Subscribe for 33¢ / day

In May 2014, La Crosse had an intensive, week-long public planning exercise for the former Mobil Oil and Patros properties just north of the La Crosse River.

This “charrette” was intended to yield a master plan for the city-owned 65-acre site between Copeland Avenue and the Mississippi River, considered one of the last significant tracts of undeveloped land left within city limits.

In that, the session was a success: La Crosse has a detailed vision for what is possible on what now is referred to as Riverside North.

Yet 18 months later, little development has begun on Riverside North, even as new hotels and buildings spring up nearby in downtown La Crosse.

Getting the site ready for construction has proven more costly and complicated than anticipated.

And without an access road, utilities and other infrastructure, the 35 acres of usable land on Riverside North remains in a holding pattern, with developers wary of taking the plunge.

It could be years before anything goes up on Riverside North. Or, depending on interest, it could move forward sooner but at a more modest pace.

Reality is it will cost millions for soil fill to raise the property out of the floodplain.

And the city doesn’t foresee having that money anytime soon.

So the grand plans have to be modified to something more realistic.

“It’s a really big project,” said Amy Peterson, city planning and economic development administrator, “and it’s going to take time.”

Long process

The city and its Redevelopment Authority worked over decades to assemble the Riverside North property, finally acquiring the 12-acre former Patros Steel site in 2010 for $1.9 million, adding it to the 26-acre Mobil Oil tank farm, 8.3-acre Western Wisconsin Ready-Mix plant and 15 acres of city-owned wetlands.

Contaminated soil at the site had to be cleaned up before any development could begin. But the 2014 charrette seemed to signal the project was poised to start, with a consultant projecting $90 million of mixed residential, retail, commercial and recreational development might be possible.

Yet an attempt to market Riverside North in July 2014 fizzled despite the city contacting about 50 prospective developers for proposals. City officials wanted to see how much interest was there in the wake of the charrette but hadn’t anticipated the dampening effect of not having a shovel-ready site.

So they’ll concentrate on putting some of that infrastructure in place, said city Planner Jason Gilman, who was hired in June, a year after the charrette.

“Provide the funds,” said Mayor Tim Kabat, who had Peterson’s position in the planning department from 2003 to 2010, “to try to tackle various pieces of the puzzle there … I think I’m just as anxious as anybody on when are we going to get some development out there.”

The only hitch: Finding the money to make that happen.

While each annual capital improvement budget usually has something for Riverside North, it’s only a fraction of the estimated $2.4 million needed for fill alone. The city usually aims for only about $7 million to $8 million annually in new borrowing for capital improvements, so can’t afford to give that large a share to one project, Gilman said.

“The money just hasn’t been there,” Gilman said.

Phasing it in

The best approach now might be developing Riverside North in phases, filling each section in as they go along, Gilman said. That would add tax base that could then be used to promote further growth.

The most promising starting place is right along Copeland Avenue, which has drawn the most interest, Peterson said.

The 2016 capital improvement budget includes $300,000 for an entrance to Riverside North, connecting to the existing signaled intersection into Three Rivers Plaza. The city already has secured a $750,000 state loan to acquire property for the access road at 11 Copeland Ave., now owned by JRD Ltd.

The 2006-built Three Rivers Plaza project offers a glimpse of both the potential and challenges to building in that area, Peterson said. The Three Rivers complex boasts $20 million to $25 million in retail, office space and condominium housing, but the site had to be built up before construction began.

Some fill from Department of Transportation projects had gone into Riverside North to start the process, but the city had to focus on getting the former Trane Plant 6 property at George and St. Andrews streets ready instead after it was sold for $1.9 million in 2014 to Stizo Development, Peterson said. In setting up Tax Incremental District 15, the city committed to raising much of the 12-acre property by several feet to get it above the 100-year flood level.

The Riverside North property is within Tax Incremental District 12, so the city could offer payback on some of the development costs over the years using the additional tax revenue, or increment, generated by the new property value created, Gilman said.

That could be enough to encourage a developer to step forward on Riverside North and get the ball rolling, Gilman said.

“So we don’t just wait for the capital improvement budget each year,” Gilman said. “We have to be opportunistic.”

He stressed this does not mean giving up the master plan that emerged from the charrette 18 months ago.

“Phased doesn’t mean piecemeal,” Gilman said. “Development still can occur around a strong, common concept.”

0
0
0
0
0

(23) comments

Wis_Taxpayer

http://host.madison.com/wsj/ap/state/gop-lawmakers-propose-bill-shrinking-state-natural-resource-areas/article_4d4d7455-b2a9-5a12-a0c7-521f189b93a6.html

Wis_Taxpayer

Why isn't the Trib covering this?

GOP lawmakers propose bill shrinking state natural resource areas

Sen. Frank Lasee, De Pere, and Rep. Adam Jarchow, Balsam Lake, wrote in a memo to their fellow legislators seeking co-sponsors that the bill would facilitate development, leading to more jobs.

“This (legislation) focuses on cleaning up the agency regulations and state laws that have been making Wisconsin less competitive for both residential and commercial growth,” the lawmakers wrote.

Amber Meyer Smith, a lobbyist for environmental advocacy group Clean Wisconsin, called the bill troubling and said it will lead to more development of wetlands.

“These appear to be pretty sweeping changes that are going to have a negative effect on water quality across Wisconsin,” she said. “There are ramifications to building in water bodies, to be sure. With the water quality problems we’re already facing, it’s not a time we should be relaxing our standards.”


Mack

That's odd. When it comes to filling in the La Crosse Marsh, there is never any shortage of soil. Shouldn't the polluters be cleaning this up?

common-cents

Common sense tells me to start the development and watch it take off with just one good anchor, then watch the boats get built around it.
Get it on the tax rolls and lower my taxes, witch are the highest in the country.

Mack

Highest in La Crosse county, not the country.

tomoba

Segmented development is the obvious solution to this project. It extends the time frame but assures financial viability and reasoned expansion. Initial construction will spur additional interest and funding. This project can be a showcase of how things should be done. Good luck to those who are involved.

taxedout

Thank you, Jim Rosenberg. Your comments are certainly worthy of consideration.

Jim Rosenberg

Just looking at the aerials, it appears that the site is a bit larger than the Oktoberfest grounds and the Oktoberfest grounds appear to be on higher ground. Logically, the needs for operating seasonal festival grounds for limited periods annually would seem like they would be less than what is required for buildings that are occupied full-time with businesses or multi-family housing. This might create an interesting opportunity to develop the existing Oktoberfest grounds to new,compatible uses with its immediate neighborhood, while creating new Oktoberfest grounds with a more prominent entry feature and infrastructure to better support the festivals using the new grounds. (I realize that I'm probably stirring up a hornet's nest with this kind of suggestion, considering the tradition of the current grounds. I also know nothing of the ownership situation. But I think it is worth a discussion, if we want to talk about highest and best use, together with cost-effective use of resources.

57

Like it...It is perfect,so it will not happen.

reader0520

I like it too.

capedcrusader

The owners want to develop that property. Your ideas have already been explored. It's all a matter of what the powers that be decide for the future of Lacrosse.

Opus

It's an interesting ideas that has been vetted. It does not seem to make a lot of sense to tie up this last developable piece of property for a fest ground. I doubt the current fest site has any real development value.

capedcrusader

Your kidding right?

Blubyrd50

Leave it for wildlife and for the health benefits to the citizens of La Crosse, Turn it into a park where people can enjoy nature and views of the water, don't drain the Marsh, and connect it to Myrick Marsh with under-road corridors so wildlife can travel between the parts of the La Crosse Marsh lands without having to cross the roads. Our preservation of features of the original natural resources is what makes La Crosse special, not more new housing and shops. Let new buildings be built in the already developed spaces, leave our few remaining un-developed ones alone.

random annoying bozo

sodosopa? or Shi Tpa Town?

realtorick

In the meantime we could allow a tent city for homeless. Out of site.

realtorick

Removal of 1400 Northside properties from the 100 year floodplain better come first.

57

yes

LaCrosseTaxPayer

City hall doing what they do best, $crewing things up and showing their worthlessness!

Machiavelli

Did they put the EcoPark Committee in charge? Just curious.

“Never attribute to malevolence what is merely due to incompetence”
― Arthur C. Clarke, 3001: The Final Odyssey

“It happens; incompetence is rewarded more often than not.”
― Jeff Lindsay, Darkly Dreaming Dexter

“I can’t do my job, if you don’t do yours. I also can’t do my job, so can you do mine too?”
― Jarod Kintz, Seriously delirious, but not at all serious

“The most dangerous irony is, people are angry with others because of their own incompetence.”
― Amit Kalantri

“In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.”
― Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle

“Politicians, it’s like they’re competing to be the most incompetent. Well, guess what? They’re all winners to me. And by winners I mean losers.”
― Jarod Kintz, So many chairs, and no time to sit

“I am not fit for this office and never should have been here.”
― Warren G. Harding

57

Eco Park = no Zoo AHs

spaceis411

still no clue - the zoo was not possible. you still don't get that - how sad.

Tim Russell

You are right - the Eco Park Board of Directors did a very poor job. But they weren't part of the City Government.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thanks for reading. Subscribe or log in to continue.