Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes__________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 1 May 3, 2016 PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES May 3, 2016 PRESENT: David Borsuk, Ed Bowen, Jeffrey Thoms, Thomas Fojtik, John Hinz, Steve Cummings, Kathleen Propp, Gary Gray, Donna Lohry, Robert Vajgrt EXCUSED: Karl Nollenberger STAFF: Darryn Burich, Director of Planning Services; David Buck, Principal Planner; Jeffrey Nau, Associate Planner; Brian Slusarek, Zoning Code Enforcement Inspector; Elizabeth Williams, Associate Planner; Deborah Foland, Recording Secretary Chairperson Fojtik called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. Mr. Burich stated that Item V relating to the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development for the festival site at the corner of Ripple Road and S. Washburn Street will not be considered today as the petitioner has requested that the item be laid over until the meeting of May 17th. The minutes of April 19, 2016 were approved as presented. (Vajgrt/Hinz) I. RELEASE OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AT 1000 CUMBERLAND TRAIL (CUMBERLAND COURT APARTMENTS) The City of Oshkosh requests the release of four public utility easements as a cleanup effort brought to the City’s attention during review and approval of a Certified Survey Map request for Cumberland Court Apartments, 1000 Cumberland Trail. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained the reason for the request and reviewed the certified survey map depicting the easements that are currently on the property which are no longer necessary. There was no discussion on this item. Motion by Vajgrt to approve the release of public utility easements at 1000 Cumberland Trail. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. II. GRANT UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RELEASE STORM SEWER EASEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 BLOCK MARION ROAD The City of Oshkosh requests the granting of two utility easements to allow for adequate service to future developments and release of a storm sewer easement at the properties located at the 400 block of Marion Road. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 2 May 3, 2016 Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He explained the reason for the request to grant the two utility easements and discussed the release of the storm sewer easement which was granted to the City in 1963 and has since been disconnected and capped and no longer necessary. He reviewed the site plan depicting the easements on the subject property. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the pipe had been capped but that the storm sewer piping was still in place. Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Works, responded that the pipe had been abandoned. Mr. Borsuk then questioned who was responsible for the removal of the piping and if the easement should still be depicted on the property description. Mr. Gohde responded that the old records do show that the easement existed in that location and there was documentation to support its presence however some of it may have already been removed. Mr. Thoms inquired if the storm sewer was owned by the City. Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms then inquired why it would be the responsibility for a developer to remove it. Mr. Gohde replied that the City only removes the piping if necessary and that there was no need to excavate to dig it up as it would be a great expense to remove a pipe that can just be filled. Mr. Thoms stated that he did not want to create an issue for a future developer of the site and questioned if this piping was located along the lot line between Lot 2 and 3 and within the setback area. Mr. Burich responded that the easement area was located along the side lot line of the parcels and would be in the setback area for any building placement to be constructed on the property. It would not be an issue for placement of other development features. Mr. Thoms inquired if the easement is left in place would it still be a City issue. Mr. Gohde explained that the pipe has been abandoned and no action was required on the City’s part other than to release the easement. He discussed any potential issues from this action. Mr. Thoms then inquired if there was no need for the easement if future development expands in this area. Mr. Gohde explained why there was no need for the City to possess an outfall in this location as the storm sewer needs for this area have been addressed by other methods. Motion by Vajgrt to grant utility easements and release a storm sewer easement at the 400 block of Marion Road. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 3 May 3, 2016 Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 9-0. III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF A COMMUNITY GARDEN LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 600 BLOCK OF GROVE STREET The applicant is requesting two actions within this petition: A. Conditional Use Permit for a community garden use on a vacant parcel located on the east side of the 600 block of Grove Street; and B. Planned Development approval for placement of a community garden on vacant parcel located on the east side of the 600 block of Grove Street. Ms. Williams presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. She discussed the history of the site and the land division and planned development recently approved for a portion of this lot and the size of the proposed community garden and its location on the site. She also reviewed the layout of the raised garden beds