_06082026-1112

Approved 7/13/26 Page 1 of 9 PLAN COMMISSION City of Hartford, Wisconsin June 8, 2026 ATTENDANCE: (P) – present; (A/E) – absent/excused; A – (absent) Chairperson Dennis J. Regan: P Vice-Chairperson Tony Andereck: P Alderperson Liaison Tom Pechacek: P Member Dave Piquett: P Member Scott Roethke: A/E Member Ralph Kuepper: A Member Scott Henke: P Alternate Robert Jewell: N/A Alternate Dean Kirley: N/A Members present: 5 Members absent: 2 Quorum (5 members): Y ALSO PRESENT: City Planner Jacob Maas Call to Order: Chairperson Regan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Minutes: Minutes of April 13 , 202 6 and May 11, 2026 were reviewed. Motion by Piquett, seconded by Andereck to approve minutes. Motion carried. Appearances: Zach Becker, 100 Camelot Drive, expressed support for the Kwik Trip project. Ken Kranzman, 230 Glennwood Rd, expressed support for Vendetta Jiu Jitsu. Public Hearing to Review the Proposed Creation of Tax Incremental District (TID) Number 14 (fourteen). a. Opening of Hearing: Chairperson Regan opened the hearing. b. Reading of Public Notice: Mr. Maas read the public notice. c. Staff Review: Proposed creation of Tax Incremental District (TID) Number 14 (fourteen): Mr. Maas provided a map of the existing TID’s and noted the closure of TID 6 this year. TID 13 was the last TID created located East Sumner including Aurora Medical. It was created in 2024 and will expire in 2044. Mr. Maas showed a map of TID 14 and noted many of them to be City of Hartford owned parcels with no tax value and do not impact the taxes in the other taxing jurisdictions. The purple line, under state statues, notes the half mile radius for projects to be included in the TID; this would require an amendment to the TID project plan to include any unidentified TID projects within this boundary. A lot of the proposed projects are Institutional, which are sanitary facilities and mostly vacant land within this TID district. The HADC lands, approximately 60 acres, with the southern portion to be Project Area A, which is the DJS or Wisconsin Page 2 of 9 Manufacturing and Stamping; this has gone through a developer’s agreement with the City. A sale of 12 acres has also been approved and a CSM at the last Plan Commission meeting. Project C, the biggest cost for the City, is to develop the Innovation Way extension as the but for. The extension includes a larger water main to serve industrial areas and is therefore an expensive project. Project B, is for a residential developer, with as many as 600 units including single family, multifamily, and single family attached ownership. Currently the highest valued parcel is Liberty Storage, a personal storage facility. Generally, when the highest valued parcel with the TID is a storage facility, the TID has a lot of undervalued property to be developed within it. There is potential for six other developments within this TID district; north of Liberty Storage, there are three parcels there, one to the east of the current DJS, a fourth to the west of DJS, fifth HADC land and sixth up on Independence toward West State Street. The 12% equalized value test currently shows an equalized value as of January 1, 2024, of $2, 342,784,500.00. The maximum allowed TID value at 12% would be $281,134,140.00 of property value in the City. Reviewing the breakdown, approximately 3.16% of the equalized value is currently in TID within the City. We are far from the 12% and easily meet the test. Exhibit E shows the cash flow projection with the far-right column showing the Innovation Way bond payments which is the City’s expense. This is a reference; we are not tabulating anything. Looking at the expenditure and the DJS revenue, the estimated project cost will be assessed at a little over six million dollars. The increment generated from that, and we have the expenditures. The EDWC is doing an impact fund service debt for half million dollars. We will be using the increment from the DJS project to cover that over the life of this TID project. Innovation Way debt and DJS’s portion of the cost. This is the breakdown of the expenditures for DJS. The remainder will go to paygo (pay as you go) for DJS, which is currently maxed out at $400,000.00 over the life of the TID. As it is currently proposed, it will be $254,000.00, but in their project plan they do have the possibility of an 80,000 square foot extension which would bring that up to more likely the $400,000.00 total. It would behoove them to move toward that 80,000 square foot addition to maximize their increment paygo. The other is the Winter Park Builders project revenue. This is 600 plus residential development. It is a large amount of money that comes with residential development. Over the life of the TID the increment will be 41 million dollars. Currently, we do not have a developer’s agreement with that. To be safe, we followed what we have done with other residential developments with a 60% incentive. Winter Park would get 60% of the increment and the City would get the remaining 40% which go toward paying away the City of Hartford’s expenditure for Innovation Way. We would collect revenue; the first three years, the City would be in a negative deficit on Innovation Way, but through the life of the TID we would exceed 12 million