HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
September 3,2019
PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik, Michael Ford, Derek Groth,John Hinz,John
Kiefer,Justin Mitchell, Lori Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp
EXCUSED: None
STAFF: Mark Lyons,Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis,Director of Community
Development;James Rabe, Director of Public Works; Kelly Nieforth, Economic
Development Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/
City Engineer;Jeff Nau,Associate Planner;Brian Slusarek,Assistant Planner; Steven
Wiley, Assistant Planner;Mina Kuss, 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 August 20, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Mitchell)
I. ACCESS CONTROL VARIANCE FOR FOUR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES AT 895 W.
20TH AVENUE
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The petitioner is requesting an access control variance to increase the number of permitted access
drives on a local street from two to four.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land
use and zoning classifications in this area. The applicant has submitted plans to reconstruct the
parking lot in the same footprint as it currently exists. The parking lot currently has four driveway
accesses from Knapp St. and the applicant is proposing to retain all four accesses. According to the
applicant, all four accesses from Knapp Street are needed. The north parking lot functions as the
primary exit from the north parking lot as it provides safe access to W. 20th Avenue. The second
and third driveways to the south are needed for both deliveries and access to the dumpsters.
Specifically, the second access is used for access to the overhead delivery door and trash/recycling
pick up enters through the second driveway and exits through the third driveway. The fourth
driveway to the south is needed for access to the southernmost parking area. He said after the
staff report was distributed, staff had received additional comments from Public Works. Public
Works noted they would like to see one of the drives along Knapp Avenue removed. He said staff
recommends approval of access control variance to increase the number of permitted access drives
from two to three.
Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 3,2019
Ms. Palmeri arrived at 4:02 pin.
Mr. Kiefer arrived at 4:03 pm.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Fojtik asked if the petitioner was aware of the change.
Mr. Lyons replied staff just found out about the change today.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
Kevin Fores (applicant), 895 W. 201h Avenue,explained the semis accessing the post office can
block up to two of their driveways. He said they cannot live without the north access as it is their
only safe access to get out on W. 201h Avenue especially with Oshkosh Corporation traffic. He said
driveway number two takes deliveries occasionally by semis or larger panel vans which allows
direct backing into the drive. He said if they lost driveway number two, they would have no
access to their overhead doors. He said driveway two and three are utilized for the dumpster
collection. He said driveway number four gives them access to their southernmost parking lot. He
stated they have been existing this way and would like to keep it that way.
Mr. Hinz asked Mr. Fores if he was requesting three or four access drives.
Mr. Fores replied he just found out about the three access drives.
Mr. Lyons explained after the staff report was distributed, staff had received further comments
from Public Works stating they would like to see three access drives instead of four.
Mr. Gierach said knowing the site constraints through previous meetings with the applicant,
Public Works wanted to see if the applicant could get it down to three access drives. He said they
wanted the applicant to at least look at their site and go through the process of trying to
reconfigure the layout. He said there is no specific access drive Public Works is requesting to be
removed. He said the one on W. 20th Avenue is valuable. He said between driveways 1-4, two and
three would be preferred. He reiterated Public Works wanted the applicant to do some due
diligence and look at the site to see if it would be even possible.
Ms. Palmeri said she is counting five accesses.
Mr. Lyons explained the variance is specific to Knapp Street where there are four access drives
when code would allow one.
Ms. Palmeri asked if there were five total access drives.
Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 3,2019
Mr. Lyons confirmed there are.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was benefit for the petitioner and Public Works to discuss outside of the
meeting what access drive could be eliminated.
Mr. Gierach said potentially. He reiterated again he understands there are constraints to the site
and that all access drives are beneficial but wanted the applicant to do some due diligence in
seeing if eliminating one access drive was a viable option. He said he would be open to discussing
it but does not know what the timeframe is for completion.
Mr. Fores said they would like to get the construction/rebuild completed this year if possible.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the project would still be feasible if Mr. Fores had to wait two weeks.
Mr. Fores replied it would still be possible. He said they do not have anyone online yet. He said
they have not made a commitment to anyone yet. He said they would like to get on someone's
schedule before it gets too late into the season.