and the other features on the site such as signage, an enclosed compost bin, and refuse container. She also discussed that there would not be any storage allowed on the site and there would be no fees for use of the garden beds as well as the hours of operation and maintenance and end of season cleanup which would be the responsibility of the applicant. She also reviewed the base standard modifications necessary for the front and rear yard setbacks and that the use would be assessed and approved on an annual basis by the Common Council and that it will be discontinued if not appropriately maintained or if a development plan would be approved for the site. She also reviewed the conditions recommended for this request. Mr. Fojtik questioned if the conditions were standard for this type of request. Ms. Williams responded affirmatively. Mr. Thoms questioned if the site is not maintained, if the Common Council would have the authority to remove its use. Ms. Williams replied that it will require approval by the Council each year for its continued use. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the City would have to maintain the site during summer if the applicant fails to appropriately maintain it during the growing season. Ms. Williams responded that any maintenance issues will be addressed at the time of the annual renewal however the City would be responsible for the site if the use was discontinued mid-year as it is City owned property. Ms. Propp questioned if the neighborhood association would be in charge of this garden use. Ms. Williams stated that Benjamin Krumenauer was the applicant for this request and she was not sure who would be handling the registrations and other aspects of the garden use. Mr. Gray questioned if the area would be fenced in. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 4 May 3, 2016 Ms. Williams responded negatively. Mr. Gray then questioned if the garden beds were going to remain on the site year round. Ms. Williams replied that the plantings will be removed at the end of the growing season but the raised beds would remain in place. Mr. Gray questioned who would be paying for the installation of the raised beds. Ms. Williams responded that she was not aware who would be funding the project but that no request was submitted for funding to be provided by the City. Mr. Gray then questioned if the creation of community gardens would be addressed in the new Zoning Ordinance so it would no longer require approval of a planned development for this type of use. Mr. Burich indicated that going forward with the new Zoning Ordinance that community gardens will require approval of a conditional use permit only. Mr. Thoms commented that condition #8 which makes reference to landscaping to be approved by the Planning Services Division and questioned if there was any requirement for landscaping on the site. Ms. Williams responded that the applicant did not propose any landscaping for the property. Mr. Thoms then questioned if the city does not require a landscaping plan, if condition #8 should be removed. Ms. Williams replied that the condition should remain in place in the event that the applicant chooses to install landscaping at a later date. Benjamin Krumenauer, 650 Grove Street, stated that he was the applicant for this request and explained the registration process and that the garden spaces would be available for anyone who chooses to participate and that no fees were required for its use. He further stated that the landscaping would be maintained however no formal landscaping plans were proposed other than the garden beds but they would welcome ideas for improving the lot in a partnership with the City if they wished to have additional landscaping placed on the site however they do not wish to propose any permanent features for the property. He further discussed funding for the raised beds and that they were seeking assistance with financing its construction however if that was not successful, the neighborhood association would fund the development. Mr. Thoms inquired if there was any discussion with the City Attorney regarding liability issues or any agreement to be signed in relation to the maintenance for garden plot users. He had concerns as the public would be accessing the site and his concern was if anyone would be injured on the property that the City would not be held liable. Mr. Krumenauer stated there was not any boilerplate agreement to be signed by users at this time. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 5 May 3, 2016 Mr. Burich responded that there was some type of insurance that covers this use and as it was a recreational use of the property there was no need for liability coverage for this type of use. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit/planned development for placement of a community garden on the east side of the 600 block of Grove Street with the following conditions: 1. Signage will not exceed 24 square feet in area and final location and design will be approved by the Planning Services Division. 2. Base standard modification to reduce the front yard setback from 25’ to 15’ for the installation of raised garden beds. 3. Base standard modification to reduce the rear yard setback from 25’ to 10’ for the installation of raised garden beds. 4. Community garden approval is contingent upon City of Oshkosh Common Council approval and will be required on a yearly basis. 5. Applicant is responsible for maintenance of the subject site including mowing, trimming, weeding and keeping the site as orderly as possible. 6. Any changes to the garden plan must be approved through the Planning Services Division. 