Common Council - Regular Meeting

We'll call this um meeting of the Lake Mill City Council to order for December 16th, 2025. Misty, would you please call the role? Miss Curler, here. Miss Schmegger here. Miss Quedno. Mr. Coots here. Mr. Waters here. Thank you. Thank you. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Our next agenda item is correction and acceptance of the city council meeting minutes from December 2nd. Are there any comments or corrections? Oh, okay. Okay, seeing none, we'll accept those into our public record. Uh, then we have board and committee reports and acceptance of board and committee meeting minutes. We have public works board from November 11th, parks board from November 10th, and the economic development commission from June 3rd. Any uh reports from anyone or comments on the minutes? Mary? Um, I would like to just ask a question about the public works board meeting minutes mentioning the narrowing of East Prospect between Birch and is it Moss and I was just curious what the rationale was for that.

Uh, it's wider than the standard specifications on our uh, street design. Oh, okay. Thanks. Um, and I would just note that uh I think our city manager, Mr. Daly's last name is misspelled on the parks board minutes and I think it was misspelled on something else on our agenda tonight. So, it caught my attention. So, but I don't object to it the minutes otherwise. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we'll accept those minutes into our record then. Uh, next item is correspondence and constituent contacts. Uh, Greg Waters, would you like to start us out?

A lot of golf course correspondents. That's about it. Okay. Mary, uh, I also had golf course uh, correspondence. I had Century U parcel um, correspondence. Um, memo on the public hearing for Daybreak wastewater application DNR meeting. uh correspondence on Sandy Beach concession stand, an RLIA memo that had came with all of their updates, and then received the loose news release. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Coots. Uh nothing else to add?

Nothing in addition to that. Okay. Um I had similar um a couple of contacts about the golf course development. Um Daybreak Foods DNR hearing. Um I in addition to the other ones mentioned, I had a contact from Legendary Lake Mills about um wanting to make arrangements to use um Wallace Park as a backup for Nickerbacher, which they just do in case of weather. So we'll probably see something on our a future agenda about that. Um I got some information from uh Colton Hutchinson at Jefferson County about sand migration uh because he was aware that um a couple of our boards had been had some questions about it. So, he sent me some information that I will forward on to Drake to um for uh staff and and uh committees to use. Um and then um I attended a Jefferson County legislative breakfast which I think this is the third time um that they've done this and it's an opportunity for uh where leaders are invited to um hear remarks and ask questions from federal leaders and state leaders. And I thought it was pretty interesting. Both Drake and I were in attendance and it was interesting that the federal um uh senator and and congressman talked uh largely about health insurance challenges and the state uh leaders talked largely about housing challenges which are both things that we face uh here in in Lake Mills. Um but I also wanted to uh give a particular shout out to our city manager Drake. He made remarks that uh really represented the city well and talked about the challenges of um well I think your word was broken um the state system where we have to grow in order to receive state funding and um just how just identifying some of the challenges uh for a local municipality to our state representatives. So I really appreciate you taking the time and and being so articulate and talking with them. Drake,

thank you. Uh, and last but not least, uh, we did have a Sandy Beach uh, park work session. Um, and because those, uh, are not recorded and don't have minutes, I thought I would just highlight very briefly that, um, we met as a council last week and we talked about goals, our overall goals for the Sandy Beach Park redevelopment. Uh, and we have a draft set of those. We we're is still uh, work to be done on those. And then we did go through the parks board recommendations for recreational activities and gave kind of a little bit of ranking and sort of a start on prioritizing. We identified some other topics for discussion um and as staff to um start working on um paid paid parking and come up with some recommendations for that. And then we plan to meet again and hopefully we'll have something more final for our community to look at in the spring. Is that a relatively good brief summary of our work session? Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Uh next item on our agenda is public comment. Um so we have two individuals who are have registered to speak. Uh people are invited to address the council at this time. Please state your name and address when I call on you to make your comments. No actions will be taken for items that are not listed on the agenda and each speaker is limited to three minutes. Uh so we do have two people who are registered to speak on the golf course which um is not on tonight's agenda. Uh but you are welcome to speak. And here is our three-minute timer over here for your reference. So the first person is Ken France.

Hello. Uh my name is Ken France and my wife Julie Taylor and I live at 331 Pinnacle Drive. We have lived here for over nine years and absolutely love this city. This is our retirement residence for many years to come. We built our home here because of the welcoming downtown atmosphere, the extensive green space, and the natural activities that the bike trail, golf course, rivers, and lake offer us. As a new golfer, I have loved golfing at the Lake Mills Golf Course, and we have been members for the past nine years. Losing our community's golf course would be a step in the wrong direction for the city of Lake Mills for the following reasons. Loss of green space, increased traffic due to increased housing, weakening of the high school's golf programs, and the loss of access to an activity that is growing in national popularity, namely golf. If we lose this golf course to build houses in an already established neighborhood, we will never get it back. There is no reversing this mistake. The current golf course owners claimed that they tried their best to run a profitable business uh but did not succeed. They tried to sell it to someone who would keep it running but were unsuccessful. There is no doubt in my mind that an owner with better PR skills and more experience running a golf course could make Lake Mills Golf Course a successful money maker. The current owner's failure to succeed is no reason to change the current zoning. Uh the future land use map for 20040 shows the golf course as part of a fully developed neighborhood. Room for future

housing growth is shown on northeast, southeast, and eastern outskirts of town. So there is ample room for expansion already planned for. In closing, the Lake Mills Golf Course has been an important part of our city's legendary identity for many years, and losing it would be a tragedy. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vance. Our next registered speaker is Julie Taylor. I'll just reset the clock here for you. That Julie?

Okay. Good evening. My name is Julie Taylor and I live at 331 Pinnacle Drive. I would like to thank all of you for your time, effort, and commitment to the city of Lake Mills. As city council members and public servants, I'm opposed to the housing development proposed for the Lake Mills Golf Course. I have been extremely grateful to the decision makers from years past who had the foresight to choose preserving land and natural areas over development. Often these decisions were not considered economic, efficient, or even reasonable at the time, but years later proved to be in the best interests of everyone. This has been true for Lake Mills. Some examples are included in this book. It's called Lake Mills 1881 to 1936. I checked it out of the library. Um, which was written in 1936 by Paul Garrick. I don't know if I'm saying his name right, but he was a street commissioner for 25 years and a mayor for seven years. Mr. guarantee notes that Commons Park was bequeathed to Lake Mills in 1842 by Chester Patterson. Then the rights and title to the park and all the unsold lots in Lake Mills were bought by Mr. Miles Meard who later specified that if the park was used for anything but a public park, it would revert back to his heirs. And today we have a beautiful city centerpiece because of this past decision. Mr. Gerokei also explains that Tyrannina Park was given to Lake Mills by Reverend and Mrs. EG Updike in 1918, but the gift needed to be accepted by the city council. The council tied at 3 to three. So, Mr. Garrick, who was mayor at the time, cast the deciding vote in favor. In the book, he writes, quote, I was heart and soul in favor of accepting the park, and so it was one of the great pleasures of my life to cast the deciding vote. Close quote. He also writes, "If you wish to see beautiful scenery, go to Tyrannina Park and see

the beautiful sunset across Rock Lake. It will be well worth your while." How end quote. How true this story still is today. It's also interesting that Mr. Garrick lists in 1936 outstanding new businesses and he includes the quote Tyroneina Golf Course located near the depot. End of quote. Clearly, the golf course has existed here for a significant amount of time. It contributes to the unique nature of our community. It is a valuable asset both historically and environmentally. It is a hidden gem that might need some polishing to bring back its sparkle, but it certainly should not be destroyed. I hope future generations will not be disappointed in decisions made today and say, "What a shame. This used to be a golf course." but instead be grateful and appreciative of the foresight exhibited by our current dis our current leaders in deciding to preserve the Lake Mil Mills Golf Course. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that's our last person who has registered to speak this evening. Thank you very much. Um, next agenda item is the city manager report and we have quite a few of our uh regular monthly financial statements and other reports. Uh, Drake, is there anything you want to share with us tonight? Uh, if there's any questions tonight, I am happy to take them.

Any questions for Drake? Okay, seeing none, um, I will just note uh, Misty for the record that Michelle Quednau did join us uh, during the uh, public comment period. So, you can include that in the notes. She's here. Okay. Okay. U if there are no questions or comments um on the city manager report, we will move on to council business. And our first item is discussion on cancelling the January 6th, 2026 meeting. Uh Drake, you want to hit kick that off?

Uh we don't anticipate any timely items that need to uh be on an agenda on January 6th. Um it it is typically a difficult agenda to get put together as staff is out for holidays. So, um, absent any pressing items, uh, staff is comfortable if the city council would choose not to meet. Does any any council member disagree with cancelling the January 6? We don't need a formal motion. You're just indicating to us that you don't have anything pressing and you're recommending them cancelled. Any concerns, Mary?

Well, I have a question. Would that be an opportunity for us to do our second uh working session on Sandy Beach regarding the food and beverage topic that we had discussed as a at as a next step in our working session last week? I guess it's it's a possibility. We did um say at the end of our last work session that we wanted to schedule another one. I don't think we've put anything on the calendar. So u maybe we can talk about that at the at the end of the meeting. Okay. Thank you. But are people comfortable cancelling having a regular council meeting on that evening? Yeah, I'm okay as well.

Okay, sounds good. Well, then that's good to be aware of as we go through the rest of our agenda tonight in case there's anything that we want to carry over. Um, if there's no objection, I'm going to propose um using moving a few things around this evening just because of the um folks that are here, staff and and um agents. So, I'd like to skip down to uh E and F, which are the Brookstone phase 9 items, and then go down to the um um the ordinance 1286, the uh zoning amendment, and the associated GDP. So, so that's the Mangan proposal. People be okay with moving those four items up. Okay. So our next item then would be uh letter E resolution 25-76 for the final plat for Brookstone phase 9. So Misty, would you read that title for us?

City Council resolution 25-76 final plat approval Brookstone Meadow subdivision phase 9. Okay. Can we have a staff overview before we take a motion?

Sure. Um, our design engineer is here if there is any specific questions related to the design. This is the final phase of uh the Brookstone Meadows subdivision. Um, it will be 19 single family home lots um built out in largely the same manner as the uh previous phases have been. The plan commission did uh and the plan commission and the public works board both recommended approval. Great. Are there any questions regarding um approval of the phase 9 final plat?

I'll move to approve city council resolution 25-76 final plat approval for Brookstone Meadows Meadows subdivision phase 9. Second. So we have a motion by Greg Waters and a second by Michelle Qued now. Any further discussion? Okay. Seeing none, Misty, would you please call the role on resolution 25-76? Miss Schmeagger, I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler, I. Motion passes 50.

Thank you. So then next, let's go to letter F, which is re resolution 25-77. Misty, would you read that title for us? City Council Resolution 25-77, bid package approval and authorization to bid Brookstone Meadows subdivision phase 9. Okay. So, I see Matt Hustlet has come to the microphone. So, you have some information you want to share about this?

Um, yeah. So, our last phase here, Drake was kind of alluding to it um previously, very similar to phase eight uh with the culac. We are, as you kind of page through the drawings, we are stopping short of Harvey Road with this um phase that is planned to get picked up with the Harvey Road reconstruction next year. Um along with Brookstone phase 9, again, very similar um nothing too new or out of the ordinary for for this phase. We are adding Brookstone Drive extension um off of American Way. That's four lots, single family. Um, on the east side, again, there's not a whole lot of complication to this project in general. Um, I can go through a couple numbers for like an OPCC and everything if you guys are are wondering about that as well. Um, the CIP is for 2026 for Brookstone phase 9 is 1.25 million. Um, our engineers OPCC currently is 1.08. 08 million. So, we're currently a little bit under. We obviously try not to have an OPCC higher than the city's budget. Um, you know, just in case, you know, something happens, right? We don't we don't want that. So, um, we are planning on bidding in early January this year. We're going to advertise on December 31st with a bid opening on January 22nd. So there's a early window here that we're trying to encourage contractors to bid early. Um a fairly uh you know wide open green space project, a good project for a contractor to put some good competitive bids on this project and uh hopefully start you know late winter, early spring and and get some lots ready to build by the summer.

