Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the July 22nd, 2026 plan commission meeting. Roll call please.

Batia. Here. Washburn. Here. Risler. Here. Basil.

Here.

Bosnovsky.

Here.

Meyer.

Here. Okay. We have two meeting minutes to approve. So I need a motion for the May 20th, 2026 meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve those, that rerun of those minutes. However, I was not here for that meeting, but I found an error on the minutes and after the fact, after they were approved, so we're rerunning them. So I'll make that motion to re-approve.

Second. Got a motion and a second? Okay.

There was a project left off. Yeah, the Lennar... old Green Bay Road project was completely left off the minutes. From which one? From May 20th, the original May 20th minutes.

It was the last agenda item didn't download, so it was completely off when it was originally approved.

Right, and after discussions with Brandy and Jill about it, it appears to be in the software program that we're still implementing, so they're going to be double checking for those things in the future, but I noticed as I came back and regrouped that it was off the wasn't on the agenda that y'all said was okay, so.

Good catch. Okay, we got a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Passes. Okay, the June 17th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Chairman, I move to approve the June 17th, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll second those.

Okay, we got a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Okay. Passes. Okay. Down to business. Over you go. Old business. Resolution 10-2026, Brown and South Oaks Road Comprehensive Plan Amendments, CPA 26-01. Sam.

Mr. Chair, the applicant applied to amend the village as part of the transportation element to the multi-jurisdictional account plan for Racine County 2035. They wish to reconfigure the roadways to match their approved preliminary plan FURTHERMORE, THE ACCOUNT PLAN AMENDMENT WILL DELETE CONNECTIONS NO LONGER FEASIBLE AND INCORPORATE THE VILLAGE'S BRAWN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT WITH A ROUND ABOUT THE PLAN INTERSECTION OF BRAWN AND OAKS ROADS. ADDITIONALLY, STAFF IN CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE SUBMITTED POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PAST Mainly the property, kind of two properties east where you see the kind of confluence of roads north and east of that yellow square on your screen. We included their proposed roadway plan as well. And then the adjacent properties we've just kind of connected through. So many of those exist on the current comp plan. This is just kind of refining and adding detail to them. I would say the main, removal that you see from the comp plan is there was formerly a planned kind of crossing at the north and northwest side of the site, a planned crossing of the Pike River corridor, which was planned well before that phase was fully restored and went through all of kind of the state and federal permitting to get where it is. So we removed that crossing because it doesn't really serve a purpose now. And it doesn't really match a purpose on the Sturdivant side of the border either. The comp plan amendment went to a public hearing at the end of June. The village board took public comments then. I wasn't at that meeting. So Robin, could you please summarize kind of those?

