HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 PRESENT: Lee Bettes, Thomas Fojtik, Shirley Mattox, Kathleen Propp, Cathy Scherer, Jeff Thorkildsen, John Weinsheim, and Chairman Jon Dell’Antonia
EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Jon Dell’Antonia, Steven Gehling, and John Weinsheim STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Zoning Administrator/Associate Planner; and
Vickie Rand, Recording Secretary Chairman Dell’Antonia called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The meeting minutes of October 18,
2005 were approved as mailed. (Thorkildsen, Scherer) Unanimous. I: PUBLIC HEARING: 2006-2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN
Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program and 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan. The purpose of this review is for the
Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities with with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities of
the City. Mr. Burich reviewed the 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program(CDBG) Action Plan first, noting the estimated allocation of $890,800 + $100,000 P.I. He discussed the
4 major categories and the allocation to each. Mr. Burich continued with review of the 2006 – 2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) stating the 10 major areas of expenditures and the
next steps to be taken before the Common Council will take action at the November 22, 2005 Council meeting. Mr. Fojtik questioned how the Community Development Block Grant program generated
revenue. Mr. Burich stated revenue is generated through the housing rehabilitation program. He explained once homes are sold, that have received grant money to rehabilitate, the mortgage
satisfaction comes back to the City. Mr. Bettes stated he has been through this process for many years now and has gained a better understanding of the role of the Plan Commission in
this regard. He stated these plans really have nothing to do with the Plan Commission. He stated the Plan Commission does strategic planning and has just finished the update to the Comprehensive
Plan; however, he understands that the State Legislature has mandated that the Plan Commission approve of these plans if they find there is nothing that conflicts with the Comprehensive
Plan. He stated some items are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and some aren’t, such as how he has found no action to be taken within the next five years for items #4 and #9 of
the key implementation elements of the Comprehensive Plan except for the 2 underpasses on Wisconsin Street.
Plan Commission Minutes -2-November 1, 2005 Chairman Dell’Antonia stated the South Shore Redevelopment Area Plan covers item #9, but he also has not seen those key items addressed in
any other area. Mr. Burich stated the Plan Commission needs to act on whether the plans are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and do not conflict with goals of the plan. He sited
the example of the west side reconstruction and the omission of a feasibility study that was not included since the Department of Transportation (DOT) hasn’t come to the conclusion yet
as to where the interchange will be constructed and didn’t feel an estimate for this work was appropriate to include at this time. He stated the staff is aware of what’s happening and
continue to work with the DOT. Mr. Bettes stated there must be some projection of what will be needed in the next five years. Mr. Burich stated the issue would be picked up when the
City has more information. Chairman Dell’Antonia asked if the plans could be approved with Mr. Bettes’ comments. Mr. Bettes questioned how the Plan Commission is to know that the 13
high priority implementation actions are being addressed. Mr. Burich stated the CIP is not the document that will address all the implementation actions of the key elements of the Comprehensive
Plan. He also stated that he feels that the staff has been keeping the Plan Commission informed of implementation actions taken in regards to the 13 high priority items of the Comprehensive
Plan by holding workshops when appropriate. Mr. Bettes stated he understands the legislative requirements for the CIP to align with the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion followed regarding
the interpretation of the Plan Commission’s role in accepting the CIP for 2006-2010 and the CDBG for 2006. Mr. Burich stated it seems to be a matter of interpretation in reviewing the
plans for approval. He stated the Plan Commission needs to look at the consistency of the CIP with the work being done in the TIF Districts, the blighted areas in the central city, the
South Shore Redevelopment area, the Fox River Corridor and trails, etc. to see that the work being done is consistent with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Scherer stated
Mr. Bettes has made some good points. She questioned how the large allocation of money going towards the N. Washburn Street project was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and questioned
where that money is being diverted from since other streets in the city are in serious need of repair. Mr. Burich stated the reconfiguration of N. Washburn Street fits in to the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan to have an efficient frontage road system as well as the Economic Element, and sees no inconsistencies. Mr. Dell’Antonia stated other street projects
are picked up in later years. Mrs. Scherer stated she also noticed the absence of City Parks planned for on the west side of Oshkosh. Mr. Burich stated an official mapping of parkland
needs to take place before a cost allocation can be made for property acquisition and park improvements; therefore, there is no basis to include that information in the CIP at this time.
Plan Commission Minutes -3-November 1, 2005 Mr. Weinsheim questioned if the Washburn Street project is consistent with updates that will be made to the Highway 41 Corridor. Mr. Burich
stated the City included N. Washburn Street at this time because there is some “big box” interest in that area and if that should develop, the traffic circulation would not be adequate
to support that development. Mr. Burich stated the city has recognized a problem exists there and the need to do something before the DOT starts there work in the next 2-4 years. Mr.