dollars of revenue after the expenditures. Mr. Maas provided a handout noting the economic impact of the DJS project including increasing jobs in the community and tax base to the communities. Page 3 of 9 Tax revenue in this proposal is for 20 years so you don’t see that going out to the communities, but once the TID ends, you will see that as a net positive to all the taxing districts. d. Appearances in Favor: No appearances. e. Appearances in Opposition: No appearances. f. Closing of Hearing: Chairperson Regan closed the hearing. g. Discussion by Plan Commission. Chairperson Regan noted the amount of work involved in creating the TID; Pechacek sought clarification on Exhibit G; Maas noted these were the proposed project areas. Henke sought clarification on the Winter Park Project regarding the units. Mr. Maas noted the numbers were dwelling units. He noted the Winter Parks multifamily numbers were high and Mr. Maas used Oriole Ponds as an example to bring the numbers inline when creating the project plan. Henke wanted clarification on a villa; Mr. Maas noted it to be a smaller condo; it is still single family (1-2 bedroom) in a larger cluster. Pechacek inquired about the number of multifamily units; Mr. Maas noted 200 north of West State Street. h. Official Action Regarding proposed creation of Tax Incremental District (TID) Number 14 (fourteen) resolution. Henke motioned to recommend for approval of the proposed creation of Tax Incremental District (TID) Number 14 (fourteen) to Common Council; second by Piquett; motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of an Instructional studio at the property, 15 Lone Oak Lane, (Tax Key: 36-2202-001-052) zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. a. Opening of Hearing: Chairperson Regan opened the hearing. b. Reading of Public Notice: Mr. Maas read the public notice. c. Staff Review: Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of an Instructional studio at the property, 15 Lone Oak Lane, (Tax Key: 36-2202-001-052) zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. Mr. Maas reviewed the executive summary noting the following staff comments and recommendations: (i) Staff Comments: Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed Instructional Studio at 15 Lone Oak Lane and is subject to the following: 1. Community Cultural Facility is defined as a place where instruction, training, or tutelage is offered in such areas as gymnastics, dance, art, music, and martial arts. 2. Compliance with building codes and fire codes. 3. Maintain hours of operation as stated in the Plan of Business Operation. (ii) Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends the APPROVAL of the Conditional Use Permit for an Instructional Studio in the City of Hartford’s Page 4 of 9 B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning District, at 15 Lone Oak Lane (PIN: 36- 2202-001-052) with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with building codes and fire codes. 2. Maintain hours of operation as stated in the Plan of Business Operation. d. Appearances in Favor: Ken Kransman, owner, expressed support for proposed business. e. Appearances in Opposition: No appearances f. Closing of Hearing: Chairperson Regan closed the hearing. g. Discussion by Plan Commission: No discussion occurred. h. Official Action Regarding Proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of an Instructional studio at the property, 15 Lone Oak Lane, (Tax Key: 36-2202-001-052) zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. Pechacek motion to approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow for the operation of an Instructional studio at the property, 15 Lone Oak Lane, (Tax Key: 36-2202-001-052) zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business; Henke seconded; motion carried. Discussion & Consideration of a proposed Site Plan & Architectural Review in the B-3, General Business District for Kwik Trip #655 at 1411 E. Sumner Street (Tax Key 36-2203-001-005). Mr. Maas reviewed the executive summary and noted the following staff comments and recommendations: Staff Comment: FIRE DEPARTMENT: • No concerns, however, the Kitchen Suppression System will need Plan Review through FSCI. They can contact the Fire Inspector directly for more information if needed. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: • No concerns with the building addition, as long as they follow the erosion control shown on the plan. POLICE DEPARTMENT: • No Comment UTILITIES: • Water: o No issues with the plans. However, the addition is placed over the existing customer-owned water lateral. If they decided to relocate the lateral, staff is available to turn the water off as needed. • Electric: o The developer should contact Mike Thimm regarding any proposed changes to the service size or upgrades. Page 5 of 9 PLANNING & INSPECTION: • The proposed structure meets all the setback requirements and standards for the B -3, General Business Zoning District. • Parking: 1 space for each 250 square feet of floor area for retail sales; plus 1 space for each employee on the largest work shift (standard from consultant) • Landscape Plan meets City requirements. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: • The architectural renderings meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends APPROVAL of the Site Plan and Architectural Plan in the City of Hartford’s B -3 General Business District at 1411 East Sumner Street with the following conditions: 1. Kitchen Suppression System will need Plan Review through FSCI. They can contact the Fire Inspector directly for more information if needed. 2. The addition is placed over the existing customer-owned water lateral. If they decided to relocate the lateral, staff is available to turn the water off as needed. 3. The developer should contact Mike Thimm regarding any proposed changes to the service size or upgrades. 4. Follow the erosion control shown on the plan. 5. Parking: 1 space for each 250 square feet of floor area for retail sales; plus 1 space for each employee on the largest work shift (standard from consultant). Pechacek sought verification that removal of the hill would not create ice damming; Mr. Maas noted Engineering has reviewed and had no comments beside making sure the erosion control is compliant. Andereck wanted verification on the setback from K; Mr. Maas noted they are not changing the elevation of the ingress and egress and the B-3 District setback is 15 ft. Piquett motioned to approve a proposed Site Plan & Architectural Review in the B-3, General Business District for Kwik Trip #655 at 1411 E. Sumner Street (Tax Key 36-2203-001-005); Andereck seconded; motion carried. Discussion and Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Appendix B, Land Use Descriptions and Supplemental Standards, Section § 16.05 (B) to require the Mobile food establishment to be 500 feet from the primary customer entrance of an existing restaurant on another lot. Mr. Maas reviewed the executive summary including the following staff comments and recommendations: Page 6 of 9 Staff Comments: The proposed language change would bring Chapter 52, Zoning Code into conformance with Chapter 33, Peddlers, Canvassers and Transient Merchants. Recommendation: The City Staff recommends the APPROVAL the Ordinance amending Section § 16.05 of Appendix B, Land Use Descriptions and Supplemental Standards under Chapter 52, City of Hartford Zoning Code. Henke inquired if this was enforced for special event permit; Mr. Maas indicated it is not because the permit trumps the ordinance. Piquett inquired if this applied to liquor stores; Mr. Maas indicated it is from where the vehicle is located/parked within a 500-foot radius. Pechacek motioned to recommend for approval of an Ordinance to amend Appendix B, Land Use Descriptions and Supplemental Standards, Section § 16.05 (B) to require the Mobile food establishment to be 500 feet from the primary customer entrance of an existing restaurant on another lot; Henke seconded; motion carried. Discussion and Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Appendix A, Land Use Table, Section § 10.06 Contractor yard to be a Permitted land use by right within the M-1, Light Industrial District. Mr. Maas reviewed the executive summary including the following staff comments and recommendations: Staff Comments: Many industrial land developers are creating contractor condos as part of the multi-tenant developments being developed in the M -1, Light Industrial Zoning District. Contractor Yards have the following Supplemental Standards to reduce nuisance issues: Supplemental Standards: (A) Type of outdoor storage. Outside storage of construction equipment and fleet vehicles is allowed. Construction materials may be kept out of doors, provided such materials are being staged for a specific work project. The storage of construction debris, tree branches, wood chips, and the like is strictly prohibited. (B) Equipment repair and maintenance. The repair and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles must occur inside of an enclosed building, unless specifically permitted in the conditional use order authorizing the use. (C) Sales. The on-premise sale, at retail or wholesale, of any material is strictly prohibited. (D) Incidental uses. Fabrication and assembly of component parts for use in a building project is permitted inside of an enclosed building on the subject property, provided such activity is of an incidental nature. Page 7 of 9 (E) Location of use areas. Outdoor storage areas and other activity areas related to this use may not be located (1) in the front-yard building setback area; (2) within 30 feet of a side or rear lot line when the adjoining property is located in a residential zoning district or a planned development district that allows residential uses; (3) within 20 feet of a side or rear lot line when the adjoining property is B -35located in a commercial zoning district; and (4) 10 feet from a side or rear lot line when the adjoining property is located in any other zoning district. Employee parking areas must be located in those areas otherwise allowed in the zoning code. (F) Gated access. If the facility has a gated access, the property owner must comply with any regulations adopted by the City with regard to gated properties. (G) Fugitive dust. If gravel or similar material is used for an outdoor storage area or other activity area, the control of fugitive dust must be addressed as part of the site plan review process. (H) Screening. If this use adjoins a residential