Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

The Wednesday, 05/13/2026 meeting of the Appleton City Plan Commission. Please rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. All right. Roll call of membership has been taken and all are represented with the exception of Commissioner Palm, who is excused. Also want to welcome Commissioner Dougherty to the commission and also Commissioner Alder Lambrecht, also serving as a commissioner.

Welcome to you both. Glad to have you here. All right. We need a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting.

So moved.

All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Any discussion on the minutes? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. With none opposed, the minutes have been approved. All right. Into public hearings and appearances, we'll get started with item 20 six-five 81.

This is rezoning number 226 for the subject parcel located at 816 East South Street including to the center line of the adjacent street right of way as shown on attached maps from PI Public Institutional District to R 22 Family District. And Colin's gonna tell us about this one. Alright. Go ahead.

Thank you, mayor. So the property owner, Lawrence University, owns this skinny parcel, if you will, is currently vacant. And they are making this rezoning petition to rezone from the PI District to the R2 District in order to facilitate a lot combination with the vacant parcel that they also own immediately to the west. That parcel is zoned R2. And so by rezoning this portion of the parcel to R2, they can do their lot combination and have one cohesive R2 zoned parcel.

You'll also note that this parcel has a bit of parking on the north of it that is actually associated with the multifamily buildings to the north. That will be combined then with that respective parcel to the north. So exhibit A that was included in this staff report shows this preliminary CSM that was approved on the condition that this rezoning is approved. Quick background was there was a single family home on the parcel in 2001. At that time, it was zoned R2.

Then it was rezoned in 2005 from R2 to the PI, Public Institutional District, which actually the whole Lawrence campus and many of their other properties were all rezoned to PI. And now that Lawrence is transitioning out of this space, they're requesting to rezone this to R2 to prepare it for this lot combination and eventual sale. It aligns with the long term comprehensive plan, and staff is recommending approval.

So this is a public hearing. And the way we manage public hearings, when we begin the hearing. If you'd like to speak on this item, you'll be welcome to come up and address the commission from the microphone and podium here. During public hearings, we do not engage in dialogue between the commission or staff and members of the public. But if questions are raised or things come up in the course of discussion, we'll certainly be making note of that.

And if we have a ready answer for a question that's raised or a concern that's raised, we'll certainly share that when the commission takes the item up for action. But at this time, we'll open this public hearing. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Welcome. And if you please state your name and address for the record.

Rich momma.

Wow. Yeah.

We just see it as just keeping Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, please come on up.

My

Yep. You referring to the recommendation? What was shared and again, we typically don't engage in dialogue, to repeat what was shared, what he indicated was that Lawrence is seeking to combine these lots and and facilitate a rezoning to r two to facilitate sale of that lot for redevelopment. And we are not prepared to speak to the university's long term plans. That's not the purview of the City Plan Commission.

Oh, so the university would have to address questions related to their long term plans. That was what was indicated to staff that the lot would eventually be sold. Welcome. Thank you. Others?

Welcome. Ben. I'm Ben Sumnik. I live at 826 East South Street. I don't talk into microphones a lot, so this is kind of a new experience for me. So one of the questions that I have is about Lot 1 Dash 0545. And I don't know if you know which one that is, but that's to the yep, that's that one right there. So I believe that Lawrence also owns that parcel. Am I correct in that statement? Go ahead

and state your questions and we'll make a note of that. And if it pertains to the item, we'll address that.

Okay. So I think that that's zoned as PI as well as this parcel that's in question here. R1 R1C, I think, is what my house is zoned as, what Kristen's house is zoned as, what our other neighborhood houses are zoned as, except for Alex, who is zoned as R2. And all of the houses in our neighborhood are like 1,900, like that was when my house was built in 1900, 1880s. They're old historic charm houses.

The last thing that we want to see is like I don't know how you guys feel about new developments and the way that some of the newer houses look. And if any of you live in them, I apologize, but I think they're very ugly, especially like the multifamily homes. Higher density housing can fit in certain neighborhoods, but in ours, Brokaw, which is just to the south of us, and East South Street and East South Court, These are all old character homes and new developments for the sake of Lawrence University making money on selling this lot. I don't think it fits in with the rest of the taxpaying residents in this neighborhood. So yeah, I think that's kind of, I guess, what we're all concerned about here.

So we'd really like, if we are going to have it rezoned and those lots combined, we're all looking for it to be rezoned as the rest of the character of the neighborhood fits, which is this R1C. So that's what we're all here to request.