There were no other public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik 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 staff report as the findings and approve the amended recommendation.
Seconded by Kiefer.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Mr. Hinz stated this street is not used very much. He said he lives in the area. He said there are
good reasons from the applicant for the need of the four driveways especially with the refuse
removal. He stated he opposes restraining the applicant to three driveways.
Ms. Propp said she agrees with Mr. Hinz. She said it is a stub street and would like to allow the
applicant the four driveways.
Motion by Hinz to amend the motion from three access drives to four access drives.
Seconded by Propp.
Mr. Ford asked if there are sidewalks on Knapp Street.
Mr. Lyons replied there are not.
Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 3,2019
Mr. Ford commented there would be no pedestrian traffic there.
Mr. Hinz mentioned the Fire Department, CR Meyer and the Post Office are located in that area.
Ms. Palmeri asked if there were sidewalks planned for the area.
Mr. Rabe said being as they just reconstructed that stretch of Knapp Street, they do not plan on
expanding the sidewalk beyond what already exists at the northwest corner at the intersection of
Knapp Street and W. 2011,Avenue going to the Post Office.
Motion carried 9-0.
II. 2-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP LOCATED AT 1732 KNAPP
STREET
Site Inspections: Report: Ms. Erickson and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The City of Oshkosh Department of Public Works is requesting approval of a 2-lot land
division/Certified Survey Map from one existing 2.251 acre parcel located at 1732 Knapp Street.
Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows:
Lot 1 =59,263 square feet(1.360 acres)
Lot 2=38,808 square feet(0.891 acres)
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. The City contracted with AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
(AECOM) to perform several investigations to determine the amount and extent of methane
generation within the former quarries. The methane concentrations in both quarries are in excess
of the LEL, posing a risk to structures constructed on and near the former quarries. Five properties
were identified as being potentially impacted by the methane gas being generated;four along W.
17th Avenue and rear of 1732 Knapp Street, the subject site to be divided. Proposed Lot 1 is an
"L"-shaped lot containing the existing single-family home and accessory structures. Proposed Lot
2 is rectangular-shaped. One item of concern is the lot is land-locked by not having direct right-of-
way frontage where a minimum of 30 feet is required by the Subdivision Regulations. Either a
variance from the Subdivision Regulations will be required to create a land locked parcel or the lot
can be shown as an outlot on the final map. The Department of Public Works reviewed the CSM
and did not have any other issues other than the shared concern regarding Lot 2 being land-
locked. He said staff recommends approval of the proposed 2-lot land division/Certified Survey
Map with a condition as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 3,2019
Ms. Propp asked what a methane gas remediation facility would look like.
Mr. Rabe answered it would look very similar to the installation on the west side of Knapp Street
at the former Knapp Street Quarry. He said across the street from Quarry Park there is system as
well.
Ms. Propp mentioned she saw something with a fence and asked it that was it.
Mr. Rabe answered it is. He explained how the underground perforated piping system works and
how the methane gets vented out.
Ms. Propp asked if it would look like an informal fence similar to the one on Knapp Street.
Mr. Rabe said he cannot recall the exact details of the system but it would look very similar to the
one on Knapp Street. He said they are currently planning for it to be installed somewhere near the
vicinity of the current house located at 885 W. 17f Avenue. He said it would be setback quiet a
distance from W. ITI,Avenue. He pointed out the general area on the map.
Ms. Propp asked if this would take care of the possible dangers to the neighborhood going forward
or if there was a possibility of other properties being affected.
Mr. Rabe pointed out the quarries on the map. He explained the Kienast Quarry and Paulus
Quarry were both filled. He said the former Kienast Quarry was filled with municipal solid waste
that generated methane as it decomposed. He said that methane has worked itself into the former
Paulus Quarry which is why they are looking to acquire that land and install a methane extraction
system. He said the intent of the system is that it goes around the perimeter of the landfill so that
there are not materials outside of the trench system that would be generating methane. He said
everything is generated from inside that system and the site is completely encircled. He said
because Paulus Ouarry is not generating, their plan is to monitor the monitoring wells to ensure
there is reduction and if not, they would close the loop.
Ms. Palmeri inquired about who owns Lot 1.