YEAH, SO THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EITHER SENT TO ME OR PUT FORTH THAT WERE ACTUALLY CONFUSING THIS FOR THE SANCTUARY AT PIKE RIVER SUBDIVISION. MR. KRAMER WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BEAR DEVELOPMENT AND THEN WHAT HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS THE CARDINAL PROPERTIES HE SPOKE ON THE RECORD AS FAR AS HE WAS NOT CONSULTED AS FAR AS THE PARTICULAR PLAN. IF THE PREVIOUS PROPOSED ROADS LAYER, WHICH IS THE SLIDE BEFORE THIS ONE, ALREADY HAD ONE CONNECTION THROUGH, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE THEIR PROPOSED OTHER ONES, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO REACH OUT TO HIM TO EXPLAIN THAT The plan is not really saying that those roads are going to go through and they limit the development that is going to occur on either side of his property rather than actually mandating anything going through that property. As well as we need to have those on there to make sure that those roads connect in any kind of meaningful way. I ALSO NOTED AT THAT MEETING THAT THE REASON WHY WE ADJUSTED SOME OF THESE THINGS IS BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS DONE FOR THE BEGGAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSUMED BISCAYNE WOULD BE CONNECTED THROUGH MR. KRAMER'S PROPERTY. AND SOME OF MY ADJUSTMENTS ARE REMOVING THAT ASSUMPTION FROM THE TABLE BECAUSE IT'S JUST PROBABLE THAT THAT CONNECTION IS GOING TO BE PUT THROUGH ANY TIME SOON. SO I BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THAT HEARING WAS GOING ON. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY MEANINGFUL PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR COMM PLAN AMENDMENT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU ROBIN. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REITERATE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DON'T HAVE IMPENDING DEVELOPMENT PLANS. AGAIN THIS IS THE LONG TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OSS adding more detail to this plan actually protects them, in our opinion, more thoroughly than if we don't. Because if there are no plans developers have more free reign to kind of stub or not stub roads into their property, which could limit their future development, particularly for instance in the. the point of the Kramer property where it's very skinny and very long if we don't set up future road connections to have to pull a new connection off of Brown Road which is a collector street, and then be able to serve a very long and skinny lot. That's just a lot of roadway that either the Kramer family or whomever would purchase the property in the future would be responsible for to provide proper access to that site. So in lieu of that, we have kind of those cross connections, which limits their exposure to that type of issue in the future. Same thing as you move to the properties east, you can see where we've kind of ghosted in some of the stubs on properties. That is where I'll note that for larger properties that do have a little bit more flexibility, even if something isn't shown on the comprehensive plan, the transportation element. Our underlying land division ordinances still have standards for lot and blocking as well. So we kind of have a belt and suspenders approach for land division and future developments on which we base our future roadway layer off of. But it's kind of a balanced test for us of what needs to be on the plan kind of to make sure those roads go in for development in the future, or at least are the assumption from developers versus LARGER PROPERTIES WHERE WE'RE MORE OPEN TO KIND OF DEVELOPMENT-DEPENDENT CONFIGURATIONS. AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES, THERE ARE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL AND THE VILLAGE BOARD NEED TO ANSWER TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IS IT CONSISTENT WITH, IS THE AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN? WE BELIEVE IT IS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS PUT TOWARD SOME OF THEIR JUSTIFICATION AS WELL. We do not believe the amendment will lead to any detrimental environmental effects. Again, most of these roads were already on there and they would have to go through the proper DNR local permitting to be built in the future. We believe the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding land uses. All of these properties are planned in the long term for residential development. So we've set up the roadway network to support that. Existing local and county facilities adequate to serve the type of development YES, THIS WOULD BOTH COMPLETE AN UNFINISHED ROAD NETWORK AND KIND OF CORRESPOND TO THAT VILLAGE PLANNED PROJECT TO UPGRADE BRAUN ROAD. AND THEN FINALLY, TWO MORE, SORRY. IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ENHANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COUNTY? WE BELIEVE IT DOES. THE PLAT ALONE HELPS PROVIDE A PORTION OF THE MORE THAN 4,000 HOUSING UNITS THAT THE COUNTY HAS IDENTIFIED IT NEEDS BY 2029. ACCORDING TO THEIR STUDY. AND THIS PROPOSED ROADWAY LAYER PARTICULARLY FOR THE BRAUN ROAD OAKS ROAD PROPERTY MAKES THAT PLAN VIABLE. AND FINALLY AS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN IT IS IN FACT THE SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION VISION 2050 PLAN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS CONNECTING OAKS ROAD THROUGH. THAT IS AN EXTENSION OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ACCORDING TO THEIR PLANS AND HAS BEEN FOR 20 YEARS. I MEAN, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN AT THE VILLAGE AND LONG BEFORE THAT AS WELL. THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ELEMENT CONFORMED TO THE VILLAGE'S LAND DIVISION REGULATIONS. THE VILLAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BRAUN ROAD PROPERTY REZONED IT FROM AG2 TO RN. IN JULY 2025 AND THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT COMPLY WITH THOSE DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THIS APPLICATION MEETS THE KEY STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED IN THE VILLAGE'S STRATEGIC PLAN AND FINALLY THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLAN COMMISSION APPROVES RESOLUTION 10-2026. Just as a note for this one and the next one, the plan commission is an approval authority on comp plan amendments, not just a recommending authority. And then the village board also approves those recommendations as well. We do not believe this will have any significant village fiscal impact on this amendment to the roadway network plan. Again, this is a long-term plan. Robin or I can answer any other questions you have about this amendment, but you've seen it once already, made its way through public hearings, so we believe it's ready for action.