Thank you. Any questions for our uh engineer on this project? No questions. I just say thank you for bringing this forward um at this early time. I think it's a great strategy to try to, you know, get get on the contractor schedules early and hopefully that means we'll get a a good price. And just for um council kind of knowledge, we will be coming to um for Prospect Street soon here in in January to hopefully follow Brookstone pretty closely and and hopefully for competitive bids on that, but that'll be a a bigger discussion with a few items on that project. So,

great. Thank you. Okay. If there's no further questions, uh, Misty, would you please call the role on resolution 25-77? I'll move to approve. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Uh, city council resolution 25-77, bid package approval and authorization to bid Brookstone Meadows subdivision phase 9. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Greg Waters, second by Mary Schmaker. Thank you, Greg, for making sure we had a motion. Um, any further discussion on resolution 25-77? Okay. Now, Misty, would you please call the role? Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler,

I. Miss Schmeer, I. Motion passes 5-0.

Thank you. Okay. So now, as I indicated uh earlier, I'd like to move down to letter J on our agenda, which is ordinance 1286. Um then we'll do K right after that. Those are um sort of companion pieces. So u Misty, would you do the third reading of ordinance 1286. Ordinance 1286 amending city of Lake Mills ordinance section 660-44 official zoning map city of Lake Mills Wisconsin partial identification number 246 to 07140734025 owner Robert Mangan vacant land east of Brewster Drive and northeast of Tyrannina Park Road Lake Mills Wisconsin.

Thank you. So this is the third reading. So we can uh take a vote on this this evening but I see we have our consulting planner Dustin Wolf here. So, we'll let you go ahead. And also, uh, Mr. Mangan's agent, Chris Carr, I see, is is present. So, uh, Mr. Carr, did you want to make a presentation or just be available for questions? Uh, I'm just available for questions tonight. Okay. Thank you. All right. Then we'll, uh, turn it over to Dustin.

Okay. Um, at the last meeting, you'd asked for kind of a brief presentation on I think it was more of like a recap on where we're at and how we got here and such. Um the memos that we've put together for plan commission obviously they've been brought forward through the council and available uh online kind of do have a a brief summary of of the kind of development process um over the last now 11 years related to this site. Um so the original development which I'm sorry in this graphic is a little difficult to see. Um the existing uh Rockley luxury apartments out there um were developed in in 2014. Um it was reszoned from agricultural lands to uh multifamily um with plan development district. There were other elements to that um that included a two family component that ultimately couldn't be built because of some issues with the lands. And then the one that we're talking about tonight is this southern piece which was reszoned R1 um uh at that time. Um and so you can kind of see how the site laid out at that point. Um the lands um went through a series of iterations over years, tweaking to the plan development district, but ultimately we have about 144 units out there along the interstate and kind of where Brewster Drive uh dead ends. I'm going to show you just very quickly a series of kind of graphics that highlights kind of the kind of iterations um to kind of where we've gotten to um what's come to the to the um council. Uh at the July meeting this past uh this past July plan commission, the public hearing was held on this um proposed resoning and and and general development plan. This was the single family layout uh that was approved. It was not platted. So I want to make that very clear. It was not preliminary

platted. It was just shown as a as an um a detailed element of the plan development district at that time. Um it was part of the certified survey map and it had these lines but it was not a platted single family development. This was done because there are utilities that run through that site. We needed to understand how this was going to develop in the future. When you look at an aerial um you can see kind of the uh emergency access that's out there. uh that was required as a part of the original um development plan uh and includes uh water um in there to make sure we had a loop water main. Uh so that goes back to to to 2014. Um kind of fast forwarding a little bit to around 2022, late 21 and early 22, uh they did start coming back in with some proposed um changes to the single family uh site. And uh there's been certainly been a lot of discussion about should uh should the city um pivot from the kind of expectation for this plan development district that there will be a single family component. uh they brought forward uh this uh development that showed a series of single family lots and then on the north end in the colored area was um uh some multifamily um that uh didn't go forward for a variety of reasons from their end. It certainly wasn't a a layout that the staff was was very happy with. Um it just didn't have the elements that we look for uh when a development occurs. Um, and there was still discussions with plan commission uh on whether or not they were willing to change from from full single family. That time they weren't enthusiastic about this development plan and ultimately didn't give it a positive feedback uh at that time. Um uh then they came back uh

in 23 going into 24 with more large footprint multifamily buildings and a series of duplexes um because they did get some feedback on transitioning from the plan commission uh with concept reviews. Uh again, this is one that the staff and ultimately the plan commission weren't enthusiastic about. Um needing to transition away from the the 14 uh unit buildings in the north on the existing development as we get to the to the single family which is in the town on on the south end. But again uh too many large footprint um uh u buildings out here. Didn't have a lot of creativity design. Didn't have unifying features. Um but continually kind of um having meetings with the with the plan commission uh came back with some smaller footprint items. I just really trying to show that there was an iterative process to getting here. I know um understands this. He was involved in all of this. Um it's been a long road to get to where we're at and I just want to show that that there certainly has been a lot of time and energy um expended by staff and plan commission on this. um plan commission gave them more feedback on smaller building footprints, having them feel unified, not just kind of isolated buildings that you would drive up to, but it felt like a neighborhood. Um this is our last iteration that came to to plan commission and ultimately to to the council this year. This was from July and kind of onward and then there was a series of changes that we've kind of requested as as a part of that. Um the other moving piece to this was the need to change the future land use map um which was uh changed back in September um from uh just single family to our planned neighborhood district which still allows only single family but also allows a mixture of of housing types. And again this is duplexes or single family attached uh smaller footprint um uh multifamily and then

some larger footprint multif family as you as you get to the north. Again, there's unifying features in the center of uh recreational space. Uh area for congregating um kind of their own, I'll say private park within there. Uh sidewalks throughout and such. There were still some changes that we've highlighted here that the plan commission made recommendations to. Uh that is a part of a resolution. I'm looking at Dan on this. Um that should you decide to approve this that that would be uh an element of that. Um ultimately they came in with around 140 units. The plan commission paired that back to about 134 units of very specific building types. So many duplexes, so many 8 units, so many 14 units. Um, some changes here uh that were recommended by staff that were included in the approval by the the recommendation from the plan commission reor reorienting some of the duplexes. Um, switching out some duplexes. There was one that was added to the south, moving it back to the north. Um there were changes that that the uh developer made that were at the recommendation of the um of the plan commission was was to move some of the larger footprint buildings away from the existing single family in the town. Um which they did. Uh again, we have sidewalks throughout. We have parking throughout. There are certainly detached garages, but you can see there's a kind of a unifying center park that would have some sort of gazebo space, etc. uh with uh uh grills for congregating. Um this is for the general development plan. So the reasonzoning before you is to reszone to um R312 with plan development district to allow these these unit types. The general development plan ultimately would be um to if you followed the the uh plan commission's recommendations would be for a specific maximum number of units, specific number of units by type um and then moving some of the elements that

were outlined in this uh in this graphic that were approved as part of the recommendation coming from the plan commission. This is the entitlement process on the general development plan. There still is more work to be done on the site related to an approval process. They would still need to come back to the plan commission for the precise implementation plan. That is detailed engineering that is detailed building plans, right? That's creating storm water uh water uh sanitary um building architecture, building materials, all of that still would need to come back to the plan commission. There were recommendations made as a part of this um um um process from the plan commission to the to the council. Um but ultimately this just says to the developer if you were to approve this general development plan, yes, you can move forward with a development that will have this layout and will have this many units with this density. The density is way under what's what's allowed. Again, the goal here isn't to shoehorn as much in. is to make sure that we have um a unified comprehensive design that makes sense for creating the sense of a neighborhood uh out there. Um the uh resolution that's been provided to you kind of walks through how it complies with our comprehensive plan. There are many elements in here. Uh mixture of housing types. Um larger multif family developments following the plan development process. um having uh central uh congregating um features, recreational features within them. Uh having um pedestrian um pathways, sidewalks uh throughout, connectivity to the major roadways, and then again, there's a sidewalk out uh to Tiny Park Road, which would connect ultimately to the uh to the park across the street. Again, there's a lot of things in here that align with our requirements um as spelled out in the comprehensive plan, but as I said, there's still a whole

another process that has to be gone through. This is really the entitlement component. The rest is um uh our building site and operation plan, precise implementation plan, a review and approval process that would lead them to getting to uh building permits. And the resolution does walk through uh in detail um kind of those those elements in here as well as talks about how it meets our findings for approval of a general development plan. And if there's specifics questions that you have, I can certainly answer them. I was trying to stay brief.

Thank you. And so we do have two items. One is the res the zoning amendment and then the next agenda item would be the general development plan. So, we it would require two actions. Drake, did you want to

uh just uh the city council also asked for a history of um residential development that's included in a in a memo in your packet. Um it does list from 2015 through 2024 using city assessor uh data. And then there is also a section that has some approved and some um potential uh developments that are um that the council would be aware of. Some have their approvals, others have their approvals and aren't moving forward. Some have their approvals and are moving forward but on an unknown timeline and some are only potential at this point.

Thank you for that. I know a couple of us had asked for that at the last meeting. So, okay. I got a quick question on that on that memo. What's the housing addition out uh south of town on Highway 89, Tyrronita Point or um Drumland Crossing or 1324 South Main Street Apartments? Not the Drumland Crossing, the one further south between the apartments. Yeah, 1324. The North Pulk, that's the name of the developer. The name of the apartment complex is just 1324 South Main Street Apartments. 20. So that was 2023 multi-units there. Yeah, it's a couple forplexes. 23 units total. Okay.

Across multiple buildings. Okay. I didn't recognize that with the uh with the uh the Oak's name. So that explains that. Thank you. They were approved for a condominium plat. Um, it was never proceeded to recording by the owner. The council did adopt at their request. They applied for a condominium plat and it was approved. Um, I would have to check the timelines, but it's possible that has expired by this point.

Michelle, did you have your hand up? Well, f first I do want to say that this um the the hyperlink and maybe I'll just reload the page, but the hyperlink um for the staff report, okay, got updated and that's why I couldn't get to it. Um I do have a question, Dustin, about the picture that you were using um previous to this with the red boxes and the red lines and things like that. Is is that the Yeah, that one. Um, I am having a hard time visualizing what that final product would look like with all of that in there. Is there a final uh plan with all of those changes within them?

We do not have that from the developer. Okay. So, again, this is a recommendation that this was a staff recommendation to the plan commission. the plan commission reiterated that in their resolution uh their approval um their recommending body and the petitioner brought forward to not to to have the we called for the removal of an 8-unit building in the middle right and so um their request to you was to keep that okay the comm the recommendation from plan commission and then reiterating from the staff is to remove that 8-unit building to to drop down to 134 units

okay So if you were to approve this with the recommend the verbatim recommendation came out of the plan commission, they would need to provide us with a revised plan that addresses all of these specific comments that are included as a uh an appendix or a graphic of that resolution because it's all we have at this juncture. Alternatively, you could wait for that plan to come before you rather than just relying on the statements that are made in the planner's memo if that was your prerogative. Okay. Thank you.