Mr. Nau replied Lot 1 is still privately owned and there are no plans for the city to acquire that lot.
Ms. Palmeri asked if Lot 2 could be combined with the northern lot.
Mr. Lyons explained to create the lot legally it must meet one of the two requirements which is to
be an outlot or be a subdivision variance. He stated the CSM could not continue without that
portion. He said the simplest way of doing it is calling it an outlot
Mr. Nau commented afterwards, the city could combine all five lots into one.
Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 3,2019
Mr. Rabe added combing the lots would be considered once the city has ownership of all the lots.
He explained this CSM needs to be approved so the city can buy Lot 2 then consider the lot
combination.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there are other properties the city is looking to acquire.
Mr. Rabe replied there are no others besides the five lots. He said as of last week all five have been
closed and they are still looking at relocation for two of the property owners. He said Lot 2 would
be the last piece.
Mr. Mitchell asked what the lifespan was of a mitigation system.
Mr. Rabe answered the mitigation system with its type of construction has a long life span. He
said they will continue to monitor the site just like they have been with Knapp Street and Quarry
Park to see if they can eventually switch from an active system to a more passive system. He said
to date they have not been able to do that with either Quarry Park or Knapp Street.
Mr. Mitchell questioned if the land would ever be turned into park space or developable land.
Mr. Rabe replied it will never be converted into developable land because of it being an old
landfill. He said just as Quarry Park is an open park even with the system, the same could be
possible for this area.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
There were no statements from the applicant
There were no public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
There were no closing statements from the applicant
Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Condition:
1. Change Lot 2 to Outlot 1 on the final CSM.
Seconded by Mitchell.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 3,2019
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion carried 9-0.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN
OUTDOOR STORAGE USE AT 3135 OREGON STREET
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to establish an outdoor storage use on a
previously developed lot.
Mr. Lyons presented this item and said after the staff report was submitted, the applicant
requested the item to be laid over for two weeks. There are a number of conditions in the staff
report that the applicant would like to address before bringing it to Plan Commission. The
applicant would like time to work with staff on those conditions.
Motion by Ford to lay over the Conditional Use Permit request to establish an outdoor storage use at
3135 Oregon Street until September 171"
Seconded by Palmeri.
Mr. Lyons commented there will be a more thorough presentation and analysis provided in two
weeks once staff has had time to work with the applicant on additional changes.
Mr. Fojtik and Mr. Lyons opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make
any statements.
There were no statements from the applicant
There were no public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
There were no closing statements from the applicant
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Ms. Palmeri inquired if there were any concerns by staff about the noise.
Mr. Lyons replied he does not believe so.
Mr.Wiley added staff concerns were mainly landscaping and lighting.
Mr. Lyons said the landscaping and lighting concerns were due to not meeting the standards.
Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 3,2019
Motion carried 9-0.
IV. SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR LIVING
COMMUNITY LOCATED AT 2080 WITZEL AVENUE
Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The applicant requests approval for a Specific Implementation Plan(SIP) for a Senior Living
Community.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land
use and zoning classifications in this area. On April 9, 2019 Common Council approved a General
Development Plan(GDP) for a senior living community at the subject site. The applicant is now
requesting that the Plan Commission approve the Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for Phase I of
the intended development on the site. Phase I will consist of the main entrance building with main
lobby, activity areas, independent living, memory care, assisted living and kitchen and dining area.
Future phases include an independent living addition, townhomes and assisted living addition.
This SIP is only for Phase I of the development. The final storm water management plans and
landscaping plans will be approved during the Site Plan Review process. Final building elevations
have been submitted for the project. The building facades are primarily clad in a mixture of stone,
brick and fiber cement siding. He said staff recommends approval of the Specific Implementation
Plan with the findings and conditions as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Ms. Palmeri referenced the breakdown of parking on page 8 and inquired about the requirement of
102 parking stalls versus the applicant's proposal of 131 parking stalls
Mr. Lyons explained the breakdown shown is the applicant's breakdown of what they feel is
needed. He said staff reviewed it against the code requirement, as outlined in the GDP, and the
applicant has enough parking. He said how the applicant gets their number is a little different
than the zoning code but ultimately the numbers match at the 131 parking stalls being sufficient
for the code requirements.