Chairman. Yes, Governor Nancy. Can one of you guys point out, I don't know if we can do arrows on the screen, but which property is the Kramer property? In other words, in regards to the yellow box,

It is the one kind of west of the yellow box, immediately west. So the yellow box sits on what was the Cardinal property. And then to the west of that, there's kind of a long and skinny one. There's just three horizontal roadways crossing it. That is the Kramer property.

Okay, good. And then the properties that have the, all the extensions to the east that's further east of this. That's what two over from the yellow box. Do we know whose property that is?

It's privately owned. We've never received any like detailed development plans regarding that property, which is one of the reasons why it has like, I would say less detail to it than some of the other ones.

I think that's Wilkes then. Okay.

Yeah. I believe you're right.

Yeah. All right. I, yeah, I think the Kramer's are in an interesting situation and, But I think we've done a good job of making sure that we can connect through there at some future point, and it will be of value to them in the future.

Yeah, exactly. That property could not develop for another 20, 30 years if they so chose, but it would be set up. so that it could in the future. So it'll ultimately be their decision one way or another. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, the clarification is that it's way more a not a restriction or guidance for those two other big property developments to make sure that those Legos fit eventually.

I think that's going to be really critical when we see the cardinal project to see what happens when that when and if that comes back or what it comes back as And, you know, that's going to be a very, we're going to have to really be paying attention to that, I think.

Yeah, and so they were the ones who submitted to me that proposed road layer, and it still could be changed in the future, but now that we've adopted this, like the basic points of where they have to connect, well, we have something on record saying that this is where they have to connect no matter what. The only other thing I should explain is that The yellow box around that intersection is just kind of saying that development dependent, TIA dependent, that could be a controlled intersection of which options exist to include stop signs, signalized, or a roundabout. And that would be their primary intersection into that development. And that was basically after acknowledging that Biscayne will not connect through, that they might have a more intense entrance than what the Bayer Development TIA calculated.

But on that, on the capital, I'm going to call it the Harmello project because that's really who's in charge. They are going to have to show an extension for a possible Biscayne.

Okay.

I understand the property in the middle is probably going to sit there for a while, but but we want to make sure Biscayne does need to ultimately go through. Correct.

Okay. That's something I know perhaps too. Maybe the mild chagrin of some of the people in the existing subdivision to the east, but we had to remind them that Biscayne, when their subdivision was platted, was platted as a collector street. I mean, if you look at it, it's anywhere between 80 and 100 feet wide in certain aspects. So I think just... Because development hasn't happened around them, they might have forgotten that, which is incredibly understandable. But yeah, if you're next to an 80-foot road, chances are wherever you are in the village, it's probably intended to go a distance further than the end of your subdivision.

Yeah, I remember when that was built and developed. It was right as the recession hit. And I know that there's been quite a few resales in there. So a lot of the people that are living there now didn't, weren't here in the beginning. So yes, you're absolutely right. They had no real prior knowledge, so to speak. But I think, you know, as a board member, I'm willing to support that because that connectivity ultimately over time is very critical. And they'll appreciate that at some point, but.

But again, it's not happening anytime soon.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be built until it's built.

Exactly.

Are you looking for a motion?

If there's more discussion, yeah.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to approve Resolution 10-2026 Brown and South Oaks Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-26-01 as presented. Second.

Okay, got a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Do we need a voice vote on a resolution?

No, you're fine. Not if it's unanimous. Do we sign this afterwards? Is that what you, okay.

Thank you.

All right. Resolution 11-2026, Emerson Road West Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 26-02.

