Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

February 18th at 10:01 p.m. I'm going to call the plan commission uh of February 18th to order. Um my name is Nancy Washburn. I'm sitting in for Joe Mayor, our uh chair, who is not available today. So, um our first item is call to order, which I just did. And Brandy, if you could do a roll call. Peterson here. Basil here. Rizzler here. Bazinowski here. Washburn here.

Very good. We have a quorum. Okay. Um, we have some meeting minutes from our January 21st, 2026 plan commission meeting. Does anybody after review has anybody got comments or changes? Otherwise, we'd be looking for a motion. Motion to approve. To approve. That's what you're Oh, you're making a motion to approve? Yeah. All right. Um, Michelle's made a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Larry Basil seconds that motion. Any discussion of those minutes? I abstain. I wasn't here. All right. Hearing none then. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. I. I.

With TSH abstaining. All right. Very good. Under old business, we have nothing. We have one new item on the agenda today. And it looks like our developer is here. We have 1617 through 1619 Derby Avenue condominium plat uh CP-26-01. Robin, I know you're going to take this and you're looking for an approval. Is that approval of the Derby Avenue condominium plat inclusive of all the uh exhibits you're showing, the site plan? Yeah, I mean if if there needs to be um we are aware of uh some some questions about like you know conflict resolution or best practices in the um uh the instruments uh but um we're waiting a legal opinion back from our legal team and we can always condition it on you know

verification. Yeah, verification or recommendations. So, um, but it's basically the the plat itself that we're approving today. You have the the other items are your backup documents.

Yeah, the the instruments are part of the plat process that we review at this particular time. So, if you were ever wanted to reject them or had comments or needed to be changed, it it would be during this approval. Um, so you could you could kind of leave some of the revisions open-ended if you really wanted to subject to approval via blank or blank, but um I think you have specific concerns. So I think we could just say say that out and um work through that.

All right. Very good. Then if you'd like to go ahead, kiddo, and and uh present to us your location map, etc. All right. Um, so this is uh for 1617 1619 Derby Avenue condominium plat. Um, the applicant is proposing to split a twin home into two condominium units um in order to sell them separately. Um, the platin related um declaration assigned responsibilities to areas of common ownership. Um, so the village board approved a certified survey map CSM 2407. um for the subject property in 2024. Actually, that was very very early 2025. Got mixed up on that one. Um for the existing 38 acre acre parcel. Um as we determined the original subdivision when this was originally platted back in the 40s or 50s actually had three lots across these spaces. And so by converting this to a duplex, it actually reverted back to the number of units it was always meant to have. Um, so condo plats are just basically private land division. So they have to the to the outside to the to us it looks like one parcel. Um, but it has two parcel numbers and via their instruments or their documents that they record that assigns responsibilities for common areas. Um uh condominium plats do not have a preliminary and final stage. They are final documents. Um so uh there isn't really a whole lot of approvals left because they did do the CSM land division already and most of the condo plat rules, rags and procedures are also

mirrored in certified survey maps. So, they've done all of that. Um, this is a good infield development for the area. We we're encouraged by this and this is a result of kind of our zoning code working as intended. Um, this would not been this would not have been legal to build um before 2020 here. So, we're excited about it. Um, just little things like that of us getting out of the way of of product that people want and uh want to build. Uh so it meets all the requirements of chapter 74 subdvisions, chapter 90 zoning. Um we don't expect any sort of fiscal impact more than what the the land division and construction of the house just did. So it's about net equal. Um and it meets our strategic plan and master plan. Um and that's it. And the developer is here.

Okay. Very good. Um I know are there members of the commission I think that had questions. Um, do we want to ask those questions and then let the developer come up and and answer them? Uh, or staffed are are some of the questions going to be to staff or to the developer? We can kind of take that as it goes.

Um, because you are here, we would, you know, we would appreciate your input. If you if we do have questions that you are best to answer. So, all right. Um typically, um we are going to ask for a motion on this prior to discussion, but if we have discussion, but if we have questions ahead of that motion, I would think now is an appropriate time to ask those. Does anyone go ahead?

I was just going to add um these are the maps. Obviously, it's unshered in Derby. Comprehensive plan is all residential. Zoning is all um RN now. So R all of this area was RL2 beforehand that got converted to the new RN district. So go ahead questions. I just go ahead. I just wonder if you've thought about what happens 20 years from now when you have two people with equal rights, voting rights, and they don't get along.

