HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES
September 17,2019
PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik,John Hinz,John Kiefer,Justin Mitchell,Lori
Palmeri, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp
EXCUSED: Michael Ford, Derek Groth
STAFF: Mark Lyons,Planning Services Manager; Allen Davis,Director of Community
Development;James Rabe, Director of Public Works;Ray Maurer, Director of Parks;
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 September 3, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Kiefer)
I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH AN OUTDOOR STORAGE
USE AT 3135 OREGON STREET
Mr. Lyons presented the item. He said the item was laid over from the Plan Commission meeting
of September 3, 2019. He explained the applicant has withdrawn this item and will bring it back to
Plan Commission at a later date. There is a 60 day clause within the ordinance which states that
Council must act within 60 days of the filing date for Conditional Use Permits. The applicant is
continuing to work with through the process but needs additional time.
II. ACCEPT DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 3087 OREGON STREET
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz and Ms. Propp reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of a drainage easement to allow for continued storm
drainage from the subject property and surrounding properties and to provide access to the
existing drainage ditch.
Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land
use and zoning classifications in this area. There is an existing drainage ditch located on the
subject property that conveys storm water from the W. Waukau Avenue right-of-way to an
existing storm easement along the east property line of the subject site and to the Oregon St. right-
Plan Commission Minutes 1 September 17,2019
of-way. The City's Engineering Division is requesting an easement at the subject site to allow for
continued drainage from all properties through the existing swale and to provide access to the City
in order to inspect,maintain and repair the swale when needed. The proposed easement will be 65
feet wide, running 145 feet along the south property line to the existing storm easement. The
Department of Public Works and City Attorney's Office will work with the property owner to have
appropriate easement documents signed and recorded at the Winnebago County Register of
Deeds. He said staff recommends approval of the acceptance of the proposed drainage easement
as requested.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Mitchell inquired about the type of material used in lining the storm water retention basins.
Mr. Lyons replied he does not believe this is a city maintained drainage facility. He said it an
existing drainage channel where it is running through and the city wants to make sure they have
the ability to maintain it or do any work that needs to be done.
Mr. Gierach said this area is part of the Gallups/Merritts watershed that drains though there. He
said currently the city does not do any maintenance out there. He explained with the Waukau
bridge reconstruction later this year, they are looking to better realign the ditch through the culvert
there and the culvert along Oregon Street to help improve the flow. He said they are looking to do
some bank stabilization on the outside of the creek as well so they will not have erosion and loss of
soil in the future.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the property owner was aware that they could do landscaping.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any
statements.
Thomas Muraski (applicant),3087 Oregon Street, requested for Mr. Mitchell to repeat the question.
Mr. Mitchell stated the city is not maintaining it. He asked if Mr. Muraski was aware that he could
improve the environment of it if he wished to do so.
Mr. Muraski replied the way he assumed the new easement was going to be was that the city
would have access to it and have the ability to maintain it. He said from his understanding
through the conversations he has had with Mike Blank(Construction Management Supervisor for
the City of Oshkosh) is that he would report any problems he sees in the easement to the city.
Mr. Lyons commented the easement gives the city the authority to go on the property and
maintain it.
Mr. Muraski stated that whole area floods. He said they don't maintain the downstream anymore,
it used to be when the County had it. He explained about ten years ago he asked about the
creek/ditch being cleared out and was told they could not because the DNR would not let them
due to the vegetation being too big. He said the water goes up to the house when it floods.
Plan Commission Minutes 2 September 17,2019
Mr. Lyons said this should give the city the ability to maintain it and improve the situation.
Mr. Mitchell said he was curious why the area is not treated as something to improve the water
quality and environment in the area.
Mr. Muraski stated this was just annexed a few years ago. He said he was in the Town of Algoma
up until six or seven years ago. He said the county stated they maintained it but he ended up
maintaining it. He said he did not use chemicals on it but used an LP torch to clear the area
because he understood that it all floats down to the Winnebago system. He stated he is fine with
the city doing what they need to do with the area but would like to be kept in the loop.
Mr. Gierach explained a ditch line like this does not get as much quality out of it as a pond would.
He said there is quality coming from it but it is not typically something that would be maintained
as much as the ponds.
Mr. Lyons added this is essentially a natural feature that is already existing. He explained the city
wants to make sure they can maintain it to ensure the flow continues. He said it is not necessarily
meant to be a detention location.
Mr. Mitchell stated it would be beautiful to see they city transition from water management being
something that is just dealt with versus something that is valued. He said it would be nice to see
the city seize the opportunities in little areas like this one to improve water quality.