Mr. Chair, Nielsen, Manson, and Barber applied on behalf of Amy Hamilton to amend the village as part of the transportation element of the multi-jurisdictional comp plan. For Racine County 2035, they wish to reconfigure the roadways to match their approved preliminary plat. The primary changes are the removal of the east-west connection of Apollo Drive through a developed home parcel and the removal of its connection eastwards on South Emerson Road. The remaining proposed way layout remains largely the same. Again, answering all those questions, we believe the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the plan. This revised layout successfully addresses connectivity requirements by streamlining the previously kind of excessive points along Emerson Road, but does still maintain and improve regional traffic flow by correctly aligning Mariner Drive and Kinsey Avenue. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE AMENDMENT WILL LEAD TO ANY DETRIMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES WHICH WERE ALL PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL AGAIN. THIS WOULD COMPLETE AN UNFINISHED ROAD NETWORK AND THE SUBSEQUENT PLAT FOR THIS DOES ALSO PROVIDE THE ESTIMATED HOUSING UNITS PREVIOUSLY CITED UNDER THE RACINE COUNTY HOUSING REPORT. And this does comply with the regional land use plan. These are small local roads, which are not actually shown on the plan. So we have full local authority to show them how they are. As a note for land division, the village board approved the lineage estates preliminary plat, which matches the proposed roadway connection shown here for the Northern properties. THE APPLICATION MEETS THE VILLAGE STRATEGIC PLAN AND ALL OF THE PROPOSED LOTS AND ROADS COMPLY WITH THE RL LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY FISCAL IMPACT TO THESE CHANGES AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 11-2026. ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY?

I DO WANT TO CHIME IN. uh we held a public hearing for this on june 29th as per all the codes as well there was actually a lot of discussion on this item but it was mostly related to construction traffic and the rezone and the plat and it's kind of hard to piece out which was to what generally the comp plan has nothing to do with the construction traffic and should not um WE IDENTIFIED THE KIND OF COMP PLAN QUESTION AS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE OKAY WITH SHIFTING WHERE THAT CONNECTION TO EMERSON WAS ON THE PROPOSED LAYER DOWNWARDS AND IF THAT WAS GOING TO BE FINE. I INDICATED THAT A PROPERTY OWNER SOUTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL THE BACK HALF OF THEIR PROPERTY TO A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER TO CONNECT IN EXPLORER DRIVE. STAFF FEELS THAT THOSE TWO CONNECTIONS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR A SUBDIVISION OF THIS SIZE FOR ANY COMPLAINT ABOUT ONLY BEING ONE CONNECTION. FURTHERMORE, THE ONLY ACTUAL COMMENT APART OF THE PLAT ITSELF WAS CONSIDERING HAVEN DRIVE. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING ON THE OLD PROPOSED ROADS LAYER THAT HAS A PROPOSED ROAD LINING UP AND GOING THROUGH HAVEN DRIVE. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT ROAD IS FEASIBLE BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY SMALL, ALMOST LIKE A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY AND PUTTING IN A PUBLIC SIZED ROAD WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ON THE MAP THAT WE'RE SHOWING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED BY NEILSON MADISON BARBER THAT IT STILL REMAINS BUT THAT ALSO COULD BE REMOVED AND PROBABLY WOULD MAKE SENSE TOO. THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENT ABOUT LITERALLY THE LAYOUT OF THIS MAP FROM THAT PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S WHAT FIVE PROPERTIES THAT OFF OF EMERITSON ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE TO SELL THE BACK HALF OF THEIR LOTS. what you're talking about there?

No. So that is the connection to Kingsview. So how the subdivision goes north and then connects back into Kingsview, that is a connection of five bowling alley lots that each of them would need to sell in order to make that connection. The connection to Explorer Drive is to the south and is currently marked on PROPOSED ROAD LAYER AS IS. THAT WOULD ONLY NEED THE BACK HALF OF ONE PARCEL WHO IS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT PARCEL, THE SON-IN-LAW OF THE OWNER CONTACTED ME AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL THAT BACK HALF TO ENABLE THAT CONNECTION. SO THAT WAS JUST ALL INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE. SO THAT WAS ONLY ONE PARCEL. THE MAIN PROBLEM WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING WAS WHETHER WE WERE KIND OF PUTTING ALL OF OUR EGGS IN A BASKET WE DIDN'T WE WEREN'T SURE EXISTED YET. AND THAT KIND OF CLEARED THAT ONE QUESTION UP.

