Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPLAN COMMISSION MINUTES November 2, 2010 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thorns, Thomas Fojtik, Tony Palmeri, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry EXCUSED: David Borsuk, John Hinz, Kent Monte, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; David Patek, Director of Public Works; Steve Gohde, Assistant 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 October 19, 2010 were approved as presented. (Thoms/Propp) L CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL USE AT 441 NORTH MAIN STREET The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to create a residential living unit on the second floor above the commercial space at 441 North Main Street. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the existing land uses and zoning in said area. He discussed details of the proposed residential living unit on the second floor and explained staff's concerns with the possibility of a wooden deck being constructed as it would not be consistent with the character of the other structures in the downtown area. He further commented that the architect for the project had contacted staff regarding the materials to be used for the deck and indicated that it would be constructed of steel and vinyl wrapped decking so there would be no exposed wood surfaces. Mr. Buck also commented that the City owned parking lot has the capacity to accommodate the two required parking stalls for the residential unit and that the project is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Bowen inquired if the deck could not be constructed with wood. Mr. Buck responded that it could be constructed with wood materials providing that it was wrapped so as not to have exposed wooden surfaces. Mr. Thorns questioned if the parking stalls in the City lot would be leased to the owner. Mr. Buck replied that the stalls could be used on an overnight basis or the owner could obtain a monthly parking permit from the City. Ms. Lohry inquired about who would be responsible for the outdoor storage mentioned in the recommended conditions. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Buck responded that the condition was related to any outdoor storage being required to be enclosed at the ground floor level as a safeguard condition to prevent unsightly storage in the downtown area. He added that the owner has not requested any outdoor storage use. Mr. Fojtik questioned how garbage would be handled for the site. Mr. Buck replied that there was a shared dumpster on the site that would be utilized for refuse collection. Mr. Palmeri commented that the staff report made reference to the structure being eligible for the National Register as a local historic building and inquired how the second floor residential unit would impact its eligibility. Mr. Buck responded that the structure would still be eligible for the National Register. Rick Fisher, Fisher & Associates, LLC, 215 Peterlynn Drive, Wrightstown, architect for the project, stated that he had a meeting with Wisconsin Public Service Corporation representatives regarding the utilities for the proposed project and all requirements would be met. He also distributed copies of revised site plans for the project displaying the decking as being constructed with steel posts and with vinyl or aluminum covering. Ms. Propp questioned if the deck would be sympathetic to the adjacent structures in the area. Mr. Fisher responded affirmatively. Motion by Thoms to approve the conditional use permit for a mixed use development including upper floor residential use at 441 North Main Street as requested with the following conditions: 1. No outdoor storage unless enclosed at ground floor. 2. Deck shall not be constructed of exposed wood. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 6 -0. IIA. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. 9 TH AVENUE AND S. WASHBURN STREET The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 11.2 acres of land from four properties for construction of a storm drainage detention area. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site, surrounding area, existing land use and zoning classifications. He explained that the parcels proposed to be acquired were undeveloped land and reviewed the acreage of each parcel. He also stated that if the land acquisition was approved, the City would have to come back to the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval of a conditional use permit at a later date for the construction of the detention basin. Mr. Bowen questioned if the parcels had previously been officially mapped for this purpose. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Thorns inquired about what areas of the city would benefit from the construction of a detention basin at this location and if the proposed basin would be wet or dry. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, replied that the proposed basin would be a wet detention basin which would assist in the quality of the stormwater as well as alleviate flooding issues and would benefit properties in the Campbell Creek watershed area which would be on the east side of Highway 41. Motion by Palmeri to approve the authorization to acquire property located at the southwest corner of W. 9th Avenue and S. Washburn Street as requested. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 6 -0. IIB. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 ARMORY PLACE AND 1530 S. KOELLER STREET The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval to acquire approximately 18.80 acres of land from two properties for construction of a storm drainage detention basin. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site, surrounding area, existing land use, and zoning classifications. He reviewed the acreage of each parcel proposed to be acquired and stated that part of the area was officially mapped previously for this use. Mr. Thorns inquired about what areas of the city would benefit from the construction of a detention basin at this location and if the proposed basin would be wet or dry. Mr. Gohde replied that this would also be a wet detention basin which would assist in the quality of the stormwater as well as alleviate flooding issues. This detention basin would benefit properties in the neighborhood northeast of the basin location and properties downstream from that location. Mr. Fojtik questioned if there would be issues with the area proposing to be acquired not matching exactly the area that had previously been officially mapped. Mr. Burich responded that it would not create any issues as the land acquisition is not required to be officially mapped previously but the process is done only to protect the area from future development. Part of the area had been officially mapped previously but some of the area was left out and the land acquisition was adjusted accordingly to accommodate the size of the detention basin at this location. Mr. Gohde added that with the removal of the detention basin at the Westhaven Golf Course by the Common Council, the area for this detention basin was required to be increased. Judy Lett, 1615 Crystal Springs Avenue, stated that a ditch currently exists between their home and the parcel proposed to be acquired and questioned if the ditch was going to remain after the construction of the detention basin. She also questioned who is going to clean out the grate in her backyard and where the water is going to be directed. She commented that she has lived at this location since 1967 and has never had problems like she does now. She also distributed photos of the grate area displaying the debris that has accumulated there. Mr. Gohde replied that the pipe in the ditch would remain between the homes as the detention basin and wet surface will allow the discharge to function better. The Department of Public Works and the Street Department crews will handle the cleanup of the area. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Thorns commented that there was a lot of debris on the photos Ms. Lett distributed. Mr. Gohde responded that the area is routinely inspected by the Street Department and that the debris on top will not get caught in the out flow. Ms. Lohry questioned where the grate is located on the map. Mr. Burich displayed where the pipe was located and the grate on the aerial view map. Ms. Lett commented that they have been cleaning up the grate area themselves as the City was not doing an adequate job of removing the debris. Ms. Lohry inquired if something can be done to make the grated area more attractive. Mr. Gohde replied that they do not install fencing around detention basins. Mr. Burich added that the land acquisition is the only issue being considered today and issues such as the construction and appearance of the detention basin can be addressed at the time that the conditional use permit for the detention basin is brought forward for review and approval. Mr. Fojtik commented that Ms. Lett should work with City staff on these issues. Robert Cutts, 120 Merritt Avenue, stated that he worked at the Armory and they were not opposed to the proposed acquisition other than 10 -15% of the area may be an issue as they have one more building they were planning to construct on the site and an access area for the motor pool. He displayed on the aerial map the location of the additional structure and motor pool access area yet to be constructed and commented that the flooding issues in the area were horrendous. Laura Langkau, 1310 Moreland Street stated that the detention basin constructed at Tipler School is very unattractive and she did not want the detention basin in their neighborhood. She further commented that the Tipler location was fenced with orange construction fencing and the proposed detention basin would be ten feet from her property. She also voiced her displeasure with the fact that the Armory currently allows them to use their land for their children to play on which will cease if a detention basin is constructed on the site. She also questioned what constitutes a wet basin. Mr. Gohde explained that a wet detention basin is an area that contains a permanent pool of water. Ms. Langkau questioned how that was different than what is there now. Mr. Gohde responded that the area would be excavated and would contain a permanent pool of water which would have the ability to hold many more feet of water than the site currently can accommodate. Ms. Langkau stated that she did not approve of this as the area currently has a two foot creek at times but to create a permanent detention area there would decrease their property values. Mr. Fojtik questioned how the 10 -15% of land that the Armory may have an issue with would be handled. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Burich replied if the land acquisition was approved, it would be worked out when negotiations commence between the Armory and the City for the sale of the property. Mr. Gohde added that a portion of the land had been officially mapped and the remaining lands would be worked out in a voluntary negotiated sale. Ms. Propp commented that today's item was an authorization to acquire land and the time to discuss restrictions or conditions on the construction of the detention basin would be when the conditional use permit is brought forward for approval. Ms. Lohry stated that she cannot support the land acquisition without knowing how it is going to impact the neighbor's properties and she would need to see further information on the request before she would support the request to acquire the property. Mr. Palmeri inquired if there would be time to address concerns about the layout and construction of the detention basin at a later date. Mr. Burich reiterated that a conditional use permit would be required to come before the Plan Commission and Common Council for approval prior to the construction of the detention basin and meeting notices would be sent out to adjacent property owners at that time. Concerns regarding the construction of the basin could be addressed at that time. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the conditional use permit could be rejected at a later time if plans did not address concerns of adjacent property owners. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively. Mr. Thorns inquired if the land acquisition would be approved by the Common Council prior to knowing if the conditional use permit would be granted for the construction of the detention basin. Mr. Gohde replied that the City cannot get on the land to do the necessary testing and other studies to design the detention basin prior to the acquisition of the land. Mr. Thorns questioned if the City could not get access to perform the necessary tests in advance of the acquisition. Mr. Gohde responded that it may be possible but it would be up to the current property owners if they desired to allow it. He further stated that the City cannot apply for the necessary permits with the DNR until the land is acquired. Motion by Propp to approve the authorization to acquire property located at 1415 Armory Place and 1530 S. Koeller Street as requested. Seconded by Thoms. Motion carried 4 -1 -1. Ayes- Thoms1Fojtik /Palmeri /Propp. Nays- Lohry. Abstained - Bowen. (Mr. Bowen abstained as he is employed by the owner of the Koeller Street property.) III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT A PLACE OF WORSHIP USE AND COMMUNITY CENTER USE AT 300 N. EAGLE STREET Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to establish a place of worship use and a community center use within a residentially zoned area. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the existing land uses and zoning classifications in said area. He reviewed the existing developed site and discussed the history of the site which was established as a funeral home in 1969. He also discussed the proposed use of the site as a place of worship, the number of members, and the various services to be held. He also discussed the proposed community center use and stated that the petitioner had no plans for modifications to the site except for changing the face of the existing signage on the site. He explained that the parking lot is adequate for the proposed use and discussed the nonconforming issues with the lot and that these would have to be addressed at such a time when the lot would require to be reconstructed. He commented that conditions recommended for the request addressed that no asphalt overlay of the parking lot would be allowed to extend the life of the surface. The petitioner held a neighborhood meeting prior to submitting their application to discuss their proposal with neighboring property owners and staff has since received letters of support from several parties and a petition opposed to the use. The petitioner stated that they would be willing to withdraw the community center issue from the site if neighbors were objecting to this use. He further stated that staff believes the use is appropriate land use for the site and would be compatible with the residential neighborhood. Hours of operation would be limited to no later than 10 pm for the community center use and solid screening on the north and east property lines to mitigate noise and vehicle light issues were being recommended. He also reviewed the conditions being recommended for this request. Mr. Thorns questioned if there were any other churches or institutions that have attached community centers in the city and if so, were there hours of operation also restricted. Mr. Buck responded that there were several other entities in the city of this nature and depending on their location, some may have restricted hours of operation. The standard restricted time frame is 10 pm for most uses that may be disturbing in residential areas. Mr. Thorns also questioned if Oshkosh West High School holds evening events at the school. Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Ms. Lohry inquired if there was a curfew in Oshkosh. Mr. Buck replied that there was not a curfew that he was aware of however restricted hours of operation were to address noise level issues. Mr. Palmeri requested a summarization of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division document on Federal Religious Land Use Protections that was emailed to Commission members today. Mr. Buck gave a brief review of the land use document which in essence states that churches or other places of worship cannot be treated differently than other organizations in regard to land use decisions. It is essentially a freedom of religion issue. Mr. Burich added that it prevents zoning authorities from imposing substantial burdens on the ability of congregations to exercise their faiths. Mr. Palmeri reviewed the sample in the document relating to a variance request that was denied. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Thorns stated that it prevents the discrimination of one religious sect compared to another and that government cannot hinder the way they worship. Katra Patel/Reynolds, who declined to give her address for personal reasons, stated that she sent a letter of support for this request and that she felt that traffic, parking, and noise was not the issue with residents opposing the use of the site as a mosque. She commented that the church and school in the vicinity generate more traffic than the mosque and she cannot see how the denial of this request could be allowed. She discussed her support for the conditional use permit and stated that there have been no complaints relating to the mosque to date and residents should welcome it to the neighborhood. Brian Hamill, 1 Pearl Avenue, attorney representing Jane Katsune and Dan Ware, adjacent property owners to the site, stated that the proposed land use was the issue. He acknowledged that restrictions were recommended for the hours of operation for the community center however he felt that the increased traffic and noise with the more frequent use and higher intensity use would still be an issue. Timing is the issue with the proposed prayer service hours which could begin between 3:30 am until 6:30 am and the use of the site is different than what previously existed. Ms. Katsune, who resides at 320 North Eagle Street, has concerns if the existing light pole on the lot line between her property and the subject site is on her property and may need to be moved over to ensure it is not infringing on her property. She also has concerns with the setback issues for the site and felt that it should be dealt with now rather than when the parking lot is reconstructed. He further stated that the prior funeral home use was 9 -10 times a month where the proposed use will be much more frequently and would decrease property values. Ms. Lohry questioned how long Ms. Katsune has lived at her residence. Jane Katsune, 320 North Eagle Street, stated that her home was built 3 -5 years prior to the construction of the funeral home. She further commented that the north property line is paved area right up to the lot line and she did not feel that the use was a good match for the neighborhood. The site would be operating from 3:30 am to 10:00 pm and the potential use with vehicles and lights is an issue. She also discussed holiday use and other uses that may be on the site and questioned what other entities could potentially use the facility. She also discussed the lot size and the lack of greenspace on the site and how the proposed use would eliminate privacy for the neighbors. The parking stalls abut the neighboring properties and are in too close proximity to their residences and installing fencing around the site would not be sufficient. She felt that this use would decrease property values in the neighborhood and the Lutheran Church in the vicinity is used for worship purposes only and does not have a community center as part of their use. She also voiced her concern with what she felt would be absentee ownership and vandalism that could occur due to the proposed use that could potentially create damage to her property as well. She also had concerns about the growth of the sect over time and the increased traffic in the area. Forrest Ware, 1450 Southland Avenue, stated that his property is adjacent to the east side of the site and a five foot fence would not be adequate and that it was a quality of life issue. He voiced his concerns with the worship services at 3:30 am and stated that noise and privacy was the main issue and that the community center use would add to the problem. He also felt that the use would decrease property values in the area and was not a good fit for the neighborhood. Terry Schroeder, 317 Hawk Street, stated that they were considering doing some remodeling to their home as it is a quiet neighborhood and they like the area however they are now reconsidering the matter and may look at other properties to purchase instead as they did not buy a home next to a community center. He also felt that the property values would decrease due to the proposed use of the Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 site and discussed the setbacks from the lot lines. He had concerns with increasing membership of the sect over time and the number of parking stalls that would be lost at such a time when the parking lot is reconstructed and current code requirements would have to be met. He also had concerns about the location of the property lines, lighting on the site, and if a time limit should be established for the reconstruction of the parking lot. He discussed stormwater runoff issues and was not certain if he wanted a solid fence enclosing the site as he likes being able to look around the neighborhood and it would impede his view. Beth Osowski, 2450 Security Drive, stated that she wanted to encourage the Commission to approve the conditional use permit request for this use and she did not feel that the hours of operation should be limited for the community center use. She further stated that Oshkosh West High School operates from 7:00 am until after 10:00 pm and she would rather live next to a mosque than a funeral home. She also wanted to make known that the people here today opposing the proposed use do not represent the community as a whole. Khurram Ahmad, 367 Thackery Drive, representing the petitioner, stated that comments made previously that they would be an absentee owner was not correct as the LLC that would be taking ownership is a local chapter who would be responsible for management of the site. They have local funding and budgeting done in Oshkosh and they would like to grow as a sect in this community. Their families have grown over time which is the main part of the growth of the sect and this property is large enough to accommodate their current and future membership. He further commented that they like the values of the Oshkosh community and would like to stay in this area. In regard to concerns about the operation of a community center and neighbors' privacy, the community center would compliment their view of a house of worship which should be a cornerstone for the community and they would like to show their appreciation for the community at large. The community center would sponsor charity events of various types but could be removed from the request if this use would be objectionable. Their intention of their use of the property is to benefit society. In regard to neighbors concerns for their privacy, he stated that all the lots in the neighborhood are in close proximity to each other and there are locations in Oshkosh where corner taverns