You're going to have to go up, sir. You're going to have to go up to the Yeah. And if you could give us your name and address as well, please. Sure. For the record. Yeah. Thank you. My name is Mike Peterson. I'm with MPR Holdings. Um my What's your address, Tom? 2733.

2733 Washington Avenue. We're seeing Wisconsin's our office. Um the question was what happens in 20 years if the neighbors don't get along? The condo docs speak to all that. This is under um it's called a small condominium. It's a new statue uh in Wisconsin. Literally the U statues are a page and a half long. It's pretty simple stuff. Uh what we typically see in these is one of the two homeowners takes over the association, just manages it inhouse. Generally, they cut their own grass. They don't they don't hire a lot out. It's pretty simple stuff. And the condo does the condo docs do speak to how uh disputes are resolved.

Can you point that out? I didn't see it, but I didn't see it either. I just see who has the It's in the statues. Deciding it's in the stat. Yeah, it's a statute thing. It's It's in the statues. Could you describe it for us? Just I don't remember off hand. Um it's we're just curious. Yeah. Yeah. I I don't remember the exact offand how they do it, but it was it was pretty amic amicable. They don't flip a coin probably. You know, I will try to pull it out. Sure. Keep on going. Well, yes, if it's beyond our purview, I we have to spend time on it.

Yeah, I think that's an important point to make. I we I did read through the packet and the documents as well. And typically in a condo, you know, if you if you have a we have subdivisions here right now ongoing that Bear is doing where they have the two-unit condos side by side like yours on a lot, but they have a master association and there are, you know, 200 members of that association. So, they're more actively collecting u reserves, you know, for roofs and siding and so forth. I saw no collection of reserves in your documents. Um, and it is also something that was pointed out to me by Sam and Robin that we don't necessarily have purview over that. You know, we don't legislate that, so to speak. But it is something that we want you to think about for the future. Um, the statute can allow a lot of things. Um, but there are existing properties like this that after a period of time the two owners don't get along and so then they're in court, you know, and then they're and then the value of the property is is a concern in the long haul. So, we're I think some of our questions today, you know, TSH owns a title company, so he's very familiar with what happens over time. Um, Larry's an architect and has done a lot of development and I'm a land developer. So, we have some background in this. We're just thinking of the future. Um, we'd love to see a way for you to make a three-member board because even if the third member is a non a non-owner, I believe, and that's an opinion I've asked for myself. Uh Sam is has had our attorney looking into um that fact because I haven't there's another situation I'm aware of that's very similar to this and they had thought they could get a third party. So then they would have a quorum for dispute resolution as opposed to the statute.

You know there's always assessments the work can be done. There's always assessment ability, but that still burdens one property owner. If the roof needs to be replaced and you don't have cooperation from both owners, then one owner is going to replace the roof and have to lean place a lean or assess the second owner, which when will that get paid? There's still out the full amount of money. So, those are the things we're thinking ahead about. I I think Larry and Tsh both of you uh Frank as well uh you know zoning administrator for the county for a number of decades. So we have some background in this and I think these words to you are more words of caution as opposed to regulation. Sam, would you did I sum that up? Okay.

I think that was a great summary. I just wanted to add as kind of Robin said um you know we uh Trusty Washburn sent some of these questions to us yesterday. Um, and so we uh I um talked to the village attorney. We're going to get an opinion on it. So if it makes the plan commission more comfortable, you can approve the condo plat subject to any final, you know, conditions or uh final review by the village attorney. Um but as Trusty Washburn said, the way the village ordinance specifies review of homeowners and association and condo association documents is really from the view of the municipality. So, you know, are there things like storm water ponds, for example, in in much larger plats that have if they don't function that affects the general public? You know, they might spill over on roads or other types of things. So, our association ordinances really relate to things that are important to the general public and not to if two people in the long run don't agree. That's more of the private side of a private homeowners association. So, we don't really have that direct purview per the ordinance. However, I'll ask I have asked the village attorney to look at the entire thing because we've had a couple of these questions um over the past few months as we've seen a few different plats. So when I get that answer from him, I don't personally think that should hold it up today, but I'll forward that response from the attorney to you all and we should have that by village board next Monday so the village board can make any final considerations before they give the the final sign off.

Okay, very good. Yeah, that that um I'm glad you're doing that, Sam. And and I think if if for nothing else, is it something that once we get that opinion, we need to have a bigger discussion about in terms of what's in our code and what we how we you know, is it working or are we protecting, you know, is it is is there something that needs to be changed in that regard and I don't think it should hold up this today. I I don't I think it's something that our experience is bringing to your attention. We want to make you aware aware of it. It's, you know, it's a concern and something that, you know, these documents are very fluid. So, you may want to go back to, you know, your attorney and and have him advise you as well. But just kind of some food for thought, I think, for the developer. Sam, I I always worry that something like this, let's just say the two the two neighbors don't get along and one of them decides the hell with it. They just let the property go to waste, doesn't eventually become our problem.

It can, however, our preference is to solve, we're not trying to kick the can down the road, but also solve the problems when they arise. So I I don't think that we should overlegislate private association documents because there have been experiences in the past where the village staff over time have been more involved in those documents that creates other long-term title issues in the future of the village needing to like step out of these private agreements. So we're kind of trying to thread the needle on what's an appropriate level here. the situation that you just described, that's really more of a property maintenance long-term nuisance issue. And if that arises, we have a, you know, zoning enforcement officer on staff who goes out and reviews those things. So

that's true.

Say try not to to pre-solve every problem, but again, you know, we are getting that opinion from the attorney. So if there is something glaring in there, we'll recommend the applicant that they change it. The other thing with private association documents is once it's recorded and through the village board, they can always amend it without the village's approval in the future. So, we're really again just looking for are they hitting the things in the ordinance. I think Trusty Washburn's point was well said that based on the review by the village attorney, if we do need to make changes to what we're reviewing as outlined in the ordinance, that's more of a legislative conversation that is under the purview of the plan commission. So that's always our preference is to you know review applications based on the rules that we have today but take those learning opportunities and bring that back. So if there are those opportunities or we get other best practices or a boilerplate or something like that we'll certainly have that conversation through the plan commission at that time.

I think I think TSH and in answer to your question um as Sam explained it he he's absolutely right. you know, if it's a if it's a nuisance, outdoor nuisance kind of a thing. The the the way we would be impacted though is if it completely fails and one of the owners just can't deal with it, can't cooperate, doesn't have the money, whatever, and they walk away from it. And then we end up with an ADR Rem, right?

You know, with a tax parcel that's adm. But that's a different story. then that gets sold and hopefully reinvested and you know um but I and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole because I you know that's really like overthinking oh my god you know the the sky is falling we just want you to be aware of our well you know no right we want you to just be aware of our our long-term concerns for your project as you're thinking about it not only here but in any other place Robin

okay so uh I did my research um but I want to Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't know that they had the specific provision for small condos. So small condos are def defined as anything under 12 units um 2 to 12 units and um it's not mand the applicability it's not mandatory but any small condo association can basically say we accept and are being governed by this rule which is um wistat 70365 um and essentially it spells out lots of things so so um like that each parcel has one vote. You are is a thing about the percentage um uh dippied up and that all actions need at least 75% of the members to approve which in this case means two.

Okay. Um and then it also says that any kind of dispute you could also it spells out that you can have a board of directors. The board of directors can appoint a manager to do like those kind of things and staff. So that manager would have the authority to exercise things on their behalf. Then um the for the disputes it says all disputes under this chapter pretty much have to go to a an arbitrator and that they're legally bound by state law. That's what I thought. There's no way to avoid that.

Yeah. They're legally bound by state law to accept the arbitration decision. So, um, that's if they it if they basically say that they're following this, um, that puts a a good amount of onus on being able to follow it and it's not going to be completely intractable for years and years and years. So, but

I think um, as I look back, I've only I've been on the board for a while, but this is what, my second year on plan commission. I can't even remember. But I know a couple of the land divisions we did in the last few years that were similar to this were done through CSMS and they were people building a second home like the old Green Bay Road parcel and the Emerson Road parcels. they created CSM, so they completely divided the parcels. And in those cases, the only thing that we had to worry about was making sure they had good cross access agreements in place so that the driveways would be managed and so forth. So, I'm glad we're Thank you for bringing this in because it is part of our new zoning code. It is allowable and we've never really had a test case of it on an individual lot like this that I can remember anyway, Sam, for a while. So, so this is a good discussion because these are the concerns that, you know, I think we as a plan commission and will have, you know, to consider.

Yeah, I think that's a really good point um in bringing up that this is kind of a a new thing that we would like to encourage more of. um the standard kind of duplex uh scenario would be less flexible in other communities, but because in Mount Pleasant we're a little bit more ownership agnostic, you know, we would allow a lot line through the middle of the units, we would also allow this condominium plat or we would allow like a single owner operator and then leasing out one of the units. So, we've kind of taken this very like developerdriven approach, but to see that applied on a smaller scale on kind of this infill type lot um particularly on the east end of the village um is kind of a nice win all the way around. So, while really appreciative of talking through, I think it is important to keep that high level of, you know, when we're talking about infill housing, this is specifically the type that we would like to continue to encourage.

