Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

to the April 15, 2026 village village plan commission meeting. Uh, roll call, please. Here. Basil here. Batia here. Basnowski here. Washurn here. Mayor here. Okay. Um, I didn't have any meeting minutes in my packet, so I don't know. Yeah, we're going to ask you just to hold them over till next month. We'll have two sets for you. Okay, sounds good. Okay. No, no old business. Uh, new business. Number one is 4707 County Trunk Highway H, site plan review SP25-10. Sam,

Mr. Chair, the American Transmission Company applied to expand their utility substation located at 4707 County Trunk Highway H approximately 65 ft northwards. The expansion will include additional similar electrical substation equipment uh to the existing equipment sub and substation uh screened um that's currently a 23 and 1/2 ft stamped concrete wall. The application complies with the comprehensive plan. The park and open space plan designates this area as a priority protection area under the Pike River wershed plan. Um we'll note that the utility expansion area is largely gravel uh pvious surface and to the south Microsoft Corporation partnered with root pike wind to restore the lamp per creek to a naturalized state. Uh the bike plan identifies a bicycle uh lane on county trunk highway h which exists um as an off- streetet multi-purpose pathway. Uh the application doesn't include any land division regards to zoning. application does not meet the outdoor lighting requirements um of the code. However, for previous ATC substations, um they have denoted that the lights are only on during emergency activities um which are exempted from the code if it's uh during, you know, a power outage or something they need to get out there. Otherwise, they don't generally have the lights on. So, um we just noted that um they'll either amend their lighting plan to meet the code or confirm with staff that they are only on during emergencies. Um this meets the safe community and balance growth and development um key strategies from the strategic plan and uh the property is taxexempt due to it being a public utility. Um although we do get regular utility payments uh from the state um in lie of this. So, this will marginally increase those payments, but the expansion area is not all that big, so we didn't do the full math for you. Um, with that, we recommend approval subject

to that one condition on outdoor lighting. And I can answer any questions if they confirm to you that they're only on when they need to be on. Is that going to be in writing? Yes. Yep. We would ask that it's in writing, which is what they previously did as well. Okay, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Nancy. I I've brought this up to Sam. I I did email him earlier. And one of the things that I see that uh ATC is not here, which they typically aren't, but when we had our private meetings with Microsoft last year, one of the things we talked about were the AC I talked about were the ATC areas. And my question to them was, can they go any higher on the wall? We're already giving them a variance because they're going above our ordinance. And so with by virtue of this approval, they're already going higher than the code wants them to. But we're we're all for that. My question is, and I guess according to Microsoft, it's an ATC question. If they had the freedom to go even higher, could they cover those ugly things a little bit? You know, could they go up another 10 feet? I just find them to be such eyes. And they're right up against H. They're right up against Highway 11. and they're right up against Brown Road. Our view corridors are really, you know, they're they're not really pretty view corridors on some major roadways in our community.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I I think from a height um circumstance, you're not speaking for ATC, but from the villages standpoint, um we do exempt utilities from the wall height regulations. Um and so they don't actually need a variance for this anymore. Um we amended the ordinance so they can um uh the 20 foot 23 and a half foot wall height is fine um because of that carve out for utilities. Um that said I think the electrical equipment is like above 40t tall and so it's really where do you draw that line? You know it feeds in from the tall towers um and then down to the electrical equipment. So, you know, I'll leave it up to the commission what you want us to ask for if you want to add a condition, but I don't know that you're ever going to screen 100% of the utility equipment out there just due to the height of some of it.

Um, but and I don't I don't by any means expect to screen all of it, but another 10 feet is another 10 feet when you're driving on the ground and you look up when you're driving from a distance to me. So, I guess that would be something that I would uh and I'm happy to make the motion to include just a request to ATC. So, just to clarify, this is only for the expansion area. So, the remaining area would still be at 23 and a half ft. They're not replacing all of the wall. They're just kicking it out. I was going to I would assume they're moving it because those are panels. Yeah. Yeah. They'll probably reuse some if you know if we don't push back at them. Again, that's up to the commission. But um

well I would I wouldn't want to see us go back and then have a one at a 40 foot and the other one at 23. That would be that would be you'd want to match up what they've got today. And it's a good suggestion in the future to talk about it if you know for any future ones. Well, and I brought it up before and and it it you know, everybody I don't know it's ATC, you know, you ask the question, is there a design criteria that that uh forces them to stay at no more than 23 feet or is it just something that is based on the the request of the municipality or, you know, does it get too hot in there if it's encapsulated? I don't know. I want answers and that's what I keep asking for.

Yeah. I think we also have to be careful about um where our authority starts and ends them being a public utility and this connected into wider transmission lines. Our ability to regulate them is I'm not asking to regulate them. I'm just asking a question be asked. Yeah, the question totally fine. I I think that is it. But like you know my thinking is well my feeling is at least it's not a chainlink fence because I've been on sites like that with a chain link fence and that's like being in a prison. So this looks a little better than that. Sam Sam, didn't we give them a variance to to go higher? Didn't they

Originally? Yes. We've since amended the ordinance. Okay. But yeah, they actually requested to go higher and we gave them as an exemption. Yeah. Okay. Regarding the finish on on the new versus the old. I I didn't read every note in this drawing. I was looking to see if there was something about uh finish whether the two finishes are going to match or how they're getting Yeah. this two. Is that somewhere in here that I just didn't see it? Yeah. The wall specs in the plans they should match. It's a stamped concrete uh panel.