are allowed to operate until 2:00 am. Their sect has prayer services five times a day and the 3:30 am sessions are in the summer only with the remaining sessions during the year not commencing until 6:00 am. He also stated that they would accommodate the concerns of the neighbors the best they could. Ms. Propp inquired if the conditions recommended for this request were acceptable particularly the one relating to the fencing on the north and east lot lines. Mr. Ahmad responded affirmatively and stated that they wished to be good neighbors. Ms. Propp then brought up the issues raised about the light pole that possibly may have to be moved and the parking lot reconstruction and questioned if they would have sufficient funding in their budget to handle these issues. Mr. Ahmad replied that they would like to do anything necessary to reduce the impacts on the neighbors. Mr. Thorns questioned where their prayer services are currently held. Mr. Ahmad responded that the services are presently held in his basement which is located in a residential neighborhood. Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 Mr. Thorns then questioned if the petitioner would be open to placing a timeframe on the parking lot reconstruction to address the setback issues and other issues that do not currently meet the code standards. Mr. Ahmad replied that stipulations were welcome and that the existing parking lot is larger than what was necessary for their proposed use. Ms. Lohry stated that if they do not need the whole parking lot, would there be room to negotiate this issue. Mr. Ahmad responded that they would require about 19 -20 parking stalls for their proposed use. Ms. Lohry then suggested that the petitioner could move the fence about four feet over onto their property and surround the outside of this area with trees to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors as well as moving the light pole closer to the building. Mr. Ahmad replied that when the parking lot was required to be reconstructed would be the best time to address these issues. Ms. Lohry also suggested that the petitioner speak to West High School representatives about the possibility of using their parking lot when larger events may be held at their site. Mr. Ahmad responded that they have already done so and the school was agreeable to their request. Doug Seefeld, 345 Horseshoe Road, discussed the history of the site and stated that they may have taken some liberties with the lighting and property lines on the site as all the properties were once owned by the same party when the funeral home was constructed. He further commented that the lighting shines on the parking lot area and not on neighboring properties and further discussed the funeral home use of the site and that the building is not currently vacant as stated in the staff report. He discussed the funeral home use compared to the proposed new use which would be more frequent but much less intense in comparison to large gatherings for funeral services. Stormwater drainage issues that were brought up previously have always existed as they are currently and the new use of the site would not change the impervious surface. Diane Cudahy, 1505 Southland Avenue, stated that the neighborhood was nice and quiet and she was not opposed to the mosque but was concerned with the noise. She further stated that the school traffic begins about 6:45 am and she has a dog that barks at disturbances outside and she was concerned that the traffic at the mosque would cause her dog to bark at early hours of the morning. Ms. Propp inquired how we deal with the concerns brought up about the lot lines as she was in favor of the recommended fencing but had concerns with the placement of said fencing. Mr. Buck responded that the lot lines displayed on the aerial maps may not be 100% accurate as they are created from a geographical information system which is not survey quality as structures and other aspects can be up to ten feet off If there are concerns about the location of lot lines, the land would have to be surveyed to determine exact location. Mr. Burich stated that the Commission cannot order the light pole to be removed or the parking lot to be reconstructed on a specific timeframe. Conditional use permit standards allow the existing structure Plan Commission Minutes November 2, 2010 to remain and if there were concerns about the lighting, a condition could be added to address that issue. As far as the fence, the code standards for fencing are six feet high. Mr. Buck added that the zoning ordinance standards determine light levels at the property line and they cannot exceed the code requirements and arborvitae or a hedgerow could be installed in lieu of the six foot high fence. Mr. Thorns stated that he felt that a timeframe for the reconstruction of the parking lot should be included in the conditions as was done recently with the University's reuse of the Lincoln School property. This would bring the lot up to current code standards and resolve a lot of the issues brought up by adjacent property owners. He commented that a specific number of years could be agreed upon with the petitioner. Mr. Burich responded that normal code requirements for maintenance of the parking lot under the Zoning Ordinance apply and to go beyond that with a condition not related to the proposed use of the property could be overreaching. The Lincoln School parking lot was not the same issue as it is located in a planned development district where such conditions can be negotiated. Mr. Buck added that in the case of Lincoln School, the University offered to reconstruct the parking lot within three years. Mr. Bowen commented that the parking lot in this case was not comparable to Lincoln School as far as its current condition and to request a timeframe on its reconstruction was applying two different standards. Mr. Palmeri inquired if the hours of operation limit on the community center use was common in Oshkosh to require activities be ceased at 10:00 pm. Mr. Buck responded that any use in residential areas is limited to 10:00 pm and in this case it would only apply to the community center use and not the place of worship use. Any activities not related to the worship use would fall under the condition of being limited to 8:00 am until 10:00 pm. Motion by Bowen to approve a conditional use permit to permit a place of worship use and community center use at 300 N. Eagle Street as requested with the following conditions: 1. Routine parking lot maintenance activities be permitted (i. e. crack filling, pothole filling, etc.) with the exception of an overall asphalt overlay of the surface. 