I THINK IN SUMMARY NEILSON MADSON DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING PROPOSED ROADS LAYER BUT MAKE SUBTLE REFINEMENTS TO IT THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSTRUCTIBLE BASED ON YOU KNOW THEY DIDN'T DO AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF LIKE GEO TECHNICAL OR ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE FOR PROPERTIES THAT WEREN'T under contract with, but generally trying to balance the existing transportation network plan with, you know, what is feasible, what matches the current village zoning, things like that. So we think this is an improvement on that model and is a little bit more realistic. And, you know, it certainly removes that connection that kind of plows through an existing house on the northwest side, which is, those are on the map. here and there. So when we can clean one of those up, it's always a nice point as well.

Well, just like the extension of a Powell on the West, they, they planted a subdivision and then there's a house right there where it should go. So obviously that transportation element at that time wasn't being looked at or was different or, you know,

Yeah, or they ignored it or whatever else. So yeah, this kind of cleans it all up. It's certainly to Robin's point, it's not perfect if it were all a big open space, but with dealing with what we have, we think this is a nice refinement.

Okay.

I know I got some, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Yes. I did get some calls after that meeting and with concerns over a lot of things and it was, It was a very good meeting. I think we had some really good dialogue. And the thing that happened at the village board meeting from my perspective, this roadway comprehensive plan amendment to me is a very good one for the reasons you've stated. We're looking at some areas that'll never extend because they don't have the land there available anymore. This is an infill site, so it's really important to adjust infill locations as time goes on and things change. But the thing that was said at the meeting was said by Chris Smith. We all have concerns about how this is gonna be built and the residents are fully aware and watching us and paying attention to agendas and are gonna be vocal as we move through the planning process with that project. In the meantime, the developer has made certain comments or promises that we're not sure he's gonna keep. And there's a little bit of mistrust, but that has nothing to do with this plan, as Sam mentioned. The thing that Chris Smith said that to me stopped all of my conversation at the board, and that was noted by the audience. They're like, why'd you back down? You were doing really good. Was as Chris said, when this goes to final plat, that's gonna be really critical. because what are they planning? Are they going to build all of it at once? They have said no in their meeting. So we do have some things to work out that I think particularly some of us will be paying a lot of attention to. But as far as this comprehensive plan amendment goes, I think this is a really good one for the area, connects the infill areas, and I support moving this forward so they have something, a goal to meet as well as they're looking at FINAL PLAT CONSTRUCTIBILITY AND HOW THEY CAN DIFFUSE SOME OF THE CONCERNS FROM FEZEN CREEK AND THE GREEN VALLEY AND KINGSWAY, KINGSVIEW RESIDENTS. SO I DO SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.

IT REALLY OPENS UP THE EAST WEST CORRIDORS TOO. THAT'S KEY. MUCH NEEDED TOO.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

YES.

I HAVE A COMMENT. Nancy mentioned earlier with respect to the previous item, and when I looked at what we have on the map, I really have to go through to the amendment plan, the write-up on this to try to understand what you're proposing. Can we put some kind of a arrow or circle or something like that? That's the amendment we are proposing because I don't know about you guys, but this, which is right on the plan, It makes it very hard for me to understand that because I don't know about the other commissioner, but I would like to have a little bit more, you know, put an arrow or circle saying that's the amendment and that's what we are proposing because other than that, I listen to the comments and concerns by Trustee Washburn because she's more experienced than me on the issue, but I really have to go through that to spend a lot of time trying to understand, you know, between that.

For the village board packet, we can add a separate exhibit to kind of bubble those changes just so it's clear, but yeah.

In other words, they provided us the current plan and then they interspersed the new plan within it.

But not in the, I mean, it's here. But I don't see in my package. I'm still looking at it. Okay. In the package, what we have is this one.

That one and this one.

Okay. Yeah, what's on the screen now is the current proposed road layer.

Okay, so even in this one.

So you're looking. Okay, I see what you're saying. Because, yeah, this is the current. Yeah, this is the current. And understanding how this sits on it.

Yeah, how they jive together, how they connect together.

I understand your point, Rob.

Again, I'm looking at my colleagues over here, the other commissioners. Maybe they all understand more than I do, but I'm going from page to page, page to page. And unless you can print them out, my problem is I get only the electronic version. I don't have the remote printer at home. So now I have to go from one page to another page, another page, you know.

That's not the solution.

I think the easiest thing is to just kind of put some kind of a cross-reference.