I understand that the stamped concrete. I'm more concerned about the color variation between what was existing and what's new. If they reuse some of the panels, are they going to be the old weathered panels and then the new ones next to them are going to be sort of this patchwork? What what can we expect to see when they're done? Yeah, I would expect that any reused panels, you know, would have that. So, the only difference being in how weathered the paint is out there. Yeah, that that would be tough. I I think that there should be some uniformity to what we look at when we drive by it. Again, I don't know how much authority we have to like require that of them. This is kind of a review committee.

Yeah. Like at some point ATC will tell you to pound salt. Yeah. Yes. So it is walking up to that line of how much will they do out of the kindness of their heart versus them just citing the state statute to say this is part of transmission infrastructure and we don't have to follow any of your rules. Well I think they are an isore and I don't think there's anything wrong with just asking it's up to you guys again we're happy to ask as director

for both for both questions. Yes. Uh I can see both point I I can see Joe point you know you don't want to have a 40 foot wall and 23 feet but overall I tend to agree with my colleague it's no harm to ask request recommend let's see how they respond because we cannot like you said we don't we may not be able to we are not able to force them so but I don't see any harm you know because if you don't ask you don't get it. Oh yeah I'm not trying to defend them at all. I'm just trying to set expectations. I know but but I think if Nancy wants to have the motion with the request I would love to I would love to second that.

All right. So so but it can't be it can't be contingent on No no no it's not contingent. It's a recommendation or request. I understand. Okay. I'm just I'm just saying so everybody else knows is that you I'm not trying to stop ATC. I'm not going to lay down in front of the bulldozer. Okay.

Why not? Well, because I've done it before and it it hurts, you know. Um, okay. So certainly I'm willing to make a motion as I said uh regards uh I'm willing to make a motion to approve uh the site plan review for 4707 County trunk highway hs site plan SP25-10 subject to the comments uh uh and recommendations of uh the planners of on the review subject to those conditions with a note added to request ask staff to reach out to ATC to number one ask if they can go taller that we would certainly be willing to allow that and number two that when when and if they are reusing panels or moving panels that that they make sure or try to make the colors blend with the existing panels as best possible even if it includes potentially repainting the old ones to match. I second the motion.

Okay. The only comment I have is are we talking about this particular site because I would think that we're going to be about raising it to 40 feet or some higher level. You don't want it on this site that the the additional wall I don't think um that request actually goes I think outside of the purview of this request here. But that's correct. I I think so it would be for anything. It's an information

or or any future sites because we have two more coming yet. I know and you know if I may my comment would be like Nancy made the motion we are not asking for the future but depending upon the response they will probably we they probably would be proactive if if it's anything that it makes sense for them right you know I think the key is to ask the question get the answer and react from there it's very simple it's

but in the meantime their site plan review is being recommended to the village board for approval by this motion Yeah, the the only again the other comment I would have is in regards to we have there's going to be two more centers, correct? Two more ATC being up over on 11 and and then at least two are have we approved those fully through for them yet? So again, that that we can talk about that discussion on the new the new ones going up. I think that's a great idea. Okay, great opportunity for us. Okay, so we got a motion in second, I think. Sorry. Go ahead.

I think after this one, I think we will have a pretty good idea depending on their answer as to which way to go. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we got a motion and a second. All in favor? I I

opposed. Passes. Good discussion. Number two, ordinance 02- 2026 3649 LIP Avenue zoning map amendment ZMA26-01. And it looks like that's going to be Robin. Yep. Uh just a small aside on that normal one. Uh that last one. Um, some cell phone towers are disguised as trees, especially in California. They make them up to look like trees. Probably because cell phone towers could be subject to the ordinance, but the utility companies are just like shrug. Um, the effectiveness of such disguises is left to uh the eye of the boulder, but it's something that I thought look was neat. Anyhoo, um, okay. So, uh, we're going on to ordinance 226 3649 Leather Avenue zoning map amendment. Um, the applicant applied to amend the zoning map from the property from re um residential state lot to RL lowdensity residential. The applicant wishes to construct a 400 foot out building on the property which will increase the per impervious surface percentage of the property from approximately 33% to 35%. Um, per the lot and building regulations, the limit on imperous surface in the RE district is 25%. Um, however, this limit was added to the code recently via ordinance 92025. So, the existing structures um and their impervious surface coverage are legal non-conforming. The limit in the RL zone is 50%. The comprehensive plan indicates the residential for the property and nearby parcels are both RE and RL interchangeably. Um,

so it's basically this is one of those uh parcels that is in the in between area where they can be conceivably either of the zoning designations. Um, in the 2020 zoning code, we just usually picked one. Um, like based on some factors, if it was a little bit larger, it got RE. If it was a little bit narrower, got RL. Um, all of the lots in the Spring Lake subdivision are RE. So sometimes adjacent lots um also got that quality. Um when the impervious surface change was implemented in the summer 2025, staff was of the opinion that the village would need to draft alternative compliance and flexibility components in order to prevent the need for variances or reszones over relatively minor code compliance circumstances. Um this application would be a an example of where that would be needed. Um, we didn't want to go out and do all of that at first until it was shown that it would probably be needed. Um, uh, staff plans on bringing um some suggested provisions to plan commission in the near future, but the goal would be to encourage storm water management best practices throughout the village. So, we're looking at a couple different models of whether um it would go under the storm water fee kind of umbrella or um using some kind of bonus or credits for storm water management best practices. Other localities have that for rain barrels, rain gardens, stuff like that. Just a little thank you to people that do do those kind of measures and um lighten up the load on our storm water management system. Um, so we want to build in flexibility. We also want to reward those folks who want to have a more um pvious uh or storm water

friendly uh area. That being said, back to this one. Um, so staff has no um conditions and recommends approval uh or recommends this board recommend approval to the village board. Do you see much difference, Robin, in the parcel size in uh the Spring Lake neighborhood as opposed to can't remember the one the name of the neighborhood to the west on west of Le there where Country Lane and Daisy Lane are?