Mr. Lyons explained the city is limited to what they can do in the area.
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.
Seconded by Kiefer.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion carried 8-0.
Plan Commission Minutes 3 September 17,2019
III-A. GRANT PRIVILEGE IN THE STREET—SOUTH SIDE OF THE 1800 BLOCK OF W.
20TH AVENUE FOR PLACEMENT OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
Masters Oshkosh, LLC is requesting a privilege in the street for construction of storm water
management facilities located within City right-of-way.
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. Masters Oshkosh, LLC is requesting a privilege in the street
to allow placement of storm water facilities related to the Mineshaft restaurant and entertainment
development. The proposed facility is in the form of a dry drainage detention basin located north
of the Mineshaft property from S. Koeller Street to Interstate 41 right-of-way. Site grading and
minor enhancements to existing storm water structures will be part of the construction activity.
Areas of the dry basin will be planted with native prairie vegetation to serve as a wildlife deterrent
as part of the wildlife mitigation plan recommended by the USDA Wildlife Services and
Winnebago County Airport. The petitioner will coordinate with the Department of Public Works
to ensure no conflicts with City facilities. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the
request and has no concerns with the proposed project that cannot be addressed with the standard
privilege-in-the-street conditions. He said staff recommends approval of the request for the
privilege-in-the-street with the conditions as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Fojtik asked if these were standard conditions for this type of request.
Mr. Nau replied correct.
Mr. Lyons said this area is part of the existing storm water management plan. He said with the
redevelopment,this site is going to be accommodating all of the storm water at the northwest
corner for the three development parcels. He said the city just wanted to formalize and codify
what had been going on out at the site and to make sure it was allowed with the appropriate
conditions.
Mr. Kiefer asked if there were any other utilities going in that area.
Ms. Nieforth replied there are some utilities in there. She said they are working with all the
different companies that do have utilities that will be writing language into the upcoming
agreement and easement on the agenda. She said they are working together to accommodate
everyone.
Mr. Kiefer asked who was responsible for maintaining the basin.
Plan Commission Minutes 4 September 17,2019
Mr. Lyons answered they would have to do an O&M (Operation and Maintenance) agreement
with the city. He added some of the easement language will spell out who is maintaining what.
Ms. Nieforth stated the developer will be maintaining the dry detention area that they need for
their water quality. She said the reason the city is involved is because it is in the right-of-way and
it takes a lot of the Stringham Creek watershed water through there. She said the city wants to
ensure it is being properly maintained and that it is functioning.
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 Palmeri to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Conditions:
1. The Petitioner shall follow all of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for City of
Oshkosh, Wisconsin for construction, along with all Municipal Code requirements.
2. The Petitioner shall work with the Department of Public Works regarding the precise
location of the storm water management facilities within the public right-of-way. The
Department of Public Works shall approve the precise location(s), but the approval shall not
be unreasonably denied.
3. Petitioner shall provide copies of information and materials related to the storm water
management facilities within City right-of-way.
4. Petitioner is responsible for costs, expenses, and damages to the extent they are related to
Petitioners activities pursuant to the Privilege in the Street. Any problem that may arise as
a result of the installation of the storm water management facilities be the responsibility of
the petitioner to correct in coordination with the Department of Public Works.
5. All appropriate permits, including but not limited to right-of-way permits, are obtained
prior to the start of the storm water management facility placement.
6. The petitioner/owner secures and submits to the City Clerk a separate insurance policy
which names the City of Oshkosh, and its officers, Council members, agents, employees and
authorized volunteers as additional insured's with a minimum commercial general liability
coverage of$200,000 per occurrence and$500,000 in general aggregate.
7. It is the responsibility of the petitioner/owner to file in a timely manner a new insurance
certificate with the City Clerk upon expiration of an existing certificate. Failure to do so
may result in the revocation of the privilege in street within ten (10) days of notice.
Plan Commission Minutes 5 September 17,2019
8. The petitioner shall enter into a privilege in the street agreement that will formalize the
agreement between the City and the petitioner. The agreement shall include these
conditions, and City staff is also authorized to include additional conditions that are in the
best interests of the City.
9. The facility is part of and documented with Digger's Hotline system.
10. The Petitioner shall take into consideration the City's use of the right-of-way and as a result
plan its actions to provide the least amount of disruption that is reasonably possible.
Seconded by Hinz.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion carried 8-0.
