Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeekly Newsletter MINUTES SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD October 7, 2013 PRESENT: Kim Biedermann, Aaron Campbell, Margy Davey, Jan Scalpone, Nikki Stoll, Bob Breest, Michelle Bogden Muetzel, Samara Hamze ABSENT: Tom Pech STAFF: Elizabeth Schultz, Assistant Planner CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chair Margy Davey. APPROVE MINUTES Motion by Aaron Campbell and second by Kim Biedermann to approve the minutes from the last meeting as submitted. Motion carried. LAWRENCE STAHOWIAK, OSHKOSH FOOD CO-OP Lawrence Stahowiak, Paul Van Auken, and Sabina Bastias from the Oshkosh Food Co-Op Board of Directors were present to give an update. Mr. Stahowiak explained that the group is currently conducting a membership drive to identify 100 founding members, which to date they have secured over 25% of their goal. Monies obtained from the drive will assist with the completion of a feasibility study to determine the best site for the store. Ms. Hamze questioned why a feasibility study was the next step before opening. Mr. Van Auken explained that the group has done research into best practices for co-ops and is working with the Food Co-Op Initiative, a non-profit in Minnesota that assists groups wishing to establish a food co- op in their community. Based on these resources, the Board of Directors felt a feasibility study was necessary to help ensure success once the doors finally open. Ms. Hamze followed up by asking what benefits the entire community would receive by having a co-op in Oshkosh. Mr. Stahowiak explained the food desert that has been identified in Oshkosh’s central city area. The co-op will hopefully mitigate this and bring fresh food to the residents of this area. Mr. Van Auken further discussed the organizational structure of a food co-op and the unique advantages that come along with becoming a founding member. RANDY JOHNSTON, OAKLAWN SCHOOL Randy Johnston, Facilities Maintenance Director of the Oshkosh Area School District, gave an update on the newly completed 68,000 square foot elementary school. Mr. Johnston explained that the site contains 70 geothermal wells with 5 energy recovery units to regulate the building temperature. Forty-five heat pumps supply each class room and office area with temperature regulation. Throughout construction 60 tons of waste was diverted from the landfill. Mr. Johnston is working with an outside firm to commission the building which will take about a year to complete. They are confident that the project will reach LEED Gold Certification. COMMUNITY GARDEN EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE Board members finalized the community garden educational signage draft and agreed to work with community garden organizations to find locations before the signs are printed. A motion was made by Ms. Biedermann and second by Mr. Campbell to approve the community garden signage with the conditions that the comma usage is consistent and one of the photos is updated. Motion carried 8-0. SHORELAND RESTORATION UPDATE Ms. Scalpone explained that Justin Mitchell has continued to work on the Shoreland Restoration site. Recently, 30 volunteers met to clean up and install 160 new plants throughout the site. Mr. Mitchell would like to develop a long range plan for the site and work to establish a group that can formally adopt the site to continue to manage the operation. APPROVE RESOLUTION 13-01 DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS Ms. Bogden Muetzel explained that the subcommittee used examples from other communities and organizations wishing to divest from fossil fuels to draft the proposed resolution. Ms. Biedermann asked why five years was selected as the target date. Mr. Campbell explained that this timeframe was consistent with other resources used by the subcommittee. Ms. Bogden Muetzel added that the resolution is conservative and asks that no new investments in fossil fuels be made and to work over the next 5 years to find out if current investments can be moved. Motion by Ms. Scalpone and second by Mr. Breest to forward the resolution to the City Manager for review. Motion carried 8-0. NEXT MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 2nd Chair Davey reminded the Board of the next meeting. ADJOURN Motion by Ms. Biedermann and second by Ms. Hamze to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Schultz Assistant Planner 2 | October 7, 2013 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 2013 PRESENT: Vicky Redlin, Karen Heikel, Dennis Arnold, Shirley Brabender Mattox, Sharon Kipetz and Angela Merrill EXCUSED: Steve Cummings, Conor McGee 1. CALL TO ORDER Ms. Redlin called the meeting to order at 3:37 pm and a quorum was declared present. Ms. Redlin introduced Angela Merrill, the new Landmarks Commissioner. Ms. Merrill gave some background about herself. 2. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28, 2013 & SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 MEETING MINUTES th Mr. Arnold motioned to approve the meeting minutes of August 28 as presented. Motioned seconded by Ms. Redlin. Minutes were approved unanimously. Mr. Arnold mentioned that the discussion under Item 6.c that the reference should be for Mr. Radig is writing a book on “grocery stores” rather than “groceries”. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated she has spoke with him in the past casually but has not officially as of yet. She also added that under Item 2 (at the bottom of the page) that the City Attorney’s answer is not clear that cities being able to absolve themselves from landmark properties as they can pass amendments to codes. Ms. Redlin asked that staff ask for clarification on code amendments. Ms. Kipetz motioned to approve the meeting minutes of th September 11 with changes. Ms. Brabender Mattox seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. 3. BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW & DISCUSSION Ms. Brabender Mattox commented that several of the projects are significant such as the roof of the Wagner Opera House. She was interested to see if the owners were interested in getting tax credits and if anyone from staff had informed them of their availability? She added that 456 North Main Street is adding awnings and replacement windows and when the project comes forward do they follow and meet the design standards for the Downtown Overlay and if that will improve the credibility of the historic district. Discussion took place about if the windows on the second floor had been previously replaced. Mr. Arnold mentioned that the first floor had been altered already and that the windows on the second may have been replaced in the past. The awning appeared to be more traditional and that it is only going on the north building as to separate the two from each other. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she would rather have the original façade replicated rather than a “Disney” façade improvement such as the fill that is replacing what would have been the transom windows on the south building. Ms. Redlin asked if South Main Street is included in the Downtown Overlay. Ms. Brabender Mattox answered that it is just North Main Street. The Commission attempted to determine what specific nine windows are being replaced on 903 Oregon Street. The Commission requests a copy of the Downtown Overlay Design Standards. Ms. Merrill was asked and commented on Milwaukee’s policy giving recommendations on changes prior to the construction and providing a Certificate of Appropriateness but that if the work is not affecting original building content that the recommendation would reflect that. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggests that whenever a building in the North Main Street Historic District is altered that an image of the original should be provided to determine if the improvements are advancing the historic integrity or hindering it. Ms. Kipetz questioned if the Merritt Avenue driveway work was done before the permit? Mr. Arnold said that the permits are sometimes taken after the project begins. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE – REVIEW WORKGROUP Mr. Arnold stated that he attended the zoning workgroup meeting and stated that it is interesting to hear 1 of 2 the comments of other commissions and boards and what problems they face. He added that at this point the Landmarks Commission Historic Preservation Ordinance would be addressed as a separate effort. Ms. Brabender Mattox feels that Landmarks should attend to keep historic interests in play. It was determined that Ms. Redlin, Mr. Arnold and Ms. Brabender Mattox are all willing to attend. 5. WORKING GROUPS Ms. Redlin suggested that Ms. Merrill listen to the Work Group discussions to determine if there are any she would be interested in. The Commission went over who was working on each. Ms. Redlin mentioned that the reports should actually have a goal to keep the groups on task. a. Website – Ms. Kipetz said that she has a student back working so for the next meeting she will have some updated timeline items, focusing on buildings primarily. She also suggested that the Commission use different homes to showcase styles as many that are on there now have been really altered. The Commission discussed if they should consider having a section on a “preserved” house and an “altered” house as it shows the differences. b. Tourism/Brochures – No report. c. Historic Marker/Plaque Program – Ms. Brabender Mattox asked what the list of topics are for the Markers and that she will speak with Dan Radig to see if he could assist with these items. The Commission questioned if a member could participate via internet or phone and not be physically present. Ms. Brabender also stated she approached Jim Backus to see if they would be “advisors” on items as we need a historian to assist with projects. Discussion took place on research for the new applicants for plaques. d. Grant/Budget – Ms. Brabender Mattox stated her goal is to apply for another grant to get another historic district researched. Ms. Redlin asked if the Masons had been contacted as they are interested in designating their temple to help rehab without destroying the structures historic integrity and that the temple could even be a “hub” of a larger district. They are worried about the cost however. Ms. Redlin suggested maybe going to one of their board meetings. e. Riverside Cemetery – No report but discussion on reviving the efforts to promote and preserve the chapel took place including the possibility of doing interior rehab utilizing students or other volunteer groups. It was determined that a tour of the cemetery and chapel would be good and maybe hold a meeting there. f. Historic Bar Elements – No report. 6. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING/COMMISSIONER STATEMENTS The Commission was wondering if the cemetery chapel could be used as a meeting place for the November meeting. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked to go over the overlay design standards. 7. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn at 4:15 pm was made by Mr. Arnold and seconded Ms. Kipetz. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, David Buck, Principal Planner 2 of 2 BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES October 9, 2013 PRESENT: Dan Carpenter, Robert Cornell, Tom Willadsen, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Robert Krasniewski EXCUSED: none STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes of August 14, 2013 were approved as presented. (Penney/Krasniewski) ITEM I: 440 W. SOUTH PARK AVENUE Lorenz L. Rangeloff-applicant/owner, requests the following variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard: Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed Accessory Structure Location 30-1(A) Rear or Side yard Front yard Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property is zoned R-2 Two Family Residence District and is being used for institutional purposes. The existing principal structure was built in 1896 and has an open off-street parking lot north of the structure fronting W. th 12 Avenue. The general area can be characterized as low density residential in nature. The applicant has placed an 18’x22’ detached garage northwest of the existing principal structure in the existing off-street parking lot and since the subject parcel has double-frontage, the proposed location is defined as a front yard necessitating the variance request. The double-fronted lot configuration of the parcel is creating a justifiable hardship and the proposed location will create the least impact for the surrounding neighborhood, parking lot drive aisle circulation and stall arrangement. City of Oshkosh Inspection Services has indicated the proposed location is compliant with building code requirements and staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Lorenz Rangeloff, 3020 Oregon Street, stated the church was in need of an outside storage facility and he was proposing to place the structure in the corner of the parking lot behind the church. Mr. Cornell questioned if the structure was already built. Mr. Rangeloff responded that the garage was donated to the church and already moved onto the site as the party donating the structure needed it moved from his property immediately. He discovered that a variance would be necessary after it had been placed there and he came in to obtain the building permit. Mr. Carpenter inquired if the garage would remain in the location that it currently existed. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively. Board of Appeals Minutes 1 October 9, 2013 Mr. Penney commented that he understood the circumstances of how the garage was located on the site without a building permit. Mr. Krasniewski questioned what the garage was currently sitting on. Mr. Rangeloff replied that he cannot construct the foundation for it until he is able to acquire the building permit and he will place it on a proper foundation once he knows the result of the variance request. Mr. Krasniewski also questioned what Mr. Rangeloff’s relationship was with the church organization and if the garage structure would be brought up to code standards if the variance was granted and a building permit issued. Mr. Rangeloff responded that both he and his wife were board members of the church and the structure would be brought up to code once the permit is issued. Ms. Larson inquired if the three lots had been combined into one parcel. Mr. Muehrer responded that they had been recently combined however the mapping system had not yet been updated to reflect the recent change. Ms. Larson then questioned how far back the garage would be located from the church structure. Mr. Rangeloff responded it would be approximately five feet. Ms. Larson inquired if this distance would meet code requirements. Mr. Muehrer responded affirmatively. Mr. Cornell inquired if the setbacks from the lot line on the site plan were accurate. Mr. Rangeloff responded affirmatively. th Terrie Kragenbrink, 426 W. 12 Avenue, stated she was a neighbor to the north of the church property and questioned why the variance was being requested after the structure had already been placed there. She further stated that she does not want to see a shanty town in the parking lot of this property and the garage does not blend well with the church structure. She understood the need for a storage facility but did not wish to see this type of property maintenance continue as the garage structure looks like an after thought and is not enhancing to either the neighborhood or the church property. She stated that the variance should have been requested and approved prior to the structure being placed on the site and this was the second time this year she has been notified that Mr. Rangeloff has requested a variance after he already completed work that should have required a building permit. Mr. Carpenter inquired how she would suggest changing the appearance of the garage to blend better with the church structure. Ms. Kragenbrink responded that the garage does not look like it belongs with the church structure and appears to look foreign to the site. Board of Appeals Minutes 2 October 9, 2013 Mr. Carpenter commented that the alternative to having no storage facility on the site would be to store the equipment outside which would also not enhance the property. Ms. Kragenbrink stated that she was not objecting to the variance being granted for the garage but she does not want to