Yeah, the the average parcel sizes in in um Spring Hike are a little bit larger. They're about a third of an acre and up. Also, um I was put under advisement at the time that the um the HOA covenant restrictions of Spring Lake were such that they would match a little bit more of the RE zoning district rather than uh another one. We do, funny enough, that we do have a variance on those um lot and building regulations this month, but it's for one of the parcels that are on that little peninsula there, i.e. parcel that would never sort of be allowed today, but you know, lucky them. Uh the

Well, you know, where I was going with this is that every time someone wants to exceed the um 30%, right? Yeah. So 25% 25% they're going to have to come before us.

Uh no, we would like to change that. That's why we would like to have some allowances for it. Um the re limit being 25% is that most re lots are very large uh one acre and more. Um there are some that are that can get down to about a half acre or somewhere around that smaller amount and that's where the 25% amount gets problematic. Um but our e lots typically are are over an acre, two acre, stuff like that. So you won't be seeing this too often.

Okay. the AG district already has a 25% limit as well. That one's never come up. So, and we like the kind of the flexibility because um you get to kind of choose which like if you're in the middle, you get to choose, okay, do you want more impervious service coverage or do you the RE district has a rights? So some people have come before us, many more actually have come before us to get zoned down to re so they could have agriculture rights. So they could have, you know, a couple of goats or a horse or something like that. So um it's presenting options for people. I do have a few questions. Sure.

As usual, I'm sorry. Um yeah, I was going to ask the question, why did we sewn this re in the first place when we did this? because I don't think any of those actually even Spring Lake meet the requirements for an RE. Um, by doing this change, aren't we spot zoning? If we're technically taking one lot out of a whole group and saying, "Okay, you're going to be able to get RL zoning." And the last one is it shows a 400 foot outbuilding, okay, that they want to add. What it doesn't say is they don't have to build 400. They can build how large of a uh pole barn.

Uh I mean there's a one that's a couple of of parcels up that's a pretty large one already which is like you know it's like 30 by 36 or something. Um that that's what I'm getting at. I'm concerned that we're going to have one property that we're going to reszone so that they can build. It says 400 square feet, but that doesn't mean anything because that's just a picture. Yeah. when they come in, they can say, "Well, I decided I want to build a 40 by 60 and and the neighbors are going to go, "What?"

Yeah. So, I mean, I would if it was like the only So, if it was like an island in the sea of re lots, then I would argue a little bit more for spot zoning, but um it is it's neighbors across the street, neighbors up the street are also RL. So, it's basically more like merging in with that one. Um, and the spot zoning would also be more of a thing if it went against the comp plan. The comp our comp plan just says residential. It's flexible. Um, and the we've also acknowledged that when we did the the zoning code update in 2020 and mass reszoned everything like it's just like kind of assessments where you use kind of a um almost like an arbitrarity like like a formula, a rubric and stuff gets sorted out and sometimes you get sorted into the wrong bucket and it's better that we have we allow them to resort themselves. those in the bucket they want to be rather than not allowing that. I think um and with this one there would also still be limits on where it can be placed. Um they most of the remaining space in on this lot is in the front yard where uh an out building couldn't be placed anyway. Um so that's where that goes into it. So,

I just I said I just don't want to see us putting something there where it's going to be a because there's a couple of them on Emerson Road that have been put in by houses that are awful. And I don't want to see this is a very nice neighborhood. Yeah. People, you know, it's it's I would like to protect their neighbors as far as the ability for him to throw they whoever it is to throw any kind of a shed because it goes in for perpetuity. Now, they could sell the thing tomorrow and somebody's got it and say, "Oh, I want to put this large pole barn there now." Yeah. And by right.

Yeah. We've had a tricky time uh kind of um legislating taste as it were. It's tough um without bringing hauling everybody into more meetings and longer meetings. And so, if we want to have some aesthetic standards um and stricter ones, that's another another discussion. We can have a note on that. Um, but as far as the overall limit, this limit didn't exist a year ago and now it does and we support that still. Um, it was basic it basically includes driveways where before it was only building coverage, now it includes driveways, concrete, sidewalks, and stuff like that. So, that's the main difference. It

um, and I I don't know if the owners are here or not. I don't know. They're not. Okay. You would know them. Um why aren't they just attaching the 400 square feet to the existing garage? Uh I am Well, he's not going to be using it for vehicles. Um it's from what I can tell because he did he's not going to apply for an additional driveway connection or anything like that. So, it's just going to be more of a shed with uh a larger door. Um and good size. Hm. 20 by 20. It's a good roughly. It's a good size. So, uh, other than that, I'm not Can you rephrase the second part of your question?

Why Why aren't they attaching it to the existing garage? Because if it's if it's going to just be an addition of storage space, where they put it is along the lot line and they have room to put it to the south of the garage, they could add on to the garage. They would they would still need the reszone, though. The whole point is the impervious surface coverage. So, okay. Okay. I mean, yeah, Mr. Chairman. Yeah,

I guess you know based on our code, um, first of all, were he not asking for putting up this extra building which knocked off the which triggered the reszone based on the impervious surface. some of these lots that are kind of spot lots that the land use plan changes and the zoning code changes kind of left out there like this, they could come in by right just by because of could they or I guess the question is could they not come in to ask to be reszoned to a more proper zoning for their property without the impervious surface requirement?

Yes, they could. So they could have asked us to reszone this to RL because that's really what district this land sits in. So I don't have a problem with reszoning it to RL um at all. Um do the another question for staff would be don't we already have something in the code where when you're adding an out an out building like this there's some architectural standards they have to match colors and we already have some architectural fingers out there. Is that correct for re Um, so that applies in the RE district but not in the RL district. Okay.

Um, and the those are that it can match it should match the materials and colors of the main house which has been kind of problematic to enforce because you know depending on when the house was built and they're building the out building, they have

we don't necessarily want to like make everybody make their garages out of brick. So you have to accept stuff that looks like brick which opens up some room for interpretation but there are other standards there if if those want if we want to look at those that's more than fine. Um but yeah this this is one of those lots that could have gone into either bucket. Um and that because that they wanted to do this then they chose to go through the RL route. There were a couple of other ways that I suggested that they could do it mechanically. They could also ask for variance, stuff like that, but those are more tricky as far as um whether or not the the they have the power to get that.

I mean, they have a pool, they have another small shed. They're obviously outdoor users. I again, I saw that this garage is not attached to the old garage, but I I don't live on their property. I don't know, maybe that wouldn't work for their purpose.

You know, I look at it like they're asking us to reszone it. we know what's driving it, which is the outbuilding, and they already have a lot going on on their property. So, that always is kind of problematic, but our code tells them where it can sit, what the setbacks are, and and again, if this additional impervious surface on their size lot based on engineering review requires them to do some rain gardens or something to absorb a little bit of of groundwater, then that's going to be a per a condition of the permit. It's it's not it it you know and they need to get to that process. Um in my mind by not agreeing to reszone it I worry that that's a problem because they really are based on their size and so forth. This lot is really an RL lot.

Yeah. It's not an RE lot. It seems that the whole neighborhood is right. The Spring Lake is this this parcel is adjacent and backing on the Spring Lake but not in the Spring Lake. It's not part of their association. So they're not part of the HOA.

No, not they're not connected at all. So yeah, so that that's where I guess I'm not really that worried about it. I hope that they would be considerate of their neighbors and they would be respectful of wanting to have uh in an attractive place that's not blocking a neighbor or blocking storm water. We won't allow that. if there's easements on the side, and I know there's a lot of them over there. Um, you know, so I guess in that regard, I I think it's reasonable to get it zoned to the proper zoning, and again, they have rights based on our code to build sheds and pools and do all sorts of things, you know, as long as it meets our code in terms of setbacks and any other requirements.

Yeah. We we look forward to bringing some stuff before you that that in order to ask for something like this that there is also mitigation like so if we want to increase the impervious surface well here's how we're going to mitigate that so we're not making anything worse as opposed to just asking for a blanket reszone. So I live in a neighborhood this is kind of interesting. I know the people that that are doing this and uh I think they're going to do a good job and this particular thing is going to sit in the back doesn't But like you said, there's a house two two houses away. They put a 20 by 40 foot barn and it looks it's very big place. Yeah,

there there we can't win them all. Unfortunately, we decided and the board agreed that we should heir on the side of of property rights and letting people build what they want to build as opposed to bringing every single shed and large out building before you guys. So you're you're going to get some complaints on that nature. It's just the nature of the game. Okay. On that note, then I will look for a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve ordinance 02-2069 amendment. Second. Got a motion in a second. Any other comments, concerns? All in favor? I opposed. Pass unanimous. All right. On to number three. Emerson Road West Comprehensive Plan Amendment C CPA 26-02.

All righty. So, this is a an amendment to our accepted road proposed layout layer. So, the transportation element of the comp plan. Um, this on the left is the current one. Um, I'll increase all the sizes. I I I apologize for the PowerPoint. It does look pretty, but I have to adjust some of the sizes for the the fonts and stuff like that to make it easier for everybody to read. Um, and it's not just because one of my eyes is shot. Um, the on the left is the current plan and on the right is the proposed layout. Um the the applicant wishes to do a subdivision on tw 12 acres of property. And in order to do that, they have to modify the current plan which has three exits out onto Emerson Road. Um one that lines up with Kinsey, one that's along the site of Haven, and one a little bit further to the north. Um, and they aligned it as shown on on the screen right there. Um, I will say that the the the proposed map as written is not feasible. Um, it goes through some houses. It goes through some um properties. It doesn't line up with what currently we would do no matter what. So, there would need to be an an amendment of this proposed red layout. No matter what. you mean the current the current layout

the current lay the current proposed road layer is not possible. Okay.

Um so it needs to be amended um before anything can be done. So they're bringing an amendment and having it to match what they're proposing. Um the proposed plan um it aligns with the goals and policies of the comp plan. it successfully addressed connectivity requirements um by extreme streamlining the previously excessive five connection points along Emerson Road. Furthermore, that improves regional traffic flow by correctly aligning uh Mariner Drive extension with Kinsey. So, the current one those that's a small jog and this one's lined up. We do have um some additional considerations and this is the main topic that we wish you guys would want to talk about. Um while the plan proposed meets the connectivity needs of the comprehensive plan, it's important to note that the primary reserve connection point is located on adjacent parcel outside the applicant's current control. Um staff remains open to any of the three connection points identified in the current planning layer and agreed that removing two of the three would have no detrimental effects. However, we advise caution and urge the commission especially consider the feasibility of those propo proposed future connections, particularly since a previous development decision by the applicant at 6:30 Emerson has already limited one potential access point. Relying on third-party property owners for essential connectivity may introduce long-term implementation risks. So, we're okay with any of these as long as they get connected. That's the only thing that we're concerned. So this this proposal is as good as any other. Um just that it's got to make sure that that connection happens. So that's the the only thing that that we

when you say make sure the connection happens when um so that when somebody comes in and develops that particular parcel and says well I don't want and if they ask the same board I don't want to to do that road layout that we would have to say no at that point barring actual vis village action which is off the table for obvious reasons. You're talking about the road, proposed road that says public road northeast. Correct. So is a culdeac there potentially. The connection I mean the connection is currently marked on there. Um let me see.

So Green Valley is the only existing access that is currently built. Um no there's two stubs. There's Green Valley and that is Explorer Drive off of Sunny Slope. Those connect into the neighborhood, but connecting out to um Emerson, it would would be only the Kinsey connection, right? Which is not the property not the property under review by us.

Correct. But we've we've had we you know anytime that property has been considered to be developed, we've mentioned that that road should be extended no matter what. Anyway, so um that's just putting all that onus on that one property. Well, so what you're I mean I I don't know that we can in other words this parcel stands alone. It currently has one access that on to an existing road which is Green Valley. That's the way I I see this. Yes. This particular parcel. Correct. And that's the one we're ruling on today. We're ruling on the comp plan for parcels outside comp plan. On the comp plan, the roadway comp plan, right? Yeah. So that plan is not not the use but the roadway.

Correct. So by ruling on that, in other words, when when we have a comp plan for roadway that says the parcel south of the one that's actually before us must be developed in a certain manner. In this case, it would be access to Kinsey as well as access to Emerson. Am I understanding that correctly? The parcel to the south. Yes.

So, in other words, if if that parcel came to us and had some crazy different road layout, but still made those connections, that's really what's important is those external connections. They can do whatever they want inside of there. That's to a degree. To a degree. It'll, you know, it'll obviously measure itself out. But yeah, if it doesn't meet exact, we can, you know, nitpick it, right? There's Yeah.

But if it meets, but we can allow it if it basically meets the stand like that it makes that connection and and it makes it viable. Um, we've we've brought things before to you guys about that where it means the general nature of it because we have a lot of this stuff where the the roads go through a house or it doesn't line up or there's a wetland there now. So things have to be adjusted um for many reasons.

Right. Right. Right. Right. I understand that. I mean I I think you know the biggest thing is the north south road. I mean, even there's just no way to get an access for this parcel over to Emerson. There was um so there was about 60 ft of right away on the 630 Emerson one which is under this parcel's owner's control and their house is now kind of foreclosing that. So the that did go out and that was marked on the plan. Um but that so somehow we we let them lose that we we lost we gave away that

it wasn't really ever up to that that kind of decision. Um there was somewhere about that there it was always ticky tacky and that was a very narrow one anyway. It would have been kind of threading a needle through like a keyhole or something less. Um but it could have worked. It could have been possible. I mean, I I I like the way the neighborhood shapes up. Yeah,

there's some long roads on it, and we're not going to get all the external accesses right away for this particular site, but I like the way the road plan lays out and I think you've done a very good job of using the accesses that are there and the spaces that are there to allow access. And yeah, if it sounds like I'm sounding negative on it, I'm not. Um, we are totally found fine with this connection. We just want to like put a big old flag and say, "Hey, remember that that we're making this decision and we need to stick to it in the future." That's it. So, we're simply doing the comprehensive plan amendment

and then we will see the plat later on in its various phases, zoning and platting and so forth if as long as we amend the PLA the plan. Right. Correct. Okay. All right. I'm still a bit confused, but nonetheless, that happens when I'm less. Well, the fact is that we're looking at an overall plan. But then there's the the last one that you gave us actually off of Green Valley Road. There's like a 20 That's just a concept exhibit, Joe. They haven't submitted anything formally. Okay. That's that's why I'm a little bit confused on why that's in the packet even because we're really not considering that, right?

Yeah. That's just what spurred this application is they want to develop that north property and we said you have to amend the comp plan because there's all these road connections that you're not following that's passed. Yeah. It's no longer accessible off Emerson Road there. Exactly. So that's just there for context to you for you all, but you're not deciding anything on the actual subdivision plat. And really all you're doing today is voting to forward this to a public hearing. So you're not even making the final ruling on the amendment. Oh yeah, I forgot about that. should have mentioned that first, but we like to lay everything out that will be considered. Yeah. No, I think it's important. I think land use plan amendments without a plan of what's driving it are I think that's important.

Well, and again, you know, and we don't want to, you know, block anybody from access back there someday too. You don't want to if again it's this is one parcel is owned by one person at this point. Uh the 12 acres. Yeah. It's it's one applicant and then there's a part there's two main parcels that would make the majority of this work. And if it didn't if it didn't um remove the connections to the collector, it would be meet more in the definition of kind of adjusting an internal layout like Nancy brought up before of like as long as you get there, you're fine. But because it was removing those connections, that's why it needs this first. Otherwise, it could be done concurrently. Yeah. I just don't want to make sure anybody's not getting landlocked. That's all.

Yep. Okay. And I guess the question I have too regarding it says this the 40ft strip that goes out to uh Emerson Road,

it's going to be conveyed from parcel number blah blah blah to parcel number blah blah blah. The other the the only thing I'm going to suggest, and this is thinking down the road for this, is from a construction project management standpoint, when they're building the infrastructure, it would be really nice to use that 40 ft, that 40 foot access off of Emerson. Otherwise, we can hear the complaints now. This is a big neighborhood that all that construction equipment is going to route through. So that is kind of just a note to you guys as you Sam and Robin as you see the plans come through. I don't think that's 40 feet wide. That's what it says on the plat.