III-B. ACCEPT STORM WATER EASEMENT AT 2105 S. KOELLER STREET
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The City of Oshkosh is requesting acceptance of a storm water drainage easement located at 2105
S. Koeller Street.
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 proposed easement is a variable-width, "U" shaped
area along the perimeter of the west,north and east lot lines. The purpose of the easement is to
allow storm water runoff to flow onto the private property. Runoff originating from the Stringham
Creek Drainage Basin flows from the west under Interstate 41 onto the subject site. The easement
is required to allow this runoff to flow onto this property. The runoff exits the site and flows to the
northeast,eventually discharging into the Fox River near Iowa Street. The part of the easement
located along the east perimeter of the property is to allow storm water to enter the property from
S. Koeller Street east of the subject site. The runoff flows to the north to W. 20th Avenue,which
again flows to the northeast discharging into the Fox River. He said staff recommends approval of
the acceptance of the storm water easement at 2105 S. Koeller Street as requested.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Kiefer asked if the drainage from the parking lot and buildings are flowing into the ponds or
storm water sewers.
Mr. Lyons said they are working with the city on their storm water management plans for the
entire redevelopment area. He said all the water will be flowing into the storm water easement
area/associated storm water plan.
Plan Commission Minutes 6 September 17,2019
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 Perry to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Kiefer.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion carried 8-0.
IV. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION FOR WIDENING OF THE EAST SIDE OF NORTH
KOELLER STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN VACATED RATH LANE AND
OSHKOSH AVENUE
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Fojtik, Mr. Kiefer and Ms. Palmeri reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
The City of Oshkosh requests approval to dedicate additional right-of-way on the east side of N.
Koeller Street,between vacated Rath Lane and Oshkosh Avenue.
Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use
and zoning classifications in this area. This request is the result of a recommendation that was
made as part of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was conducted in anticipation of the Oshkosh
Global Headquarters being built and private properties along Oshkosh Avenue being redeveloped.
The TIA includes detailed recommendations on how the intersections and corridors should be
constructed in order for them to function properly with the increased traffic volume. The purpose
of the right-of-way dedication is to expand the N. Koeller Street right-of-way in order to reserve
area for construction of an additional traffic lane should the need arise. As development occurs on
the privately owned parcels to the east and/or if Oshkosh Corporation expands its headquarters,
construction of an additional lane could handle the increased traffic volume. He said staff
Plan Commission Minutes 7 September 17,2019
recommends approval of the right-of-way dedication for the widening of N. Koeller Street as
proposed.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Kiefer asked if it would be built at 80 feet initially.
Mr. Lyons replied the initial phase will be creating a dedicated turn lane southbound from N.
Koeller Street onto Oshkosh Avenue. He said during the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),it noted
that there could be a need for a turn lane on the east side of N. Koeller Street for northbound traffic
dependent on future development of the area. He stated at this time it is not anticipated that the
northbound turn lane is going to be built. He said they are waiting to see what types of
developments will occur and will add the turn lane when it is necessitated.
Mr. Kiefer asked if there was a point from the roundabout where there could be turn lanes into the
proposed development back to the east.
Mr. Lyons replied there is a control easement from the state on a portion of that property. He said
staff is still working with developer to see where access would be best placed into those parcels.
Mr. Nau pointed out on the map where the access restrictions stops and explained that this would
prohibit any driveway entrances onto the property.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a possibility of Plan Commission getting a vision of what future
activities were planned for the area between Highway 41 and N. Eagle Street. He said it would be
nice to see the big picture and overall plan.
Mr. Fojtik suggested utilizing a workshop update as they have in the past.
Mr. Lyons said he understands where Mr. Mitchell is coming from. He said the property has
evolved as it is being developed. He stated at this time there is not a master plan and that they
have been reacting to the development pattern as it emerges. He said they could definitely look at
the larger area and do a workshop. He mentioned they just did a GDP workshop for the greater
area a few meetings ago. He said that was probably the best gauge for what the developers see for
the area. He said he knows they will be coming back for another workshop in the near future.
Mr. Mitchell stated it was a good workshop. He said it would still be nice to take a step back and
see what the City's vision is for the area.
Mr. Lyons replied they could bring back the TIA and what the Council thought was appropriate
for the area. He said he understands the Plan Commission board members have changed a bit
since the earlier discussions.
Mr. Mitchell stated last time he asked for a vision,he was told there was not one. He said if there
is one,he would like to know about it.
Plan Commission Minutes 8 September 17,2019
Mr. Lyons explained there was a TIA specifically for Oshkosh Avenue and the roundabout
intersection. He said that TIA is what has driven most of the road related requests in the area.