Ms. Palmeri asked if there was a range.
Mr. Lyons replied correct.
Ms. Palmeri commented it looked like the applicant was being pretty judicious in the parking and
then added more.
Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 3,2019
Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant was going to alter the wetland footprint or leave it the way it is.
Mr. Lyons replied he does not believe the applicant is proposing to do anything with the wetlands
but stated the applicant is present and could answer that question.
Mr. Mitchell said specifically none of the developed areas are currently wetland.
Mr. Lyons clarified the applicant is staying to the outside of the wetland area.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there was concern about the close proximity of the sole driveway for all the
traffic.
Mr. Lyons replied there was not. He explained staff reviewed it with the Fire Department and
they felt it was sufficient but did want the turnaround for it. He stated that was their only request.
He explained that earlier in the process, staff held a neighborhood meeting with the residence to
the west to discuss the development. He said being a senior living facility, it does not generate the
same number of traffic and trips as it would if it were a true multi-family development.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
Mark Hammond (applicant), 7901 W. National Avenue in West Allis, said he is the Vice President
of Development for MSP Real Estate. He clarified they are not modifying or adjusting the
boundaries of the primary wetland area in the center of the site.
There were no other public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing
statements.
There were no closing statements from the applicant
Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Conditions:
1. Base Standard Modification to allow 6'setback from east property line for truck turnaround
where code requires a 10'pavement setback.
2. Final landscape plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development.
Seconded by Kiefer.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Mr. Fojtik commented the lot has been vacant for some time and it will be nice to see it developed.
Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 3,2019
Mr. Lyons said it should be a great addition to the area. He said staff originally had some thoughts
about reducing the setbacks to the east but ultimately it backs up to the rear of the Fleet Farm
parcel. He said it seems like an appropriate place to grant a Base Standard Modification to
improve life safety with the Fire Department turnaround.
Motion carried 9-0.
V. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 38 PIONEER REDEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES
AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz, Ms. Palmeri and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
Tax Incremental District No. 38 (the "TID" or "District") is a proposed 20 acre blight district
comprising of Pioneer Island, the adjacent Pioneer Marina and adjoining City and State-owned
lands. The proposed district is comprised of three parcels. One under contract by the applicant,
one City-owned and one State-owned. The subject area is previously the Pioneer Inn Resort.
Mr. Lyons presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. Based on the assumption of$50 million in potential value
generated, the following expenditure could be accommodated. The City could anticipate making
possible total expenditures of approximately$29 million to undertake project identified in the
Project Plan. Project costs could include up to an estimated$5.9 million in"pay as you go"
development incentives, $16.3 million could be contributed for additional public infrastructure
improvements,$6.6 million for interest on long-term debt services and an estimated$200,000 in
administrative costs. The City has taken a broad approach to this TID,with the goal of creating as
much flexibility for the City of Oshkosh and developer. The developer has indicated they intend
to use the TID to help promote and secure additional development within the District. Mr. Lyons
explained the items in the Project Plan and stated it is consistent with other City plans. He said
staff recommends approval of the Project Plan and Boundaries for TID #38 as proposed.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Ms. Propp said she is interested primarily in the uses.
Mr. Lyons explained the land uses that are outlined in the application are very general. He said
because the applicant is using the TID as a tool to secure additional development, they tried not to
focus on the land use listed in the application. He said that is why in the TID plan they referenced
the anticipation of commercial, retail and recreational uses.
Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 3,2019
Ms. Propp commented she would hope Plan Commission would be able to see the plans for uses
prior to the development.
Mr. Lyons explained the entire area is zoned with a Planned Development and therefore would
have to come back to Plan Commission and Common Council.
Ms. Propp inquired about the boundary of TID 38.
Mr. Lyons pointed out the boundary of TID 38. He pointed out what areas were owned by the
city, what areas were owned by the state and what areas were privately owned.
Ms. Nieforth added the very northern part of the island is subject to the state land lease because it
has been filled in the past. She said there are certain requirements that need to be followed with
the state.