2. Hours of operation for the community center use are limited to between 8 am and 10 pm. 3. Fence or other year -round solid screening element is placed on the north and east lot lines. Mr. Fojtik stated that he wished to express his gratitude to the citizens present in the audience today considering this was an issue that could be emotionally charged, everyone behaved very appropriately. Mr. Palmeri agreed and stated that he would support this request as the petitioner went well beyond the requirements with having contacts with both the neighbors and City staff regarding the proposal in advance and the concerns regarding noise and other issues brought up today did not appear to cause any serious harm to public interest. He also commented that he appreciated the petitioner initiating a neighborhood meeting prior to the request coming before the Plan Commission for consideration. Plan Commission Minutes 10 November 2, 2010 Mr. Fojtik commented that this was a good example of how modern planning principals have moved forward to address a lot of issues that could be resolved with adhering to the current ordinances in force. Mr. Thorns added that the proposed use of the structure is an appropriate land use and that these types of entities are a central part of communities. He further discussed religious discrimination and land use and stated that he did not feel the use would create any intensive traffic issues in the area. Seconded by Palmeri. Motion carried 6 -0. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN BUDGET Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 2011 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 in the 2011 CIP and 2011 CDBG Action Plan budget with the City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities. Mr. Buck commented that the preliminary draft document covers the period of 2011 through 2015; however the 2011 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. Palmeri questioned the item relating to inflow /infiltration removal and what these costs were specifically being expensed to pay for. Mr. Patek responded that these costs were related to a contract recently awarded by the Common Council for repair of manhole and other related work to seal the sanitary sewer system. Mr. Thorns questioned why there was varying differences between assessment costs and city costs for these projects. Mr. Patek explained the policies and exceptions in relation to these projects and the various aspects that affect the assessment costs compared to the City portion of the project. Mr. Thorns then questioned if the undergrounding of utilities was being addressed in this year's budget. Mr. Patek referred to several sections in the 2012 through 2014 years that would address this matter with paving of one of the City's streets considered as a gateway project. Mr. Thorns then questioned if any funding was being expensed for roundabout installations. Plan Commission Minutes 11 November 2, 2010 Mr. Patek responded that all of the roundabouts were entirely funded by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Mr. Palmeri inquired if any money was budgeted to accommodate features of the Bike/Pedestrian Plan currently being developed. Mr. Patek replied that they were currently working with the Bike/Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee to work out the details of what costs would be necessary to accommodate the plan once complete. Commission members also discussed sidewalk installation costs and how they are allocated as well as signage for the Bike/Pedestrian Plan, traffic signals, hybrid buses, and great neighborhood public improvements and what this would entail. Discussion continued into the official mapping process of detention basins and land acquisitions relating to these basins and how the process progresses. There was also discussion on the costs set aside for the renovation of the central garage. Mr. Buck conducted the presentation of the 2011 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan for the period of May 2011 through April 2012, which anticipates the 2011 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 2011 is anticipated to be $920,000 and is budgeted as follows: Central City Development and Community Facilities $122,000 Housing & Neighborhood Development 464,000 Public Services 150,000 Administration and Planning 184,000 All programs require heavy reporting to HUD accounting for program expenditures and the Action Plan also requires Common Council approval. Mr. Buck reviewed photos of the past year's projects and the various agencies that received funding under the Public Services category and what programs these funds are utilized to support. He fielded a few questions regarding the rental rehabilitation program and how it benefits the community. Motion by Propp to approve the 2011 Capital Improvement Program and 2011 Community Development Block Grant Program Action Plan Budget as requested. Seconded by Lohry. Motion carried 6 -0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:35 pm. (Thoms/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services 12 November 2, 2010 Plan Commission Minutes