Okay. Thank you.

Others? JOHN

My name is Janice Rickel. I live at 820 East South Street, so it's the one right next to these lots. Everybody kind of said my concerns, safety, but going back to moving into our house a little over thirty years ago, my husband and I, we were attracted by it being all the trees in the houses. They have character. And I'm very concerned about, I mean, what I'm imagining, I don't know if that's what's going to happen, but is some multiunit housing, like getting the biggest bang for the buck on those spaces, not giving a darn about all the rest of us in the neighborhood.

We all get along really. It's a good community. And like I say, the house is I'm afraid of the value of my house if something that just doesn't fit in gets plopped there, and safety. Thank you. Thank you.

The others? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Yeah, please.

I have one more concern, and it's I've never met you, Mayor Woodward, Woodford, and I wish it wasn't under these circumstances. But I really feel that you may have a bias as how you see things because you went to Lawrence and Lawrence has expanded downtown. They've had a great influence with the city, but they kind of go hand in hand. And, you know, we've established our lives here. We've established our property values.

And it's really important for us going into our future, retirement, whatever it may be. And I guess, don't you feel like you have a conflict of interest?

As I stated before, we don't engage in dialogue during the course of public hearings. If you please state what you'd like to and we can address those issues when we get into discussions.

Well, did. I think, you know, I'm concerned about property value and my neighbors are as well. And we feel like we're kind of kept in the dark with Lawrence. And they obviously have more influence in the community than us as little, you know, individual neighbors. But that's my concern.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Hearing no further, I declare this public hearing closed. We'll move now to the associated action item. This is item 20 six-five 80 two, request to approve rezoning number 226 for the subject parcel located at 816 East South Street, including to the center line of the adjacent street right of way, as shown on the attached maps, from PI Public Institutional District to R2 to Family District.

Need a motion. Move. We have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion. To begin discussion, just referring back to notes from the concerns that were raised, Colin or someone else, if you would please address the matter of R1 versus R2, how we process the request and how that's reviewed against our plans.

Number four. Sorry, go ahead.

So just first like to state the R2 district doesn't require that a two family duplex be built and be the only use. Single family detached uses are also permitted in the R2. And in addition to that, R2 as it's structured today, only goes up to a duplex. So multi family, three units and above, is not something that would be permitted in this R2 district as it's currently written in code today. One thing that I think will also help with some earlier confusion, what I had mentioned towards the end of my staff report, is that this proposal aligns with the city of Appleton's long range plan.

That's called Plan Appleton. It was approved by the Common Council later last year. And what that does, and really what the basis of any staff recommendation and review for a rezoning proposal kind of needs to test and go through is whether or not the proposed rezoning aligns with the future land use plan of the City Of Appleton. So every parcel, every neighborhood has either, I should say, a certain future land use designation assigned to it. So in the case of this whole neighborhood, it's identified as future urban neighborhood.

That's the future land use classification. And within that, either any of the R1s as well as the R2 districts, and then sometimes R3, depending on some requirements, locational requirements, are permitted as zoning districts in the urban neighborhood future land use category. So that was the basis of staff review when it came to looking at this proposed rezoning. And so with that, that is why staff made the recommendation that whether it's R1A, B, C, or it's an R2 district, whichever is proposed, that would be permitted per the comp plan. And then just lastly, I know it doesn't entirely relate to the question, but I'm not in the loop on land Lawrence plans.

And I hope I didn't cause any confusion in that regard. I was only referencing the city's long range plan and then the urban neighborhood future land use category that I've just detailed.

Thank you.

Discussion from the commission. District 6. Thank

you, Mayor. So I believe it was communicated that a condition of the CSM indicated on Exhibit 6 was achieving consistent zoning part of, right? So consistent zoning is required for all the parcels that would be within that.

Correct. Yep.

And it appears that this parcel would be combined with tax parcel One-five 49.

Is that correct? It'll be combined with that. And then the portion that is actually parking will be combined with One-five 46, which is actually also getting reconfigured to better align with the use of the parking on that parcel.

Okay. And 1 Dash 0549 is currently zoned R2, is that correct?

The parcel immediately to the west, correct.

Yep. Then what's the zoning of the parcels to the north? For example, One-five 46? That is PI. That'll remain PI. Got it.

Thank you. Yep.

There was also a question raised during the public hearing regarding Parcel One-five 45 and that parcel is not a part of what's before the Plan Commission today, so we have no action pending related to that parcel.

Other discussion from the Commission?

Finally, I'd like to address the comments that were made during the public hearing regarding my previous affiliation with Lawrence University. In addition to attending Lawrence University where I graduated in 2013. I was also a member of the staff of Lawrence University for about six and a half years before taking this office. I maintain no connections with the university with respect to planning or initiatives with their real estate or facilities or really any other matters of university business as far as that is concerned. However, I understand the potential perception of that connection, and as such, we'll be abstaining from the votes on these parcels related to Lawrence University.

However, and as such, I can't say to the commission one way or another or participate in debate as to how the commission should consider this item other than to say that as all matters that come before the planned commission, we rely on the review and research of city staff and the staff reports and recommendations that are developed, reviewing against relevant municipal codes, statutes, and our comprehensive plan to guide our decision making as a commission. Is there any other discussion from the commission?

Alder Lambrecht. So Commissioner Neubauer I think was asking some questions regarding the what they are currently zoned as. And if my understanding of the line of questions is, I think my understanding is the only option we have in front of us today would be to zone it as an R2 because it has to be consistent with the other property and we have no action on the One-five 49. Is that accurate?

Right. So in order for them to combine with that currently zoned R2 parcel, which is immediately to the west, so One-five 49, yes, they would have to rezone this parcel as they're proposing to facilitate combination.

And then the second line of questions, if I could direct it to any of the staff who might have answers to this. There was some concerns regarding crime and also with regards to property values. And I was just curious if there's any evidence that we have seen within the city when we are rezoning properties into this R2 category where there has been either an increase in crime in those areas or a decrease in property value.

Director Hellman.

None that I'm aware of. To remind the commission, the highest intensity this could go to would be a new build duplex, and a single family would also be allowed by writing.

Thank you. Further discussion from the commission? Commissioner Robbins.

I just had a comment and would like to thank the commission for making it clear to us the definition of R2 and the limit that it wouldn't go beyond a duplex, but it could still be a single family home.

Further discussion from the commission? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? And the chair abstains. The motion passes. Back to public hearings and appearances. Item twenty six-five eighty three. This is rezoning number 326 for the subject parcels located at 209 North North Union Street, 217 North Union Street, 221 North Union Street, and 229 North Union Street, including to the center line of the adjacent street right of way as shown on attached maps from PI Public Institutional District to R2 to Family District. Colin, this is yours again.

Thank you, mayor. So this proposal, all four parcels are owned by Lawrence University. Two of these parcels, the ones closest to City Park, are currently vacant. And two of the parcels then to the south, one is actually used as a duplex. The other is currently used as educational space with some accessory office.

Lawrence is proposing to rezone these from the Public Institutional District to the R2 District. The one caveat within here, it aligns with the comp plan. This area is also a future land use category of the urban neighborhood. So comp plan supports the rezoning. And parcels One-three 19 and One-three 18 are legal nonconforming lots of record.

So how a future owner uses them, just that caveat of there's some components of the legal nonconforming that might change what some of those setbacks are when you compare it with this proposed R2 district. Beyond that, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning.

This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Hearing none, declare this public hearing closed. We move now to the associated action item. This is 26Dash0584, request to approve rezoning number 326 for the subject parcels located at 209 North Union Street, 217 North Union Street, 221 North Union Street, and 229 North Union Street, including to the center line of adjacent street right of way as shown on attached maps from PI, public institutional District, to R 22 Family District. Is there a motion?

Move to approve. We have a motion and a second to approve. Open the floor for discussion from the commission. Just a question for staff. Has there been any indication of an intention to conduct a CSM or a subdivision of any of these lots?

At this time, no, there is not. I believe Lawrence has been actively pursuing sales of these of these parcels as they stand.

Thank you. Further discussion from the commission? Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Chair abstains. The motion passes. Next is public hearing 20 six-five 85, proposed district boundaries and the project plan for the proposed creation of tax incremental District Number 14 generally located North of Interstate 41 East of North Meade Street, West of North Ballard Road, and South Of Edgewood Drive in the city of Appleton. And Steph is going to tell us about this one. Go ahead.

District Lee, please. Good afternoon, commissioners. The proposed project plan and boundaries for Tax District Number 14 are before you all tonight. Proposed boundaries are located on the thriving property North of Highway 41 and nestled between North Meade Street and North Ballard Road. The plan has come together with ample coordination between city departments and our consultant, Ellers.

It is worth noting that the projects identified in this plan will require additional future actions of various boards and commissions. The city is not bound to any of the proposed projects. Rather, the plan helps outline what projects would be eligible for tax incremental financing. Ehlers has been a wonderful partner helping the city navigate the processes required by section 66.1105 of Wisconsin state statute to implement a new tax increment district. The Plan Commission is being asked to review and make a recommendation to the Common Council in regard to the project plan and boundaries. Staff's recommendation is approval of the project plan and boundaries. Greg Johnson from Ellers is here to walk us through the project plan summary.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Stephanie. In your packet's a copy of the TID-fourteen summary document. I'm going to go through this to provide an overview of the complete project plan that was included in your packet. So on the first slide on page two is the map of the proposed district boundary, which Stephanie described in her opening comments.

This district is a proposed mixed use district under the TIFF statutes. The statutory finding to create a TIFF district is that not less than 50% of the area is suitable for mixed use development which means you have to have some combination of commercial, industrial, or residential development. This entire TIF area will be developed as residential and commercial development. And then there's a further restriction on the amount of newly platted residential development which is 35 of the gross area. So we'll be speaking to the general purpose of the district.

It is help to provide a financing vehicle to pay for the cost of public infrastructure and other public improvements and provide development incentives as determined by the city to promote the master plan development within this district. One of the statutory requirements to create a new TIF district is called the 12% valuation test. What that means is anytime a new TIF district is created, the total incremental value of all existing TIF districts in the city plus the proposed base value the value of the property that's presently proposed to be included in the district those two numbers cannot exceed 12% of the city's total equalized valuation. So if we take the incremental value of all existing TIDs, add in the current value of the properties within the proposed TID district, those numbers combined are 4.15% of the city's total equalized value. So the city is well below that 12% limit and can legally create the TIF district.

The next chart summarizes the land use findings that need to be met to create a mixed use TIF District. So on the right hand side is the future land use map that was also included in the project plan that depicts the types of development anticipated within the district. The chart on the left hand side calculates the gross acreage within the district including right of way and then shows how much of that gross acreage is anticipated to be developed as commercial and newly platted residential. So the combination of commercial and residential is 50.19% and the newly platted residential development is 30.91%. So again, the mixed use has to be greater than 50%.

The newly platted residential has to be less than 35%. Both of those land use tests are satisfied to legally create a mixed use TIF district. Within the project plan, there were two financial scenarios presented. This chart summarizes both of those options. And then I'll walk through them in a little more detail in terms of summarizing the financial analysis that was included within the project plan.

Phase one just looks at the initial phase of development over the course of the whole 500 acres of the proposed TIF District. We'll have a chart that provides this number in more detail, but the estimated total incremental value in the district from phase one is $211,000,000 of value constructed over a several year period. If that $211,000,000 of value is realized over the twenty year life of the TID District, that would generate about $57,200,000 of tax increment collection revenue to the district. That would support all of the project costs that were identified in the project plan with the exception of phase two infrastructure and an allowance for development incentives that's related exclusively to phase two. So just if Phase one, that initial round of development occurs, it would support the initial investment for infrastructure and other project costs, but it would take the full twenty year life of the district to recover that investment.

If phase one is supplemented with the second phase of development, phase two, the total which illustrates really the full build out potential of the district, that's estimated to generate about $6.00 $7,000,000 of incremental value, which would in turn generate about $117,400,000 in property tax revenue over the twenty year life of the district. Since phase two generates more incremental value, there aren't as many costs associated with phase two. So it can support all the project costs. But since there's some extra incremental value, it would actually help the TID district project it to close earlier, which is in 2042. And we'll illustrate that with some financial analysis here shortly.

So within the project plan is a detailed listing of eligible project costs to be repaid from tax increment within the district. As Stephanie mentioned in her opening comments, the project plan itself does not commit the city to undertake any of these projects. Any infrastructure improvements still require a common council approval, as well as any development incentive under the statutes requires a development agreement to be a TID eligible expense. So infrastructure has been identified for phase one as about $11,600,000 And then there's a development incentive with interest for Phase one, which is estimated about $25,500,000 And then there are other detailed specific infrastructure and public improvements listed as TID eligible expense, some additional road improvements, bikepedestrian facilities, and some utility improvements. As we'll kind of demonstrate with the financial analysis, really the key to financial success for any TIF district is to manage the pace of investment in terms of incurring costs to the pace of development to increase the likelihood that the revenue from the development can pay for the costs incurred to make that development come to fruition.

In the project list was a project ID letter identified for each project. This map just depicts the general location of the phase one infrastructure and some of the other specific public improvements that were identified on the project list. In terms of that phase one incremental value that's summarized on the next page in terms of that initial estimated $211,000,000 of value constructed, this shows build out of phase one construction occurring through year 2031. You'll see across the top of this chart is kind of a detailed descriptor of the types of development that are occurring within the districts, some commercial uses, some residential uses. This build out projection was based on input from the developer.

And then the values that we used were also vetted by the city assessor to determine that they were reasonable estimates for projecting the increase in taxable value from each of these categories of development. So you'll see there's some estimates in terms of a square foot footage value of commercial built and then some estimated per unit values for some of the residential. So again, just based off of phase one and that build out through 2031 estimated at about a little over $211,000,000 of taxable value. So if that value is achieved, the chart on the next page shows that tax increment calculation I mentioned earlier, a little over $57,000,000 of tax revenue collected over the twenty year life of the district that's based on the current tax rate of the city's TIP districts in Outagamie County and then there's no appreciation of the value included in this analysis the estimated value of the build out from the prior chart. In terms of the cash flow model, this is a required exhibit within the project plan but just illustrates the financial performance of the district that I summarized.

So far on far left hand side is the tax increment revenue coming in to the district. The city is anticipating financing some of that initial phase one infrastructure a little over $11,000,000 with general obligation debt That will be repaid from increment generated through this district. And then there's a development incentive that is proposed as well but is subject to approval of a development agreement. That incentive is projected to be capped at 14,000,000 plus 6% interest. While the terms of the development agreement are still being negotiated, the expectation is the tax increment revenue will be prioritized within that agreement to first repay the city's debt service and then the development incentive will be paid second.

The development incentive is what's commonly referred to as a pay as you go incentive, meaning that the developer only gets that incentive repaid if the increment is sufficient to repay the developer. So if they don't generate enough increment to fully repay their development incentive plus interest, the city is under no contractual obligation to repay that difference. That risk is solely borne by the developer. And then you'll see some other phasing of infrastructure improvements. The other project costs identified in that chart are attributable to phase one in this illustration, but likely be financed just prior to the end of the expenditure period for this district which ends in 2041.

So again just with Phase one it's projected that the district will remain open for twenty years for its full maximum life. For the development incentive, again that's subject to a development agreement that needs to be executed by the Common Council. I mentioned the prioritization of increment to pay City debt service first. City has also had discussions and within drafts of the development agreement a letter of credit which will be provided by the developer in the city's name of $11,000,000 which provides additional security for the debt service. So if the increment is insufficient, there are shortfall requirements to be made by the developer, but also an $11,000,000,000 backstop letter of credit to help support that debt.

So that'll all be subject to provisions of a development agreement, but evidence is the efforts being taken to minimize financial risk and exposure for the city in this TIF District. So to summarize Phase one, the initial infrastructure investment of about $11,600,000 financed with debt. They pay as you go development incentive at $14,000,000 with a present value at 6% interest. And then the remaining projects except Phase two could be financed just prior to the end of the expenditure period. So given the size of this district, 500 acres, you know, a lot of potential in terms of, you know, build out of the full master plan area, we wanted to just kind of prepare a second scenario that shows what that potential could look like.

So in the next chart is Phase one and Phase two incremental value combined. So this shows kind of construction occurring beyond 2031, which incorporates the second phase of development. So this, combined phase one and phase two of development shows that full build out potential within the district over its full maximum life. And then the tax increment that's collected from that second phase is summarized on the next chart. So that shows with that particular development, phase two could generate about $117,400,000 of tax increment revenue.

So the cash flow model for this illustration is on this page here. Again includes the same debt service that was part of phase one, the same development incentive that was part of phase one, but showing that some of the other infrastructure investment tied to phase two and Phase one could be financed earlier because there's more incremental value. And then the projected closure of the district could occur earlier. That's because the incremental value that's generated from Phase two provides more support to pay off the costs associated with Phase one faster. So it shows as an illustration the combined phases could really help accelerate paying off the total project cost within the plan.

So the summary of the Phase one and Phase two is that all infrastructure or the Phase one and Phase two infrastructure is financed with debt. The pay as you go incentive for Phase one is the same. And then all other project costs would be financed with cash as fund balance is available. So as was mentioned, there's action item on your agenda which is a resolution for creation of the TIF District. That is a required step to create a new TIF District is approval by the plant commission.

So again the project plan kind of lays out anticipated infrastructure, potential development incentives, all still subject to council approval but really kind of helps provide a financing mechanism to make the investment that's necessary for this area to develop and still provides reasonable investment returns for the developer for the project to proceed. So really the TIF District is really the primary financing mechanism to bring the development to reality. So that's the overview of TIF District. That kind of concludes my comments for now.

Thank you. Anything else for this overview before we open the hearing? Okay. Again, this is 20 six-five 85 proposed district boundaries and the project plan for the proposed creation of tax increment District Number 14 generally located North of Interstate 41 East of North Meade Street, West of North Ballard Road, and South of Edgewood Drive in the city of Appleton. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak?

Hearing none, I declare this public hearing closed. We'll move now to the associated action item, which is twenty six dash zero five eight six, request to approve the resolution establishing the boundaries of and approving the project plan for tax increment dis incremental district number 14, generally located North Of Interstate 41, East of North Meade Street, West of North Ballard Road, and South Of Edgewood Drive in the city of Appleton, Wisconsin. Need a motion. Move to approve. Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve. Open the floor for discussion from the commission. So I'd like to just and we'll get to you, Alder Hayden. Just to make clear, so there are infrastructure costs associated with the project plan. And that would be financed with general obligation debt, but that debt would not be paid by City Of Appleton taxpayers.

That debt would be funded by the tax increment created by the development. So I think it's important just we put a very fine point on that because there are significant infrastructure costs associated with this project plan. But those costs would be borne by the project itself through the creation of a tax increment district rather than paid for by general taxpayers in the city Of Appleton. So I want to make that very clear because these charts are showing us this flow chart is showing us finance with debt. I think it's important we make very clear that when we're talking about debt, that debt would be paid through the tax increment district by the development itself as opposed to general taxpayers in the city.

The other thing worth noting is that, as was mentioned, there's a component called the letter of credit. And so just again to put a finer point on that, if the city incurs costs for developing infrastructure on this site, and we finance that with debt, and there isn't enough development to pay that debt service, the city would then, assuming this is included in the final development agreement, would be able to draw on the letter of credit that's provided by the developer to pay for those costs, which further protects taxpayers in the event that there's not enough development activity to pay for the debt service. So it's a layer of security for the city and for our taxpayers to have that letter of credit. And again, assuming that's included in the final development agreement, just another layer of security. So I just wanted to put a finer point on those two pieces to make sure that that's very clear, and we'll we'll continue on with discussion.

And I know Alder Hayden was eager to get in the conversation. So let's go to him first.

Thank you, Chair. I just had two quick questions. But first, I had a quick disclaimer to read. I am a Thriving employee. The views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position and views of my employer at Thrivent.

My role at Thrivent is completely separate and unrelated to Thrivent's land development activities. I am communicating solely in my position as the Appleton Common Council on the Appleton Common Council as the District 7 alderperson. My first question is, with PAYGO and with the line of credit, it seems like we've mitigated a lot of risks that are out there. I was wondering if there are any other risks that might remain around this development. From a financial perspective with respect to the tax increment district.

Correct.

Craig, is that something you can address?

I think the prioritization of the increment to pay the debt service first, the letter of credit are two very strong provisions. Again, subject to terms of the development agreement, but other security provisions that have been discussed is the potential to levy a special charge against land that's still under control by the developer as an additional security provision to protect the city. So I think it's really a multi tiered protection and security, as the mayor summarized. So we're not just looking at one level of security, but multiple levels. Great.

My other question is and I'm just making some assumptions here. Would it be accurate to summarize that if we don't go through with proving the TID, that it's likely this area would be developed in a cookie cutter fashion that kind of mirrors the neighborhoods nearby where essentially the city would be responsible for paying for infrastructure like parks. It would be developed slowly. It would look like an urban sprawl. So this is probably in the best interest that we go forward in a way that creates a community that's unique and vibrant and adds character to the character of the city of Appleton.

I want to be careful about engaging in a hypothetical exercise, but I would ask if Director Holman has any thoughts on that question or statement, really.

District 1. I think it's fair to say that if the TID District wasn't created and the land was just put up for sale, we would not be seeing development but for the TID. The most likely scenario is the highest and best use properties adjacent to, say, Ballard Road may develop quickly, but then the ability for us to push that infrastructure, in particular Milestone and Evergreen, through the development would be very limited and difficult, if not impossible, for the city to bear that cost or a developer for that matter.

Thank you. All right. I'm going to go All right. Commissioner Carpenter, go ahead.

I think it's fair to say that this is going to mean that that can develop in a coherent fashion that's organized and much more beneficial to the city proper as a whole versus trying to piecemeal this together for such a big piece. As much as I hate the slam of it, I think that's a very good idea to do. Thank you.

Other discussion from the commission?

Commissioner Robbins.

As I put on my public hat, one, I want to say I do thank you for the summary and just had a question. Will this information be posted on a website or something? If that is the case, and I think the point that the mayor brought up regarding especially the last page, to put that note on there so that the public can interpret, the summary correctly.

I see our staff taking notes on this. Steph, go ahead.

Yep. So we do already have this information available on the city's website. All the agenda materials are publicly available through right now as well. I will make sure that we put a note on the website regarding the mayor's comments just to kind of super clarify that the taxpayer is not on the line for these costs.

Thank you. Thank you.

Further discussion from the Commission?

Anybody else? Alright, hearing no further discussion, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? With none opposed, that item has been approved. So could you just walk us through the next steps? And also for the benefit of the public, are the next steps in this particular process? And how does that connect into the broader project?

If you want to go, that'd be great.

Director Holman?

So in terms of the TID plan, the next step is it to go to the Common Council on June 3 believe that's the date, right, Steph? For final review and approval by the common council. The joint review board, which is a multi taxing jurisdiction body, they met earlier today for an informational meeting after common council approves the plan within forty five days of common council approval. The Joint Review Board will also need to pass a resolution approving the project plan. So Joint Review Board is made up of Outagamie County, Fox Valley Technical College, Appleton Area School District, as well as our city finance director and a citizen representative.

In addition to that, we also are contemplating a TID development agreement with the current landowner. So additional approvals will be needed for that as well. That would flow through community development committee and then ultimately get to common council. So again, right now the target is for the first meeting in June for the TID plan to hit the agenda if the plan commission recommends approval.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. So a lot more discussion to come for a number of committees and commissions and the Common Council. But we'll continue to provide information not only to the members of the commission and counsel, but also to the public about how this process is advancing as we move along.

And of course, we welcome input from the community as this process goes on. And there will be opportunities in the form of hearings and also public participation during common council meetings in addition to reaching out directly. So I would also encourage folks to reach out directly to your members of council. You're also welcome to contact us at the city to contact city staff or my office if you have questions or concerns. We'd be happy to connect with you and help get those questions addressed.

So with that, we will move along. Next is 26 we're still in our action items. Next is twenty six-five eighty seven, request to approve the attached affidavit of correction for Park State Highway 441 Certified Survey Map 2720 to be recorded with the Calumet County Register of Deeds Office. All right. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second to approve any discussion from the commission or any comments from staff you feel we need to take into consideration? A little bit of cleanup here. Okay.

We have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. With none opposed, that item has been approved. All right. The moment you've all been waiting for. It is twenty six-five eighty nine. It is time to elect a vice chair of the Plan Commission. And the vice chair is occasionally tapped either expectedly or unexpectedly to chair the meeting. So with that, I'll open the floor for nominations. Are there any nominations for vice chair? Commissioner Robbins. I

nominate Alderman Josh.

Okay. I have one nomination. Any other nominations? Any other nominations? Any other nominations? All right. By unanimous consent, Alder Lambrecht, you are our new vice chair. Congratulations, and I'm sorry, in advance. Right. 2090, set meeting date and time.

Any issues with meeting date and time? Any issues? Anything? All right. Well then by unanimous consent, same time, same date, same channel. All right. And finally, 2091 designated contact person. Our current contact person is Director Kara Holman. Any concerns? And you'll continue. All right. And by unanimous consent, we've designated our contact person. Oh, well, I jumped the gun on information items at the start of the meeting, but I was so excited to welcome our new commissioners. So again, welcome to Will Dougherty. Glad to have you on the commission.

You joined for an interesting meeting. And again, welcome Alder Lambrecht, Vice Chair Lambrecht, the Plan Commission also. So thank you all very much for a good meeting. We are now at item number eight, which is adjournment. Need a motion to adjourn. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. Thank you.