Ms. Palmeri questioned how Plan Commission can determine consistency with compatible land
uses if they do not know what those land uses are yet.
Mr. Lyons replied the land uses identified in the application all fit within the Comprehensive Plan
and the City's redevelopment plans. He said they know the applicant would like to secure
additional further redevelopment. He said all the redevelopment discussed are all permitted uses.
He said the details of the uses would be later reviewed during the Planned Development process.
He said if there is a use that is not permitted, they would have to look into amending the Plan.
Ms. Palmeri said in the application, there is an assumption about the building of seawall or
stabilization. She asked if that was factored into the project costs.
Mr. Lyons replied that is some of the public improvement items that are outlined in the Project
Plan.
Ms. Palmeri asked where that information was listed.
Mr. Lyons replied it would be on page 20 and outlined in text on page 17.
Ms. Palmeri asked where it was listed on page 20.
Ms. Nieforth answered it is part of the riverwalk.
Mr. Ford asked if there had been a similar TID created in the past.
Ms. Nieforth replied Oshkosh Avenue that went along with Oshkosh Corporation Global
Headquarters. She said that was to improve the Oshkosh corridor. She said there was not a
specific project in mind but they knew there would be additional increment that would be
generated. She said they identified multiple public projects that they could use that additional
increment to pay for those improvements.
Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 3,2019
Mr. Ford inquired about the $16.3 million in infrastructure costs and asked if the process for
improving the infrastructure would occur after the uses have been identified or will it be used to
lure development.
Ms. Nieforth said with the riverwalk, the city does have an agreement with the state and the
current owner on when the riverwalk needed to be installed. She said they are working with the
DNR on that. She said as far as the other improvements, they would have to see what type of uses
would be on the island to determine what utilities or public improvements might be needed for the
public infrastructure.
Mr. Ford asked for confirmation that other improvements besides the riverwalk would not be
funded by the TID until the specific uses have been identified.
Ms. Nieforth replied correct. She commented hopefully by the end of this year or early next year,
they will have a better idea of what direction they are going in.
Mr. Ford asked what the process would be for amending or modifying the TID agreement.
Todd Taves (Senior Municipal Advisor, Ehlers), said they have designed the plan in a way that it
would be unlikely it would have to be amended. He said the agreement is a separate part of the
process. He explained if it did need to be amended, it would follow the same process as creating
it.
Mr. Lyons added they have tried to tailor the plan in such a way that the TID is broad enough to
cover anything that could be anticipated. He said they would look to Council during the
development agreement process to nail down the specifics of what would be taking place.
Ms. Palmeri said this is a blight TID though a mixed-use is the desire. She asked for an
explanation how the points were calculated to come up with the blight TID.
Ms. Nieforth said not knowing if it would be a mixed use or not, they went with blight because
they met the requirements for blight. She said the mixed-use is 20 years whereas the blight goes to
27 years which gives additional time to capture increment.
Ms. Palmeri referenced the City's TIF policy and asked how staff came up with the points that
attributed to the blight. She read the TIF policy that referred to the points and asked how staff
came up with the 50 points.
Ms. Nieforth said as Mr. Lyons mentioned, there will be quite a bit of redevelopment costs needed
relating to contamination and infrastructure. She said there were points for that. She said it is in
the blight and will be eliminating blight. She said redevelopment is needed. She mentioned it is in
quite a few of the City's plans. She said there is no historic preservation at this time. She said
some of the items do go into specific site plans with the quality of development, meeting the
zoning ordinance and environmental. She said it will be improving the streetscape and pedestrian
Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 3,2019
experience by adding the riverwalk. She said there will be jobs created with the redevelopment.
She said it will fill a gap in underserved markets in the city for any type of use that is chosen.
Ms. Propp commented the last time she saw the marina piers, they looked like they were in
desperate need of rehab. She said it looks like it would be valuable increment and asked why it
was not part of the boundary to generate increment.
Mr. Lyons explained right now a lot of the base land value of the property is within the marina and
those piers.
Ms. Nieforth added it is not within the boundary but it is assessed with the property.
Mr. Taves commented it is not a parcel.
Mr. Lyons stated the applicant has indicated that fixing up the marina is one of their first projects
they would like to undertake.
