|
Item #1: Approve Minutes of June 18, 2007 Meeting. A motion to approve the Minutes was made by Sandy Mayer, seconded by Sheldon Mielke and passed by a 7-0 voice vote. Item #2: Public Comment. No comments were made from the audience that was present. Item #3: Review Progress on Planning Process. Mark Roffers, of Vandewalle & Associates, said that he would like to spend a few minutes at each meeting to review what has been done and to discuss the next steps in the process. This group is scheduled to meet every other month and in between the meetings we are working to keep the process on schedule. Since the last meeting, the City's Planning Commission has been updated on the progress, and the graphics have been worked on so they could be discussed tonight. The next step is to go back to the public at a larger forum, and present information on potential future direction and opportunities for growth. It is the second of three public events that are part of the process. A second meeting that is being worked on is with the surrounding Towns and the County, to share with them where we are in the process and learn about their plans and ideas. It is hoped to have those meetings in late September or early October. Mark Roffers then handed out an updated meeting schedule for the project. The Committee discussed the scheduling of these next two meetings and selected October 1, 2007 for both. The intergovernmental meeting will be at 4:30 p.m. and the public meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. It is hoped to have them at a school facility. Jim Fitzpatrick said that he will check for a location and get the information to John Wilmet. The next Committee meeting was also discussed, and it will be October 15, 2007 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Training Room of the Police Department. Item #4: Present and Discuss Regional and Local Context, Vision and Opportunities Mark Roffers reviewed the graphic materials with the Committee. The first graphic discussed was the current land use. It shows the current land use, not the zoning or a different land use that might be wanted. This graphic was discussed with City staff this afternoon and has been marked up with corrections. Mark Roffers asked the Committee to review the marked up graphic and let him know if there are any changes. Sheldon Mielke said the Business Park does not look correct. Mark Roffers said he was aware of that and it was discussed this afternoon and the City will be getting us more map information so that it can be corrected. Mark Roffers added that the colors will be looked at and changed to make them easier to distinguish. The next graphic to be discussed was the one dealing with growth factors. Mark Roffers said this tries to depict areas that are easier or more difficult for growth to occur based on land types and characteristics. The graphic does have some scattered green on it that should not be there, and will be removed. The green color represents wetlands, floodplains, etc., and the brown color represents soils that would hamper residential development with basements. It could range from a minor effect to a major effect. The bolder the color, the more difficult it will be to develop. The other two areas to note are the Jones Dairy and Hoard Farms. These are historic sites and would limit growth potentials in their areas. Another item to note are the arrows on the graphic. They represent drainage direction and would aid in growth to determine what areas can be most cost-effectively served by sewer and water. The graphic also shows the urban service area, which is the area within which the City can legally extend sewer services. This can be changed through submittal of information to the Department of Natural Resources and getting their approval. When asked by John Wilmet, Mark Roffers said that if FEMA finalizes the wetland revisions before the completion of the project, the revisions will be shown on the graphics. If not, the revision can be easily updated in the future. Mark Roffers said he is also going to look at eliminating the color within the City limits, and changing the brown to a tan to increase the contrast between areas of soil issues and wetland/floodplain issues. They will also do a 20-year projection of land needs for the different type of development so that areas can be calculated. The 2030 Vision Statement was looked at next. Mark Roffers said this is the second draft of this document and there are some wording changes that are needed and some text size changes to make it easier to read. After discussing the Statement, the Committee made these suggestions:
Mark Roffers said these changes will be made and the revised Statement presented to the public at the October 1st meeting. It will be sent to the Committee members first. The regional influence graphic was reviewed next. Mark Roffers said this was a larger overview of the City that shows the influences of Madison, Milwaukee and Janesville. It shows the daily trips into and out of the adjacent counties. This graphic will continue to be reviewed and updated with any changes. The last graphic to be reviewed shows the area opportunities. Mark Roffers said this graphic splits the City into different areas. Each area has its own opportunities. At the public meeting, each area will be shown in a larger scale along with the text information. This graphic was also reviewed with staff this afternoon and there have been some changes. The south side entertainment district was renamed to the Janesville Avenue Business Corridor and the Central Neighborhood District had the North Neighborhood District split off from it. The purpose of this graphic and the enlargements is to get more detail on what opportunities, trails and economic development are in each area. They also get us closer to finalizing a future land use map. Each of the areas were then reviewed. After review, the Committee offered these comments:
Mark Roffers said that all of the changes will be made and the revised documents sent to the Committee before the meetings. When asked by Cm. Mielke, Mark Roffers said that all of the graphics will be reviewed and any conflicts will be corrected. Item #5: Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made by John Wilmet, seconded by Jim Fitzpatrick, and passed by a 7-0 voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
|
|