And then again, just to clarify, so we have two items before us related to this um proposal. The first is ordinance 1286, which is um what's currently on the table, and that's uh just a zoning amendment, and then the second is the general development plan, which would be um what we're looking at on the screen with the staff and plan commission recommendations. Right.

Correct. So there's for the re when you reszone to a PDD a plan development district you then you must approve a general development plan you must approve a precise implementation plan and you must execute a development agreement. The um you're allowed to go multiple tracks toward that approval. One is the general development plan being approved first and then the precise implementation being approved. It can be a dual track um process, but in this instance, if you approve the zoning change, you then can approve the general development plan, which then moves us on to the precise implementation plan portion of the approval process. If the council doesn't like doesn't want to reszone to the plan development district or does not want the site plan or wants significant changes to the site plan, I would not advise you to approve the zoning change until you're comfortable with what is going to be in that general development plan because you are you're you are granting a certain amount of entitlement by changing the zoning. Okay.

So to clarify on that Michelle's question, I had the exact same question regarding what the picture I I could follow the arrows, but I was trying to visualize what the changes would look like. And so if if we say if we were to like we would say no then to the vote and it would come back with a different plan. You'd postpone to a date certain letting them know what items you need. Okay. To move forward. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

Just for clarif clarity, I just want to see make sure that I understanding the plan on commission motion was on October 1st. Is that correct? According to this up here says 2510. Yeah, they don't usually the first meeting of the the public works board that or excuse me the plan that month, excuse me. So it would have been like the fourth week of the month. October is correct. Okay. So it's been since October and and we haven't received an updated picture. Is that correct? Well, an updated plan. Their request is to maintain the 8-unit building,

right? And but we have the power to say no, you have to fix it. Correct. Okay.

I guess I' I'd clarify that we no one ever asked us about a question. I mean, we've been here for three meetings now. No one said, "Hey, do you agree with these?" I we had met with staff and and some representative. And we've tried to address some of those meetings. Um so, uh I don't think anyone has ever said I know I specifically have never said that we disagree with any changes. So, I'm not sure where that's coming from. Um we have been here for a very long time. Um and you know there there's and we respect and and hope glad we're making progress. Um so we're willing to walk forward. I think um we would want to obviously there's a recommendation. We want to hear from you. We didn't hear any specific on any of the first two meetings like hey I I agree with this or don't agree with this piece. Um, so if there were some specifics, um, hopefully there's a process that we can keep moving forward in some way. Um, but I can certainly walk through that. I mean, that would be our goal. But I would clarify, um, we have not said no to any changes as of now and no one's requested that or said, "Hey, can you provide a new site plan?" I think we're mostly waiting for feedback on whether this group agrees. Thank you for that clarity.

Thank you, Mr. Carr. So, um if there's no further staff um introduction, I guess I'll open it up for comments from council members on the proposed ordinance 1286, which is the zoning amendment. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment or discuss? Waters

started. Um, as uh Mr. Wolf outlined, this has been a a wear down process that has this group has continued to come to planning commission and city council over and over and over the years. Um the last time we we met on this issue was September 2nd which was ordinance 1279 which was to amend the comprehensive plan uh future land land use map. In that process it was important to us that a plan neighborhood was included in the language. And as you can see, seven ordinances later, we see them again, and they do not mention planned neighborhoods in the zoning uh the zoning map ordinance. So, that's been dropped. Um to me, I think that the plan neighborhood is an important element. Uh it ties it to the comprehensive plan and it stresses the importance for single family housing. Looking at future projects, we're looking at 37 single families that are currently on the docket or that we're aware of. There may be more based with the golf course. I'm not sure. But from a uh based on what's been approved on multi-ousing or what's being proposed that's including this uh sentry site that comes before planning commission later on this week, we're looking at 458 units uh for multi-family. So that's a lot of units um for a city our size. So I do have concerns with this project and with uh the plan neighborhood not being part of the uh of the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Wolf, I wonder if you could address that. I it it's my understanding that Planned Neighborhood is not a zoning district itself. So, can you clarify how how this how planned neighborhood relates to this ordinance?

Yeah, planned neighborhood is a uh future land use category, right? And it's and it's spelled out in our comprehensive plan. Yes. Uh we use it for larger um growth areas of the community um to enable a variety of housing types that can include combinations of single family. I'll say single family detached, which is your traditional single family. Single family attached, which could be um town houses, uh um zero lot line or um duplexes, right? That's an ownership structure issue. Um and then variety of um multifamily types and sizes from uh triplexes to quadplexes to eights to to larger depending upon uh the project. The goal behind the planned neighborhood is that we do look at a large geographic area holistically so that there are elements of variety of housing types. So, while this specific property was changed to plan neighborhood, that could be expanded out to include the multif family to the north, the single family also around it could also be included to create that planned planned neighborhood. Um,

sorry, Dustin, can I interrupt? Yes. What's the difference between a planned neighborhood and the planned development district overlay?

One is the future land use category. the plan neighborhood. The other is the regulatory framework to make it happen. Um the comprehensive plan very clearly calls out that large multifamily developments and including plan neighborhood developments should likely be done by plan development district. It gives the municipality the greatest amount of control and flexibility for both the community and the developer to make certain things happen. We do not have a zoning district that allows for multifamily and single family on a single property. We would need to do that by plan development district which is um what's happening here with the duplex or single family attached and the multifamily. Our multifamily district allows for home sizes more than uh for three unit and above buildings. It does not allow for duplexes. That that's getting into the weeds. It's a very uklitian traditional zoning type, right? Duplexes are are two family district allows for single family and two family but not multifamily, right? Or three-unit above. And again, like as I said, the reverse is true. So, we use the plan development district to um enable these types of projects to happen, but also to give control to both the plan commission and the council when listening to a developer to make their case as to why where's the public benefit um for uh using the planned development district. Because if we just have street zoning, I'm going to look at the city attorney on this. If we have a district that says multifamily and it allows single family and two family and duplexes and uh excuse me and multif family within it, if someone comes in and wants to do single family, you would let them. But if they only want to do multifamily, you would have to let them.

Stop them. Yes. So um we use the plan development district to give control to the community flexibility to the developer if they meet certain criteria thresholds right uh goals of the and policies of the long-range plan the comprehensive plan design features that are desired by whether it's planning or um public works or engineering uh design elements, architectural elements desired by the plan commission and the council.

So, I like the idea of a planned neighborhood, but not necessarily the idea of multi-ousing in this community. What and that was when we talked I guess when we talked about ordinance 1279. Maybe that's why we added the plan neighborhood language. I just don't feel as comfortable, I guess, with this type of language for some reason.

With regard to the ordinance itself, the action that the ordinance specifically contemplates is an amendment of this area, this this lot that is currently zoned R14 solely single family to R312, which is our m multif family designation with a PDD overlay. So I think represent or respecting actually like what the process is there is kind of the initial point to the discussion that you're engaging in. Um that is a formation document that says this is now zoned multifamily with a PDD overlay. You have to um comply with the terms of the the plan development district requirements in the code but you have reszoned this property as fit for multifamily development. So with the PDD overlay, it's basically forcing them to take an additional step of approval process

certainly through the GDP the the um general development plan and the precise implement implementation plan which is yet to come with regard to their plan. So the the the other step that you've previously taken, the amendment to the future land use map, which you did by ordinance, changed the future land use map designation from single family only to a planned neighborhood development. The council kind of gets to decide what a planned neighborhood on this site looks like. This is one option to them based on what this developer has brought forward along with his request to amend the zoning from R14 to R312 with a PDD. That's that's where you're at. The future land use map has been amended. Right now, you have a zoning ordinance amendment in front of you to allow for uh multifamily housing in accordance with the plan development district. Um and then they have a plan that is currently in its general development phase form. um that has been presented to you that you may comment, you may authorize by resolution today on the next item, but right now you're looking at the ordinance. So my opinion is too is that to add the plan neighborhood language to the ordinance specifically isn't necessary based on the future land use map amendment that you've already taken. You have said this lot, this specific lot that we're addressing is fit for planned neighborhood development in the future. what that is, we don't know. And that's why you're you're looking at an ordinance change regarding the the actual foundational zoning of this property

and on this ordinance 1286, which is a uh zoning map. Yep. We're not critiquing the development itself. I don't I don't think so. I think having the conversation with both items, and I I'll let Drake speak on this, having the conversation with both items in mind is appropriate because you would only change the the zoning the the base zoning of the the property if you have a reason to if you have a plan that you're willing to move forward on. Go ahead.

So, yeah, the main the benefit of the PDD to in this in to the city council is that you maintain control over the specifics of what gets built there. So in a in a very in a small component of this plan, right, the PDD is what allows the developer to put in duplexes next to eight units next to 14 units. But the PDD is also what allows ultimately the city council to say this 8 unit is going to be a duplex. So that is the negotiation back and forth is flexibility to the developer but control by the policy makers. My advice to you to maintain the maximum amount of control that you that you can in this process is if you are not comfortable with the site plan as designated in the general development plan to not approve the zoning change because I I believe you would lose some amount of control over that. you would you would have at the very least you would have acknowledged that this zoning change this is now a planned development district rather than an R14 single family development. So I think the council should have a comfort level with the general development plan prior to adopting the city the the ordinance change. So I do believe that yes, as part of the ordinance change, you can offer feedback and critiques and requirements to the developer to amend their GDP and withhold your approval of the ordinance change until you are comfortable with the with the plan that's been presented to you. that is essentially what will get built out

under the regulatory framework of the plan development district. So

I I would like to um add a comment um and then I'll call on you Michelle. Um so in ordinance 1279 uh which the council adopted a couple of months ago. It does very specifically say, and I think attorney Dresser alluded to this, that we, that ordinance was amending the future land use map from single family residential district to planned neighborhood. And then it went on to say in accordance with the proposed reszoning of the subject parcel from single family residential district to multifamily residential district with a plan development district overlay. So I think that was or you know should have been all of our understanding that the step we took with ordinance 1279 was going to be leading to the zoning amendment that is before us tonight and that the same terminology um was used there in terms of the zoning district that was defined. So I think this this is the next step. Um, I think we've had, um, at least one that I can think of in the last several months where we approved a land use map and a zoning amendment change without seeing a general development plan uh, for a project that where that wasn't required. So, um, this gives us a little more insight. Um, and because we do have a plan development district, I think we want to see the general development plan and be able to comment on it. Um, I personally am comfortable approving the zoning amendment and then working on um whatever changes we might want to see um with the with the general development plan and give that feedback tonight. Michelle,

um I kind of agree with you and I kind of don't. Um, in listening to the recommendations of city staff, I'm wondering if it would be best for us to um to to table it um until the next meeting so that we have the opportunity to provide the feedback that that is being allowed of us to amend um any of the the the ordinance as it's written. just I understand that we've had this in our possession for the last three meetings. I think up until today I didn't understand that I had the ability to say no this is what I want this to look like. Um, and perhaps that would address some of your concerns, Greg, with regard to what does this look like and how is it this is going to look because in all honesty, I what I'm hearing you say is that you don't want to have another building of of of apartments that that multifamily feel seems like it would be an extension of what's over on Brewster versus having um if they if it's an 8 unit that those would be like four duplexes or something to that effect. I I'm I'm only speaking for myself. I personally would like to like take a look and and and really sit down with the pictures that there are in here and say this is what I would like to see in this spot. But if that's not something everyone else wants to do, then I guess I can be the minority.