Mr. Hinz referenced page 1S and questioned if 611, Avenue was going to be closed off. He said it
looks like 61h Avenue is getting closed off at the corner.
Mr. Lyons said the long-term anticipation is that Pioneer Drive will be removed and become
parkland along with the riverwalk. He said it should not have any impact on 6th Avenue.
Ms. Nieforth commented currently 611,Avenue does not go all the way through.
Mr. Lyons said Pioneer Drive east of Main Street would be removed until approximately where the
new 911,Avenue comes in. He said 91h Avenue would be the main thoroughfare that serves the
area.
Mr. Hinz inquired about the park space once Pioneer Drive has been removed.
Mr. Lyons said it would be linear park along with the riverwalk. He said RDA owns most of the
property in the area.
Mr. Mitchell referenced the blighted commentary section and asked if there is a list of efforts to
redevelop the property in the last 15 years.
Mr. Lyons replied it has been privately held and they have not been able to make development
work.
Ms. Nieforth said the city has been in close communications over the last five years with a local
developer, Art Dumke, since he has had the option to develop the property. She said prior to that
it was privately owned by Decades. She said they were in communication with Decades as well
but not as much as they have been with Mr. Dumke since he has had the option.
Plan Commission Minutes 13 September 3,2019
Mr. Mitchell asked for confirmation that there is no detailed report that explains that development
is not possible without$29 million of assistance on 20 acres of prime waterfront real estate in the
city.
Mr. Lyons commented it is not$29 million in incentives. He said right now it is outlined at
potentially about$5.9 million in incentives.
Mr. Taves said the city customarily, depending on the nature of the project,has them review the
proposed development project cash flow. He said they look at the internal rate of return or the
cash on cash return depending on what is appropriate. He said his assumption is that the actual
project comes in with the application and it is ready to be transformed into a development
agreement. He said that exercise will be undertaken and then ultimately that is what they do to
make the determination that the provision of whatever the TIF assistance is at that point is
necessary to allow the project to proceed. He said to remember this is like an umbrella of
everything that could be needed in order to facilitate full development of this property. He said
what actually happens still needs to be determined and it is scalable. He explained what scalable
meant.
Mr. Davis pointed out the City is in a four party agreement regarding the development of the
property with the DNR, the Bureau of Land Commissions and the current owner. He explained
the city is obligated to build the riverwalk in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property.
He stated that is why the riverwalk is first and foremost on the list. He said the extension of 911,
Avenue has always been in the plans in order to create a better access point for Pioneer. He said
the rest of the development really drives the other project costs for the development incentives. He
said the city has been waiting for the right time to do those two projects.
Mr. Mitchell asked why 91h Avenue and the riverwalk were included in the TIF district versus just
doing them. He asked if other parts of the riverwalk utilized TIF.
Mr. Lyons said it is customary to look at those things that can help enhance the TID to bring that
value in and help with the infrastructure costs that the city has.
Mr. Mitchell clarified his questions and said the projects in question would be pulling money from
Fox Valley Tech., the school district and Winnebago County versus the city just paying for it as
general road construction.
Mr. Lyons explained public infrastructure improvements like road improvements, the riverwalk
and public utilities that help service the development are part of what TIF districts are designed to
do. He said they are supposed to help fund some of those improvement costs.
Mr. Davis added every section of the riverwalk in the downtown used TIF funds for the local
match when they did get TIF funds. He said the only time he did not think they used TIF funds
was out at Lakeshore. He explained it was something they were able to fund by using land
proceeds, donations and the grant funds from the DNR. He stated TIF 15, 17, 20 and 21 have
funded the riverwalk.
Plan Commission Minutes 14 September 3,2019
Mr. Mitchell inquired about the $4.27 million developer incentives.
Mr. Lyons explained those are Pay-Go TIF assistance that counts when they do the developer
agreement. He said the developer can chose to do Pay-Go TIF assistance.
Mr. Taves clarified it is a cash contribution to a private development.
Mr. Mitchell asked if they are grants.
