Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 17, 2009 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Dennis McHugh, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: Kathleen Propp, Kent Monte STAFF: David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeff Nau, Associate Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of November 3, 2009 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Hinz) L PUBLIC HEARING: 2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 2010 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Action Plan budget. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities with the City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities of the City. Mr. Buck commented that the preliminary draft document covers the period of 2010 through 2014; however the 2010 year is the only portion being adopted at this time. David Patek, Director of Public Works, stated that the CIP is prepared by the City Manager, and is broken down into ten sections as follows: street construction/improvements, storm sewer construction sanitary sewer construction, water main projects, sidewalks, traffic improvements, park improvements, major equipment replacement, property improvements, and tax increment district projects. Mr. Patek did a brief overview of each section of the CIP and some of the projects included in said sections. Mr. Borsuk questioned if when completing street reconstruction, the City looks for illegal hookups at this time. Mr. Patek responded that illegal connections to the sanitary sewer are discovered and corrected during this process. Mr. Borsuk also inquired if the street name change had been resolved for Snell Road. Mr. Patek replied that it currently had not been resolved but should be coming back to the Plan Commission for review in the next few months. Mr. Borsuk asked if the sweeper in the major equipment replacement would be a vacuum sweeper. Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 Mr. Patek responded that as that line item was $185,000, it was most likely a mechanical sweeper and not a vacuum sweeper, but that the City utilizes both vehicles in regular operations. Mr. Borsuk also questioned if the parking lot improvements noted would meet the new parking code requirements for landscaping and stormwater management standards. Mr. Patek replied that the parking lot assessment listed in the property improvements was for the police department lot and the addition of landscape islands had not been discussed, but would be included if necessary. As far as the water quality issues, it would not be addressed if the lot was not completely reconstructed. Mr. Buck commented that the addition of landscape islands would only be required if the lot would be completely reconstructed. If the work was only milling off the top layer and resurfacing the area, it would be maintenance and compliance with the new parking lot codes would not be required. Mr. Borsuk also inquired if in 2011 hybrid buses and trucks and vehicles with low emissions were being considered. Mr. Patek responded that the City was looking at vehicles that utilize alternative fuels such as diesel engines. Mr. McHugh questioned what cycle the City was utilizing for sidewalk replacement. Mr. Patek replied that the City was scheduling sidewalk replacement with a ten year program. Mr. McHugh asked how that compares with other cities in this area. Mr. Patek responded that he was not aware of the cycle other cities operate under however the City's insurance carrier was recommending changing to a ten year program. Mr. Nollenberger questioned why the totals on the summary page of the CIP for projects funded did not coincide with the cover letter in the report. Mr. Buck replied that the difference was most likely funding sources such as DOT, recovery or stimulus funding packages included to off set the City's costs. Mr. Patek added that the summary of funding costs on page 31 reflects the City's responsibility for funding that is taken from revenues and borrowing and does not include other funding sources. Mr. Bowen questioned what the underground streetlight wiring costs under property improvements included. Mr. Patek responded that it would include "DOT" funded projects such as the reconstruction of Main Street and the overpasses included with the reconstruction of Highway 41. Mr. Bowen then questioned if local and arterial street reconstruction, such as Grand Street, were included in the undergrounding of utilities at the time of reconstruction. Mr. Patek replied that the undergrounding of utilities was not included on local and arterial street projects. Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 Mr. Bowen also inquired about the $25,000 donation for the tree planting program as far as the source of the donation. Mr. Patek responded that he was not aware of the source of the donation. Mr. Bowen commented that he would like to see this program carried forward to future years. Ms. Lohry stated that diesel fuel was mentioned previously in regard to equipment replacement and she stated that in Florida they utilize LP gas and she felt it should be considered as it would be a cleaner more environmentally friendly alternative. Mr. Patek replied that the matter could be considered and further stated that the diesel engines being considered were not the same as the old ones previously used. He believed they are referred to as clean diesel. Mr. Fojtik added that the diesel engines produced currently were much cleaner than past models. Ms. Lohry questioned if there was any stimulus funding available to cover the costs of burying utility lines with the local street reconstruction projects. Mr. Patek responded that the City had received some stimulus funding for some projects, however an application was submitted for the Main Street reconstruction project for undergrounding utilities and the application was denied. Considering it was denied for a main thoroughfare, he did not feel there would be much chance of approving funding for local streets such as Grand Street. Mr. Thorns inquired if some street reconstruction projects were being completed for the purpose of the replacement of utilities such as Prospect, W. 4 th 8th Avenues. Mr. Patek replied that when a neighborhood area is worked on, they tie the utility work into the street improvements so the entire project is completed concurrently. Mr. Thorns also inquired if the tree planting program was just a one year project and questioned why the bike /pedestrian plans were not included in the CIP. Mr. Patek replied that without a Parks Director on board at this time, those items were not currently addressed. Mr. Thorns stated that it did not make any sense to him that the burying of power lines was not addressed in the CIP considering it was included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Buck commented that the undergrounding of utilities was one of many goals /objectives in the Comprehensive Plan which covers a 20 year period, but these items had to be prioritized as to which ones could be done at what time. The ranking is a decision that is more in the realm of responsibility of the Common Council. Mr. Thorns stated that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan should be incorporated in the CIP. Mr. Patek commented that the emphasis was on street repairs and the City was attempting to address the street conditions as quickly as possible and that costs had to be considered as there was not an unlimited amount of funds for these projects. Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 Mr. McHugh stated that a contributing factor was the strategic plan and how it addresses issues. The CIP could be amended at the Council level if it is determined that issues are not being addressed appropriately. Mr. Thorns commented that he felt the City should be held to the same standards we expect developers to comply with as far as the reconstruction of parking lots. Mr. Patek responded that some of the new standards for water quality, etc. are not imposed by the City, but by the DNR. He further stated that features such as a rain garden could be added to the Police Department's parking lot however we need to preserve sufficient parking spaces for the needs of the Police staff and public. Mr. Hinz commented that the City should have to comply with the new parking code requirements. Mr. Buck responded that it would depend on whether the work to the lot was deemed to be maintenance or new construction as there is a difference in regulations. If the parking lot work is considered to be a total reconstruction, the new parking code standards would have to be met. Mr. Borsuk questioned the funding for the Quarry Park methane gas venting upgrade. He inquired if excavating the area had been considered. Mr. Patek replied that the issue was reviewed and excavation was not a feasible resolution. Mr. Vajgrt commented that the park was a filled in dump that was 50 -60 feet deep at a minimum and it would be impossible to clean out. Mr. Patek added that excavation of the park area would not be a cost effective solution. Ms. Lohry stated that with all the highway development in progress, maybe the park area could be excavated and the fill sold to the DOT. Mr. Vajgrt responded that this would not be possible as the area is not all fill as there is substantial garbage buried there. Mr. Hinz questioned if when sewer and street improvements are completed, is the work being done concurrently. Mr. Patek replied that the City replaces underground sewer /water main utilities at the same time a street is under reconstruction. Mr. Nollenberger inquired if there were any other conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan other than the underground utilities issue and if so, it should be addressed in any motion for acceptance of the CIP. Mr. McHugh questioned what the line item was for of $300,000 for land acquisition for Quarry Park. Mr. Patek responded that the park was located on both sides of Knapp Street at one time and that homes were built in the area that was filled with garbage and these homes would need to be removed before venting of the site can be completed. Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 Mr. Bowen commented that the City's Vision Report clearly states that individuals' preference is to have underground utilities and it has been intentionally omitted in the CIP. This action circumvents the Comprehensive Plan and he felt the Common Council needs to deal with this situation. Any motion to accept the CIP as presented should include a finding from the Plan Commission that the omission of undergrounding utilities within ongoing street improvements is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nollenberger agreed. Mr. Borsuk commented that the City needs to take a leadership role in this situation. Mr. Fojtik stated that it does not build trust that the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan are not addressed. Mr. Thorns commented that although the Comprehensive Plan is comprised of mainly all goals for the future, when completing improvement projects, we lead by example and we need to include the undergrounding of utilities in some of these projects. Kenneth Neyhard, 642 West Eighth Avenue, commented that Idaho Street is wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the street and he feels that should be considered when reconstructing Eighth Avenue. Wilber Scoville, 324 Shorelane Street, commented that he was pleased to see his street on the list of ones to be reconstructed in the coming year. Shorelane Street had an overlay installed 40 years ago and was in bad need of repair. He also commented that the City was 50 years behind in street repairs. Motion by Bowen to vote on the 2010 Capital Improvement Program and 2010 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan as separate items. Seconded by McHugh. Motion carried 9 -0. Motion by Bowen to accept the 2010 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that the omission of undergrounding utilities within ongoing street improvements is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Community Vision report. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9 -0. Mr. Buck conducted the presentation of the 2010 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan for the period of May 2010 through April 2011, which anticipates the 2010 budgeting for this program. Mr. Buck explained that 70% of the federal funds received are required to be spent on programs which meet the national objectives of this funding which are to benefit low to moderate income persons, (LMI), aide in slum /blighted removal and prevention, and urgent need assistance such as disasters. The funding for 2010 is anticipated to be $793,800 and is budgeted as follows: Central City Development and Community Facilities $150,000 Housing Neighborhood Development 315,300 Public Services 140,000 Administration and Planning 188,500 All programs require heavy reporting to HUD accounting for program expenditures and the Action Plan also requires Common Council approval. Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009 Mr. Thorns questioned what the $150,000 P.I. represented. Mr. Buck responded that the "P.1." represented program income which comes from rehabilitation loans that are paid back after the owner sells the home. It is an estimated figure as we do not know how many loans will be recouped in the coming year. Ms. Lohry commented that there are a number of areas that have mature trees which have become dangerous due to their declining condition, and the City should provide a fund to have trees either trimmed or removed on property where the owners could not afford to have this work done. Mr. Buck replied that this type of program could be considered under either housing rehabilitation or neighborhood initiatives. Mr. McHugh stated that in the past, this LMI grant money has been used to rehabilitate many of the properties on Main Street, as far as upper -level apartments, and the owners of these properties are not LMI candidates. Mr. Buck responded that the tenants living in these units are qualified LMI candidates. Mr. McHugh commented that a lot of the tenants in the downtown area are students and he did not feel that they are qualified LMI candidates as they are supported by government loans and parents. He further stated that the business owners are the ones benefitting from the rehabilitation of the properties. Mr. Buck stated that the rehabilitation projects on rental units require that LMI tenants occupy those units for a specified period of time. Mr. Thorns questioned how long is the period of time that the unit must be occupied by a LMI tenant. Mr. Buck replied that the time period was either 10 or 15 years. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the 2010 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan as requested. Seconded by Borsuk Motion carried 9 -0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Borsuk commented that a review of the Comprehensive Plan would be beneficial in the near future. Mr. Fojtik added that it would be beneficial particularly to all the new Commission members that were not present when the original document was drafted. Mr. Buck stated that a workshop was planned for either later this year or the beginning of 2010 to discuss the responsibilities of Plan Commission members when reviewing submittals for approval and an update of the Comprehensive Plan could be discussed at the same or as an independent workshop. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:28 pm. (Borsuk/Vajgrt) Respectfully submitted, David Buck Principal Planner Plan Commission Minutes November 17, 2009