Weinsheim also questioned what specific elements in the CIP and CDBG touch on gateway improvements. Mr. Burich stated elements such as undergrounding utilities and streetlights are specific
items that touch on gateway improvements, and expenditures for gateway improvements are also incorporated into the redevelopment projects. Mr. Burich also noted that the CIP and CDBG
are guidelines for City projects. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if under grounding conduit large enough for future fiber optic use was included in the CIP. Mr. Burich called on Mr. Patek
to give further insight into how the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Patek, Director of Public Works, 215 Church Street, stated the City already has fiber optic conduit
in place for City projects but can’t anticipate other facility’s needs. Mr. Bettes questioned the west side by-pass (Highway 21). Mr. Patek stated the first step was to get an area officially
mapped and that won’t be done until the City has the DOT’s plan, which they should finalize within the next couple years. Mr. Patek stated they would need to know the DOT’s solution
before expenditures needed for the project are included in the budget. Mr. Bettes stated in business, owners have to budget for the unknown, and it appears because the City isn’t certain
about the five year expenditures they don’t want to include any projections. Mr. Patek stated until the city has a solution from the DOT, it isn’t logical to include projects relating
to Highway 21. Chairman Dell’Antonia stated he has heard the Highway 41, 6 lane project has received money to be started in 2007-08. Mr. Patek stated Representative Petrie received money
for Butte des Morts Bridge improvements but doesn’t believe the Highway 41, 6 lane project has been moved to an earlier date. Ms. Mattox questioned what costs would be covered with the
$137,000 received from the DOT for the relocation of N. Washburn Street. Mr. Patek stated the $137,000 was received from funding provided by the DOT every 2 years through the “Local
Road Improvement Program” (LRIP), and would be used towards acquisition and relocation costs. Mr. Kinney, Director of Community Development, stated Mr. Burich covered the question accurately
when defining the Plan Commission’s role in reviewing the CIP and CDBG Plans, by explaining what would be consistent or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kinney stated an
annual Comprehensive Plan Implementation Report would be done by the Department of Community Development to review the steps and actions that have taken place in the past year to implement
the Comprehensive Plan so the Plan Commission can see what progress is being made.
Plan Commission Minutes -4-November 1, 2005 Mr. Kinney noted that not all activities recommended in the Comprehensive Plan occur through the CIP document. He stated there are a variety
of actions in the document that help to implement the recommendations and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kinney stated the CIP and CDBG are working programs to guide the City in
providing realistic funds for implementation needs. He stated there are always going to be other competing demands put on the City that might take money away from another area, to be
budgeted for in future years. Mr. Kinney stated the Plan Commission should look at the CIP in relation to the projects being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and whether those
projects would cause anything to jeopardize any recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated it is basically a policy issue versus an implementation issue where priorities and
money need to be coordinated. He stated an annual report was done after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1993 and an annual report will also be done for the Update to the Comprehensive
Plan, adopted in 2005. Ms. Mattox questioned why the acquisition of right-of-way was needed on N. Main Street and W. New York Avenue. Mr. Patek stated sidewalks need to be removed when
street construction is being done and then need to be replaced per the DOT’s requirement, therefore limited temporary easements are needed to place the sidewalk back on the property
line or to create a new driveway to ensure the driveway matches the new road, not for land acquisition or street widening. Ms. Mattox questioned why a design engineering plan is needed
to be budgeted for N. Main Street and not for W. New York Avenue. Mr. Patek stated design engineering costs for New York Avenue were budgeted for in the 2005 CIP Prgram. He stated N.
Main St., from the Fox River to Parkway Ave., wouldn’t be reconstructed until 2010, therefore the DOT will hire a consultant and send the City a bill. Ms. Mattox also questioned if easements
were needed on other streets. Mr. Patek stated that easements are a requirement of the DOT for State projects, and they are not required for City projects. Mr. Weinsheim questioned the
1.44 total miles for all street construction in 2006 with only .08 of local street improvements. Mr. Patek stated those figures are for streets that are being totally reconstructed and
many other programs cover the remainder of street repairs, such as the cold mix asphalt program and the hot mix asphalt program. Mr. Weinsheim also questioned if there was a correlation
between the street rehab program and the housing rehab program. Mr. Burich stated the street improvements are not a part of the housing rehab allocation as housing work is done according
to what applications have been submitted. Mr. Patek stated it might appear to look that way because on the east side of the city there are many homes in poor condition and it is also
an area where streets are in need of repair and utility replacement. Mr. Burich also stated the Neighborhood Initiatives Program incorporates many improvements for both housing and related
neighborhood improvements. Mr. Weinsheim questioned if there were any non-housing expenditures in the CDBG program. Mr. Burich stated non-housing programs are included as part of the
Central City Redevelopment category for land acquisition.
Plan Commission Minutes -5-November 1, 2005 Mr. Kinney stated streetscaping was a key recommendation in the Downtown Action Plan. He stated schematics were designed and the project will
be correlated with the DOT when they are budgeting money for the State Highway 45 section of Main Street, which at this time is scheduled for 2010. Mr. Kinney stated it would be difficult
to use CDBG funds for streetscaping as they don’t want to piece meal street improvements but would rather work in accordance with the state funding to complete a larger area. Mr. Bettes
stated he was pleased with the response from staff for the issues that were raised. He also was pleased to hear Mr. Kinney talk about the 13 high priority implementation items in the
Comprehensive Plan. He stated he would like to see the annual Comprehensive Plan Implementation Report tied to the CIP/CDBG Plans. Motion by Bettes to recommend acceptance of the 2006-2010
Capital Improvement Program and 2006 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan Plan with a finding that listed projects are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh’s Comprehensive
Plan. Seconded by Thorkildsen. Mrs. Propp asked to have it noted that the budget for park improvements looked very light and it continued to decrease in future years. She stated she
would like to see more park improvements included in the CIP in the future. Motion carried 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Dell’Antonia informed the Plan Commission that Don Simmons has
resigned from the Plan Commission. He thanked him for his service to the City of Oshkosh and noted a Certificate of Appreciation would be sent as a thank you. There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:55 p.m. (Weinsheim /Propp). Unanimous. Respectfully submitted, DARRYN L. BURICH Planning Services Director DLB/vlr