I have a question. Is there an advantage to condos a condominium plat here as opposed to a twin home arrangement where you have fe simple on either side of the party wall? I think I think this is a learning curve for us to do this small for us as developers%. So that's kind of home will be you run into the system.

Yeah, it was just the conflict resolution part and that's been cleared up. I think um I would I would say that in the future now knowing that this how this exists this uh provision in state law like for condo associations under um 12 units. I think as staff we can make a policy to suggest that they adopt those um as the default and work from there because that covers all your all your bases and it's enforceable by state law which um is is a a little bit over us. So but yeah. All right. Anybody else have a question? Michelle, anybody? No.

Oh, I did want to say the advantages of condos versus splits. Normally, it's it's it's in the infrastructure or setbacks or something like that. Like something doesn't quite work from you can't really create a unique lot um because the lot would be too weird or that you don't have um public access. And we can allow private access sometimes, but we prefer public access. So, um, condo association is a way to split the property, um, and do that without having to actually divide it, but we don't we wouldn't force a division here because it's all one connected structure,

right? No, I I I'm not, you know, that's the beauty as as Sam said, that's the beauty of our code. You have multiple ways to create a project like this. And just to clarify, within your documents, it talks about um things that are served by two uh for both units. In other words, I'm assuming in your building that you may have run the water into the center, but you split it off. In other words, nobody's sharing a furnace, nobody's sharing any any utilities or anything like that. Okay. Right. Okay. This says if any, you know, sometimes these documents, you can't overread them or, you know, they're there. You got to pay attention. All right. Um, well, I think this was great. I'm glad we got a chance to talk about it because it's been on my mind and I've always told Sam and Robin, you know, when it comes to our code, it's implementation. So, I'm paying attention to that. But, um, I appreciate everybody and your patience as well. So, if there are no other questions or comments or whatever, I would be looking for a motion.

Motion to approve 1617-1619 Derby Avenue Condominium Plat CP2601. All right. Michelle has made a motion to recommend approval to the village board. This this this body doesn't have approval authority. It's recommending we're recommen we're a recommending board. So yes, he's simply Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just for the future, we are making recommendations to the village board. Yeah. And and that's I do it wrong all the time. So don't worry. That's totally cool because there's some things that this body does have approval authority of and you just learn with experience and we're here otherwise. All right.

Is this subject to the final approval of the village attorney? Was that something you wanted to make sure that was in there? We had talked about that earlier.

Yeah. I Well, I guess that's up to the that's up to the commission. In other words, Michelle's motion is to recommend approval of the Derby Avenue condominium plat to the board as it's presented. It sounds to me based on the small condo code, the small condo code that we that they referenced that our attorney is probably going to come back to us with the same kind of an opinion. If I don't know that I would from personally I don't know that I need to condition their approval on that opinion but I would still like to hear the village attorney's opinion. Frank if you would like to see it condition conditioned on that excuse.

Well that was part of the discussion but uh six of one half a dozen of the other. I would guess we'll have it before the village board and we can just attach it to that packet and likely be on the consent agenda anyway, but um we can have that opinion for that. I mean, I guess that's the point. I think that's the point Frank's making is we would like to see the at the opinion. We we do want to hear the opinion of the village attorney. Should that opinion alter what we approve, then we would know that by board meeting.

Yes. So can you amend your motion then Michelle? Sure. So we So I move to recommend 16171619 Derby Avenue condominium plat CP 2601. subject to subject to the village board subject to the village board with the addition of the village attorney's opinion of the quorum within the condominium association. Does that sound okay? Yeah. And you could say as stated as stated. Does that

Okay. So we have an amended motion to include the village attorney's opinion for the village board. uh but to recommend uh moving it forward at the board. We have a first and a second. All those in Do we need a roll call on this? All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Hearing none. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Wish you good luck. And this is only my third meeting, so this was good that it was with you, someone I know. Thank you. Well, that's good. That's awesome.

What were they listed for? What's it listed for? Oh, wow. Under 300. I drove by them a couple days ago and they're very attractive and it's a nice addition to that neighborhood. And not to stop anyone, but we need a motion to adjurnn. Okay. Well, you have somewhere to go, Sam. No, I just don't want you to chitchat before the meeting public record. Great. All right. We would be looking for that motion. Anybody want to move to adjurnn? I'll move to ajourn. I'll second that. All right. Very good. All those in favor say I. I. Thank you. Thank you.