Mr. Mitchell asked if that could be forwarded on.
Mr. Lyons said he would forward the slides. He said they did a nice presentation about a year and
a half ago.
Ms. Palmeri mentioned there may also be a video recording of the presentation as well.
Mr. Lyons said if Plan Commission chooses to, there could definitely be a workshop to refresh
everyone on what the vision was for Oshkosh Avenue. He suggested doing a quick workshop
with the upcoming Oshkosh Redevelopment workshop.
Ms. Erickson agreed it would be a good idea to refresh the Plan Commission on the vision.
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 Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Hinz.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Motion carried 8-0.
V. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 357
PLANEVIEW ROAD IN THE TOWN OF NEKIMI
Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site.
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
Plan Commission Minutes 9 September 17,2019
The petitioner is seeking approval of a two-lot land division/Certified Survey Map (CSM) from one
existing 37.80 acre parcel located at 357 Planeview Drive, approximately 2.5 miles south of the city
limits. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows:
Lot 1 =697,630 sq. ft. (16.02 Acres)
Lot 2=948,964 sq. ft. (21.78 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. Per the submitted application, the purpose of this land
division is to allow the owner to create a ten acre parcel (Lot 1) to be transferred to his son for
construction of a new residence. The application states the remainder of the property (Lot 2) will
continue to be farmed. The proposed land division will not immediately alter the existing land use
patterns in the area. At this time, the majority of Proposed Lot 1 and all of Lot 2 will continue to be
used for agricultural purposes. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed two-
lot land division and did not have any concerns with the land division. He said staff recommends
approval of the two-lot land division/Certified Survey Map at 357 Planeview Drive as proposed.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Mr. Mitchel inquired about the staff report and the basis for what is included in it and not
included. He said in particular,how staff chooses what they reference from the Comprehensive
Plan and what not to reference. He stated the staff report mentions the land use in terms of
commercial purposes but the Comprehensive Plan also talks about farmland preservation. He said
he does not understand how one is included and one is not.
Mr. Lyons replied the staff report references the land use section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Mitchell asked isn't farmland preservation related to land use.
Mr. Lyons answered that is a different section of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained when they
do a split like this, they want to look at what the long range land use calls for. He said in this case,
the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial use. He said both these lots are sized approximately
for commercial use but commercial use is not ready to get down to that area. He explained they
try to balance out what is appropriate. He said the immediate needs of what the applicant is
requesting versus what the Comprehensive Plan is calling for, which is long range land use of
Interstate Commercial, should not directly conflict with the long range plan. He explained the lots
are sized appropriately for commercial use in the future.
Mr. Mitchell said in situations like this where they are eliminating farmland, it would be relevant
to reference farmland preservation.
Mr. Lyons replied in this case it is not applicable. He explained the Comprehensive Plan calls long
range for Interstate Commercial land use and the area is not intended for agricultural use or
farmland preservation.
Plan Commission Minutes 10 September 17,2019
Mr. Mitchell asked if there are other sections in the Comprehensive Plan that are specifically
identified for farmland preservation.
Mr. Lyons replied affirmatively. He explained staff looked at the big picture and felt that Interstate
Commercial,which is what the land use the city has identified that they feel long range is
important for this, is the governing factor in considering this.
Mr. Mitchell asked if hypothetically this was an area for farmland preservation,that the section
referencing farmland preservation would be listed in the staff report. He stated he has not seen it
referenced yet.
Mr. Lyons replied it would be what staff evaluates the request on.
Mr. Mitchell stated there are other items in the Comprehensive Plan that should be listed in the
staff report even though it does not support the recommendation. He stated to date, other items in
the Comprehensive Plan have not been reference in the staff report. He said he assumes at some
point there has been a land division that was appropriate for farmland preservation and he has not
seen that word in the staff reports despite it being equally in the Comprehensive Plan as
commercial uses between Interstate 41. He said it would be nice to see what the full picture of the
Comprehensive Plan states versus what staff's position is.
Mr. Lyons replied staff is generally using part of the Comprehensive Plan that state law
specifically identifies that they should be using when making decisions. He said for extraterritorial
divisions, state law says for land use to be used. He said he understands what Mr. Mitchell is
saying and it is something staff can evaluate.
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 Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Erickson.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Plan Commission Minutes 11 September 17,2019
Motion carried 8-0.
VI. 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Site Inspections: Report: N/A
Staff report accepted as part of the record.
Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2020 Capital Improvement Program(CIP).
Mr. Slusarek presented the item. The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a
determination of consistency of the proposed programs and activities in the 2020 CIP with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps or other planned activities. He said staff recommends
acceptance of the 2020 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that listed projects are not in
conflict with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff.
Ms. Palmeri asked what method was used when looking at the consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lyons replied they look at a couple of things. He said the main things they look at are the land
use and transportation to make sure they do not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He said
they do touch on the Bike and Pedestrian facilities as well.
Ms. Erickson inquired about how the CIP project score is determined.
Mr. Rabe asked if there was a particular project in the CIP Ms. Erickson had in mind. He said the
CIP consists of a number of different sections. He listed the sections off. He said each one of the
departments that have a responsibility for any one of those sections submits a list of project. He
explained the process of the CIP. He said the departments/staff submits their projects that they
want in the CIP then Public Works compiles the list of project. He said each of the departments
meet with the Finance Director and City Manager to review all the project requests. He said the
projects are compared to the allotted amount of project budget that is set aside for each year. He
said inevitably there are more project requests than there is budget. He explained between the
Finance Director and the City Manager, they will trim down the project to get within the budget
fund limitations.
Ms. Palmeri said each of the departments may have a different scoring criteria to evaluate the
projects. She asked if there was a reference to the 200 possible points for the projects.
Mr. Rabe answered starting on page 53, there are the scoring matrices for all the projects that are
included in the 2020 CIP. He said while staff may complete their own scoring for the project, the
scores that appear in the CIP are the scores that the City Manager assigned to the projects during
the review.
Plan Commission Minutes 12 September 17,2019
Ms. Palmeri thanked Mr. Rabe for including that section.
Mr. Mitchell inquired about what was appropriate for Plan Commission to decide and discuss.
Mr. Fojtik explained in the past there have been things such as equipment listed in the CIP and it is
not the Plan Commission's role to evaluate what is purchased. He said land use questions are
appropriate. He said if there is concern with the details in the CIP not related to land use, it should
be brought to Council as a member of the general public.
Mr. Lyons added as outlined in the CIP process through state law, Plan Commission's review is
intended to be looking at the consistency to the Comprehensive Plan. He said Plan Commission's
role is not necessarily looking at the specific financial decisions that ultimately the Council may
choose to undertake.
Mr. Mitchell stated there is funding allocated for the Pioneer island riverwalk in the first year. He
said he is confused because he thought it was already included in the TIF Plan Commission
recently approved. He said he did not understand how it can be funded in the CIP and the TIF.
Mr. Davis explained the CIP is prepared at the beginning of the year in May when the TIF did not
exist yet. He said his expectation is that they will update the CIP next year and include the
riverwalk as part of a TIF project expense. He explained it has been there every year up until now
since TIF 20 has basically run out of money. He said they need to create a new TIF to fund those
future riverwalk improvements. He stated the reason it appears in two different places is due to
the timing of the CIP and the TIF.
Mr. Lyons commented the TIF has not been approved.
Mr. Mitchell inquired about what would happen if both the TIF and the CIP get approved.
Mr. Davis explained the CIP is the funding mechanism whereas the TIF is a financial plan. He said
they did include the engineering for the Pioneer in 2019. He said he does not expect construction
until 2020 which would give them time to update the CIP for 2020 for the 2021-2025 CIP. He
commented there will be a lot of six month lag from what they knew in May to when they approve
it in November when it comes to the CIP.
Mr. Mitchell questioned if the $240,000 for the riverwalk would be shifted over to the TIF funding
section. He stated that was the selling point of the TIF. He said there was all this infrastructure
these dollars were going to and now money is being pulled from a different section. He said he
understands the timing but wants to know how it will be reconciled.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Rabe how late the CIP can be amended to reflect the new TIF. He said in his
mind,it would be next spring when they do the next CIP.
Mr. Rabe asked Mr. Mitchell what page he was referencing.
Plan Commission Minutes 13 September 17,2019
Mr. Mitchell replied page 26, third item.
Mr. Rabe commented it is just the design. He said realistically a CIP amendment can be taken to
Council at any time. He said last year there was an amendment to the CIP as it was being
approved. He reiterated what Mr. Davis said. He said the projects are due to his office at the
beginning of May which means the departments are working on them before May. He said there
is quite a bit of time difference and they may have to take a close look at that one.
Mr. Mitchell inquired about the $2 million for Lakeshore Park and asked if that was only for
planning purposes. He asked if that included any work and mentioned he could not remember
what page it was on.