Mr. Taves said the statute requires a development agreement to be entered into which specifies the
terms and conditions. He said there are representations that have to be made by the developer as
to what they are constructing, minimum values and so on depending on what the city chooses to
put in the agreement. He said it is contingent on meeting the developer's contractual obligations.
Mr. Mitchell referenced the key goals in the Comprehensive Plan. He said there is only one
reference to environmental in the Project Plan. He asked if the City is going to be dedicating
almost$5 million to a developer, what would arguably be more key natural environment areas of
the urban city. He asked what the developer's vision is for the space that is one of the City's more
valuable environmental region. He stated it is not listed at all in the Plan.
Mr. Lyons replied there is a four party agreement with the state that is dictating a lot of can
actually take place of the island. He said that is why it was not referenced specifically in the Plan.
He said there are two overriding state agencies that are involved in the riverwalk. He said as far as
the public side,there is public greenspace and public access. He pointed out the proposed
greenspace and parkland areas on the map. He also pointed out the public land in the area.
Ms. Nieforth pointed out the hatched area all around the island. She explained it is an easement
for the riverwalk that is already in place.
Mr. Lyons mentioned the island tip is state owned property and will stay state owned property for
greenspace and public property.
Mr. Davis commented it has been very important to the city to get the riverwalk out to that point.
Mr. Kiefer said he noticed there was a repayment of utility cost in the Plan. He asked if the plan
was for the utility infrastructure improvements to be paid as it normally would for a street
reconstruction and then those funds would be repaid.
Ms. Nieforth replied that is the idea. She said they would have to pay for some of the upfront costs
and then repay the utilities over time.
Mr. Kiefer commented he is happy it is in the Plan because it was not in previous Plans. He
commended staff for adding it.
Plan Commission Minutes 15 September 3,2019
Ms. Palmeri said she knows how many years people have been waiting to see some activity on this
site and that it is very important. She said it is a compressed timeframe because of the opportunity
zone. She asked since the uses are not known if there was thought given to bifurcating the actual
boundaries between the island and the marina or if it was less than desirable as far as the whole
valuation expectation.
Mr. Taves answered it is Mr. Dumke's desire to be able to represent to investors that there is a Tax
Increment District in place on the island. He said by excluding that, they would not be
accommodating that request.
Ms. Erickson referenced the environmental remediation on page 11. She asked if that was covered
elsewhere in the Plan because it does not list a specific amount.
Mr. Taves answered it would be part of the development incentive.
Ms. Palmeri inquired about the $210,000 for demolition and asked if most of it was already done.
Mr. Lyons replied the final portion was done earlier this year.
Ms. Palmeri asked if this would include project costs of demolition that has already been
completed.
Mr. Lyons said the application is a little different than the actual TIF funding.
Mr. Davis commented they still need to do additional demolition as well.
Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing.
Tim Hess (applicant),2645 Templeton Place, said he is representing part of the associates at
Dumke and Associates. He said he is available to address any questions.
Mr. Mitchell asked what Mr. Hess' vision was for the natural environmental of the plot given that
it is quiet extensive shoreland frontage which is quiet valuable for the natural environment.
Mr. Hess replied Mr. Dumke's vision is to try and get as much fishing and outdoor activity as
possible. He said they presented at Council a couple weeks ago and showed images of the
shoreline which included some recreational condos. He said they have now come to appreciate the
floodway. He said they have to reconfigure their plan on the northern portion of the site because
of the floodway. He said Mr. Dumke is trying to do all that he can to try and get people to come to
the marina and allow the public to use the area via the riverwalk/easement.
Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Hess was a principal at Dumke and Associates.
Mr. Hess replied he is not. He said he is an associate that works for them and that he is not an
owner.
Plan Commission Minutes 16 September 3,2019
There were no other public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing.
Motion by Kiefer to approve the project plan and recommending the boundaries to the council and
adopting the staff report as the findings.
Seconded by Palmeri.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Ms. Propp said this is vitally important and if there was one TID district that the city should be
behind, it should be this one.
Mr. Fojtik commented this was a very thoughtful, fruitful and through discussion which is need
for the type of request.
Motion carried 9-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:16 pm. (Hinz/Propp)
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Lyons
Planning Services Manager
Plan Commission Minutes 17 September 3,2019