[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6169297,"mediaKeyId","5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3","parentId",5404673,"title","Plan commission recommends TID No. 11 boundary and project‑plan amendment to add 10 acres and Draxler Drive right‑of‑way","audioSeconds",1664,"startMs",182000,"endMs",1846000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3&start=182&end=1846","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3/thumbnail_182000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6169297/Marshfield/Wood-County/Wisconsin/Plan-commission-recommends-TID-No-11-boundary-and-projectplan-amendment-to-add-10-acres-and-Draxler-Drive-rightofway","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6169297-22517867f27d06195862c6274ac6cb79/orig.mp4?Expires=1777389731&Signature=YDy2F7-FqvGhKt8t3Gs66A50bhztjARBnTWlXZTudVgHT57YgugQL~76lN3GXgjKbJVfj8zDNcRneKKM5lrw4fgMN2hFnYK0iI5s~aA0jZ1b--mEaHZqxL-~Wi59fkbrOSGma29jEJ~svNToPbsxE6q8ky5xfxu~m8sjM6iYeILVQEhKrSDlt0OLcKTYgghmRO74anwhYz0nl05UjjMhDkNwmue~ZIFONSgIj6hyhNgt1NcsMdddV8tNg9HWt8ociLgn0esoFUKnBfkBZGXrzgKCqAvjq193KF6YbMHez3CVhOhWXeeeciO3Z86iCVn2fZn8FZhZeuYI1O3zaUPZow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Marshfield, WI","date","2025-07-16T13:35:33Z","article","The Marshfield Plan Commission on July 15 unanimously recommended a boundary amendment and project‑plan amendment for Tax Incremental Finance District No. 11 that would add a roughly 10‑acre parcel and the Draxler Drive right‑of‑way to the district to accommodate a planned manufacturing campus and a proposed extension of Draxler Drive. Josh Miller, the project presenter from Cedar Corp., told the commission the amendment would allow the city to use future TIF increment to pay project costs tied to the development.

Miller said the proposal has two practical purposes: to make parcels within the district contiguous and to add project costs so the city may fund public improvements, including a Draxler Drive extension and associated planning. “It gives the city it's a financing mechanism and economic development tool that the city has to help with infrastructure projects, spur on development, add job growth, things like that,” he said during the public hearing.

Why it matters: adding the parcel and right‑of‑way would let the developer realign lot lines and build three planned buildings on a new campus; it would also create a second access point off Veterans Parkway to supplement the existing access at Heritage Drive and the Kwik Trip intersection. The added access, staff said, will improve site circulation for high‑tech light manufacturing and make nearby vacant parcels more marketable.

Key facts and timetable

- Project area: TID No. 11 on the city’s southeast side near the intersection of Draxler Drive, Veterans Parkway and Heritage Drive. The amendment would add Lot 3 (about 10 acres) and the Draxler Drive right‑of‑way to the district.
- Parcel values: staff reported the district’s assessed value at roughly $278,003,300 and said the amendment would add about $300,000 in base value to the district’s roll.
- Project costs and finance: staff presented an estimated nearly $3,000,000 of projected new project costs tied to infrastructure, planning and financing. The cash‑flow model shown to the commission projects the district would be able to pay those costs and is estimated to close earlier than its scheduled end; staff projected a termination window around 2033 (the district’s statutory 20‑year termination is 2036).
- Required studies and approvals: a traffic‑impact analysis will be required before DOT approval of any new access to Veterans Parkway; Miller said that analysis can be funded from TIF increment if the district generates revenues. The amendment process has already begun with a joint review board meeting earlier the same day; the commission opened the public hearing and recommended the resolution so the common council can consider formal adoption. If the council approves, the joint review board will take final action.

Discussion and city safeguards

Miller emphasized the city will not advance major infrastructure expenditures until revenues or development materially support the costs. He said the city typically waits for development to be “built out or mostly built out” before committing significant TIF dollars to construction. A commission member noted the developer — identified in the presentation as an established local company relocating to the site — intends to start construction on phase 1 in the summer, with later phases following.

Commissioner Michael, speaking from his experience with other TIFs, said the proposal appeared low risk: “this 1 is about as safe as I've ever seen 1.” Miller and staff also explained that annexed property requires a payment to the former town for five years; staff said that payment has already been made for the parcel annexed last year and that the council resolution will record that provision.

Formal action

The commission opened and closed a public hearing on the amendment and then voted to recommend adoption of the amended boundaries and project plan to the common council. The recorded roll‑call votes on the recommendation were Yes: Commissioner Michael; Commissioner Frederick; Commissioner Bernardi; Commissioner Caprillion; Council member O’Reilly; Mayor Teastreich. The motion was approved.

What happens next

Staff told the commission the planning commission recommendation will be forwarded to the common council for consideration the following week; if the council approves the resolution, the joint review board will receive the matter for final action. If the joint review board denies the amendment, it would not proceed.