Craig Coats or Mary, did you have any comments? Sorry, I'm not looking over this way regularly. Um, I was I was on the planning commission for several years before transitioning to the council. I saw several of the old iterations of the designs. Um, the one thing that always stuck out to me, uh, was that the idea was this part of th this piece of property was supposed to be, in my mind, it was always supposed to be, uh, transitional in nature from, you know, the bigger, you know, development to the the single family homes. um that in whether it was zone single family years ago or or whatever that was, the the the transition always seemed like the important part to me. Um the plan that we have that we're looking at now, um and I haven't been at the last, you know, several months of planning commissions now being on council instead. Um, but it it certainly seems like it's transitional in nature, which is what I always thought the spirit was was supposed to be. And if the planning commission is recommending a a particular plan, I would trust the work that they've done and and the effort that they've put into it. Um, listening to we we've had no we there hasn't been a shortage of of community feedback on this. So, if they've been able to work something out, I would I would I would support what the the planning commission has come up with as far as general terms. There may still be specifics to be hammered out, but I would I would feel comfortable with something if the planning commission feels comfortable with it.

Mary, did you have some thoughts? Yeah, I have I have quite a few thoughts actually. Um, when I first looked at this as single family, I actually had quite a few concerns given that it appears as if the original Rock Creek development didn't have the size design that from largest to smallest to grad get into this being full single family and that the the particular homes that would be adjacent to the lot line on the north side here. I don't know if you can move that picture down, but yeah, up there.

Yeah. Um, no, no, no. Go back up. No, the one you were on. The one you were on, Dustin, please. Just to the top of the picture. So, just scroll down so you can see the top of the picture. There we go. So, that very large, there's some very large apartment buildings. And so in the spirit of the transition, I guess I would have expected that parcel which was multif family to have the transition embedded to lovely in my ideal world take us and buffer us nicely down into a single family. So in the absence of that, I fel feel like that that portion where we have the retention pond and that first larger unit would have been undesirable single family homes right up next to the the big apartment big the biggest buildings there especially that one that's kind of at an angle. So the in the transition of this plan I think I like because it meets that recommended policy that says you know going from higher size to lower you know from multi to small. I think I think this fits the spirit of it. Um, and I look at it as the duplexes as being like 18 single family homes because there's nine there's nine. They're single family attached. So, it's at like 18. Um, this could have taken 60. So, if we were trying to I'm kind of going to the conversation we had a few meetings ago, Greg, about like, you know, what percent would you kind of want in a planned neighborhood? And it has roughly in in our comprehensive plan, although I know it wasn't precisely talked about, but if around half of the we want around half in a planned neighborhood to be single family, this is around 30% of duplexes and I know it is a it is a housing

product we do not have and it is in our comprehensive plan that we desire it. I have talked to a lot of constituents over the course of time I've been on council who've said they would love a singlestory um you know kind of low entry zero entry um vehicle me a a housing product and so I'm really I'm I like the fact that that is what is a part of the offering. Now in my ideal world I would have more of them in in lie of the multi-unit buildings I I would like you know I now is it 50% so you'd have 15 instead of nine is that feasible is that something that would meet the um you know the needs of the developer but I I feel and I like there's some aspects too. I've I've heard from some of the residents that live along there, you know, like pondering a little bit around having a new neighbor in their backyard, but I feel the how the the developer has addressed even the big burm. If you go out towards a KMAW delofield, there are some spanking cool neighborhoods and they all have BMS with trees on it. And if you drive or walk through those neighborhoods, it actually I I like it a lot better than having a neighbor's back of their house like right in my backyard, which they would have if it was a normal single family development because they wouldn't be required or they wouldn't be required to have to put a bur. So I think there are a lot of aspects that I address um the concerns of the neighbors. Um, as if I were sitting there, I would like the I would like to see make sure that we I I saw size of tree and one of the requirements that there are at least sizable trees um being addressed on the

Burman and especially the neighbor on the corner here who has the the tree barrier, if you will. But I I feel like this is a a development that it it doesn't get us the full single family. An ideal world would be lovely to have, but I'm not sure that this is the right parcel to fit full single family given the transition never occurred back when we built the Rock Creek apartments to begin with. And so I I so I I like this other than I I really would desire to see a larger number of the duplexes in lie of the larger apartment building size. So whether it's removing of an eight or a 14, um that would be my ideal state. Not to say that that that would be something I would like to be considered, but other than that, I feel like this this meets I I think some needs that we have here in the city in a place where it it aligns with its neighboring the kind of environment. I guess

I want to I appreciate um the comments about transition um which I share. I guess I also wanted to add um just again kind of linking um how the plan commission which I also served on for a couple of years, how the plan commission approached um different proposals that Mr. Mangan and his consultant brought forward for this property and also looking at our comprehensive plan which was recently revised in the last couple of years. And a big uh discussion item in the comprehensive plan that the plan commission grappled with and the council um reviewed as well is this idea of missing middle. And so we haven't actually made any ordinance changes or or uh specific um well I guess ordinance changes. we haven't made any or ordinance changes to make it easier to develop the missing middle and so I think we had several conversations at plan commission saying you know this is this is a way or a path to sort of accomplish some of those goals of the missing middle and as you said Mary having the variety of housing sizes having something that has more of a neighborhood feel um and so the plan commission certainly did give um this developer um some direction along those lines and tried to I think use the use the framework that we have in our current ordinance but the goals of the comprehensive plan to try to get at this missing middle piece. Um and as I agree with you Mary also the um and Greg the the transition idea to have that have that transition. So, I feel that this is, you know, within the confines of our our current ordinance. This is a way that we can kind of tackle and and provide that missing middle. Um, so for me, I'm I'm in support of the ordinance change and the or the ordinance for the zoning amendment change. And I agree that we can give some additional

feedback on the general development plan if there are things that we would like to see changed further. Great. Um, Mary on your math, I may be doing my math different than you, but but I look at the 18, if you're considering the duplexes as single family, 18 units divided by 134 is roughly 13 and a half%. Oh, I was just doing it based

by buildings or something. Well, I was doing it by we could have 60 single family in there and instead we're getting eight 18 which is 30% of 60 roughly. So I so I was doing it off of the what if this was full single family you know all single family what percent and and I was yeah and and then it's hard doing the units drive me crazy because it's like you have area and you've got if I look at it it's like a is it a third and so I was just trying to think through

yeah so so how do we choose on what you know 50 the multifamily is the way when we count it it's challenging on the numbers because you have one building but you when you look about the people per unit your numbers can go fast because you have one building with that counts for a lot on the people's side. So I was just trying to look at it as based on single family. If we had just 60 single family and instead you know if we had 50% we'd have you know 30 and that would mean 15 of these duplexes instead of nine. So we're kind of close close to 50% based on what we could have had had us was straight 60 straight single family. So I was looking at it more as a single family relative difference.

Yeah. Not not not compared to the multif family. So when you do look at the comprehensive plan, it talks about planned neighborhoods. It it defines single family, it defines duplex, multifamily. So they categorize it as different. And when they talk about single family, that's not duplexes. And when they're talking 50% for planned neighborhood, they're talking single family, not duplexes. So, just want to make sure we're Yeah. looking at things the the same way.

And I think that's a point of I think that I I'm not sure exactly where all those percentages came from because if you look at all of our reporting, we don't report on duplex. We don't talk duplexes and two family. We don't segment it out. And so I think that it is it is a concern a little concerning though that we have that noted actually a few times in comprehensive plan but yet it's not something that is a part of our decision-making criteria even at the planning commission level and talking about a duplex two family as its own category. We don't count them. It's not in the reports. You know what I'm saying? So, I know Dustin's probably got a comment there

only on why we call some of these things out because they often get overlooked, right? We either have a traditional single family detached home or we have large footprint multifamily. If we don't call out, just like we do in the missing middle, the types of products that we're trying to achieve, we we're going to lose track of them. They're not on the radar screen. So, if we say we want to get some duplexes out there because they're a good transition, they're a good housing product. And I use duplex or townhouse is kind of the same thing, right? That the same with three units and I and I know that Miss Kur was talking about cottage houses, right? Um these are products we want to see. We are always challenged by who owns the land and who's developing it and what do they have in their portfolio to um in in their product portfolio. That is always a challenge that we are going to grapple with. And we would then have to tell some developers, no, we're not going to develop land because you don't have cottage homes in your portfolio. You don't have that that arrow in your quiver. So, we're not going to let you develop your land. As for the planned neighborhood, when we have applied it, it has been usually for like 40, 60, 80 acre tracks of land. When you look at the future land use map, it is in the large growth areas because there may be certain areas that have a large segment of single family in certain areas that have that are more logical to have multifamily in them and then uh some of the transitional pieces are uh uh duplexes, triplexes, quads, right? So we are this is a 15 acre site which sounds large till you start really developing it.

Right? If we were to apply the plan neighborhood out here, if it was again raw, it if it was just open land, right, it would include all the lands around it that have single family, have other multifamily, right? Um to to generate what is considered a planned planned neighborhood. We are applying it to a moderately challenging piece of land. It is sandwiched between some existing single family in the town. It is if you include the lands of the north, it was flanked by the interstate and then on the east side is the county's lands which they use for um yardway stumping and the uh sheriff's gun range.

This is a challenging piece of land that um we were again in 2014 felt that single family was was the way to go. transition is the arguments have been made and that's kind of where we've how we've ended up up here. I will say it's not perfect for the developer. It's not perfect for the city, but it is a much improved transition from the single family to the multif family to the interstate ultimately. And so that's why those iterations you see them pairing back the large footprint buildings, those are the most efficient for the developer to build,

right? um but it doesn't achieve what we want to see out of a neighborhood development and housing products. This got us much much closer to those uh priorities in the comprehensive plan. I think there's I appreciate you mentioning the uh cottage housing and and some other things that I've talked with you about and I you know it one of another thing in addition to the challenges that you identified is that the plan development district while it has a lot of um gives the council and the city a lot of you know ability to negotiate and get what we want out of the development it's very nebulous and vague. And as I think Mr. Carr and his client can attest, they've been to many, many meetings trying to figure out what do we all what do we want? You know, like what does this city want? Just tell us what you want and then we'll, you know, we'll bring that forward. Um, and so I think anything that we can do even, you know, beyond this development and or have the plan commission work on updates to our ordinance or or, you know, things that uh follow on some of the tasks in the comprehensive plan implementation chapter to to put that in writing, you know, in an ordinance change or so or something that um we can help developers know this is what we're looking for on these sites. and then you don't have to have quite so much back and forth.

If I can just add on the kind of guidance side, we do have in our zoning code when we wrote it whole section on multifamily development design guidelines. It calls for I'll say public spaces or congregating spaces within the developments. It talks about the orientation of buildings. It talks about relationships of access drives and rideways and pedestrian uh ways. There is a lot of detail in there and um there are things that we are absolutely looking for in our development types that may be different than other communities are looking for and um you know we we've had back and forth with with the developer on those elements saying look these are the expectations of the community. It came out in the comprehensive plan process on what they what the public expects when there is multif family development. It also reiterated what our design guidelines are which has resulted in good development whether it is the Drumland crossing or summer ridge or so again on character and physical elements spatial relationships between buildings context issues with neighboring land uses there is a lot in our zoning code that provides guidance there are things the in the missing middle that our zoning code kind of predates even it's not that old that it doesn't address when we talk about um cottage type houses and some others. So

yeah, I guess if there are if there is feedback feedback like Mary had mentioned that you know if there's a path on this kind of I guess general idea of the of the development plan that you like the idea but you want to see more duplexes involved in. I think that's the feedback that is most beneficial to the developer at this point. Obviously, if it's a um if you're just opposed to the idea in general, then of course it's a prerogative to vote no, vote no as well. And that would be a much different site plan than if if if you're saying there must be a single family, you know, plat involved in this. Um, you know, the the duplexes are it's it is are it's unique in our zoning code because twin homes are a single family housing product in our zoning code. Um, in an R14 district, you can have four units per acre on a 15 acre parcel, right? you could have had 30 you could have platted 30 twin homes uh constructed that and you would have been compliant with our single family housing district and that would have never never gone to plan commission never come to um city council. It would have been just approved administratively assuming they met bulk regulations. So, um the there is a little bit, you know, the the comprehensive plan does call out, you know, two family housing specifically, but our zoning code contemplates at least the ability to put in a duplex style housing product into an R14 zoning district.