Well, going from Emerson backwards or going from side to side because there's some it's a 40 foot width on Emerson Road by 239 ft. Okay. stretching over to the edge of what will be this developed uh Ann Hamilton subdivision. I thought it was a little bit narrower than that, but yeah, that's what it says on here. All right. I mean, I believe it's 18 18 ft. I think the 40T is from the center line of the road to the park.

Oh, it may be. Oh, I see where you're at. Okay, you're right. I I apologize. You're right. It's 18. That is that's a 40 foot wide or lawn. All right, Robin, don't brag. No, I wasn't too I wasn't sure enough. I had given it up. I was like, "Okay, you got this one. I'm But I think nevertheless, the property owners can work together. I don't know if you're conveying a parcel that she already owns."

Oh, we tried. Um when they built the original um house, I suggested that they swap that 18 ft to that parcel owner for 10 ft of the south side of that parcel so that there would be room to make that connection, but those negotiations did not go well. So yeah, because I think typically we're going to require a 20 foot access, but I think it needs to be talked about when it comes down to construction. And I would think that public works is going to have something to say about that. Yeah, just saying I just a note to the future, not of

That's all good. So Robin, speaking of the future, I'm glad that Nancy because of experience and what she does for a living, she can understand much better than I do because I was trying to I spent time looking at these two proposed and the existing and trying to find out on the details of where we are. Mhm. So for the future I would I think I'd like to see maybe you can kind of circle that area saying this is the this is the connection point we are talking about. Yeah.

And uh because I was also getting confused and right above that you have a list of properties with the addresses on the Emerson road and I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out where do they fit. Uh so each one of those properties is a property that's being changed by this comp plan amendment. So each one of those has a proposed road layer going through it or in the the current version or the new version. So they're the comp plan for those properties are being changed. But my point is looking at the package which we get electronically only I had a hard time to understand.

Okay. And the other thing is is that's that's how we're going to base the notice requirements off of is off of those that parcel list. Yeah. But again, you know, it'll be helpful if you could maybe kind of circulate and market because before when we used to get the hard copy print, I could print. Nancy has a business. She can print it other people. I don't have anything. I'm retired guy. I just have a small printer and my laptop. So I spend a lot of my time expanding zooming trying to understand that. So I'm just making a comment that make it a little bit easy for us to understand.

I'll try to I'll try to be more clear. Usually though all of my verbosity gets edited into final form by Sam. So it gets a lot shrunker got a lot more direct.

Yeah. Well, I'm probably more familiar than most of y'all with this kind of stuff because we at the county did neighborhood planning like this for gazillion years and we had one guy on staff that basically that was his job and we would do something like this there to improve on what's current because in current to say it politely sucks. Uh, and this one looks like it's pretty good. You don't punch out too many things trying to get to the main arterials or collectors rather, but you do make a nice connection to the north and the south. And you know, it takes a while to finish these things, but uh I think it's a fairly decent job of developing this vacant property. Any other comments? If not, I look for a motion.

Um, I will go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval to the board for public hearing of the Emerson Road West Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-26-02. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Any other comments? I didn't ask anybody from any comments, so um Okay, all in favor? I I post pass unanimously. Good luck.

Okay. Number four, 10460 Washington Avenue site plan review SP26-02 and it's Sam.

Mr. Chair Keller Ink applied on behalf of Urban Trend Salon and Spa when their name is transitioning to Beauty and Soul Salon Wellness to construct a 5,172 ft new building at 10460 Washington Avenue. Proposed site plan includes building trash enclosure and related parking lot. The application meets the elements identified within the multi-jurisdructural comp plan, the park and open space plan and the village of Mount Pleasant master bicycle plan. The application does not include a land division. The property is zoned C2. The C2 district permits commercial service uses as of right. The application does not meet the following zoning requirements, which I'll get into in a sec for our um uh recommendations uh for approval. The application does meet the following key strategies and outcomes as balance growth and development um within the village. Our recommendation is the staff recommends that the plan commission moves to approve the application subject to seven conditions. Uh the first is updating the landscape and screening plan to include one canopy tree per every four parking spaces per the ordinance known portion than a parking lot can be more than 150 ft from an interior or perimeter canopy tree. Uh two, the applicant shall update the landscape and screening plan to denote the ground cover for the non-developed areas of the property. and we recommend that they use native prairie seed mix for as much of the non-developed area as possible which is the presettlement landscaping pattern for the area of the village. Three, the parking lot exceeds the maximum parking ratio for commercial service uses by 18 parking stalls. The applicant shall either modify the parking and access plan to either reduce the number of parking stalls to no more than four per thousand square feet of building area, which is 21 spaces, or identify one of the three increase measures per the code of ordinances. Four, the applicant shall modify the parking and access plan to denote two short-term bicycle parking spaces. Five, the applicant shall modify the parking

and access plan to install sidewalks along Washington Avenue or pay an inloo of fee uh per the ordinance. Six, applicant shall modify the parking and access plan to connect the internal pedestrian circulation system to Washington Avenue frontage per the ordinances. And seven, the applicant shall modify the parking access plan to reduce the size of the parking stalls to those identified within the ordinance or apply for alternative compliance per the ordinance. Uh for the village impact, we estimate estimated net value per acre of 343,677681 per acre. Um that is a net revenue annually of about $2,173 and an estimated gain over 40 years of $158,613. It has a 2:1 cost revenue to cost ratio. Um and we estimate it would pay back its public liability in one year. Um, a lot of those fiscal elements look so good for what is not a super high dense development um is because Washington Avenue is not um owned or maintained by the village and the interior access road is a private road. Um so really the only costs that we have to serve this in the long run are service costs. It's not a large commercial service use so that we don't estimate that they'll take up a ton of you know police resources. Um, so with that, uh, we recommend approval subject to those really landscaping and parking lot conditions. I can answer any technical questions

regarding the parking count. Um, in the letter they had talked about having an existing um, eight stylists. Let's say they have 11 current employees and they would want to add 17 more employees. So a total of 31 employees as I understand it.

I have a question for the applicant. Are is this a rotational count of employees? They have shifts. Uh are there people who come and go? because I in my experience um salons and and offices where there is turnaround you not only have the chairs where a person is sitting but you have the next person who's parked there as well waiting for their appointment. Yep. So, the the four spaces per 10,000 square feet can become somewhat constrictive, and I'm wondering if there's uh more we can talk about there because I I would hate to see this underparked as well.

Yeah, I agree. Um, I I think that's completely reasonable. And the ordinance specifies that all the applicant needs to do is submit that parking demand study to indicate that the provision of more than the maximum number of spaces is warranted by the anticipated parking demand. So, we just didn't get a study showing that in clear detail. I mean, we don't need a full traffic impact analysis, but kind of a, you know, more dedicated here's our shifts and all the things that you were kind of talking about, Larry. um you know a one to two page followup saying anticipated demand number of employees shift counts when hours of operation about how many people we'd have on the parking lot plus growth plans that would be helpful

we're not trying to be overly strict here it's just the code is pretty specific that if you exceed the maximum just let us know why and we can approve it and I totally agree about the parking length in particular the 20 feet seems excessive to me for for most uses um we've gone down to as much as 17 and a half where it hangs over a green area.

Yep. So, and again, there is that alternative compliance if they want to keep those 20 foot stalls in length. Um, you know, that's one of the reasons why in a lot of these were recommending that natural planting for the area. There are some wetlands on the west side of the property that are undeveloped. So by you know improving and naturally planting those in the long run they can actually like IBW not that far away kind of cross count some of those allowances towards alternative compliance. So you know the our code is written currently as like if you landscape it nicely or have other nice storm water elements we'll let you be a little bit more flexible on having an increased size parking lot or number of spaces that kind of thing.

I just don't see the value of doing it in this particular case. And if we have the opportunity to reduce imperous surface, I think we should look to take advantage of it. Yep. You say this is all this is all private roads in there. Is that how that's to the north? Um the Washington Avenue to the south is obviously a state trunk highway. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um is there any thought about connectivity to the appliance store at all?

Um we did not address it nor does the code require it at this point in time. You know, this is one of those odd lots that we inherited due to the land swap deal with Sturdivant. So, the whole business park was kind of developed under Sturdivvent land division rules. Needless to say, if we were developing it nowadays and applying our land division standards, we we probably would accomplish it a little bit differently than they did. Um, but we're working with what we got. So, um, we didn't require any sort of cross connectivity just because that private road is really just to the north there and it really only serves three properties. So, we don't expect there to be a whole lot of traffic on that private road.

It's this grand well four properties, sorry. The clinic, grand appliance, the salon, and then the potential ambulatory um Bell Ambulance, right? Yeah, Bell Ambulance building to the north there. Um but that was about it. Okay. The same uh in the map that we looking at at the location uh in the corner the lot goes like like an L shape.

Uh so when you're talking about the pond uh parking lot building I'm okay. So the pond are you talking about the pond which is at the end of that L shape? All of these properties actually share storm water to the wider pond to the northwest, but there are some wetlands and stuff on the west side of that kind of the the foot to the L um to the western side there. So, storm water drains offsite into that wider pond, but because the whole western kind of leg there is largely undevelopable, that's why one of the reasons why we recommended the prairie plantings out there, some of which already exist. So, it's really just kind of filling in the rest that they don't plan to develop.

I guess what I'm thinking is that portion of the land which you can see on our map, how big is that? Is there a possibility that down the road they could uh split the land and sell that off? And if that case, that pond would be out of their lot.

It would be tough. um not without a lot of DNR permitting. Um could they do that? So I would say likely not. They showed on their draft plans the draft expansion areas. So they were going to kind of wrap the parking lot around towards the Washington Avenue frontage and then expand the building northwards um in that area, which we don't have an issue with any of those expansion areas, but moving it further west to divide off more property. I it's really wet in that southwest corner. So, I think it'd be pretty tough. You'd need to fill an acre probably of wetlands before we would even allow the land division. Um, and so not the cheapest or easiest piece of property to develop. For sure,

Mr. Chairman,

Sam, is this the location? I had emailed you and I apologize. I didn't I did I saw you answered me, but I didn't read it. Yeah. Um, I had emailed Sam because we reszoned this uh what, a year and a half ago. Is that Joanne and and her husband? Oh, not her husband. Sorry. Uh, we won't tell anybody. We're we're not at a Coldplay concert, so it's okay. I apologize. But Joanne, I remember when we reszoned this. This is the same location, right? So, it's just taken them quite a while to come back and get their architecturals. And as I said when we reszoned it, um I am a big fan of Urban Trend. It's a local business in our community that has some great employees and a very nice spa and and salon services. And to see them expand and want to stay in our community, I'm very happy about it. I think your building looks great, very modern, fits along the roadway. So, um I think as they move forward, you know, um and and go through some of the parking steps and so forth, um I you know, I've driven by Well, I've actually been to the location and um you know, there's pickup trucks, there's Ford F350s and 250s that park in their parking lot, too. It's amazing who gets their hair styled or their nails done, and they drive big trucks. So, I think sometimes that 20 foot parking lane gets a little bit, you know, people want to shrink it and yet I know um there's three of those size vehicles in my my family alone. So, you know, we we always are looking for places that we have make sure we have room to park. But, um I didn't have any questions. I just wanted to remind the commission that uh the plan commission that we did zone this last year and uh very I was very excited about seeing urban trend expand in our community.

Likewise, I'll make a motion if everybody's done. You may. Thank you. All right. I will make a motion to approve the 10460 Washington Avenue site plan review SP26-02 subject to the recommendations uh from staff uh items 1, two, three, and four. I second the motion. Seven. There's seven of them. He only put four on screen. Okay. All seven. All seven conditions. Thank you, Frank, as always. You've got my back. Okay. Okay. and all seven conditions. Any other comments?

Got a motion in a second. All in favor? I opposed. None. Passes unanimously. And good luck. No problem. If you guys have any questions, we'll be wrapping up soon. So, if you want to stick around, we can answer any.

Okay. Last item on the agenda or at least the active new business is resolution 072026 state trunk highway 195 access restriction modification. Mr. Uh, attorney Nick uh, here in the audience um, from Demar Kobe and Brodic uh, requested on behalf of the Drager Lang and North Funeral Home to approve a modification to a village mandated access restriction on what is now State Trunk Highway 90 195. The request is to remove the restriction for the existing driveway location while keeping the remaining restriction in place for the rest of the frontage. Approving this resolution would permit um attorney to file an affidavit of correction with at the register of deeds on behalf of the property owner. Um they want to clean up their title for estate planning purposes in the long run. And the request complies with the transportation element of the comp plan. Um also both the land division and zoning ordinance and our strategic plan and we recommend that you move to approve it. Um, this is a pretty interesting one that's taken a lot of staff time um, in so far as it is a local restriction that Mount Pleasant placed on it back when we were maybe a town um, at the time, but at the time it was a county trunk highway. So weird that we would restrict anything on a county highway to begin with. Since then, the county and the state have traded, you know, done a little bit of horse trading. So this is now a state trunk highway. So, we went to the DOT and asked them to remove the restriction. And what they told us is this is actually a locally um administered restriction. So, you all have to remove it even though it's not a Mount Pleasant road. So, this is where we've gotten to. They just want to

Boy, I hope they don't come around and Nick, make sure you get that in writing from them. Yeah, we have the email in writing from Sue at the DOT. Yes. Um and both Nick and I are on that email. Oh, it's probably it's probably Frank's fault. Yeah, it probably was because we we were semi opposed to this reszoning at the county level back in the day and I think the restriction was kind of a quid proquo kind of thing to to let us say, "Yeah, we'll go ahead." Yep.

So the the problem is the existing driveway is in a place where the restriction is. And so just a cleanup title, we're saying the driveway width is outside of that restriction, but the rest of the frontage like you can't drop another driveway right on the intersection. So just trying to have it match what exists there today essentially. So one of those weird ones that we run across every now and then. You know, Robin did a bunch of backend research. Uh we've been going back and forth between, you know, the um the landowner and the, you know, funeral home staff um and us. So, this is where we've gotten this would be on the village board agenda um in two weeks for approval um likely on the consent agenda just to get this property title cleaned up if you all are good with it.

Although that restriction has been there, but people have gone through that. Oh, yeah. The driveways been there since they built the building. Yeah, it is just some lines on a map that I think the title company caught. Correct. Well, I'm guessing. Yeah, the title company caught it. So, no, none of us were any the wiser until this happened. So, Nick, would you like to step up to the microphone? Just let us know what all happened, transpired, and why this has to get done. Is it is or are you good with Yeah, why don't you share with us, please? Hey, your name and address.

Sure. My name is attorney Nick Faland. Uh, address 2709 Pinerhurst Avenue, Rene, Wisconsin. Um, one correction I'd make, this is actually for Dragger Langdenorf is selling the the real estate there. Um, it's to clean up the title. Uh, with regards to that, um, that the buyer had an Alta survey done, um, and the Alta survey picked up the the restriction uh, driveway access here. Um, and that's ultimately what we need cleaned up. Okay, that that makes sense now. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions or or a motion, please?

I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Uh in the matter of where is it? No. Resolution 07-2026 state trunk highway 195 access restriction modification that the plan commission moves to recommend approval as presented. Second. Okay, we got a motion. Motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? None. Good. Cleanup time. Thank you. And let's see here. Staff reports. We have anything?

Just a quick announcement that I am going on paternity leave starting next Monday until after the 4th of July. So, if the commissioners have any questions, please direct them to Robin or Deputy Administrator Patrick. Um, uh, you'll get an out of office email for the time being. So, uh, next year. Yep. Uh, I'll see you in a see you in a couple months. So, congratulations. So, how long is the journey? Two months, three months, two and a half months. How about these when when we were having kids? I have to work every day. I I want to raise or I want to be a staff member and have another baby so I can get two and a half months off, which neither one are going to happen. So, congratulations, Sam, though.

Very good. That's a great opportunity to spend time at home with your little one. Need one last motion then. Move to second. Second. All in favor? I. We're done. Good job, chairman. I'm going to