see other structures placed on the site as it possesses a very large parking lot area. Ms. Larson commented that the Board is not likely to approve the placement of any other structures on this site. Mr. Krasniewski inquired about the color of the existing garage. Ms. Kragenbrink responded that it is a tan color and the church is white. Mr. Penney commented that he did not know what else could be done with the garage to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Krasniewski commented that this was the second time that this applicant has been before the Board requesting a variance without applying for a building permit first and suggested that the property owner could consider installing new siding on the garage as it may be an improvement. Ms. Kragenbrink stated that she was hoping that the site would be kept in good condition as the church was an attractive and very old structure. Mr. Carpenter questioned if the church was on the historical register. Mr. Muehrer responded that he believed it was however there were no issues with adding an accessory structure to the site. Mr. Carpenter inquired if Mr. Rangeloff would consider painting the garage white to help it blend in with the church structure. Mr. Rangeloff replied that the siding was vinyl which was not recommended to paint and that he would be replacing the missing pieces of siding and the garage was in good condition with a new roof. Discussion ensued on the possibility of adding landscaping or planter boxes to soften the effect of the garage and it was determined that details such as this are not required for other garage structures so it would not be appropriate to require it in this circumstance. Mr. Krasniewski reiterated that the property owner should have obtained the necessary building permit prior to moving the garage structure onto the property. Motion by Penney to approve the request for a variance to permit a detached garage in the front yard. Seconded by Carpenter. Motion carried 5-0. Finding of Facts: No harm to public interest. Unique situation with lot possessing two front yards. Board of Appeals Minutes 3 October 9, 2013 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. (Penney/Krasniewski). Respectfully submitted, Todd Muehrer Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator Board of Appeals Minutes 4 October 9, 2013 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES October 15, 2013 PRESENT: Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Robert Vajgrt, Karl Nollenberger EXCUSED: David Borsuk, Kathleen Propp, Donna Lohry STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Allen Davis, Director of Community Development; 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 1, 2013 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 1822 SIMPSON STREET The owner/petitioner are requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 0.360 acres (15,727 square feet). Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 0.172 Acres, 7,500 square feet Lot 2 = 0.188 Acres, 8,227 square feet Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area. He discussed the history of the lot as well as the fiber optic line that extends across the west end of the parcel however it will not hamper the development of the site as it is located in the front yard setback area. He further stated that the lot was proposed for residential use which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the two-lot land division/certified survey map at 1822 Simpson Street. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 6-0. II. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 3764 JACKSON STREET The owner/petitioner is requesting a two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing parcel containing a total of 63,831 + square feet. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 = 31,890 Square Feet Lot 2 = 31,941 Square Feet Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area and stated that the land division meets the size requirements however the CSM does not show all the information necessary to recommend approval of the proposed land division unless the petitioner can address some of the concerns regarding this request. The City’s Zoning Ordinance for land division criteria requires nonagricultural divisions to be compatible with adjacent land uses and concerns relating to the shed on Lot 2 that has no approved use or demonstrates that it meets building code requirements for __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 October 15, 2013 occupancy. It appears to be currently used as a storage area which is not allowed in a C-1 zoning district. The shed could be removed or the petitioner could find a re-use for it that would be allowable in its zoning district. The other options would be to rezone the property to a manufacturing classification or request a planned development amendment to allow the lot to be used for manufacturing purposes in a neighborhood business district. Staff is recommending to lay over the item until the CSM can be revised to show all features on the site and to provide more information regarding the potential re-use of the large shed. Mr. Thoms questioned if the petitioner’s use of the site was nonconforming currently. Mr. Burich responded that the petitioner had attempted to obtain a planned development for boat storage on the site some time ago and was denied by the Plan Commission. He is currently in violation for the storage use on the site however a correction notice has not yet been issued. Mr. Thoms