Limits and caveats

- The traffic‑impact analysis is required before DOT will permit any new highway access; the timing and cost of that study could affect when the city proceeds with road construction. Miller said the analysis is “pretty, expensive” but can be paid from TIF funds when increment is available.
- Staff emphasized that projected assessed values and revenues are estimates; the joint review board and Department of Revenue review financial feasibility and revenue projections.

Meeting context

The item drew multiple questions from commissioners and the public hearing saw several clarifying questions about the annexation payment, project timing and maintenance after the TIF closes. The commission recommended the resolution without amendments and forwarded it to the common council for final consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Plan Commission 7-15-2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Marshfield Plan Commission on July 15 unanimously recommended a boundary amendment and project‑plan amendment for Tax Incremental Finance District No. 11 that would add a roughly 10‑acre parcel and the Draxler Drive right‑of‑way to support a planned manufacturing campus and road extension.","taxTitle","Marshfield, Wood County, Wisconsin","taxId",69252,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6169288,"Plan commission asks staff to return with focused proposal to allow duplexes, townhomes and small multifamily in SR‑6",1968,3237000,5205000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3&start=3237&end=5205","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3/thumbnail_3237000.jpg","/articles/6169288/Marshfield/Wood-County/Wisconsin/Plan-commission-asks-staff-to-return-with-focused-proposal-to-allow-duplexes-townhomes-and-small-multifamily-in-SR6","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6169288-3a08817696abbbaa1ebee8f71cf44448/orig.mp4?Expires=1777389731&Signature=J0x-r42AhUdurvqhz06haq8nPrxjKcNiH31FSimJYjcgTIx1rTebxmoZ0umEIJjIFgFunQTiERDnl0TjDWNrWJpPeaovzvQL8yKguXEegqvtUkAPInjEpaPqPl9zZfH5YPCgVjCSvVEg~cmMx5ocu0ILw8LPs015qb7~ab0pz90-voaatZz9o~ghOEIXRi-qQT-5VVVztwBSMwNAb563nksKS2-Ytxst1uFHysVQHkh1AJshiIOD0wGJdJ4k4kCgV6b-aUQ08Eyn-oqi1l0W~l8ywyhopLHVaCz6RY0Lu-0mRNij019eJdsQGSxFKNYnf3UeOENlLVo2ZNA35xevyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","On July 15 the Marshfield Plan Commission directed staff to return with a more narrowly focused proposal for allowing additional residential use types in the SR‑6 zoning district, including duplexes, twin homes, townhouses and limited three‑ to four‑unit buildings in select locations near downtown.

Planner Bryce Henbrook told commissioners SR‑6 is the city’s highest‑density single‑family zone and currently permits single‑family homes and “2‑flats” (one unit over another). He said the initial staff recommendation would allow twin homes, duplexes, townhomes and, with additional limits, three‑ and four‑unit buildings in parts of SR‑6 that are near downtown and where parcel sizes and existing infrastructure can support the units.

Henbrook said constraints that will affect what can be built include minimum lot area, setbacks, building coverage, parking and building‑code limits. He noted many SR‑6 lots are roughly 44 feet by 158 feet (about 6,900 square feet) and that “double lots” of about 88 by 158 feet (≈13,900 sq ft) provide the most straightforward sites for 3‑ and 4‑unit buildings with rear parking access.

Staff recommendations and options

- Permitting by type: Henbrook said the commission must decide whether new types should be permitted by right or via conditional use (which triggers public notice and a plan‑commission hearing).
- Parking: staff flagged parking as a major limiting factor for small multifamily and suggested the commission consider allowing parking exceptions in targeted cases.
- Zoning alternatives: staff recommended two approaches for 3‑ and 4‑unit buildings — either create a new zoning district/overlay or rezone selected SR‑6 parcels to SR‑4 where the larger lot configuration is already present.
- Name change: staff proposed renaming SR‑6 from “Single‑Family Residential” to “SR‑6 Small‑Scale Residential” if the commission chooses to allow a broader mix of small‑scale housing.

Commission reaction

Several commissioners expressed interest in allowing additional small‑scale residential types near downtown to increase housing options for younger households and empty nesters and to support downtown revitalization. One commissioner said the changes dovetail with recent setback reductions and could expand opportunities for duplexes and townhomes. Commissioners asked staff to return with concrete options showing where changes would be appropriate and with draft text to act on.

Formal action

The commission voted to ask staff to come back with a more focused proposal (not a final text amendment at this time) that lays out recommended areas, design standards and draft language. The motion passed.

Why it matters

Allowing small‑scale multifamily and attached housing in selected SR‑6 areas near downtown would increase nearby housing choices where utilities and sidewalks exist and could support downtown businesses by putting more residents within walking distance of services. Staff emphasized the approach should be tailored to context — not every SR‑6 parcel is appropriate for multifamily — and suggested design guidance and lot‑size limits as part of any amendment.","The commission asked staff to return with a more narrowly scoped proposal to permit additional residential types — duplexes, twin homes, townhomes and limited 3‑ to 4‑unit buildings — in parts of the SR‑6 zoning district near downtown to increase housing options and gentle density.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6169293,"Planning staff proposes targeted rewrite of major‑street setback rules to reduce arbitrary 50‑foot requirement",1278,1943000,3221000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3&start=1943&end=3221","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5404673-787b4873ced54bc4705457e890cae1b3/thumbnail_1943000.jpg","/articles/6169293/Marshfield/Wood-County/Wisconsin/Planning-staff-proposes-targeted-rewrite-of-majorstreet-setback-rules-to-reduce-arbitrary-50foot-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6169293-0276c25f8f2897ca0f9fa20da1da98aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1777389731&Signature=GEVcLzKsp2ssBXDeV12C8Y8PktA8X5JN91Cw2ntsooLhygO6pC55j6hzmtQsUCF7eeyhAXTyqQihb6pFie0qQaGXJlaGyFZyEcCm4PHUaDo~2Q079W-MXSmGI-3D8lCkhUAz5g1bRipxWnjiWdMgLCLYkVPSMvFmyfnp020GOmzgQcUoiLgsCbTTmQuHM7oY-8tphrPbzqzaq3Xgq5avj2758eQ8Y4SQKp35~CtE80GZ-qYUiLMv2UJBVkgjslOmDUfaKAeAGZlrBRQdXx8FBip~2ww6T5zkbBdPNlbfURqhBjcRcksG2rk8OjWJLPkNDifSD6wx26zMlMH8NUG4oQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff on July 15 asked the Marshfield Plan Commission to consider a targeted amendment to the city’s major‑street setback requirements that would remove the blanket 50‑foot setback for many streets and instead apply an approach tied to actual right‑of‑way needs.

Bryce Henbrook, the city planner and the item’s presenter, told commissioners the current rule uses a 2007 functional‑classification map to identify “major streets,” which produces inconsistent results when compared to the updated 2017 comprehensive plan. Henbrook said the result has been an “arbitrary requirement” that applies a 50‑foot setback along many streets where the city does not need additional right‑of‑way.

Henbrook said staff’s proposed approach replaces the map blanket with a calibrated method: remove major arterials that already meet required widths (for example Central Avenue and Veterans Parkway) from the requirement and apply an adjusted setback (the property’s underlying zoning setback plus 10 feet) only on corridors where the city’s Chapter 19 subdivision standards show additional right‑of‑way is needed. He said the city could continue to accept right‑of‑way dedication through certified survey maps rather than initiating involuntary acquisitions.

“We're not looking to acquire any, you know, property at this time,” Henbrook told the commission, noting that dedications typically occur during lot splits or certified survey map filings. He said the proposed change aims to reduce the number of nonconforming buildings created when right‑of‑way needs are adjusted.

What staff looked at

- Functional‑classification confusion: staff identified inconsistencies between the 2007 map that the code references and the 2017 comprehensive plan classifications.
- Right‑of‑way inventory: staff mapped streets where Chapter 19 standards indicate additional right‑of‑way may be necessary (examples include Peach Street, Oak Avenue and Lincoln Avenue) and proposed reserving increased setbacks only for those segments.
- Applicability: downtown mixed‑use (DMU) and urban mixed‑use (UMU) districts would remain exempt (0‑foot setback) where the code already provides for that form.

Commission response and next steps

Commissioners asked for clarification about nonconforming structures, dedications and whether existing dedications would be re‑subject to any new requirement. Henbrook said the proposed approach would not require immediate acquisitions and that dedications already recorded through CSMs would satisfy future right‑of‑way needs; he said staff can add clarifying language if the commission desires.

The commission voted to direct staff to prepare a formal text amendment and return with draft language and a staff report at a future meeting. The motion passed without amendment.

Why it matters

The change would reduce the number of properties rendered nonconforming by broad application of a 50‑foot setback and limit the city’s larger setbacks to corridors where future roadway expansion or standardization actually requires additional right‑of‑way. That may reduce permitting friction for property owners along corridors that are not planned for widening.

Meeting context

The discussion grew out of prior internal reviews dating to 2020 and was prompted by recent development review activity (for example, a seven‑foot dedication on McMillan Avenue accepted through a CSM). The commission asked staff to return with concrete text and clarifying edits to the UMU/DMU language.","City planning staff on July 15 presented a draft approach to limit wide 50‑foot major‑street setbacks to locations where additional right‑of‑way is actually needed, replacing an older map‑based rule that applied the setback widely. The commission directed staff to return with a formal text amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Plan commission recommends TID No. 11 boundary and project‑plan amendment to add 10 acres and Draxler Drive right‑of‑way

Plan commission asks staff to return with focused proposal to allow duplexes, townhomes and small multifamily in SR‑6

Planning staff proposes targeted rewrite of major‑street setback rules to reduce arbitrary 50‑foot requirement