Mr. Car, since you are here, um I I have a question for you. There's been some discussion about the transition and um Dustin, if you could scroll up slightly just to that top of that diagram once more. Um u do you know what the unit numbers uh of the size of buildings that are just above the proposed pond? Uh both both to the right and the left. Do you do you know off the top of your head or

I I think that building that consists of 12 14s and 16s I think in that range. Um I don't know the exact those are a little bit smaller I think on there but they do get bigger. Um our project just has the 214s in the northeast corner kind of backing that area that kind of the no man's land to the east. Um that that's my memory. I don't have the exact numbers, but I do. Okay. Um, there are one, two, three,

four 16 unit buildings within the Rock Creek Luxury Apartment Comp Comp complex and 10 8 unit buildings. Where exactly they lay out, I don't have that for you. But the 144 units, there are four 16unit buildings and then 10 8-unit buildings. And I think that math works out. So probably then in this diagram on the to the upper right of the pond, those would be the 16s and then the upper left would be the eights. Right. Okay. Thank you.

The 16s are located in the southeast corner of the northern development. Okay. And that's existing development. That seems to match what the aerial looks like on this diagram. So, okay.

Yeah. I I guess I would just make a couple comments. I I I think we're most likely closer than you have. If you go down to the marks, we've already since the last meeting, um the two uh the side by side, you know, duplexes, everyone think vertical, but they're actually side by side, one story. Um, we swapped an eight out for a two. Um, and I think you get uh the staff request is just for us to rotate and we don't have an issue with that. Um, there's um a comment about also I think rotating the one kind of on that little seven area and closing that road. We don't have an issue with that one. There was a question about losing one twounit building in there. Um, we also think these are going to be popular. I think, um, by spreading them out a little bit, um, and pushing the eight units, we can give the spacing, which I think the planning group wanted, and not lose one because I do think it's important to have more of those buildings on there. Um, really then the only question we're talking about is taking another 8 unit to a 2unit. Um if and I we can certainly talk about that and if that if that helps us move forward I think we can. Um we've taken a lot of units out of it. Um Bob's not here but um we do have to move it forward. So I think of like ripping everything apart. We've done a lot of work with staff to get very very close and you are going to have another kick at it and to pick little pieces apart. But I think we're very very close on the layout as far as we've gone. And I I I I think maybe even and I don't know if we say uh

minimum of nine two units but up to 11. Maybe there's some middle ground where um we're literally just talking about one building here. I think if you look at the transition when we bring the two unit up, it's really pushing more into the eight. if the difference of six units is critically important to this group, um it's fine. But but I do think we've made significant progress and these are really just very little planning items and I can come back and turn it so you can see it. But the concept of the transition and how we're working through the site is still there and us moving if I move these buildings 10 feet at this scale, you won't even notice it and you will have another look at it. So, I I do think we're there. Um, if you want us to come back, we will, but I do think from a staff perspective and from a developer, we're there. We still got a ton of work to do. Um, so maybe there's a path forward and it might not have everybody that that we could um move it forward. Um, so so that's it. We we've done a lot of work and um we've continued to kind of transition and we really don't have huge comments um about issues with the comments brought together in these recommendations. Um there's some general comments about uh how County V uh make it more safe. Uh that's a county highway, so we don't expect there to be bringing a lot of traffic. So, we we plan to bring a sidewalk in there, but we can't some of that wording is a little general, like we'll work to work with staff to do what's appropriate and what can be approved by the county at the intersection. Um, but I think we've shown that we are a partner and willing to listen and hopefully we can um move forward tonight.

Miss Curler, C, can I just run through a couple things here real quick just so we're on the same page of what what came out of this markup?

Sure. Yeah. Um, so we did hear a lot from the neighbors about the transition, especially right behind their homes. Earlier iterations had five duplexes behind there. This last iteration shown a six. We're saying remove that six, make it five, spread them out again. Move that sixth one and replace the 8-unit building here in the middle with it. Okay? Reorient that. You see how you have driveway and such back here? You remove this eight. You reorient this duplex so it's facing the others. And the new duplex goes up here and it's facing outward. Right? All of this can become grass again.

All this can become grass unless the fire department says they need an access for these eight units. This could dead end here. Um and you don't have people driving through the back. So you have these duplexes. You would have these three duplexes here and their backyards would all face each other, right? That that's the goal behind this. As I said, they did move an eight unit up and bring a two-unit in. We're saying just reorient this so it's facing forward. So their backyard isn't facing the they don't have this yard facing the side. The people in their backs aren't it's a weird configuration. So backyards are oriented the same way. Um and and it doesn't really change any of this. Those are really the big changes that that were coming out of this. So, um, if that kind of paints a clearer picture for you, I I think sometimes in the staff and we're so used to doing this that we can see that in our head um, you know, inevitably. So,

thank you, Justin. Michelle,

I think for me, I am fine with with a variety. Um, and I understand the transition piece and trying to bring it from what's happening up in Rock Creek and then bringing it down into that neighborhood. Personally, I would love to see less of um you know, like I I per I personally would like to see where there's a six or four unit um and and or if it's row housing or something so that it isn't necessarily the same look as what's happening in Rock Creek and just a continuation of that. Um simply because uh there's a couple of things. One of them is I would like to be able to provide housing that is um more accessible to more people. Um and giving that that that that ranch style is great, but there are other types of of housing that can provide those types of services as well. And it's we have an aging population, so I want to be cognizant of that. Um and sometimes apartments are just not for that. And I worry that if we have too many of those multi-unit buildings, a lot of the con concerns that our constituents have about there being too many apartments, too many multi-house areas, it's going to just um exacerbate the problem rather than show them that that that actually what we want to do is provide a variety. It just looks different. Then you can have eight units, but how does that look is what I'm thinking about. Yeah, I'm a statics person, but that's that's where my brain is at at this point. So, if it's going to be an 8 unit, I would ask that it be an 8 unit that's not an apartment building. That's my feedback.

Yeah. The only thing we could offer on that is we do expect the architectural feel to be much different than the current Rock Creek and we've committed to that. So, okay. um uh visually it will feel different. All those units on the bottom level are all ADA so you can walk in and walk out and then half of them go upstairs. So we c we are willing and we've talked and it's in the commission that visually and architecturally they will look different than Rock Creek all of the buildings phase one.

Yeah. Dustin, can you touch on the control? I guess the the input the council will have into design aspects once if this proceeded yes to the PIP if the council wants to hear it.

Yeah. The the the PDD process is right concept general development plan precise implementation plan. Think of it in terms of on a single family concept preliminary plat final plat right the plary plat is saying to the developer we understand how this is going to lay out and if you bring something forward that is generally in alignment with this it'll be approvable but whereas in a single family development we don't know what each house is going to look like you the plan commission and the council have the control over the architecture over the vernacular of the buildings of the materials right whether something's a walk up or a traditional suburban whatever whatever it might be, that is absolutely going to be as a uh in the hands of the the plan commission and the council. They will need to come back and and we did make this clear through all of the staff reviews on types of housing products that would be acceptable for what we're looking for out here. Um at this stage, right, it's lines on paper. They have an understanding from, you know, internally on topography and how things are going to drain and where utilities are going to go. But they haven't designed all of that yet because that's where it gets really expensive, right? So the goal here is to get them to a point where they know where they're what the yield is going to be on this site, where the general footprints of buildings are going to be, where roadways and such are going to be so they can, you know, sharpen their pencil. But yes, they must come to plan commission and I'll say sell them on the building styles that they are proposing, whether it's the duplexes, the 8plexes or or the larger. and then ultimately it gets reviewed and approved by you as well. So, um, caveat that it may not necessarily come specifically to the plan commission. I'd have to go back and look at the code. Haven't looked at that, but but it is in the plan commission's hands absolutely about what the architecture will be and you and you the city retains that level

of control. Okay. Uh, Mr. car. Um, one other item that is on the uh the was the planners and the plan commission's recommendations was relocating the sidewalks and I wanted to see if you had any concerns about that or if that would be something that u Mr. Mangan is amendable to.

I think it's fine. Um what we've found in these types of buildings is that um when you're walking across with driveways um there's a lot there and that people prefer when they're going on a walk to come out their back door and have more of a item. That's just what we found. If staff and community would prefer it in front, uh we can certainly do that. We do have um sidewalk in front on the main thoroughfare. So, your main north and south. Um, and I think that will be nice as kind of people going through. So, it's kind of two different. Our original thought was two different areas. You've got, you know, if you're kind of going through or want to do something, you you'd be in front, but then you also have this area where if you wanted to take a walk where you had the BMS in the back, but to us, uh, that's fine. We don't either way is fine.

And I just want to add on this side. It's really for that duplex section. And again, we don't know what the duplexes are going to look like. the the city has not allowed a dup duplex development. We have codes on um the uh uh driveways. So, we're not going to allow you to have a drive two twocar driveways that are immediately adjacent to each other and you have, you know, 45 feet of pavement going across them. You will need to separate driveways. So, again, we wanted to make sure they understand that the side people walking through the duplex backyards is not what we're looking for. It's a little different on the orientation on the 8-unit buildings. So, we're trying to create a feel when you're in the duplexes of um being in a neighborhood, right? People walk in the and and on the sidewalks and you're engaging with people because we would look at duplexes that have prominent front porches and that where people will engage each other uh in the public realm and then obviously have a year a rear yard for their own kind of private usage.

And and I appreciate your your comment, Mr. car and I I can see where some people may want to, you know, like walk in the back of the buildings. To me, that feels more of like a trail kind of experience, whereas the sidewalks are more of the gives a little bit more of a feel of a single family residential neighborhood where people are out on the sense now that they've heard it. So, yeah, we don't have an issue with that. Okay. Thank you very much. Great.

I guess I'd like to touch base on what Michelle just said. I really liked what she said. Um, when I've traveled to Europe and in Asia, I see I don't know if it's exactly what she was talking about, but when I look at this as a traditional 8-unit building, I'm not excited. But if I rethink it the way Michelle just said it, then I could consider that more of a planned neighborhood and I would be more excited about something like that because then it's more individual units than just being in an apartment building. So, and just to make sure I like that. Thanks.

Yeah. So, to make sure we're all clear and and giving um clear feedback, are you talking about sort of the architectural aspect of it that it doesn't look like a flat face of an apartment building that it maybe looks more like town homes or or separate town? Well, everyone could could define town homes different. You're kind of looking like single unit row housing type things. Mhm. So,

but to get back to what um what city staff was saying in that we those are all things that we can come back to later. So, um with that in mind and my stupid computer decided to to take a sleep. I would like to um um okay shall come up with the words. Move to approve ordinance 1286 amending city of Lake Mills ordinance um official zoning map city of Lake Mills Wisconsin. Is there a second? Mr. Coots will second.

Okay, we have a motion by Michelle Quednau, second by Greg Coots to adopt ordinance 1286. Is there any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, uh, Mr. would you please call the role on ordinance 1286? Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, no. Miss Kurer, I. Miss Schmeer, I. Miss Quidnau, I. Motion passes 41.

Okay. Thank you. So, uh, then I'd like to go on to letter K, which is sort of the companion piece. That's resolution 25-82. Misty, would you read that for us? City Council resolution 25-82, general development plan declarations and findings. Petitioner Robert Mangan, Northern Management Company, General Development Plan to allow planned development district on the vacant land east of Brewster Drive and northeast of Tyrina Park Road, Lake Mills, Wisconsin. partial identification number 24607140734025.