then questioned what the C-2 use was to the south of the site. Mr. Burich replied that there was a filling station on that site. Roy Schumacher, 3764 Jackson Street, stated that the reason for the land division request was due to the nonconforming use on the site. He further stated that the homestead was on one lot and the shed on the north portion of the property was used for storage purposes. He was attempting to clean up the site and heard that the property to the north of his parcel has sold and the intent was to use it for retail store use. He stated he would like to bring his property into a conforming use and that the home was in good condition but one parcel was residential in use and the other parcel was commercial. Mr. Thoms commented that if the petitioner desired to bring his property into a conforming use that the storage use present on the site currently was not a conforming use in this zoning district. Mr. Schumacher stated that he wanted to make the lot with the storage shed on it into an antique store. Mr. Thoms questioned if an antique store would be a conforming use in this zoning district. Mr. Burich responded that the parcel was in a planned development zoning district and therefore would be required to come through Plan Commission and Common Council for a planned development approval but that an antique store would be a permissible use. th Mr. Thoms then questioned if it was still necessary to lay over the request until the November 5 meeting. Mr. Burich indicated that staff had no plans for the use submitted at this time and does not know if there are sanitary services available for Lot 2 and with boats presently stored on the site, there were concerns about the use. He further stated that staff would like to first see a land use plan prior to deciding if the land division should be approved or denied and more information was necessary to make that decision. Mr. Thoms inquired if a one meeting lay over would be long enough for the necessary information to be provided. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission had 90 days by statute to come to a determination so th if necessary the request could be laid over beyond the November 5 meeting. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 October 15, 2013 Motion by Vajgrt to lay over the land division/certified survey map at 3764 Jackson Street in order for the petitioner to provide the following: 1.Provide additional information on the CSM such as all structures, parking areas, utilities, and easements. 2.Provide information regarding utility services to the large shed on proposed Lot 2. 3.Provide information on proposed use of the large shed on proposed Lot 2. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 5-0-1. (Bowen abstained) III. ZONE CHANGE FROM M-3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO M-2 CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2212 MONTANA STREET The owner/petitioner is requesting a zone change from M-3 General Industrial District to M-2 Central Industrial District. Mr. Burich presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area which included C-2 General Commercial District, M-3 General Industrial District, and M-2 Central Industrial District. He further stated that the M-3 zoning district was mainly used in industrial parks where the M-2 zoning district was utilized for less intensive uses. The current M-3 zoning designation significantly restricts what can be done with the parcels and staff will be looking at the whole area in the future to determine if additional zone changes should be considered. Mr. Hinz commented that the Plan Commission held a workshop on reviewing the zoning in the entire community and questioned if this zone change was part of a broader plan. Mr. Burich responded that he did not know how it would be handled at this point but the request was to change from one manufacturing zoning classification to another which was consistent with the current uses seen in this area and should not impact any remapping of zoning districts to be considered in the future. Mr. Thoms stated that the request to down zone by the property owner appeared to be spot zoning to him. Mr. Burich indicated that both M-2 and M-3 zoning classifications were manufacturing uses and there were other sites in the area zoned M-2 as well so he did not consider it spot zoning. Mr. Buck added that the M-2 zoning for this property matches up with other sites in the area. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the zone change from M-3 General Industrial District to M-2 Central Industrial District for property located at 2212 Montana Street. Seconded by Nollenberger. Motion carried 6-0. IV. ZONE CHANGE FROM R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO M-2 RD CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 663 W. 3 AVENUE __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 October 15, 2013 The City is requesting a zone change from R-2 Two-Family Residence District to M-2 Central Industrial District to allow the combination of two parcels and expand the existing public institutional use. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the zoning classifications and land use in said area. He explained the reasoning for the zone change request and stated that, if approved, the parcel would be combined with the adjacent parcel to the east for use by the University. He stated the zone change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that the City may be considering broader zone changes at a future date for this area. Mr. Cummings arrived at 4:29 pm. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the zone change from R-2 Two-Family Residence District to M-2 rd Central Industrial District for property located at 663 W. 3 Avenue. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROJECT PLAN AND ALLOCATION AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENTAL DISTRICT #7 SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK The Department of Community Development requests approval of a Project Plan Allocation Amendment that would permit sharing of tax increment from TID #7 Southwest Industrial Park to recipients TID #20 South Shore Redevelopment Area and TID #21 Fox River Corridor Project. Both TIDs #20 and #21 were created as blighted area TIDs and thus eligible to become increment recipient districts. Attached to this staff report is the Project Plan Amendment document. Mr. Burich presented the item and explained the reasoning for the amendment request and that the increments could offset the debt service and costs in TID #20 and #21. He indicated that this allocation amendment was keeping with state statutes and the tables reflect the cash flow analysis and directed the Commissioners to refer to pages 9 through 11 in the Project Plan. He explained that the City is not adding more increment and that Table #1 on page 9 shows the revenues and expenditures as well as anticipated transfers at this time from Tax Increment District #7 where Tables #2 and 3 show the revenues and expenditures for TID #20 and #21 respectively. He further discussed the details of these tables. Mr. Fojtik questioned what the precedent was for this and has sharing of surplus increment between districts worked in the past. Mr. Burich responded that it has been done in the past with TID #7 and #9 allocating increments to TID #13 and #16. Allen Davis, Director of Community Development, added that TID #7 has also allocated surplus increment to TID #24 and this practice has worked out very well in the past. Mr. Thoms questioned what the impact was of this allocation amendment on citizens and for projects not to borrow to other projects, if a successful development could lower property taxes. Mr. Davis responded that it depends on the citizens however in the City’s case, the City, County, and school districts all benefit from the revenue in TID #7. Closing this TID would lower taxes however __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 October 15, 2013 general obligation debts would have to pay for deficits in the less successful TID #20 and #21 so spreading the benefits of TID #7 offsets these costs. Mr. Thoms clarified that the city has to pay interest payments on general obligation debt for the TIDs that are not successful and the borrowing from TID #7 would offset the costs. Mr. Davis confirmed that was the case. Mr. Thoms stated that TID #7 can only be open until 2017 which would buy time for the other two TID districts to pay for themselves. Mr. Davis confirmed this and stated that TID #20 and #21 could retire their debt in the coming years by the allocation from TID #7 without citizens paying for it. Mr. Thoms stated that what we are using from TID #7 is sufficient to pay the principal and interest payments for TID #20 & #21. Mr. Nollenberger commented that the concept is that tax revenues of developed areas in TID districts refinance redevelopment of other older parts of the community. Mr. Hinz inquired about the payoff of the increments over all the years of the TID, could we pay off now if desired and eliminate the payment of interest. Mr. Davis indicated that the city cannot accelerate all the payments as some of the debts do not allow prepayment until a certain date. Mr. Fojtik opened the public hearing at 4:42 pm. As there were no citizens present to comment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if the other taxing entities have an opportunity for input and approval on the proposed amendment. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission, Common Council, and Joint Review Board all review and approve the proposed amendment. He noted that the Joint Review Board is comprised of representatives of Winnebago County, the Oshkosh Area School District and the Fox Valley Technical College District. Mr. Thoms requested further explanation of the overlapping taxing jurisdictions. Mr. Burich replied that in some communities there are different school districts or other types of special districts involved however in the City’s case, there are no changing overlapping districts in the City. Mr. Thoms also questioned if TID #20 and #21 were created due to the fact that they were blighted areas. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and reviewed the resolution approving the project plan allocation amendment which contains the findings. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 October 15, 2013 Mr. Thoms inquired if the cap limitation will not go up and if there was no obligation on TID #7 to disallow this amendment. Mr. Burich responded negatively and stated that we were not adding any area to the TID district boundary so it would not affect the cap. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the Project Plan and Allocation Amendment to Tax Incremental District #7 Southwest Industrial Park. Seconded by Vajgrt. Motion carried 7-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 4:45 pm. (Vajgrt/Bowen) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 October 15, 2013