Lyons said that internal facing signage is not treated as signage by the code. Mr. Perry said that he is concerned with the precedent setting and he asked the board to keep in mind they are a recommendation board and council could can choose to go forward with this or not no matter what they decide. As a non-profit representative, what happens when the main sponsor or main sign gets bought out or removed. It is the most fiscally responsible route to not allow logo signs. Motion denied 6-1 (Nay Propp, Coulibaly, Kiefer, Loewenstein, Perry, Davey) IV. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN & SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF OREGON STREET SOUTH OF WEST RIPPLE AVENUE Site Inspections Report: Ms. Propp, Ms. Davey and Mr. Perry all reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The applicant requests approval of a General Development Plan (GDP) and Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for a multi-family development. Mr. Slusarek presented the items and reviewed the sites and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The subject property is a 16.45-acre lot located on the east side of Oregon Street, south of West Ripple Avenue. The site is zoned Multi-family Residential - 12 District with Planned Development Overlay (MR-12-PD) and the surrounding area consists primarily of residential and vacant/agricultural land uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan recommends Medium and High-Density Residential uses for the subject area. On February 14, 2017 Common Council approved the existing 96-unit multi-family development immediately the north of the subject site (Ripple Avenue Estates Phase 1). The applicant is now proposing a multi-family development on the subject site for eight 12-unit apartment buildings (Phase 2), including an 826 sq. ft. office building. The proposed 12-unit apartments are permitted in the MR-12 district and the 96 units are within the maximum of 3,600 sq. ft. per dwelling unit (102 units). A neighborhood meeting was held on May 4, 2023 to discuss the proposed development. Neighboring property owners voiced concerns primarily related to storm water impacts on the surrounding area, privacy and landscape screening, site lighting, and property maintenance. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 June 20, 2023 Ms. Propp asked where the recreation area is located. Mr. Slusarek said that is located in the center area of the site plan. Mr. Lyons said that the developer did have to do parkland dedication during phase one, so there is actually a dedicated area to the east for a park that will be developed in the future. Ms. Propp asked if that dedication was intended for phase two as well. Mr. Nau said that with the parkland dedication during phase one, they are slightly deficient with what is required and will be paying fees in lieu of. Mr. Kiefer asked if there has been a stormwater plan approved. Mr. Lyons said there are stormwater plans submitted that are being reviewed by public works. Mr. Kiefer asked if the plans will be adequate to capture the existing runoff and anything that is generated from the buildings. Mr. Gierach said they are reviewing the plans to make sure they meet code but the initial indications are that they will be adequate. They will have an easement that runs east off the property that drains to the creek. Mr. Perry asked if the monument sign is 50% bigger, if it is far enough back to stay out of the vision triangle. Mr. Lyons said it is well outside of the vision triangle. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Jared Schmidt, Robert E Lee and Associates, 1250 Centennial Centre Blvd, Hobart; said that they hosted a neighborhood meeting before submitting to the city as they felt it was important to get input from the community members. With suggestions from the meeting, they were able to make some distinct changes. They know they can’t please everyone, but they are doing what they can improve the aesthetics and the operations of the site. This area, although having been mostly wooded area, is zoned multi-family and was purchased with the intent of building multi-family. With the required setbacks of 30 feet from the residential lots, our nearest building is actually 120 feet. An additional ten feet was added because of comments from the neighborhood meeting. With the flexibility of the city’s code in regards to buffering and the comments from the neighbors, the development team has chosen a combination of fencing and berm for the bufferyard. The neighbors said that they wanted a more physical buffer so the combination of berm and fencing should suffice. The property owner purchased a strip of land in the town of Black Wolf as a means to provide a discharge point to meet stormwater code. City code is restrictive to the stormwater __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 June 20, 2023 code, so the owner invested a significant amount of money in order to meet code. One of the BSM’s that were requested was a reduction in site lighting. Phase one’s street lighting hasn’t impacted the surrounding property owners negatively; other than the fact they can see it. It seems like the lighting is extreme. The application has proposed 3 light poles in the entrance. In order for this site to be code compliant, it requires 38 light poles within this development. Premier has thousands of units within this state, and only one other site has light poles. The 3 lights for the guided entrance are more than what our standard is. The lights are dark sky compliant so the light won’t be blasting out like the older halo lights. The hope is that the BSM for reduced lighting will be approved even with the suggestion to meet code, in order to work with the neighbors. They are excited about the development, and in comparison, to a traditional multi-family development, it is considered low density. Ronald Winter, 3980 Oregon St, said he is one of the first tenants of phase one. He states that the apartments do have rules to follow, and one of them is to be 15 feet away from the building if choosing to grill. There are some issues with