7. If a compost area is to be provided, it shall be placed in such a way as to be out of sight as much as possible and be enclosed to prevent rodents. Final design/placement to be approved by the Planning Services Division. 8. Final design of structures, signage and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Services Division. 9. Applicants will be required to develop rules and procedures for garden users. Rules will have final approval by the Planning Services Division. Rules and regulations must include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Community garden is to be used for recreational gardening and for personal or family use. Only off-site commercial sales are allowed. b. Participants may garden during daylight hours only. c. Gardeners are to supply their own tools, water cans, etc. and these items are not to be left on site. d. Pets are not allowed in the garden area, except for service animals. e. Any debris and trash, other than compost materials, will be removed from the site daily. f. Gardeners are responsible for end-of-season clean up and to leave soil as they found it at the beginning of the growing season. Gardeners will remove all non- plant material, including weed-block fabric, plastic pots, wire tomato cages, stakes, tools, etc. at the end of the season. g. Parking is not permitted on site. Seconded by Borsuk. Motion carried 9-0. IV. ZILLGES DETACHMENT The petitioner is proposing a detachment (by unanimous approval) of approximately 37.09 acres of land, including approximately 1.71 acres of public right-of-way, currently located in the City of Oshkosh. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 6 May 3, 2016 Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed the history of the site which was annexed into the City in 1991 and discussed the current use of the property as a contractors yard/landscape business (Zillges Materials) which has a zoning designation of M-1PD Light Industrial District with a Planned Development Overlay. He reviewed the site plan depicting the area proposed to be detached and distributed copies of the publication from the Oshkosh Northwester for the petition requesting the detachment of the property. He further stated that no narrative was submitted with this request explaining the reason for the detachment and reviewed a map of the area depicting the location of both Town and City parcels. He discussed that there was only one other parcel adjacent to this site that was still within the Town of Oshkosh jurisdiction and the detachment of this site was contrary to good planning principles as it does not promote efficiency in providing services. He also discussed that the site currently is connected to City sanitary sewer and water main and if detached, would be required to sever these connections and establish its own water supply and sanitary system on-site. Mr. Thoms questioned if the City had any knowledge as to why this request is being brought forward by the property owner. Mr. Nau responded negatively. Mr. Gray inquired if the City and Town of Oshkosh have a cooperative agreement in place between the two entities. Mr. Nau again responded negatively. Mr. Gray then inquired if the City would have to vacate the public right-of-way if the detachment would be approved. Mr. Nau replied that he had contacted the State regarding this matter and they were looking into case law relating to the issue however they did feel that they would need to have the right-of-way included to enable the property to detach from the City as some connection to the Town via right- of-way would be required. Ms. Lohry commented that the Grundy Quarry was nearby and questioned if the detachment request was initiated to establish a quarry use on the site. Jim Erdman, Chairman for the Town of Oshkosh, stated that the property does not require a lot of services provided by the City and that on-site services can be obtained for both water and sanitary services needs. He further discussed other services such as snow plowing which he also felt would not be an issue as the east half of the area is serviced by the City and the west half by the Town. He continued to discuss other services such as fire and police protection which he felt the property was not in need of and that any issues related to those services could be adequately provided for by the Town. He stated that the taxes were higher in the City than in the Town as fewer services were provided by the Town and discussed the several pockets of Town parcels that are located in the area creating the balloon and existing balloon string town connection. He also discussed the cooperative agreements in place with all the other towns surrounding the City and that there is not one between __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 7 May 3, 2016 the City and Town of Oshkosh and that he did not feel that the City’s expansion efforts will be hampered by this action. Mr. Gray questioned if the Town has taken any action in regard to this request. Mr. Erdman responded that they have not as it was discussed with the property owner about a year ago but they have not heard from him since regarding the matter. Ms. Lohry questioned if the property owner desired to develop a quarry on the site, how the Town would respond to this issue. Mr. Erdman responded that the Town would not agree to any more quarries and that this property would not be a good geographic site for this type of use. Mr. Thoms questioned why Mr. Erdman would think that moving this property back into the Town was a reasonable request as it is surrounded on all sides by City parcels. Mr. Erdman replied that people annex into the City for the services provided and discussed the storm water plans for Town properties which he felt was better maintained than the City as the City does not maintain the ditches to control flooding issues and the storm water plans within the Town were more effective as it maintains the flow of water through the use of ditches and swales. Tom Zillges, 3815 Shorebird Court, owner of the property, stated that he desired to detach from the City and re-attach to the Town as it was too expensive for his business to remain in the City as it was difficult to compete. He discussed his costs relating to the City such as $16,000 for storm water management, $60,000 for the upcoming road reconstruction, and that the taxes were also more costly and that he could not stay in business if his property remained in the City. He further discussed his reasons for annexing into the City years ago which was for services to be provided to the Castle Pierce facility. He also commented on the storm water management and that the City does not maintain the ditches like the Town did to control flooding issues and that there were no plans to establish a quarry on the site. Motion by Propp to approve a detachment of property from the City of Oshkosh located at 1990 W. Snell Road. Seconded by Borsuk. Ms. Propp stated that she was sorry that the business was negatively affected however she cannot see how the property could be detached as it was not good planning practices and that staff could work with the property owner to try and defer some of the expense. Ms. Lohry stated that she lived in the town for many years and she felt it was within a property owner’s right to detach their property from the city if they desired and some sort of agreement with the City could be reached. She further stated that she would support this request. Mr. Bowen commented that the approval of this detachment was bad planning principles and that this body could not consider supporting this request. He further stated that the Common Council can consider this and that the property owner may have a legitimate complaint regarding the expense of being in the City however he could not support this request. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 8 May 3, 2016 Mr. Thoms agreed and stated that it was not good planning practice and although he understood the concept, he cannot see the City negotiating taxes for one property owner only and further discussed the costs related to road reconstruction. He further stated that creating a lot within the Town in the middle of City parcels does not make sense and that with road reconstruction, services still have to be installed as they would have to reach the other properties beyond this site. He continued discussion on the competitive market in the business realm however this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he would not support it. Mr. Hinz discussed his personal feelings and Plan Commission responsibilities which are very different and that supporting this request does not make sense from a planning aspect. Motion denied 8-1. (Nays-Borsuk/Bowen/Thoms/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Propp/Vajgrt). (Ayes-Lohry). V. APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A LIMITED VENUE FESTIVAL SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RIPPLE ROAD AND S. WASHBURN STREET (FORD FESTIVAL PARK) The petitioner has requested that this item be laid over until the meeting of May 17, 2016. Motion by Vajgrt to lay over this request for two weeks. Seconded by Cummings. Motion carried 9-0. VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 240 ALGOMA BOULEVARD (AKA THE BEACH BUILDING) This request is for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the redevelopment and renovation of the Orville Beach Memorial Manual Training School at 240 Algoma Boulevard to create a mixed-use development consisting of first floor commercial uses and second and third floor residential living units. Mr. Buck presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. He discussed the history of the site and that the property is currently vacant and is listed on both the National and State Register of Historic Places. He discussed the redevelopment and renovation plans and reviewed the site plan and stated that the renovations would be on the interior of the structure and that the remainder of the site would remain as it currently exists. He discussed the proposed use as residential on the upper floors with commercial use on the first floor and the number of parking stalls required for the site and the addition of a dumpster enclosure in the rear of the facility. He also reviewed the number of tenants, commercial employees, and customers that would be utilizing the site and reviewed the building elevations which will remain unchanged. He stated that the request was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the adjacent properties. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the apartment units would be market rate. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 9 May 3, 2016 Mr. Buck responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk then questioned if the Plan Commission would review a development plan for the site. Mr. Buck responded negatively and stated that it was not required as the development would be required to meet zoning code requirements. Mr. Borsuk also questioned if the developer would be making upgrades to the parking lot. Mr. Burich responded that the parking lot would remain as it currently exists other than possibly an overlay to improve the surface conditions. Mr. Buck added that the developer will be maintaining the parking lot and that it contains the necessary parking islands and meets code requirements for the most part. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the parking lot stalls will be allocated. Mr. Buck responded the code requirements are for either on-site parking or within 1000 feet of the structure for the residential use. Ms. Propp inquired what the structures were behind the existing building. Mr. Buck responded that they are City owned buildings for office use and storage purposes. Mr. Thoms commented that it was noted in the staff report that 44 stalls were required for the apartment use and there would be 50 employees and customers for the commercial use on the first floor and questioned how the 81 stalls on site would meet code requirements for parking for the use. Mr. Buck explained that the residential use requires parking be provided however the commercial use does not require to provide parking in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Thoms questioned that employee parking was not required in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Buck responded that it was not and that on street parking or parking in City owned lots could be utilized for the commercial uses. Mr. Bowen inquired about the square footage of the micro unit apartments. Mr. Buck stated that the efficiency apartments are 500-600 square feet. Mr. Hinz questioned if there is some type of agreement with the Oshkosh Area School District to use the parking lot behind the Oshkosh Recreation Department building. Mr. Buck replied that all of the parking stalls behind the Oshkosh Recreation Department belong to the Beach Building as it is all on their property. Mr. Bowen stated that city permit parking is readily available on Division Street in city parking lots which are underutilized. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 10 May 3, 2016 Barbara Young, 135 Church Avenue, stated that it is great to see this building being redeveloped however the Recreation Department uses the parking lot behind their building and will not have adequate parking facilities if these parking stalls are no longer available for their use. Mr. Borsuk questioned how the parking lot would be redeveloped and how the developer proposes to deal with both tenant parking and adequate stalls for the commercial uses. Chet Wesenberg, 3265 Casey Trail, stated that the site is well landscaped and that the parking lot needs to be milled and have an overlay applied and it will be re-striped. At this time it has not yet been decided how to split the lot up into the various parking areas for tenants and the commercial use as the tenants will be utilizing the parking during the evening while the commercial uses would be utilizing them during the day. This property is unique in the downtown area as it does possess a large parking lot on site. Mr. Borsuk inquired if there would be specific parking stalls allocated for the tenants of the apartments. Mr. Wesenberg responded that they have not yet discussed this aspect of the development but that it was not a good idea to dedicate 44 stalls for the tenants only and that it was important to provide adequate parking for the residential use and it will be addressed. Mr. Hinz commented about the Recreation Department’s use of the parking behind their building and if this use was to be discontinued, has it been discussed with the Oshkosh Area School District. Mr. Wesenberg replied that the School District has not approached them to discuss the matter and that they could utilize the permit parking stalls in the City parking lot across the street on Division Street. Ms. Propp questioned if anyone was currently occupying space in the existing structure. Mr. Wesenberg stated that the building was vacant. Mr. Borsuk questioned if the apartments would be market rate units. Mr. Wesenberg responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk then questioned how it worked with the parking concerns and the interaction with staff relating to this matter. Mr. Burich stated that the site has adequate parking for its intended use as there are enough parking stalls for the residential component and the ordinance addresses the commercial parking needs as that is not required to be provided on site. He further discussed both the apartment use and the mixed-use development and that staff is not concerned with parking being an issue for the site as it does meet code requirements as proposed. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 11 May 3, 2016 Mr. Buck added that the parking can be allocated by the owner and that it needs to be a provided service for the tenants and that the 81 stalls on the site will accommodate the needs of the development along with the public parking available around the site. Mr. Thoms continued to discuss the parking requirements of the C-3 zoning district and the 81 stalls on the site and the 44 stalls needed for the tenant use. He commented that the proposed use did meet the guidelines of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Vajgrt to approve a conditional use permit for a mixed-use development at 240 Algoma Boulevard. Seconded by Hinz. Motion carried 9-0. Mr. Fojtik commented that he felt it was a great idea for a re-use of this site. VII. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT #28 BEACH BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT; DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN TID #28 is being proposed to facilitate the adaptive reuse of the vacant Orville Beach Memorial Manual Training School office building at 240 Algoma Boulevard into a mixed-use modern commercial/residential apartment complex and retail/service business center including three commercial units on the first floor and 22 higher end apartments on the second and third floors complete with modern finishes, technology and amenities. The overall goal of the redevelopment project is to provide new active life and full-time residents within the Oshkosh center city, furthering downtown revitalization efforts. The anticipated project cost is estimated at $3.3 million with renovations being the most significant cost due to many years of vacancy and deferred maintenance that essentially require a complete gut and remodel of the interior to bring the facility back to a competitive new use for the residential component. Mr. Burich presented the item and discussed the purpose of the proposed TID creation, the rental unit’s rates, and the maximum life of the TID, and proposed use. He further discussed the size of the parcel and value of the property and the increment values and project costs as well as the economic feasibility and development costs as far as equity, and financing for this project. He also reviewed the market analysis and project costs with and without the TIF assistance and stated that this project has been reviewed by the City’s financial consultants and the project meets all the requirements in the State code for creation of a TID. Mr. Gray discussed the staff and developer’s efforts on this project and stated that he felt there were inconsistencies in the financial information in the project plan and he cannot verify the need for additional money for this development. He further stated that he was not sure if TIF assistance is the correct process for a funding source for this project and would not support it due to what he felt was inaccurate financial information. Mr. Bowen questioned some of the wording on page 8 relating to the historic tax credits that he felt was incorrect and questioned if the project would be eligible to receive State Historic Tax Credit assistance as State and Federal tax credits may have been utilized in the mid 1980’s when the site was redeveloped. He felt that this aspect of the plan needed to be looked into as he did not feel that the Historic Tax Credit assistance could be utilized again to his knowledge. This would change the __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 12 May 3, 2016 financial figures if they were not applicable. He also questioned if the soft costs of 10% of the developer’s fee was counted as part of the developer’s equity in the overall proforma or is it excluded from the number in excess of that. Mr. Thoms inquired if the developer made any attempt to approach GO-EDC for funding rather than pursue the TIF assistance as this was economic development. Mr. Burich responded that they did not pursue that avenue that he was aware of and that the application was submitted and staff research completed to determine if the request met the necessary requirements. Mr. Bowen commented that GO-EDC does not have support for real estate projects and are not focused on redevelopment projects that do not create jobs. Chet Wesenberg stated that they did not approach GO-EDC for financial assistance for this project. Mr. Thoms questioned if they contacted Winnebago County for low interest loan assistance. Mr. Wesenberg responded negatively and stated that the Historic Tax Credits are eligible for this project as they can be re-applied for after five years of receiving assistance and explained their submitted application process. He also discussed the criteria for the program which requires that historic preservation needs to identify what features of the structure which are historic and what can be saved and discussed the process of renovation with this being taken into consideration. He further discussed the approvals received thus far and the entities involved with the approval process. Mr. Bowen inquired where the coffee shop was located within the development. Mr. Wesenberg responded that it would be on the first floor where the existing drive through feature of the structure is located and that they already have an entity committed to fill that commercial use. He also discussed some of the other uses that were planned for the first floor commercial space. Barbara Young stated that the TIF assistance concerns her as taxes are kept at a lower rate for the development which has to be made up by other taxpayers. She also stated that TIF assistance was utilized as an incentive to start projects and this project appears to already be under way as work has already been going on at the site. She felt that favoritism was in play and that developers with deep pockets are the ones that are receiving TIF assistance advantages. She questioned if this project was going to be ceased if the TIF assistance was denied. Mr. Gray commented that she was claiming that the developer will be paying less taxes and that was not how TIF assistance worked. He explained that the developer will pay the same amount of taxes as any other development and that they will pay the current tax rate for the property and the difference is where these tax dollars are applied. He further explained that with TIF assistance that the taxes are applied to repay the city for the development rather than going to the school district and other entities that normally receive a portion of the tax payments. Bernard Pitz, 617 W. Irving Avenue, stated that the building was constructed by his company and that he does not agree with the developer receiving TIF assistance for this project. He discussed his research on the property and that the property taxes