zoning district or a planned development district that allows residential uses, a buffer meeting the standards for B must be established. Furthermore, this allows smaller contractors to move operations to multi -tenant facilities, reducing home occupation issues that can arise with smaller contractors. Recommendation: The City Staff recommends the APPROVAL the Ordinance amending Section § 10.06 of Appendix A, Land Use Table under Chapter 52, City of Hartford Zoning Code. Pechacek sought clarification if pods could be placed on these lots; Mr. Maas noted it would be incubator type buildings and there are specific regulations to prevent nuisance storage. Piquett motioned to recommend for approval of an Ordinance to amend Appendix A, Land Use Table, Section § 10.06 Contractor yard to be a Permitted land use by right within the M-1, Light Industrial District.; Andereck seconded; motion carried. Discussion and Consideration of an Ordinance amend Appendix A, Land Use Table, Section § 15.04 Outdoor food and beverage service to be a Permitted land use by right within the B-3, General Business District and CC-3, Downtown Core District. Mr. Maas reviewed the executive summary including the following staff comments and recommendations: Staff Comments: Post-COVID, many restaurants, taverns, and other eating & drinking establishments are trying to include outdoor food and beverage service areas as an accessory use to their internal operations. Outdoor food and beverage service areas operating as an accessory use must follow the following supplemental standards Supplemental Standards: Page 8 of 9 (A) Type Maximum size of service area . The size of the outdoor service area must not be more than 50 percent of the service area of the brewpub, restaurant, or tavern. (B) Location of service area. The outdoor service area must be located on the same parcel of land as the brewpub, restaurant, or tavern or on an adjoining parcel. The outdoor service area must not be located in a public right -of-way, a required landscape area, or the setback of a street yard, side yard, shore yard, or rear yard. (C) Consistency with alcohol license or permit . Alcohol may not be served or consumed within the outdoor service area unless the description of premises in the alcohol license or permit explicitly includes the outdoor service area. Outdoor service areas on brewery, winery or distillery premises shall follow the requirements set forth in Chapter 35 of the municipal code. (D) Entrance to service area if alcohol is served. If alcohol is served, and upon recommendation of the police chief, the entrance or entrances to the outdoor service area must be exclusively through the brewpub, restaurant, or tavern, and a barrier such as a rope or fence must be erected to prevent entry to the outdoor service area by any other means. An emergency access gate may be provided if required by state law. (E) Restroom requirements . The restroom facilities in the brewpub, restaurant, or tavern must be of sufficient capacity to serve both the indoor and outdoor patrons. Temporary toilet facilities are not permitted. (F) Hours of operation. The outdoor service area may not remain open after the close of the brewpub, restaurant, or tavern. (G) Outdoor lighting. Festoon lighting (i.e., lamps wired to a flexible cable) may be placed above the approved outdoor service area, provided (1) the lighting is only used when the outdoor service area can be used, (2) each bulb does not produce more than 200 lumens, and (3) the lighting levels at the property boundary line comply with the levels established in Article 20. Recommendation: The City Staff recommends the APPROVAL the Ordinance amending Section § 15.04 of Appendix A, Land Use Table under Chapter 52, City of Hartford Zoning Code. Regan sought clarification on the establishment of the 50% accessory structure allowance; Mr. Maas noted you do not want it to exceed the principle because then that would become the principle floor space. Hartford chose this to allow for flexibility. Andereck noted Smash Daddies outdoor seating--is this what we are discussing; Mr. Maas noted this is what we are talking about. Many of the businesses are doing this without asking, and it would be best to avoid a contentious issue with the smaller business owners trying to give options to patrons. Staff has generally not received any complaints regarding this use. Page 9 of 9 Pechacek noted businesses that would take up parking for outdoor dinning may then have more cars parked on the street; Mr. Maas noted the CC-3 is mostly City owned parking lots; B-3 would have their own parking, and we would have to verify they weren’t taking away too much parking; Pechacek discussed lighting; Mr. Maas noted we have code requirement for lighting to meet at the property line. Henke motioned to recommend for approval of an Ordinance amend Appendix A, Land Use Table, Section § 15.04 Outdoor food and beverage service to be a Permitted land use by right within the B-3, General Business District and CC-3, Downtown Core District; Pechacek seconded; motion carried. Piquett motioned to adjourn; Andereck second. Motion carried and meeting adjourned at 6:42p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jacob Maas, City Planner Compiled by Jenny Conley, Planning Aide