tenant parking, if tenants park in spots outside of the garage, they do have to back out into traffic. There is a lot of traffic that exits and enters off of Oregon St. The exit that was designed for Ripple Rd, tenants are not allowed to use. The parking can become unsafe if those backing into traffic are not abiding by speed limits or looking out for people outside grilling or other recreational activities. Tenants have heard of possibilities of a dog park. Five years ago, dog owners were advised not to let their dog use the newly sodded area to relieve themselves. Not everyone listened to that rule, even though Premier provided the bags for the dogs. Hopefully the development is taking into consideration the number of dogs that phase one has, and with the addition to phase two, it would be nice for them to have someplace to go. The kids also have no place to play currently and it’s not safe for them to be playing in driveways. Dennis Hughes, 4046 Oregon St, said he went to all the meetings for the developments and there have been no issues with the developments. He says he does miss the wildlife that lived in the woods that are now cleared. He does hope that Plan Commission will allow for the reduced lighting since there already is a lot of lighting. The proposed five-foot berm wouldn’t be enough to shield incoming headlights from vehicles. He would be in favor of trees, a taller berm or an eight- foot fence. The neighbors agreed that the fencing would be preferential. Some other neighbors preferred a berm with a fence on top of it. Keith and Wanda Berholtz, 4078 Oregon St, have concerns about the berm not being enough to give privacy to the neighbors, and the berm allowing the water to drain onto their property. They have concerns about maintenance on the west side of the Premier property. There are currently dead Ash trees that haven’t been removed by the property owner, which is against city code. There are also questions if there is going to be a tree line along the southern property line. There are nice woods in that area that shouldn’t be removed. They would like the Plan Commission to approve the low lighting, and the possibility of delaying this item a bit to allow Premier to work with the neighborhood, it has to be talked about more. They said that their preference of privacy would be to have a tall fence on the lot line. There are also some questions about when the park will be added and why the lot isn’t being maintained. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 June 20, 2023 Kathy Hughes, 4046 Oregon St, she stated that she would prefer a tall fence over the berm and fence combination. The woods are going to be gone and they will be exposed. She said she hopes that the Plan Commission will consider that. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Ms. Propp asked if before the police department made their comments about the lighting, if the entrance was proposed at zero footcandles. Mr. Slusarek said that is correct. Ms. Propp said she is concerned about zero footcandles in the entrance since that could be dangerous. Mr. Lyons said that if Plan Commission is supportive of something between base code and what is proposed, they could add a condition to the request that final lighting plan be approved by Community Development which would give staff an opportunity to work with the developers and neighbors to find middle ground. Phase one does have the typical lights that code requires. Ms. Propp said she didn’t know that the Ripple Rd exit was chained off and she questioned why. Mr. Lyons said that it was originally intended as an emergency exit only during phase one. Ms. Propp asked if the wooded area is something that can be kept. Mr. Lyons said that final landscaping is already conditioned to be approved by staff so that is something staff can work on with the neighbors and the developers. There are additional landscaping points given for being able to keep existing landscaping when possible. Ms. Propp asked what the procedure is for asking for an eight-foot fence. Mr. Lyons said that Plan Commission could add a condition that a fence is required instead of the berm and fence combination. Ms. Davey asked how tall the proposed fence is. Mr. Slusarek said it is six-foot vinyl. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 June 20, 2023 Ms. Davey asked what the allowed maximum fence height is. Mr. Slusarek said it’s six foot maximum. Mr. Lyons said that in a Planned Development, so an eight-foot fence could be conditioned. Ms. Davey asked if there were any advantage to the berm. Mr. Lyons said there are pros and cons to both fences and berms. The code does allow flexibility to allow what is appropriate for different situations. Motion by Coulibaly to amend the conditions to include that the final lighting plan to be approved by Community Development. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Mr. Perry said he believes there has to be a compromise on lighting and there is a way to make it work for everyone involved. Motion to amend carried 7-0. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the original motion. Mr. Kiefer said that putting the berm in feels like it’s taking more vegetation away to add the berm. He would prefer to see as much original vegetation stay as possible. The fencing option is something that should be considered to provide privacy for the neighbors. Mr. Perry asked what the feasibility of doing a fence on top of the berm. Mr. Lyons said the slope of the berm determines whether or not you could place a fence there. From a code standpoint, it disallows something to create a very steep berm and then putting a six- foot fence on top of it to get around fencing standards. The berm designed presently would not permit a fence on top. Ms. Propp said she finds the idea of a fence on top of a berm is odd anyway. She would be willing to condition an eight-foot fence. Ms. Davey asked for a description of the vinyl fence, she was wondering if it was metal with vinyl panels. Mr. Slusarek said it looks like a wooden fence but is entirely made of vinyl. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 June 20, 2023 Council Member Esslinger suggested this item get pushed in order to make sure that all loose ends are tied before going before council. It seems like this isn’t ready with the issues related to lighting, berms and fencing. The neighbors’ input should be weighed heavily in the decision. Plan Commission can discuss it, but it may not be what is appropriate for the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Propp said that she doesn’t want the item to get delayed for the developers, but would like to know if this could be delayed until the next meeting. Mr. Lyons said that the statues have a timeline for the City to act once the application is submitted, unless the developer is willing to waive that timeline. With the 4th of July holiday, the next meeting isn’t until July 18th. This item could be delayed until the July 11th council meeting, in order to facilitate conversations with the neighbors. Mr. Loewenstein said that it feels like there are some bits of information missing. Motion by Loewenstein to amend the conditions to allow up to an eight-foot fence for the bufferyard. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion to amend carried 7-0. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the original motion as amended. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO PROJECTING SIGNS Staff report accepted as part of the record. The City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development requests review and approval of amendments to the Oshkosh Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The City of Oshkosh adopted a new zoning ordinance which went into effect on January 1, 2017. Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has noticed code sections that should be modified following further examination and discussion with the public, City staff, and developers. Planning staff has recently received requests for allowing blade signs in addition to the currently allowed wall signage, specifically for businesses in the Central City. In an effort to accommodate these pedestrian-oriented businesses, revisions are being proposed to the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 June 20, 2023 Mr. Kiefer asked for examples on blade signs. Mr. Lyons said that Wagner’s Market and Elsewhere Coffee have blade signs that stick out from the building with their logos. A lot of the businesses downtown have a lot signage that predates the 2017 ordinance change. That means their allotted signage is already maxed out. This amendment allows more blade signage even if maxed out. Ms. Propp asked if this was allowed just in downtown. Mr. Lyons said that it will probably be used downtown since they are intended for pedestrians, but there would not be able any negatives to other businesses using them. Council Member Esslinger said that when he was in council previously and had a suggestion to allow projecting signs. In the earlier years, downtown had beautiful signage and this is a step towards that again. He’s wondering if the criteria changes the square footage allotment for signs and how did staff come up with the criteria. Mr. Lyons said this still allows anyone to do a normal projecting sign, which are the larger signs, and those are still considered a part of the regular sign code for square footage. This is more in the realm of what is done for pedestrian orientated signs. Two square feet is in the realm of what is appropriate for pedestrians to be able to identify the business. Council Member Esslinger asked if projecting signs and blade signs are two different types of signage. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. This text amendment will separate them out and making a special category for blade signs. Council Member Esslinger asked if the Grand Opera House sign is something that is allowed per the code, if someone on Main St wanted that sign, would that be permitted. Mr. Lyons said that the Grand Opera House sign was something that came through Plan Commission and Council to get approved. Council Member Esslinger asked what the maximum allowed sign is. Mr. Slusarek said that it depends on square footage. If someone has a 25 sq foot frontage, someone could have a 25-foot sign and a projecting sign as well. Mr. Kiefer asked if the small white sign at Wagner’s Market is an example of a blade sign. Mr. Lyons said that is correct. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 June 20, 2023 Ms. Davey asked if the 2 sq feet of blade signage allows for different dimensions to get to the 2 sq feet. Mr. Slusarek said it cannot project more than four feet from the structure. Mr. Lyons said that this will create an equal opportunity for the downtown businesses to be able to use a blade sign if they want to. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 7-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW 2023 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Staff report accepted as part of the record. Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2023 Annual Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Ms. Tardiff presented the item. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency that the proposed projects/activities in the 2023 Annual Action Plan are consistent with the City’s 2005-2025 Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Update 2040, official maps, or other planned activities of the City. Staff is requesting the Plan Commission to review and accept proposed projects/activities designed to meet one of the national objectives (listed below) of the CDBG program, and recommend Council authorize submittal of the 2023 CDBG Action Plan. Staff recommends approval with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report. Mr. Perry opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 June 20, 2023 Mr. Perry closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Coulibaly. Mr. Perry asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Motion carried 6-0-1 present. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:50 pm. (Kiefer/Propp) Respectfully Submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager