Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES July 2,2019 PRESENT: Lynnsey Erickson, Thomas Fojtik,Michael Ford, Derek Groth,John Hinz,John Kiefer,Justin Mitchell, Thomas Perry, Kathleen Propp EXCUSED: Lori Palmeri STAFF: Mark Lyons, Planning Services Manager;Justin Gierach, Engineering Division Manager/City Engineer;Kelly Nieforth, Economic Development Services Manager; 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 June 18, 2019 were approved as presented. (Hinz/Kiefer) Mr. Lyons announced the Potential Planned Development for Park Avenue Bar workshop has been withdrawn by the owner. I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lyons explained the Plan Commission needs to vote for officers. He stated that a Chairperson for the Commission needs to be elected. He called for nominations. Ms. Propp nominated Commissioner Fojtik for Chair. Mr. Lyons called for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Mr. Lyons made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Motion by Perry to close nominations and elect Fojtik as Chair. Seconded by Ford. Motion carried 9-0. Declaration of Fojtik as Chair. Mr. Fojtik called for nominations for Vice-Chair. Plan Commission Minutes 1 July 2,2019 Mr. Perry nominated Commissioner Propp for Vice-Chair. Mr. Fojtik called for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Mr. Fojtik made a final call for other nominations. No commissioners made other nominations. Motion by Erickson to close nominations and elect Propp as Vice-Chair. Seconded by Kiefer. Motion carried 9-0. Declaration of Propp as Vice-Chair. II. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION OF RATH LANE EAST OF N. KOELLER STREET Site Inspections Reports: Ms. Propp reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. The petitioner is requesting the vacation of a 60 foot wide, 216 foot long segment of Rath Lane that runs east of N. Koeller Street and terminates at a cul-de-sac. This street segment runs behind properties at 1844 and 1820 Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Wiley presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the reason for the right-of-way vacation. The 17,433 sq. ft. of right-of-way that was acquired by the DOT in 2008 in anticipation of the Interstate 41/roundabout project on Oshkosh Avenue. Properties located along Oshkosh Avenue on the north side of the street would lose their driveway access from Oshkosh Avenue due to their proximities to the roundabout. The Rath Lane right-of-way was acquired and the street segment and cul-de-sac were created to allow driveway access to the properties that lost their Oshkosh Avenue access due to the roundabout installation. This is an atypical vacation in that the vacation is not split down the middle of the right-of-way and disposed to the adjacent property owners. In this case,the underlying lands will revert back to the original owners the right-of-way was acquired from in 2008. Traffic in the area will not be impacted as the subject right-of-way sees very little vehicle traffic. Additionally, this right-of-way vacation will provide additional area for consolidation and future redevelopment of a number of properties located along Oshkosh Avenue. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked how the future developments to the south would be accessed. Plan Commission Minutes 2 July 2,2019 Mr. Lyons replied it is anticipated that there would be potentially a curb cut approximately where the right-of-way used to be to line up with Rath Lane. He said the final location would still need to be determined. Mr. Wiley commented the state relinquished its' rights to restrict driveway access. He said driveway access off N. Koeller Street is feasible at this point. Mr. Fojtik asked if there were any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Ford to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Ms. Propp stated she visited the site and N. Koeller Street has already been paved. She explained the stubbed area is closed off by a curb and sidewalk. She said she does not object to the street vacation because it makes sense. She is concerned with the narrow sidewalks that have been built on both sides of N. Koeller Street because it may have to be changed to connect to the trail system. She does feel the city should carefully consider holding onto their remaining segment. She said it could potentially be a mini-parking lot for the park and wanted it noted in the minutes. Motion carried 9-0. III. EXTRATERRITORIAL TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT 5094 STATE ROAD 91 IN THE TOWN OF OMRO Site Inspections: Report: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing 39.926 acre parcel. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Plan Commission Minutes 3 July 2,2019 Lot 1 =5.003 Acres Lot 2=34.923 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The purpose of this land division is to separate the existing home and outbuildings from the agriculturally-used land. Lot 1 is proposed to be divided as a 225.00-foot wide by 968.50-foot, 5.003 acre lot which exceeds the Town of Omro's width-to-depth ratio for newly created lots. On June 20th,2019 the Town of Omro granted a subdivision variance to exceed the width-to-depth ratio for the creation of this lot. The proposed Lot 1 meets the minimum area of 5.000 acres in Towns Rural Preservation area per the Town of Omro's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed two-lot land division will not immediately alter the existing land use patterns in the area. Although the Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial use along the front 1/3 of the subject site, the proposed land division will not hamper the ability for future development of the land per the Plans industrial land use recommendation. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Mitchell said he saw that the Winnebago County has a farm land preservation program in place. He asked if applicants were notified of that program. Mr. Lyons replied the city does not notify them of that program but these land divisions also need approval by the county. He explained the county has the actual approving authority whereas the city only has extraterritorial oversight. Mr. Mitchell asked out of curiosity, what could potentially happen if Plan Commission and Council denied the land division. Mr. Lyons replied the applicant could potentially still get the land division approved through the court process. Mr. Mitchell asked for confirmation that the city has authority but it could be overturned in court. Mr. Lyons confirmed. He said this land division is a little unique. He said staff does look at the Comprehensive Plan when they make recommendations. He explained the agricultural subdivision is a little different from what the Comprehensive Plan recommends but the land division is consistent with what the town has planned. He said the area is within a three mile radius of the city but is not a likely area the city would expand in. Mr. Mitchell noted the area is right across the street from Fox Valley Ethanol and may not be the best place for residential. Mr. Lyons stated the county envisioned more of an industrial use on the southern portion to buffer those uses. Plan Commission Minutes 4 July 2,2019 Mr. Fojtik asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Robert Potratz (applicant), 2381 James Road, said he is the owner of the property. He explained there has been a young couple living in the home for about nine years. He said the couple would like to buy instead of rent. He explained him and his wife are semi-retired and are willing to go through the process to divide the lot. 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 Propp. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. IV. TWO-LOT LAND DIVISION/CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RYF ROAD &EDGEWOOD ROAD Site Inspections: Report: Mr. Perry reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Two-lot land division/certified survey map from one existing 0.8391 acre parcel. Sizes of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot 1 =0.4297 Acres Lot 2=0.4094 Acres Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The purpose of this land division is to remove the current outlot status and create two lots for single-family development. Per state statute, outlots may not be used as a building site. During preliminary plat review in 2005, the subject site was envisioned to be divided into as many as six single family lots. This subsequently was reduced to three lots at preliminary plat approval. At final plat approval, the site was changed to a single outlot to serve as greenspace and placement of a subdivision sign. The proposed land division is partially Plan Commission Minutes 5 July 2,2019 recreating what was approved on the preliminary plat by recreating two lots versus three. Staff is not concerned with the loss of the green space for the development. Also, the preliminary plat is conservation-style subdivision using coving design. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the land division and reported city water is readily available and sanitary sewer is scheduled to be constructed later this year. The Department of Public Works also noted there are pending special assessments on the property for construction of the sanitary sewer along Edgewood Road. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Perry asked if there was a residence built on Lot 1, if the residential owner would be responsible for maintaining the sign. Mr. Nau replied that would be up to them to decide. Mr. Lyons added it would be up to them to change or amend the covenants. He stated the city would not be a part of that. Mr. Perry questioned the sign being on Lot 1's property. Mr. Lyons explained the covenants currently governs who is responsible for maintaining the sign. Mr. Perry asked if the area to the west of Lot 1 was unbuildable space because of the drainage easement. Mr. Nau confirmed. Mr. Perry asked if the area to the west of Lot 2 was unbuildable space because of the easement and creek. Mr. Nau confirmed. Mr. Perry asked if the area to the south of Lot 2 was also unbuildable due to the easement. Mr. Lyons confirmed and explained due to the easement, there is a loss in buildable width going to the south. Mr. Nau commented he was asked to evaluate the area and there is enough width for another potential lot. Mr. Perry asked for confirmation that most of the green space will remain. Mr. Nau replied it would remain because the city has a permanent easement over that area for drainage purposes. Plan Commission Minutes 6 July 2,2019 Mr. Perry asked for confirmation that the access would be off Edgewood Road. Mr. Nau confirmed and said it was a stipulation from the original final plat. Mr. Fojtik asked for any public comments and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Chad Durkee (applicant), 1524 S. Oakwood Road, explained his grandfather owns these lots. He explained the family has maintained the yard and sign not the Association. He does not believe there is a conflict of interest with the sign. He stated they made larger lots so the family could build on them not sell them to build condos on. He said the buildings will be a revenue stream for the city in years to come. 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 Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Place a vehicular access restriction on proposed Lot 1 along Ryf Road for vehicles entering and exiting the property. Seconded by Kiefer. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Motion carried 9-0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE FROM INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (I) TO INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (I-PD), GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR FENCING AT 215 CHURCH AVENUE Site Inspections: Report: All commissioners reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Plan Commission Minutes 7 July 2,2019 The applicant requests a zone change from the existing Institutional District (I) to Institutional District with a Planned Development Overlay (I-PD) and approval for a General Development Plan and Specific Implementation Plan for development of a secure parking area. Mr. Slusarek presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the land use and zoning classifications in this area. The petitioner is proposing to construct 6' tall decorative metal fencing and gates around the Police Department parking lot in the southwest portion of the lot. The proposed fencing will extend into the front yard area along Algoma Blvd. and Jackson St. and is intended to provide security for police vehicles in the parking lot. The applicant is requesting a Base Standard Modification(BSM) to allow 6' tall fencing within the front yard where code allows a maximum height of 4' for fencing in front yard areas. In order to accommodate the requested increase in allowable fence height, the property will need to be rezoned to include a Planned Development Overlay (PD). No changes are proposed related to storm water management, landscaping improvements or signage. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if this were a request for a private entity, wouldn't Plan Commission be asking the applicant to come back in case there were multiple accidents by the access drive. Mr. Lyons said he agrees with Mr. Hinz. He explained this project started in 2013-2015, prior to the ordinance update. He said the city bid out the project a number of times and did not get a bid that was in line for what the project needed. He explained during the latest round of bidding, they did find a contractor that was willing to take on the project at a cost that was effective. He said the new code does not allow the fence that was planned to be built and that is the reason for the request. Mr. Gierach stated the fence was bid out when the city did the underground detention basin in front of City Hall but there was not enough funding. He said there was funding put into the 2017 CIP and now the contractor has time to do the work. Mr. Perry asked what the need for the security is. Mr. Lyons replied the Police Department has identified vandalism issues with some of the vehicles. He said they are looking to reduce the cost of the vandalism that has taken place. Mr. Gierach added there have been several individuals who have jumped on top of police cars and left tacks or nails behind/under the tires. He said this will also secure the employee entrance. He said there have been several occasions where an individual turning themselves in for a serious crime has gone through the employee entrance. He said the fence would help guide the individuals to the appropriate entrance door. Mr. Mitchell asked why the fencing was not a part of the parking lot reconstruction. Mr. Lyons replied a big portion of it was bidding it out to get a price that the city could spend on it. Plan Commission Minutes 8 July 2,2019 Mr. Gierach explained it was originally included in the parking lot plan in 2013 but there was not enough in the budget. Mr. Lyons added this project has been on the Police Department's radar for a number of years. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Propp to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Base Standard Modification (BSM) to allow for 6'tall fencing within a front yard where code allows a maximum fence height of 4'. Seconded by Ford. Mr. Mitchell said walking along Jackson Street, there is no terrace. He said there is a small area between the proposed fence and the street,which has fast moving traffic. He does think it's unfortunate that in planning the parking lot, they did not add more green space between the road and the driveway for the fence. He stated he has some safety concerns with the layout of the parking lot. Mr. Lyons explained the fence could go in the same location today but could only be 4' tall and would not need to go through this process. He said the request is to go from 4' to 6'. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a setback requirement for fencing. Mr. Lyons replied there is not. He said any residential property or business can put a fence right up to their property line. Motion carried 9-0. Plan Commission Minutes 9 July 2,2019 VI. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 37 AVIATION PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; DESIGNATION OF BOUNDARIES AND APPROVAL OF PROJECT PLAN Site Inspections Report: Mr. Fojtik and Mr. Hinz reported visiting the site. Staff report accepted as part of the record. Tax Incremental District No. 37(the "TID" or "District")is a proposed 27 acre in need of rehabilitation or conservation district located in the vicinity of the W. South Park Ave. and S. Koeller Street and abutting Interstate 41. The proposed district is comprised of five parcels owned by the applicants and contain approximately 117,000 sq. ft. of retail space with Rogan s Shoes as the only current occupant following the closure of the J.C. Penny Store in 2015. The former Walmart store was demolished in 2007. Mr. Lyons presented the item and discussed the purpose of the proposed TID creation. The City anticipates making total expenditures of approximately$4.84 million to undertake project identified in the Project Plan. Project costs include an estimated$1.89 million in "pay as you go" development incentives (principal and interest),$2.75 million for additional public infrastructure improvements and an estimated$200,000 in administrative costs. The City is projecting that new land and improvements value of approximately$12.4 million will result from redevelopment activity within the District. The "expected" improvements will occur on the five parcels located in the district. The developers are proposing a mixture of commercial and office uses. The developments are Extreme Customs,Mineshaft and Rogan s Shoes. The developers are anticipating being able to fully develop the district by sometime in 2020. The proposed Plan is in general conformance with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive and the City Center Corridor Plan for South Park Avenue. Mr. Fojtik opened up technical questions to staff. Mr. Hinz asked if the TIF would include any potential developments on the east side of the property. Mr. Lyons explained the TID does account for full reconstruction of the entire area. He said the storm water and utilities are being accounted for if outlot development should take place. He said the storm water management plan is already being sized to be able to accommodate that. He stated they are trying to be forward thinking in this TID. Mr. Fojtik asked Mr. Lyons to talk about the aviation component of the project and how it limits developments. Mr. Lyons showed the area of the Airport Zoning Overlay which covers most of the proposed area. He explained the overlay does not permit anything that is deemed an assembly use (hotel, restaurant,etc.). Plan Commission Minutes 10 July 2,2019 Mr. Fojtik commented any place a plane may crash. Mr. Lyons replied correct. Mr. Mitchell said it states that part of the basis for the request is that city does not have funds available to pay for the cost to rehabilitate the public infrastructure. He asked if the city did not maintain or have a revenue source for updating its' own public infrastructure. Mr. Lyons explained the public infrastructure is on the private side. He said the Public Service Commission (PSC) requires an independent waterline to each building. Ms. Nieforth clarified the city's water main is in the right-of-way. She reiterated that PSC requires a private parcel owner to have a lateral off of the city's water main to their site. She explained that is where the city does not have funds,to connect off the water main into the site. Mr. Mitchell said it states public infrastructure but it is really privately owned. Todd Taves (Senior Municipal Advisor, Ehlers), said the site has been sitting idle for an extended period of time. He explained the things that have to be done to allow for this site to develop is costly and reconstructing always costs more. He stated it has been determined that to make the project economically viable for the property owners/developers,using the TIF money to address the site conditions that are in impairment is necessary for the site to move forward. He stated it is a combination of the utility cost but also private and public costs in order to make the site attractive. Mr. Ford asked for confirmation that the Mineshaft would cost$16 million but could only get$8 million from the bank. He asked if the Mineshaft would have to put up the rest of the money themselves without the TIF district. Ms. Nieforth said the city made an effort, applied for a WDC grant and was granted$500,000. She said they are trying to lower the TIF assistance amount. She explained the applicants are asking for TIF assistance for under ten years which is a goal that Council does have in the TIF policy. She stated the applicants are trying to meet all the goals that Council has set forth. Mr. Ford asked if there is any type of sensitivity analysis. He said just looking at the revenues, they have a 10 million dollar stream with a range of$7 to$13 million. He said he is just curious if there is anything the city looks at with what the impact would be if it were on the lower end of the range. Mr. Taves replied one of the techniques that the city has used is the concept of pay as you go. He explained rather than the city fronting the money, the developers provide the money and would be reimbursed. He said the impact if there was less value is that the developer would be reimbursed for a longer time which would increase the life of the district. He said it would not cost the city to be out any funds. He said the other thing it would do is to the extent that there are additional infrastructure needs down the road, which is being shown as being cash funded out of the TID Plan Commission Minutes 11 July 2,2019 after the reimbursements are made to the developer, it would either reduce or delay the ability of the city to access those monies for those types of projects. Mr. Ford said the main risk to him from a land use decision is that this is for a 35,000 sq. ft. building they are funding via this TIF. He questioned what would happen if the business was not successful. Ms. Nieforth replied if the building went out of business in two years, the city would still have an updated public infrastructure installed already, laterals installed to each site that would meet code and a storm water facility that would help with the Stringham Creek watershed area. She said there would still be some value to the site though it would not be at its fullest potential but the city could still capture increment to fulfil TIF obligations. Mr. Mitchell said it is his first time going through one of these. He said during his research,he found that TIFs can create a shadow fund. He asked what kind of oversight does the city have and who determines the distribution. Mr. Taves replied when the city creates a Tax Increment District, it has to create a special fund typically a special revenue fund. He explained more about the special revenue fund. He said the city's financial statements are audited annually to include those in the Tax Increment Districts. He stated there is also a Joint Review Board involved in this process consisting of members from each taxing jurisdictions. He said one of the requirements for the TIF statue is that a report must be filed annually with the Department of Revenue that accounts for all the revenues and expenditures. The Joint Review Board also meets annually to review the reports for each of the outstanding Tax Increment Districts of the city. Mr. Mitchell asked who outlines what the funds are used for. Mr. Taves explained the plan is intended to be the framework for making expenditures but the fact that it is in a Tax Increment District does not change what the Council would otherwise be required to approve. He said all the expenditures go through the same process as any other city expenditure. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing. Jason White, 1204 Fairfax Street, said he is with GOEDC and sent a letter this afternoon. He stated the letter confirms support of the TID. He explained how he got directly involved when he met Tyler from Extreme Customs in 2018 and helped identify a new location for Extreme Customs. He explained the process of planning and getting the approval through the city for the site. He believes the TIF needs to go hand in hand with the developments. He said the costs Tyler would incur to stay at the site with aging infrastructure is not possible for them to finance without the TIF. He stated they do believe this does enhance the corridor and improves the city as a whole. He reiterated this cannot happen without the Tax Increment District. Plan Commission Minutes 12 July 2,2019 Tom Masters, 22 N. Main Street in Hartford, said he is the owner of the Mineshaft in Hartford and also owns The Fox and Hound in the Holy Hill area. He wanted to address the viability of the restaurant. He said he has been at the Mineshaft for 44 years. He stated they have never had a bad year or a slow year. He explained it is not a bar or club and the entertainment area is a gaming area. He stated he has been at the other restaurant for 17 years and both his restaurants are doing really good. Tim Hess,2645 Templeton Place, said he was involved in some of the analytics portions. He said the range of$7 to$13 million does mean there is substantial risks. He said they are trying to make it so the developers do not have to bring in a huge amount of money which is hard to do when it is this sort of facility. He pointed out the owners of the properties and a contractor are present to answer any questions. Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing. Motion by Kiefer to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Perry. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Mr. Mitchell stated it lists there are 4.6 million dollars for public infrastructure overall. He asked what percent of public infrastructure is being paid for by the city. Mr. Lyons replied the public infrastructure cost is$2.75 million which is public infrastructure cost after development incentives have been paid to the developer. Mr. Mitchell explained where he was adding his numbers from. He said he is trying to understand the total infrastructure cost and how much the city is paying for. Ms. Nieforth said it almost has to be broken up into two. She explained there are items the developers have to do to get the development ready which will be in the cash flow sheet. She said those costs will be taken care of at the beginning and then there are other cost the city has identified such as certain public infrastructure cost that benefit the district. She explained the TIF money can't be used for other projects that would not benefit the district directly. She reiterated the$2.75 million is the cost after the TIF assistance obligation is complete. She said they made sure there are adequate funds for the Stringham Creek watershed issues and connecting the district to other areas on the west side of 41. Mr. Mitchell said his understanding is that financial support is very important in providing for these public infrastructures just like in residential areas. He asked if the city is paying for all the public infrastructure or if they are sharing the cost with the property owners. Ms. Nieforth replied there are some costs that are identified on the site that are required to get the site in compliance that the city did not include in the TIF plan. She said the owners will be Plan Commission Minutes 13 July 2,2019 required to pay those costs. She reiterated this is a pay as you go and the developers would pay for the cost up front. She stated there are costs that would be paid by the property owners that would not be TIF funded. Mr. Mitchell asked for a rough estimate of percentage the city is paying for regarding the public infrastructure. Ms. Nieforth said without looking at the numbers that they did not include in the TIF plan, she would not feel comfortable giving a percentage. She stated there is a substantial amount that was not included. Mr. Lyons commented the developers are trying to stay under ten year which is a benchmark set by Council. He explained when Council looks at TIFs, they really like things that cash flow under ten years. He said the applicant, in looking at the numbers, only asked enough to stay under that ten year window. Ms. Nieforth asked Mr. Hess what the total TIF request was to the total investment. Mr. Hess replied$1.7 million is 7.4% of the overall investment. Mr. Ford said he wants to ensure that Plan Commission is doing its due diligence and thanked staff for answering his questions. Ms. Nieforth said it is something the city does when it is working the Ehlers. She said there is a market analysis that the city requires as part of the submittal to ensure the city can meet the TIF obligations should something happen. Mr. Hinz said typically Oshkosh has not been friendly to restaurants that wants TIFs. He said there have been two that have come through with multi-use developments. He stated the Mineshaft is going to dominate this property as far as what people think of when they think about the property. He said the overlay is going prevent another restaurant coming into the space. He stated this is exactly why we have TIFs because this is a gateway to the city. He said this area has been up for discussion for the last ten years. He commended everyone for working on this. Mr. Fojtik said this gives a chance to correct some mistakes from the original development in terms of building layout. He said given the long time the area has sat and the aviation overlay restrictions,he feels this is an appropriate step. Motion carried 9-0. VII. GRANT FIBER OPTIC EASEMENT AT WILLIAM A. STEIGER PARK,200 OHIO STREET FOR NORTHERN TELEPHONE AND DATA CORPORATION Site Inspections Reports: No commissioners reported visiting the site. Plan Commission Minutes 14 July 2,2019 Staff report accepted as part of the record. The Northern Telephone & Data Corp. (NTD) is requesting the granting of an easement for fiber optic cable placement on the William A. Steiger Park Property,200 Ohio Street. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area as well as the reason for the easement. In the spring of this year, the Department of Community Development was notified NTD installed conduit for fiber optic cable, assuming the park was public right-of-way. This is an after-the-fact request as the conduit for the fiber optic has already been installed. The conduit is located as close as five feet from city electric lines, is eight feet wide centered on the placed conduit and 540 feet in total length. The applicant states they explored several options for placement of the conduit and this was the most viable option. The conduit may interfere with the ability for the City to place structures long term,be it utilities or park amenities in the future. The Department of Public Works reviewed the proposed easement and requests easement language stating all existing and future municipal utilities,whether in an easement or not, shall be superior to NTD's facilities. Mr. Fojtik opened technical questions to staff. Mr. Kiefer asked how conduit was installed without anyone knowing. Mr. Nau assumed the applicant did a diggers locate prior and it was probably at that time the city's locater questioned that it was private property and brought it to the city's attention. Mr. Gierach stated Ray Maurer, Parks Director, indicated it was found in the winter time of last year. He said he was not sure how it was discovered. Mr. Mitchell said he does not oppose this but is curious what happens if the Council denies the easement. Mr. Lyons replied the conduit would have to be removed. Mr. Hinz asked if there has to be a condition added or if the verbiage would be added to the mutual agreement. Mr. Nau answered the City's Attorney is well aware of the request by Public Works and the verbiage will be part of the easement document. Mr. Fojtik opened up the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. There were no statements from the applicant There were no public comments on this item. Plan Commission Minutes 15 July 2,2019 Mr. Fojtik closed the public hearing and asked if the applicant wanted to make any closing statements. There were no closing statements from the applicant Motion by Hinz to adopt the findings and recommendation as stated in the staff report. Seconded by Mitchell. Mr. Fojtik asked if there was any discussion about the motion. Ms. Propp commented over the years she has noticed that communication companies do whatever they want to. She asked if that was accurate. Mr. Lyons replied there have had similar situations in the past. Ms. Propp said the companies can do anything they want in the public right-of-way. Ms. Nieforth clarified it is not public right-of-way but parkland. Mr. Lyons said the way public right-of-way is treated different from private property for those types of use. He said that is how this situation arouse, it is because they thought it was public right-of-way and it was not. Ms. Propp stated it tends to irritate the Plan Commission when they do not come in for approval and the Plan Commission is unable to do much about it afterwards. Mr. Lyons commented there is still a choice Plan Commission and Council are able to make whether they deny or accept the request. Mr. Gierach clarified that they were stopped before they put the wiring in and it is only the pipe conduit that was installed. He said there is conduit there for them to use but if they had to abandon it,they would and then find a different home. Mr. Lyons reiterated that it is ultimately the best location for it. Mr. Fojtik stated that Ms. Propp raises a valid point. Mr. Perry stated this would be a hard no for him but because of the condition,he will reluctantly be voting yes. Mr. Lyons commented the Public Works Department was adamant about the verbiage being part of the easement document. Plan Commission Minutes 16 July 2,2019 Mr. Ford stated he finds it very unlikely that a company based in Oshkosh would not be aware about what they were doing. He said he wants a desirable solution and will vote yes. Motion carried 9-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 5:23 pm. (Hinz/Propp) Respectfully submitted, Mark Lyons Planning Services Manager Plan Commission Minutes 17 July 2,2019