Mr. Maurer stated page 24. He explained the$2 million is earmarked for any of the construction or
phasing plans that are going to come out of the document they are currently working on.
Mr. Mitchell commented he thinks he read it wrong but thought it seemed expensive for a plan.
Mr. Maurer added it is in this year's budget to be paid for.
Mr. Kiefer asked if that amount was for the entire project because he did not see phases listed.
Mr. Maurer replied they won't know the entire cost until they get through the planning process.
He stated it will not be the entire cost. He said he does not know how much of Phase I it will be.
He said it is all dependent on approvals through the Park's Board, Plan Commission and Common
Council. He said it will definitely be a phased in construction over a multiple number of years.
Ms. Palmeri asked when we list the document study and planning documents in the $2 million
that would include the plans and eventual implementations or not including the actual
implementations and so this is a placeholder based on what the city has.
Mr. Maurer replied this is a placeholder for any of the projects that will be identified for
implementation through the master plan that they are currently working on. He said the planning
is in this year's budget already which is being paid to Smith Group. He said the money would be
utilized if there are other costs such as engineering costs, construction costs or any other costs
associated with the project.
Ms. Palmeri pointed out in the CIP where it identifies document, study, planning and document
and questioned if there should be language that says constructing or implementation.
Mr. Maurer said there might be some confusion. He explained that section in the CIP is referring
to what planning documents the city does have. He said the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan and the Lakeshore Park Master Plan are the documents that are being referenced to ask for
the dollars.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was a fair amount of guess work involved.
Plan Commission Minutes 14 September 17,2019
Mr. Maurer said right now the $2 million is roughly what should be left after the land sale minus
the expenses that the Council had approved. He said it is essentially a placeholder.
Mr. Mitchell said it talks about approximately$250,000 a year for Greater Neighborhoods funding
and asked if that was money the city administers.
Mr. Davis replied the City administers that.
Mr. Mitchell talked about the bicycle rides in the city and how many there have been through the
years. He said $50,000 is allocated to the signs along the riverwalk which is important but the
same amount is allocated to bicycle infrastructure. He said he feels the bicycles may outweigh the
signs. He stated the point system shows the bicycles outweighing the signs in the scoring. He
asked if it was in their purview to allocate funds to different areas.
Mr. Rabe clarified that there is a lot more associated with Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation
besides the $50,000. He said for example, in the street reconstruction program Snell Road is being
completely reconstructed. He said sidewalks and bike lanes are being added per the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Circulation Plan. He stated the$50,000 is not the only funding that is being dedicated
to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation in the CIP. He reiterated there is a lot of funding
associated in the street projects that help improve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments.
There were no public comments on this item.
Mr. Fojtik closed public comments.
Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report.
Seconded by Hinz.
Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Mr. Mitchell thanked staff for coming in to answer questions.
Mr. Fojtik agreed. He said it was not always the case but it is very helpful to have the department
heads present.
Mr. Lyons agreed and said it helps to get through the process.
Ms. Palmeri reminded Plan Commission if there are concerns with prioritization of the projects,
they can bring those concerns to Common Council as a member of the general public.
Mr. Lyons said he encourages Plan Commission to take a close look at the CIP and if they feel the
city should prioritize differently, they should reach out to the elected officials to make sure they
are aware of those concerns.
Plan Commission Minutes 15 September 17,2019
Mr. Fojtik mentioned someday he would like to see how many projects are completed within the
timeframe they are actually planned for because that is hard to do.
Ms. Propp commented she thinks everyone at the table is deeply interested in the CIP and the
details. She said everyone has their opinion on the prioritization of the projects but that is that the
function of the Plan Commission. She said the CIP gives everyone a roadmap to individually talk
to the City Council at the appropriate time.
Ms. Palmeri pointed out in the CIP that there are a number of projects that have not been funded
starting on page 45.
Mr. Rabe explained that was a section that started with the last year's CIP. He said it gives the
Council the opportunity,if there is funding, to slide in other projects. He stated it is a wish list. He
said last year's CIP was they first year it was included.
Motion carried 8-0.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Plan Commission Meeting of October 15,2019 Update
Mr. Lyons stated at this time the Plan Commission will not be meeting on October 15th. He stated
there are no items scheduled for that agenda. He said if something would change from now until
then, then they would meet. He reiterated at this time, staff does not plan on having an October
151h Plan Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:54 pm. (Propp/Hinz)
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Lyons
Planning Services Manager
Plan Commission Minutes 16 September 17,2019