With both support and opposition on plan commission, 6:8 sent back to gather more information for Sycamore development review
The Sauk City Plan Commission heard 6:8’s plans for what is now called the Sycamore Community, a planned mixed-used development located in one of the village’s business parks. John Ramthun, from 6:8, has pitched his plan repeatedly over the past 6 months to audiences ranging from interested community members to this very plan commission, now for the second time.
In a wide-ranging discussion following a brief description of the project, the board settled on a few positions. Jim Anderson continued his full-throated support. Joyce Frey came out against the development. Sentiments from the commission included “not the right location” and “not enough detail.” In the end Ramthun was sent back to come up with at least a needs analysis and a business plan, but definitely more detail.
The Sauk City Plan Commission is chaired by David White and its members include Anderson, Frey, Dan Holl, Brian Kehrli, Michael Haas, and Rich Marks.
The Sycamore Community plan
Nick Badura, the Project Manager, from Sketchworks Architecture, walked the commission through the General Development Plan. According to submitted documents and Badura’s presentation:
“The Sycamore Community aspires to effectively serve the needs of the community by locating a range of services and amenities in a campus-like setting. This site is optimal as it provides an opportunity to re-use the existing vacant office building with low remodel costs and has vacant land for a new three-story apartment building. The site is also located near a grocery store, a park, the library, and several potential employers and other businesses with relatively easy access for residents of the Sycamore Community.”
Badura then went on to the most obvious part of the development, the apartment building abutting the cemeteries.
“The proposed apartment building will include up to 84 apartment units, with up to 124 bedrooms total (including some co-living units). … This provides a residential density of 10 units per acre (or 15 units per acre if calculating based on bedrooms). Unit design flexibility is a key principle for the layout. The unit types range from individual co-living spaces to studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom and up to 3-bedroom units. Some units share a door within a unit to provide the option of multiple families having connected living spaces. This will allow 6:8 Inc. to rent the units as needed to fit their program needs while also allowing for market rate apartments within the same building.”
Badura and Ramthun both emphasized the emphasis on social interaction:
“The apartment building incorporates several common-area features to encourage social interaction and community. A large common area is located within the inside corner of each floor in the apartment building. This provides communal activity areas and promotes social connectiveness as occupants move through these spaces to access elevators and the central stairs. Similarly, there are smaller common spaces outside of the units at each end of the hallways for more localized interactions with nearby residents.”
As for the three-story structure fitting in:
“And the new apartment building is positioned on the southwest corner of the lot with planned outdoor areas in front of the
apartment building so as to be visible to people entering the Sycamore Community campus. The proposed three-story apartment building will complement the existing building in terms of both material treatment and scale of structure.”
He continued:
“In addition, the plan is for the lower level of the northern wing of the apartment building to contain a family homeless shelter, a health clinic or similar use, a laundromat open to the public, and a flex space/shared workshop space for programming.” Pathway Home Homeless Shelter intends to operate a family homeless shelter. According to the plan, “the family homeless shelter is not a ‘drop-in’ shelter and will operate with a screening process, personalized case management, and wraparound support for its clients.”
As for the existing building:
“The proposed mixed-use community center that will be converted from the existing office building will be located within walking distance of the apartment building. The community center will offer meeting space, a childcare cooperative, a children’s museum, a cafe, a teaching kitchen, office suites (including 6:8 Inc. staff offices), job training, youth and senior programming areas, a fitness center, and other flexible multi-use spaces.”
Parking is an issue with the new development:
“There will be a total of 254 surface parking spots for the project. Per village ordinances, the apartments will require 163 spots, leaving only 91 stalls “to serve the community center, shelter, clinic, and flex spaces. The ordinances require one stall per 300 square feet for office/retail space, and the 91 stalls do fall short of the roughly 151 stalls that would be required based on the estimated square footage of those spaces.”
“However, all parking stalls will be shared by each of the uses maximizing the efficiency of the parking, and the need for parking stalls will be further mitigated because the apartment occupants will be among the frequent users of the community center. In
addition, on-street would be available on Independence Lane, Carolina Street, and Sycamore Street if overflow parking is necessary for events with higher attendance. Electric charging stations are also planned for the development.”
In all the final price tag “was figured at approximately $20 million to construct the new apartment building and approximately $2.5 million for the existing building remodel.” As for a timeline, “The goal is for this development project to commence with the existing building remodel in 2025. The second phase would be the apartment building starting in 2026, as soon as funding is in place for the construction.”
As for management, a prime concern of the Plan Commission, the documents had this to say:
“Both the apartment building and community center will be managed by onsite staff of 6:8, Inc. with appropriate experience and training of managing a large apartment building with an emphasis on relationship building and integrating residents with the service opportunities available on the Sycamore Community campus.”
“Other service organizations and tenants of the community center will be expected to align with the core principles of 6:8, Inc. to help realize positive transformational change for both the residents and visitors to the Sycamore Community.” The document continues, “[Pathway Home Homeless Shelter] (or any other tenant) will be required by 6:8, Inc. to manage the shelter with experienced onsite staff with requisite experience and a track record of safety and accountability.”
“I’m very concerned”
“I’m not in favor of this,” said Frey, soon after the presentation was completed. “I’m very concerned.”
She cited a similar project in Madison that has proven to have problems, including crime.
“There’s a proven case study here,” Frey said.
“[The project in Madison] had wraparound services too,” she said. “I think you’re trying to do too many things.”
Frey concerns included whether 6:8 staff had the experience—a concern voiced by other plan commission members—and what would happen to the development if 6:8 no longer existed. “These are serious concerns” she said.
“Even to consider this we would need a lot more information,” she said, early on in the meeting, but by the end had echoed a sentiment shared by all commission members.
Frey also touched upon what other members did—lost property tax revenue—and the figure thrown around was $30 million. Even with the Sycamore Center fully built out, it seemed to be a losing situation when it came to tax income for the village.
And this touched upon precisely what the meeting was: a plan commission meeting to review a proposed mixed-use development in a business park. It was a discussion of facts, as Frey noted when explaining her opposition, speaking of her research and “facts.” The Plan Commission brought up the concerns and questions asked by every plan commission (if they are doing their job properly): how will this affect taxpayers (potentially adversely, in terms of tax revenue), how will this affect the neighborhood (it’s currently a business park and nearly all plan commission members noted it didn’t fit), and what will this cost the village (an unanswered question Frey noted).
“A lack of empathy”
One person who seemed upset by the plan commission’s standard questions and concerns was the case manager at Pathway Home Homeless Shelter in Baraboo, Jessica Herrewig. According to Ramthun, 6:8 has a memorandum of understanding with Pathway to construct, pending zoning change, up to 10 units for a homeless shelter that would be managed by Pathway as a 2nd location for that organization. Pathway Home would be a tenant and lease the shelter space from 6:8.
Our of the blue during the meeting Herrewig proclaimed, “The lack of empathy is incredibly concerning.”
For the most part commission members did not feel the need to rebut the erroneous accusation.
She did say that Pathway Home was “not a slumlord,” and that the example Frey had cited didn’t do background checks.
Herrewig said that her organization, in allowing people to stay for 90 days (and not “drop in”), did background checks and vetted the individuals. She said the shelter in Baraboo had: “No police, no shootings, no crime.”
“It doesn’t fit the property”
The plan commission and Ramthun see the same property in nearly opposite ways. The Sycamore Community is a plan for mixed-used residential development squarely in a business park. It just so happens that surrounding that parcel in the park are all the amenities 6:8 wants: a grocery store, a library, banking, retail, employment opportunities. But the plan commission wants that parcel to remain as it was intended: as property for industry to develop.
And land is precious in Sauk City. Several references were made to fact that the vi8llage is land locked as far as development goes. That makes every parcel precious. The parcel that 6:8 wants for the Sycamore Community the village wants for development and tax income.
That it doesn’t fit the property was a sentiment seemingly shared by all save Anderson, as several commission members made references to “We all agree it doesn’t fit.”
“How are we benefitting the tax base and taxpayers?”
Several plan commission members questioned whether Sauk City and the greater community could even support such a development. Rich Marks felt that the number of units was high, particularly with all the new housing coming, and asked whether there could be plans to build out in stages.
“Sauk City does not have the pocketbook to solve these problems,” said Frey.
Other commission members, as they had at previous meetings, asked whether Police Chief Josh Sherman had been consulted and what he had to say. Although Ramthun at the meeting said Sherman had “signed off” on the project, Sherman said he had not. Sherman said “I do believe that there is an opportunity to provide the community with this type of development,” and confirmed he had a discussion with Ramthun several months ago about the project. Sherman continued, “We did brainstorm some possible ideas for safety and how to have impactful interactions with police and the public.” Noting that he had limited information and therefore “not much to go with,” Sherman said “the intent of the project is in the right place and I do appreciate 6:8 for all that they do and want to do for this community.”
Such concerns about “soft” costs, for social services, and those not necessarily expected by 6:8 but that might evolve, were echoed by members. There was also the simple calculus of whether the village and its taxpayers would make any money from the investment—something business parks are designed to do. Michael Haas asked after the presentation: “How are we benefitting the tax base and taxpayers?”
“Raising the bar”
“I know there are a lot of scary stories,” said Ramthun. “We’re going to raise the bar.” In further communication with the Star News, Ramthun expanded further on what the community could provide:
Affordable housing and support resources—one of the top priorities of the project.
Healthcare support including public health services, health literacy classes, and wellness education.
Cooperative childcare program and a public interactive play experience.
Short-term shelter for families experiencing homelessness through a partnership with Pathway Home of South-Central Wisconsin.
A workshop and makerspace with shared tools and resources.
Community Cafe that promotes employment and job training.
Support resources to help ensure the long-term success of families in need, including youth and senior programming, mental health services, job training, education, spiritual support, laundry services, and social networks.
Spaces for community and agency partners.
Location is critical to the success of this facility, especially given the lack of public transportation in our area. Our neighbors need ready access to jobs and everyday necessities, especially food.
“I wish we had a better spot”
Marks echoed the sentiments of most of the commission as the meeting ended by saying, “I wish we had a better spot.” As Ramthun described the modern “isolation society” and how “more diversity [in housing] is better” there was a palpable sense of agreement with the plan commission members as well as the gathered audience about the fact that a need exists in the abstract.
The question for the Sauk City Plan Commission is whether 6:8’s project is the right one for the village and its taxpayers.