Thank you. So, uh we've had quite a bit of discussion already on some of the features I think of the general development plan. Um but so before we have a motion, are there any other comments that people would like or questions for our planner or city staff or or Mr. card. Do we want to summarize, you know, some of the feedback that we've had?

Mary. Mary, I just have a specific question regarding um uh the resolution itself on page two, item number seven. It notes County Highway B. Is that a typographical error? And should it read V as in Victor? improvements to yes. Okay. Thank you. So I would I'm sorry. So scrier's error will correct it. Thank you.

So I think some of the feedback that we have given well number one I I I didn't hear any objection to the staff feedback and the the what the plan commission recommended. So I think that generally the it's council seemed to be in support of of those recommendations. Also we heard some additional feedback on maybe one more uh large unit building um one or two being converted to duplexes um architectural features that would make it feel more like a neighborhood. Um was there anything else um that we wanted to give in terms of feedback? I I think I'm sorry.

Yeah, please. I was going to ask for your advice on how to There's certain components of things you listed that you may want to change the general development plan. If you want more duplexes, that would be reflected in the general development plan. So, I just whereas architectural features is not going to come in until the precise implementation plan. So, I just want to make sure you're aware of what you're approving and what aspects of it. um you know the site plan what you see there the layout you know that type of things is kind of what you're you have that's the level you're at right now.

Okay. Thank thank you. That's helpful. And we did have um some comments early on that some council members felt it would be helpful to visualize you know what the plan would look like with the changes um that the plan commission asked for. So, would it be most appropriate then to table this and ask for it to be returned with the updates that the council has requested? I think you'd have to make clear what your what your requested updates are. I think you probably want to formalize what those are in some way. Um,

if they're if they're consistent with the recommendations that we've heard, because they are, then we plan to make those changes. So, we would literally just be changing the lines um if that's still a challenge, but we're generally agreeing to all.

Yeah, I think it I think it would be if you have changes in addition to what's outlined in the attached map to the resolution, those are the things I think you'd want to specify. I I don't think the the kind of the staff comments that have been made are the developer hasn't objected to those in these meetings. It's if you had additional feedback that you wanted to see in the general development plan, something beyond what is laid out in that resolution.

Okay. So, there's a document um that's not it's on the screen now as an appendix, but that's its own separate document, overall site plan, and that has in red the recommendations from the city planner that the plan commission also recommended. Right. And so if we would approve this resolution tonight without any changes, that would be what we would be asking for. Correct. Okay. So how do we we don't want to deny it though if we want to change, right? How would how would we go about seeking any further changes? I I I would the simplest way is to provide specific feedback to the developer to then update and and you can take it up at your January 20th meeting and then it's in front of you. That's the simplest way for the to to accomplish it. you can incorporate it into a motion tonight and amend and adopt tonight still if you're if you're comfortable in what you want and you make that motion and amend this and amend this to incorporate it into it. That can be accomplished tonight.

Okay, Michelle. So, I'm seeing that what we mostly were talking about was the type of buildings and and the number of say duplex. And if we go to page three, which is the continuation of number eight, um it it says a the 134 units consisting of a nine duplex buildings, 11 8unit buildings, and two 14 unitunit buildings. If I'm understanding you correctly, Drake, it's that if we were not to like if I were to say I don't want to see 14 unit buildings, instead I would like to see 11 duplexes and um I guess somebody would have to do some math for me because making sure that I hit the 134 units correctly is going to be a challenge. Is that the kind of uh amendment that you're referring to?

It could be. It could be you can you could you could say you want 11 duplex buildings 10 8 unit building I mean right

you have control over this and so whether it adds up to one if you want it to be 134 units that would be up to you if it ends up coming out to 132 based on what the council's saying this is what it takes for us to grant you an approval of the general development plan you're not married to the 134 now the developer is going to have feedback to you and they're going to ultimately say whether the changes you're asking for are um uh viable for their project plan. That is the back and forth that goes on in this process. So um but you don't you don't have to add up to the 134 necessarily. You have control of this site.

Great. I think what I heard earlier tonight was uh retaining the nine duplexes but eliminating one of the eight unit buildings which would bring that down to 10 and then keeping the 214 unit building. So that would bring the total count down to 126. I think that's what I heard. I think these numbers reflect those changes already, don't they? They do. Yeah, they do. Yeah, these numbers reflect removing this 8 unit building in the center.

Um, and then just kind of moving some of the duplexes around. If you were saying I'm just going to hypothetically, you only want one 14-unit building on the transition and you want this 14-unit building to be an eight. I'm just using maybe you would have an eight and an eight and then two more duplexes. I don't know. Again, I don't know what fits. That's the challenge when you start saying I want to you start moving the puzzle pieces around, right? But it does the numbers that you that that MOA read was specific to what those changes that came out of plant commission are. So nine duplexes, 11 8 unit buildings, and two 14 unit buildings.

And if your general if your if the council's general feedback is we want more duplexes, you can provide that feedback to us. postpone to the January 20th meeting and we will work with the developer to bring you something that meets your expectations. We can do that as well. Um and that may give them an opportunity to run whatever calculations they may have to see what if it is financially viable or what orientate what layout would work with the new criteria you you've given. Um it The floor is yours, right? On on how you want how you how you want to see this and what brings you to a comfort level to adopt.

Yeah, there is some confusion now that I looked at the map. There is 12 12 a buildings there. So, it would come down to 11. Yeah. But it's just kind of a a mismash of we don't have one presentation package that matches at this point. Yeah. And I have a hard time voting on it at this point based on that. Because what's right, what's wrong?

That's what I was saying at the beginning. Is there an updated map where there's not all these red lines to have to navigate? And you know, you guys know how to read those. Uh not trained in that. So, I like I said a while ago, I would like to potentially table this with the understanding that we would get an updated development plan. uh as well as an idea of you know how this is all going to get laid out because as Greg was saying this is it'll be a lot easier to say oh yeah this looks good right but we can't do that right now

we were attempting to show you what changes the plan commission had asked for um by laying it out like this in in the future we certainly can just incorporate we can request that applicants incorporate the plan commission recommendations into updated site plans prior to city council receiving them. Okay.

I guess I would make sure that again if you're going to delay it, my recommendation is a mo is a motion to postpone to a date certain, not not necessarily to table it. Um, and then to give additional um, if you have additional feedback, if they're going to be updating this to incorporate it so that they don't come on the 20th and it's you see it laid out as plan commission recommended, but then there's something else comes up that it's your prerogative to do that regardless. But if there's feedback, you know, you want and you want it to be reflected, we should know that.

So I heard at least one suggestion for additional duplexes. So there are others that uh feel that we should seek additional duplexes in addition to the N

in addition to what the plan commission has already recommended. Yeah, that was that was my I was looking to optimize maximize the single family um attached offering just to maximize how many since you know we're moving from single family we need single family we don't have a lot of this particular product and so whether maximizing is nine or maximizing is it 11 I I just is there a way to ensure that we have them that that we have that product kind of is our optimized footboard is how I because we have eights already we've got 1614 you know those are products we have and they're you know part of this development um to the north side so I would like to optimize two units and and I so that's so I don't have a number so that but that would be my ask is that how can we and still make it make the project viable and um that I would be interested in seeing that and then laid it out and how that you would make it happen. But I

Yeah, I think you can give direction if the if the will of the council is that you want to see if you you want to maximize the amount of duplexes while maintaining project viability, we can have that conversation with the developer prior to the January 20th meeting and attempt to maximize to the extent possible based on the in on those conversations with the developer and incorporate that into the general development plan. Um,

and I don't know if you all support that, but I was again looking at it's more the closest we have to a single family in this particular plan neighborhood area. So, and then Greg, you were going to say something, so I don't know if you were to chime in on that same subject, but

No. And I think uh Greg Waters was going to say something about what you just said. We should keep going with that line of thought. fancy. No, I guess I'm okay with the nine as long as we treat the eight unit buildings in a uh in a fashion that allows it to along the lines of what Michelle was talking about. I I I would call it like row housing, but um but some product that's different than just a standard 8-unit apartment building.

So, more about the look and feel than the number of buildings in the neighborhood. And I would be okay with the duplex, the eight nine duplexes if we do something about the the eight unit buildings. And I feel similarly, I think, you know, we're asking for this parcel to sort of accomplish the transition, right,

from larger at the north to smaller um smaller unit numbers at the south. And so I don't we've just approved a reszone to multif family. So, I don't think we're we're trying to optimize the number of duplexes necessarily or or or maximize we're not trying to maximize the number of duplexes, but to um I I feel like nine is in the right is in the right range with with all these changes that the plan commission has recommended. Do we want to keep the 14 units 14 unit buildings? Yeah.

Do you? No. But that's me. Um, only because if it's going to be unless it's going to be completely if it's going to give that neighborhood feel and we're talking about duplexes, we're talking about the eight units being more of like more row housing or or um something to that effect. I'm not sure how you can do that with a 14 unit. So, personally, it feels like it would be maybe something of an not an eyesore, but another word for it that I can't think of right now. Like, it would be almost out of place. Um, but I would be willing to take a look at what you can do. Um, knowing that th those are what I'm thinking about. Like, I just don't know if it would be a good fit if we're thinking of doing the other things. But I'm willing to be wrong.

Well, I heard Mr. Carr say that their intention is to design the architectural features and exterior materials and so forth of these very differently than the development to the north. So, I think we would be expecting to see that with the precise implementation plan. Yes, you've made it clear that you want to see some different architectural pieces. We can certainly look at at the row homes. I do think we've hit a good point with the density pieces. We need some of the buildings to make up for some of the other pieces. So, losing the 14s, that would not be something we could do at this point. Um,

working on the nine, I think the two families, your your point about the eight units, yes, it's heard we can look at um trying to provide more of a townhouse feel rather than a typical Again, I can go back to Bob on that. Um um so we've certainly heard what you said. Um if you need to hear the sketch, see the sketch, um we will give it to you, but I I think we don't need that. But I that that's for your what I'm hearing and that's just me is that we are on the same page, but I can't um make that. We would like to get approved tonight on the second one. If not, we'll be back here in January. But but we would not be able to make large scale. I don't believe we're at a point where we'd be making largecale hopefully changes literally beyond what's shown here.

Right. Chris, can you can you explain to me the the required parking situation? Uh it's right below where we talk about the the buildings itself. Uh it talks about required parking reduction in the total parking requirement allowing 345 total parking stalls to be provided. So it's probably better that I address that. So we try to make

we don't have definitive parking numbers here. Um, we tried to estimate the amount of parking being provided based on what's shown um and the uh understanding of kind uh attached and detached garages that are being provided. We did want to earmark that it will be slightly below what the code allows. And so we need to do that with part of the general development plan is outline where we think they are going to need flexibility or exceptions. Right? It appears all the bulk regulations, setbacks and such, green space will meet all the requirements, but parking was one that was below. But until so, we were trying to call out that there will likely be parking below the code, but until we get a precise implementation plan, I'm only making a best estimate based on this level of documentation.

Yes, I don't have dimensions on everything. We generally don't have that at the general development plan level. So we are calling out that there is less but only slightly less than required by code. So is the code 345? What's that 35

350 and we had 345. The big difference is we were actually providing more indoor than the code requires which is opposite what developers usually do. I talked to Bob about that. Um he said that a lot of his tenants have boats and other storage and he feels like that provides a more clean and better look because it gives people places so that they're not parked in spots. So, you know, if an extra five parking spots would do it, um we can certainly do it. If you look at how it works and and how so you have a garage and then you have a a stoop outside of it. So, we always provide 20 feet where you could park a car garage usually when it's a visitor. um Lake Mills numbers are very high for parking um and we're hitting those um very closely. So um that that's kind of where it is. We're providing a more interior than required by code and 99% of the code requirements. So slight just slightly below um what it is. And that's if you're counting kind of the garage spots that are outside. And it's a great way to do it. It's very much like your driveway. You pull your car out, you wash your car on Sunday. It does give that feel of what a neighborhood is like. At least that's my understanding of So, we're very very close on it. And and I think uh they're just calling out that it's not exactly um on the code, but if adding an extra five spots, you wanted us to be there, but that's already a lot of parking. So, can we define I guess in this document how many are internal parking spots and how many are external parking spots?

I think those are that is on here in the table. I think that's in the planner memo. It's in it's in the one I was looking at. It's in previous plan commission recommendations. So, what we're saying here is that the overall is 345 and then the reduction of surface parking from 140 to 99. That's what we were calling out here. So 99 are outside parking and 246 are inside parking. Yes. Just want to be clear and that overall fewise implementation plan.

I again we feel that there's plenty of parking out there but we do need to call out where there are discrepancy or or flexibility is necessary from the prescribed amount in the zoning code. So with the precise implementation plan that kind of gets locked down.

So this is an exception that we're we would be granting for those five spots, five parking spots under the plan development um model. And we've gotten feedback um from other development proposals in the last couple years that our code is a bit more restrictive. And I personally I like the having more interior means less overall impervious surface on the site. So if if the developer feels that five, you know, five fewer will meet the needs of the community, we're not I don't think we're worried about extra parking people going out on Highway V or anything like that. So I'm not uncomfortable with five fewer. We have a very high We do

parking requirement until detailed plans. I I'm giving you best estimate on this. If it came back after detailed plans and it was we've got a 140 parking stalls overall. We know we have a problem out there. But if we're somewhere very close to the prescribed amount, you will have ample parking outside. I think we're at like that's between 2.5 and 2.5 units. It is 2.5. Okay. Yeah. Between spots per unit, indoor, outdoor, and visitor is 2.5 per unit. Yeah. I just wanted to understand.

Yeah. And I did ask Bob that, hey, we have a lot of parking. But he did give a really good answer of how he why he does that and and why he provides those garages and um and I think it's good for the community. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that. So, where are people at? Are people starting to feel more comfortable with moving ahead with this resolution tonight? Do we want to still see the revised plan? And if so, do we want to any changes to it? Well, I did hear that we wanted to increase duplexes. So, would that mean amending number eight on the resolution?

I heard that. I did not get hear that we had I was I had asked for that, but I didn't hear the rest of the council feeling like we needed to move to a higher number of duplexes. So, I can support the nine. I was just trying to optimize a particular housing product. I because I heard some support of nine. So I if so I can I can support nine. You know it's nine is a minimum.

I guess where I'm at if it's the standard eightunit complex then I would want more. I would go back and say okay then we need more duplexes. But if it's going to be a a very nice eight-unit building it's more of a row building then I can live with the nine duplexes. So that's kind of where I'm at. And again, just to make sure we're all on the same

Well, I mean, they'll be stuck, right? The developer would be stuck if you got to a precise implementation plan and the council wouldn't sign off on the architectural design of it. You couldn't get permits. So, they really will have to meet your design standards on the eight units. they otherwise they can't get approval and they can't build and that's at the next step in the process the precise implementation plan. So we're just really talking about how many buildings of what number of units if if there are changes that we want to make to that

uh then we would want to make a motion to postpone a decision on this until January. Um, if people feel like the the recommendations from the planner and the plan commission are satisfactory, then we could go ahead and um vote on this resolution tonight.

Everyone silent. I uh as I stated earlier, I am happy with the work that the planning commission has has done and I think with a lot of the discussion we've had here, it's brought out how close we are and and it seems like numbers are acceptable. So, I would move that we adopt um resolution 2582, the general development plan as written. I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion by Greg Coots and a second by Michelle Qued. Now, any further discussion? And then what we have up on the screen is part of the resolution. So that includes the the recommended changes from the plan commission. Okay. No further discussion. Misty, would you please call the role on resolution 25-82? Mr. Waters, no. Miss Kurler, I. Miss Schmeer, I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Motion passes 41. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll see you in the future. Thank you. Happy holidays. Okay. So, we juggled things around a bit. So, I'd like to go back to the the beginning of the council business and catch up. So, we're back to letter B, which is appointment of election inspectors. Um, and uh prepared a memo and a list for us. Misty, do you want to go through this for us

or do people have questions? Everything is pretty much in um the memo. The appointment um has to occur no later than December 31st of odd number years for the next 2-year cycle. Um the both political parties are able to submit nominations and then I kind of go through my part. In the memo, it does list out all of their nominations and who I would recommend and not recommend and the reasons why. Um the non-recommendations are simply because people decline um don't live in the area, aren't actually eligible. Um but those that did fit um I did bring forward. There was two from the Republican party and then the rest are filled by unaffiliated appointments. U my nominees, all of my nominees would be returning um election inspectors who've been through training and elections in the past. Okay. Thank you. Uh if there's any questions or discussion, otherwise we can entertain a motion to approve the uh recommended appointments.

I would motion to approve the recommended appointments. Second. Motion by Greg Coots. I think I heard Mary Schmaker second that one first. Uh any further discussion? Um, just real quick, I wanted to say thank you to Misty for all the notes that she put in that memo. It was I didn't know what this was when I saw it and it was very easy to understand by the end of her memo. So, good. Any other questions, comments? Uh, if not, can Misty please call the role on the appointment of election inspectors?

Sure. Um, Miss Ker, would you mind if I just list them off for the record because I didn't prepare a formal resolution? Sure. So for the 2026 2027 city clerk recommended election inspector appointments Republican K Geese and Amy Hurdle unaffiliated Jen Christian, Jason Palmquist, Ginger Hartman, Anne Shu Hunt, Peg Stores, Carrie Buck Holtz, Maryanne Howser, Susan Nissman, Michael Nissman, Dana Ostroski, Jane Harber, Tara Lucky, Dan Sitsler, Susan Maloney, and Mary Lou Herbst. And then for roll call, Miss Kurler I. Miss Smeagger I Miss Quednau I Mr. Coots I Mr. Waters

I motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Our next item is resolution 25-74. M would you read that for us? Resolution 25-74, Joint Powers Agreement County 911 Emergency System. Okay. Uh this is an annual agreement required by state statute to file with the county who then files with uh the attorney general's office. Um requires approval so that I can execute the agreement. I move to approve resolution 25-74 joint powers agreements county 911 emergency system. Second.

We have a motion by Michelle Quednau, second by Greg Waters. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, Misty, please call the role on resolution 25-74. Miss Schmeagger, I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler, I. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Next item is resolution 25-75. Uh, Miss T, would you please read that for us? City Council Resolution 25-75, resolution amending City of Lake Nil's shared ride taxi program agency fair.

Thank you, Mr. You want to give us a quick overview on this? Um, M sure. Again, this is uh a memo kind of with a lot more details, but uh essentially what this is is the agency fair for the shared ride taxi program. We've been at $610 per trip for I believe at least 12 or 13 years. Um we did go through a recent uh DOT management performance review and they did include a high priority recommendation to re-evaluate the agency fair structure. We can also um evaluate some of our other public fairs, but this is specifically on the agency fair only. So it doesn't require a public hearing. um it just supports the financial sustainability and better lines like mills with other agency fairs in the region. I will note that in my memo I do have an error. I when I originally um put it together I was using the data that running provided me of all of their their systems and then I went back and I just brought it down to the brown cab which was more of our region. Um, so I did say that uh even with the proposed increase of 10 that we would remain below the regional median. It would actually be a little bit above the median but still within the market range. So my recommendation would be $10 based on that. Um but it would be up to you guys to decide

and the resolution um has the $10 as the as the increase amount. Correct. I move to approve city council resolution 25-75. Second. So, we have a motion by Greg Waters, second by Mary Schmeagger. Any discussion? I do. Michelle,

I kind of feel like going from $610 to 10 is a big jump for some some of our constituents considering the ones that would be using it. I mean, this may be a hardship for them, and it's already a hardship that they have to take the taxi, let alone the additional $4. Now, it may not seem like a lot, and I know that we haven't done an increase for quite some time, but I'm wondering if in looking at the Brown Cab um rates from local areas with Jefferson is eight and um and then consequently Fort Atinson is 12. And I'm just wondering if it would be more of a an idea to go more into eight $8 instead or $9. I don't know why I'm making $1 of a difference, but I just feel like it would be a big jump.

So, just to clarify, go ahead, Misty.

Oh, just to clarify, and I'm I'm assuming, uh, Drake, that you're going to kind of go along the same lines. This is for the agency fair increase only, not the public fair increase. So what you were referring to for the constituents is public fairs. So if we wanted to increase those, which we haven't done in 12 years, especially to that point, um the sensitivity of you know the cost of that, we can look at that. But this is just for agency fairs. These are for Medicaid managed care organization, human service organization trips. Um, with those fairs, the agency fairs, you try to retain the actual cost of the trip and they're paying for it, not an individual. And they're typically using their grant dollars. So that's why it's a recommendation of DOT to increase the agency.

Thank you for the clarification. Then I take back what I said. Any further questions or discussion? Okay. Seeing none, u Misty, can we please call the role on resolution 25-75? Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler, I. Miss Schmegger, I. Motion passes 5-0. Okay. Thank you. So then I believe we did E and F and so we're on to G, which is resolution 25-79. Uh, Mr. would you read that title, please?

City Council resolution 25-79 authorizing the city manager to direct the treasurer to transfer funds capital budget. Uh, this allows us to bring forward um funds for 2025 capital projects that were not com were not completed and will still have payments to be made in 2026. Any discussion or would someone like to make a motion? I move to approve city council resolution 25-79. Mr. Coots will second.

Motion by Mary Schmaker, second by Greg Coots. Any discussion? Seeing none, Missy, please call the role on resolution 25-79. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler, I. Miss Smeagger I. Miss Quinnell I. Motion passes 5-0. Okay. Next item is resolution 25-80. Miss T, would you please read that for us?

City Council resolution 25-80, resolution declaring official intent to reimburse expenditures from proceeds of borrowing. uh we will and we will incur costs on capital projects that are going to be funded through the borrowing earlier than we uh receive the money in 2026. Receive the funds in 2026. Uh this resolution allows us to pay ourselves back uh for any expenditures that we have prior to the borrowing um occurring. So we use unreserved funds in the short term and then pay ourselves back from borrowing.

Yes. So, normally this is done like the first meeting in January, but since the discussion is on the table to cancel it, I wanted to get it in because our biggest thing coming in right away after the first of the year is the server for up here. So, okay. Okay, sounds good. Any questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve city council resolution 25-80 resolution declaring official intent to reimburse expenditures from proceeds or of borrowing. Mr. Coots will second.

Motion by Michelle Qued now seconded by Greg Coots. Any discussion? Seeing none, Missy, please call the role on 25-80. Mr. Waters, I. Miss Curler, I. Miss Schmeagger I. Miss Quednau I. Mr. Coots I. Motion passes 50. Okay. Our next item is resolution 25-81. Mu, would you please read that?

City council resolution 25-81 authorizing the city manager to execute a revocable occupancy permit and maintenance agreement regarding TAP grant infrastructure installed on Tyrannina Park Road, County Road V, as requested by Jefferson County. Oh, looks like Dwayne's coming up. Yes, we need some staff comment.

Have a shot at this. Um, so there were certain improvements that were installed across from uh the market in accordance with the uh tap grant project that the council previously approved. Um, that is county jurisdiction technically because it's on County Highway V. that is not designated as a local road at this point in time under Lake Mills, city of Lake Mills jurisdiction. Therefore, the county upon those the infrastructure being placed has requested that we enter into a revocable occupancy permit kind of akin to the uh revocable occupancy permits that you grant and privileges in the street. Um the specific items, the specific infrastructure that's covered by the permit is outlined within the the terms of the permit and includes the rapid reflecting or RA rectangular rapid flashing beacons, the sidewalks, curb ramps, detectable warning fields, um cross arms, poles and bases bases, electric infrastructure, signage, yield and crosswalk, uh pavement epoxy, paint markings, and then that's incorporated from the the tap grant plan set. Um this is this is kind of a a typical agreement. We assume liability and responsibility for maintenance. The city does um over that infrastructure. The county absolves it itself of um responsibility for maintenance or or potential for liability. We agree to indemnify them in the event that something goes wrong, an accident that we're uh we're sued on or something like that. neither party abandons its privileges and um um arguments with regard to immunities. Um I guess that's kind of enough. I brought Dwayne up just in case you have any questions whatsoever about the infrastructure itself or the TAP grant project. Um and I I'm happy to address any considerations or concerns you have with the agreement.

Thank you. Any questions for staff? The the agreement is pretty straightforward. I guess I have questions about the infrastructure that's being put in and for what reasons a little bit. Can you get into that a little bit? Sure. So, the infrastructure is actually existing. Um, and it's the crosswalk in front of in front of on County Trunk Highway V in front of the grocery store. Um, right.

And so there the term rapid reflective beacon. That's the That's the flashing. If you press the button, uh the lights flash letting drivers know that there's a pedestrian looking to cross the street. Um the crossarms and uh and signs. There's an overhead crossarm sign. If you look at the plan set, um it shows I think it's on page three. Uh shows those overhead. There's a post on each side with an overhead sign that says there's a a pedestrian. The epoxy uh pavement markings, that would be your crosswalk rather than paint. Epoxy is a type of paint that is used. Um other terms, detectable warning fields, that's when you're looking at a handicap ramp. That's the steel plate that's in a handicap ramp. Um any other question? Am I answering your question? Um Mr. Waters?

Yeah. Why were those put in where they were? So, typically RFBs are put in um when you have crossings for pedestrians at a midblock location. So, you have don't have a stop condition. And so, these RFBs bring more attention that uh a pedestrian potentially is crossing in a location that you're not as a driver, you're maybe not expecting. And so in this case, while there is an entrance to the grocery store and there's a potential entrance south in the future, it is somewhat of an intersection, but officially it's not an intersection like say Elm Street or Main Street. Does that answer your question?

Thank you.

Yeah. So the the TAP grant has been fully closed out. The project's been completed. We filed for reimbursement from uh the state of Wisconsin, the federal government, and have received um the grant funds back to us. Um so essentially that closed a number of gaps within the city's sidewalk network. And then this area specifically was kind of identified as an area in which pedestrians have an interest in getting to to the grocery store, pedestrians able to get there. And so this in order to kind of facilitate that sa safely that that rapid reflecting beacon was incorporated into the project and ultimately into the the reimburseable um grant program which I believe was an 80% federally funded grant with a 20% local share. Just in addition to the Wi-Fi, if I remember right, the uh sidewalk was um extended along the south side of E from Lynen Street to this point and then to cross so that pedestrians can get from the residential neighborhood. And I for one appreciate that because I've taken my life into my own hands too many times trying to cross V. Um and so this is a really nice asset and I think it gives gives pedestrians the ability to get across there safely. to add in the plan set. Page 18 is generally the location we um that shows the crossing where the crossarms are and some of the sidewalks from the cemetery to the west. Uh there are a couple of other pages uh following that on other locations along County Trunk Highway V where sidewalk was added.

Any other questions for staff? You answer my question. By the way, I just need to pay more attention when I go to the market, I guess. Means it's not flashing when you're going by. Yeah. So, would someone like to make a motion? I will move to approve city council resolution 25-81 authorizing the city manager to execute a revocable occupancy permit and maintenance agreement regarding the tap grant infrastructure installed on Tyrannina Park Road County Road V as requested by Jefferson County. Second. Okay,

we have a motion by Mary Schmaker, second by Greg Waters. Any other discussion? Seeing none, Misty, please call the role on resolution. Resolution 25-81. Miss Curler I, Miss Schmegger, I. Miss Quednau, I. Mr. Coots, I. Mr. Waters, I. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you. So, we did J and K. So, we are down to L, which is ordinance 1287. This is our first reading tonight. So, Misty, would you please do the first reading?

Ordinance 1287. Ordinance 1287 amending City of Lake Mills Code Chapter 38 city council section 38-6 referendum requirement. Thank you. So this is an ordinance change uh sponsored by Mr. Coots. Uh Greg, would you like to say anything about it this evening?

Um yeah, I'll try and be brief. Uh because it is only making one change. It's the ordinance itself self is staying exactly the same except for the overall dollar amount of the referendum requirement. Um this was something that I looked into this ordinance a little bit after some of the comments that had come out several months ago in uh in some of our meetings and I wanted to learn more about it. Uh Lisa was particularly helpful and she was able to trace the ordinance back to when it was passed on u April 4th of the year 2000. Um essentially this is just adjusting for inflation is is the the main intent of this. It's not technically that's not actually it because if you depending on what calculator you use you're looking at you know a dollar from the year 2000 being worth somewhere around like a $188 or something like that today. So uh it's not it's not necessarily straight you know co only cost of inflation we are using round numbers but um the intent of the uh this particular amendment is I believe is just to keep to match the intent of when the ordinance was originally passed and just adjust for today's price.

Thank you. So, we will move that on to our next council agenda for the second reading um in January. And that concludes our council business this evening. So, item 10, announcements and recommendations for future agenda. We will have that ordinance 1287 um coming up. Uh

I guess some announcements. Um a notice of possible quorum baky notice has been posted for the developer hosted um uh neighborhood meeting regarding their proposal at the golf at the golf course. It's not a city sponsored meeting. It will there's no official city participation in it. Um that notice allows you all to attend um without violation of an open meetings act. Of course, if a quorum of you is present, avoid talking city business. um and speak of course only for yourself if you do um speak to any residents rather than as a you know as as a group. Um on the 18th the plan commission will be meeting uh they rescheduled from the 23rd to the 18th. Um that meeting's at 7:00 so normal meeting time just different day. Uh and that has one item on it. It's a concept review for a redevelopment of the Sentry site proposal. Um so obviously the concept review is the first step in uh a potential project there. Um so you won't see it on a city council agenda for some time after that. Um but um as it has been identified by the city council as its number one uh economic development and redevelopment priority. Um certainly feel free to attend and follow along in that process as it as it uh evolves. Thank you for those updates. Um, Mayor, you had a suggestion earlier about our next Sandy Beach work session that uh perhaps we could use our January 6th um regular regular meeting date that we've now cancelled to do that. Um, Drake, I guess you would be staffing that. Um, are there going to be any materials that would need to be posted far and ahead as far as you know the agenda or anything or would it just be the same maybe the same items that we had posted for our

last work session? My understanding was your next work work session was was only desired to be food service specific so we could put an agenda together that was specific to Sandy Beach food service. I was thinking that we were going to also just review the work that we had done on the goals, but are you are you thinking we aren't aren't going to be ready for that, Mary? I know you were kind of scribing everything.

Well, I I sent the scribed information to Drake so he has a copy. I just asked for him to double check on the action items and to-dos at the end. We had some conversations and I know he also was taking some notes. So that is completed at least the documentation. Um I I have not framed them into like goal statements per se. If you I would be open to doing that as a draft for the next review if you would like or if someone would like to work with me on that. I'd be open to, you know, and, you know, kind of reframing framing the words from like two or three sentences, two or three words into a full sentence if that would be helpful um for review or um and like and I'm I was thinking that for our working session on food and beverage, it was going to be kind of kind of just like we did last time, but actually have a conversation about the different options, alternatives, and um you know, I'd be I'd be open to facilitating that and preparing a an approach if that would be helpful.

Any um thoughts from council members?

Yeah. Um it I think I said this in our our work session and I still I'm not particularly excited about a work session for food service unless we can be talking specific numbers and and strategies. Um, we I think there's been I I think that we've gotten feedback about what not to do. We have some ideas of what can be done. And I think without discussing the specifics of how it works, it's not going to really be much of a benefit to and it's not going to be a productive use of time to come up with how the food makes us feel, but not knowing how that's going to work.

I'm good with January 6th. I I was just concerned that um that you were looking forward to having January 6th off. Um and so I wanted to be a little cognizant of that and think about the humanity of the situation. Drake, do you want us to have our meeting on January 6th to talk about a work session or should we move it to another date? I will be back in the office on the 6th. So, okay. I'll be available. All right. I just wanted to Thanks for bringing that up. We don't have to do it on the 6th, but we do we do need to schedule our next work session.

Our calendars were blocked because we originally had one, which is all the reason why I offered it up and I But I I think you're asking a great question to recognize it. Well, it said cancellation of the meeting and I was like, "Oh, maybe we want to not have a meeting at that point." But

I guess I would like to request and I don't know that this would have to be a document posted with the agenda, but could we see the the written up um goals discussion just to keep our minds fresh on, you know, we had significant discussion on what we thought the overall all goals for the park redevelopment would be. So, I'd like to just keep that forefront in our minds if we could spend a little time on that and then have a a food service discussion. Um, and Greg, if you um I don't know if I totally understand what what you're thinking in terms of what would be productive or not productives, but um if Mary you're going to be maybe putting something together, would you want some input from Greg? And

maybe you two can chat further and see. I I believe what Greg is saying is specific decisions, not just generalization around like are we like are we going to are we going to offer something? What specifically is it? How much it will cost it? How will we how would we entertain it? What kind of facility like you're looking? Yeah, that's I believe what where I think we should be going is getting into details regarding what we do or do not want and then how to go after pro either I don't know if we're going to have pricing but how do you go after then getting what you need to make a final decision. Is that for you? if you would like to share.

Well, that that that matches. We had a referendum at a price point that that failed. Um we the the talk in the parks board and all along and and it seemed like most of us when this came up, you know, we're in in in you know thinking the same thing that we want to do something coming in underneath that price point which was rejected. So, we're looking at a smaller version, a a a shrunk down version, a you know, snack shack is is one of the terms that the park board used, something along those lines. Um, and that's good. But if that, you know, I think we're already at that spot and I don't need to talk about that any further unless we know how that, you know, unless we know what's going to work. If we just know we want something roughly this scale, we know we want something roughly that scale at this point is what I would think. Well, maybe it won't take that much time, but I do think it would be good for and not during this agenda item tonight because we can't do it. But, um, just the five of us have that conversation, make sure we're all on the same page about how, you know, what it is that we want to provide

and then we can be clear with our constituents. Yes. And at the last one, Mr. Waters brought up the idea of scaling back the uh you know the the proposed um you know the the sorry the proposed restaurant that that we had before and uh scaling that back making it one story taking off some of you know some of the things that were planned for that and and seeing if that would work. And if that comes in at a cheaper price point that would be fine and worth looking at too. But, you know, it's just I want to do more than just arrive at, oh, we need something less than what we turned down before. We know that.

All right. Well, let's let's try to get there in a in a discussion in January. Anything else for announcements or recommendations for future agendas? So, we will not have a city council meeting on January 6th. a regular meeting, but we will have a work session. Maybe we can see what time of day we can meet. Perhaps earlier than seven. Sure. Okay. All right. Sounds good. Well, thank you everybody. Um, happy holidays and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you.