were decreased in 2015 by a considerable __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 13 May 3, 2016 amount and that the developers are owners that will be moving into the commercial space created. He further discussed the developer’s fees and architect’s fees that amount to around $300,000 that are included in the project plan and that the school system and Winnebago County will not receive their portion of the tax payment from this property. He questioned how this TIF assistance can be justified when the school system just passed a referendum for additional taxes to be paid by property owners. He felt that the developer’s and architect’s fees should be removed from the project plan as it is benefiting the parties that will be occupying the building. He also discussed that TIF assistance is typically sought when the area receiving the TIF assistance is determined to be 50% blighted and City Hall is directly adjacent to this parcel and he does not consider it to be a blighted area. He also stated that TIF assistance was meant to initiate development that would bring in new business and create jobs and increase the tax base and that this proposed TIF does not meet these requirements. He continued to discuss how TIF projects are utilized for economic development purposes and that it was meant to provide funding prior to any work being initiated and that the work on this development has already begun prior to the TID plan even being approved. Diane Lammers, 131 Church Avenue, stated that she thought that the TID plan should be approved before any construction is started and that work has been underway at this site for some time now. She also commented about the developer receiving a tax break for the next 20 years which she felt was unfair while they are making money from the development and that she disagreed with TIF assistance being granted for this project. Tim Hess, 2645 Templeton Place, stated that he completed the analysis for this project and discussed its details and stated that from the standpoint of the developers fees, they are applying for allowable fees as things such as the architect’s fees are part of the total expense for the development. He discussed the comments relating to the developer’s and architect’s fees that were claimed to be excessive and their request for $300,000 and explained the allowable fees related to a TIF project and further explained the hard costs involved with this project. He also explained the substantial fees involved with a historic tax credit project and the developer’s fees are in the analysis. Mr. Bowen questioned if these costs were included in the proforma of the developer equity of $1,494,714 that the developers are bringing into this project. Mr. Hess responded affirmatively. Mr. Borsuk again asked to clarify if the apartments would be market rate units. Mr. Hess responded affirmatively. Mr. Gray referenced the table on page 32 of the project plan that contained revenue projections relating to the rental projects and stated that from his calculations, the commercial space rental amount should be $90,000 not $68,000 based on the square footage of the commercial space available. Mr. Hess responded that 10% is common areas that are not included in this calculation. Mr. Gray felt that the square footage calculations from floor to floor did not add up correctly. __________________________________ Plan Commission Minutes 14 May 3, 2016 Motion by Vajgrt to approve the designated boundaries and Project Plan for TID #28-Beach Building Redevelopment. Seconded by Borsuk. Mr. Burich requested that an explanation of what activities are occurring on the site now be provided and what will occur if the TIF financing is not approved. Mr. Wesenberg explained that the project is contingent upon TIF and tax credit assistance and that he was not sure how the project would proceed if these financial aides were not approved as he did not feel the project would go forward without this assistance as they were counting on this to help finance the development. Mr. Thoms stated that this project did not meet the criteria for the purpose of the creation of a TID and that the developers did not look at alternative financing and that it was difficult to ascertain that the $300,000 from the TIF assistance would make or break this project at $3,000,000 and that it was justified. Mr. Wesenberg commented that he was not sure if other financial avenues to assist with this project were pursued and that his partner was not present to answer these questions. Mr. Thoms questioned why work has begun on the project if it was contingent upon receiving the assistance that has not yet been approved. Ms. Wesenberg responded that they cannot determine the full exposure without starting work on the structure as selective demolition was in process as this work must be completed to determine what historic elements remain within the structure. There is work going on but it was nominal to determine the historic fabric. Mr. Thoms commented that he thought that the developer had to apply for TIF assistance and have it approved prior to any work commencing on the site. Mr. Burich explained that the TIF is not being used to directly fund any construction activity at the site but as a financial incentive to complete the project. Motion by Vajgrt to call the question and end discussion. Seconded by Bowen. Motion carried 7-2. (Ayes Borsuk/Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/Cummings/Propp/Vajgrt). Nays- (Thoms/Lohry) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:02 pm. (Vajgrt/Borsuk) Respectfully submitted, Darryn Burich Director of Planning Services