Let's agree.

That's my comment.

Well, I think you could even, they could transpose something on top of it.

An overlay.

Yeah, overlay something on top of Nielsen-Manson and Barber's drawing to be helpful, if that's helpful.

Yeah, again, I'm looking at...

I hear you. salt for the village board meeting.

I'm looking at what's on the screen, what's here, and on this laptop, how many times I have to go from previous attachment to next attachment, previous end, and then it kicked you out and you have to log in back again. That's not the way.

And I just use these. I don't go to the packet. I use these, and then you can go boom, boom, boom, and you don't have to re-download everything.

Or you still have to go to and forth.

Yes, you do.

But either way, I would highly recommend that we do that, I don't know if it's a, before you put that in the package, if you can make an arrow or maybe highlight, whatever you do, but I'd like to see some kind of a cross-reference between the various plans.

I would only just add to either address the THE COMMENT ABOUT HAVEN AVENUE, WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE IT, LEAVE IT AS IT IS OR WHATEVER, AND AS FAR AS HOW THAT IS, SAM, DO YOU AGREE?

I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE THE PLAN AS IT'S SHOWN NOW. OKAY.

THAT'S FINE. I DON'T THINK IT WILL HURT ANYTHING HAVING IT THERE BECAUSE IT IS DEVELOPMENT DEPENDENT. CORRECT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GLAD THAT ROBIN MENTIONED THAT. AGAIN, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THAT, HAVEN AVENUE IS CONNECTING WITH THAT WHATEVER THIS Sunnyview? Yeah. Haven Avenue, I drove through that. It's such a narrow street.

It's only like a driveway right now.

Yeah.

It needs more right-of-way added from the abutting property. It won't happen.

The houses are too close. It would be too expensive to make it wider.

That's why they're removing it from the plan. They're changing it.

But what's shown on this plan, which is up on the screen, that shows it. So that's the current plan?

I think we should leave it as is and vote on it as it's presented. If we decide to remove it in the future, I believe there's a lot of...

Sorry, that's on me. I made it more complicated.

Yeah, there's a lot more research I would like to do if we remove that in the future, including getting full title history and report of those platted lots, any surveys recorded and things on that. Because that's not subject to the existing plat applications that we received, we don't have that information and that connection. is generally shown on the existing comprehensive plan. So I would like to keep it there as is for the time being. And if we remove it in the future, that would be a subsequent amendment to the comp plan at that time.

You know, these transportation element plan changes happen frequently, right? Because it's constantly morphing. What's the, what's the, you know, what's the, taste of today in terms of lot sizes, road widths, whatever, who's developing what. And so I think the critical point of this comprehensive plan, as Sam said, is looking at the Hamilton property, the lineage estates property and understanding its future connectivity and having a very good idea of how we want that to look because that's the project on the table.

I AGREE WITH THAT, AND YES, WE UPDATE OURS A LOT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WITH US. I AGREE WITH SAM, AND I WAS ONLY BASICALLY JUST BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE IT WAS SORT OF THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE ADDRESSED IT, AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

OKAY. AT THAT POINT, THEN I GUESS I NEED A MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS SOON AS I FIND MY AGENDA. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION 11-2026, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PLAN, NO, NO, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CPA 2602. SECOND.

Okay. We got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimous. All right.

And let's see here.

Last one is New Business, 5940 16th Street, Certified Survey Maps, CSM 26-05. Robin. Hello.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED A CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP FOR THE EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 5940 16th STREET. THE CSM DIVIDES THE EXISTING 1.971-ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS. LOT ONE CONTAINING THE EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING AND ACCESSORY GARAGES AND LOT TWO LOCATED ALONG SOUTH EMERSON ROAD. THE PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP THE NEWLY SPLIT PROPERTY. So when you're looking at this, I should probably have put it. Did I have a map with an aerial image? I should have. But when you're looking at this, it's essentially the lot division as shown here, and this is turned. Lot two is basically the area between 16th Street and that access drive. So the point is to develop that with the construction of a new building. THIS PROPOSED CSM DOES NOT APPROVE ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION OF ANY NEW BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE SUBJECT TO VILLAGE STAFF REVIEW. THE APPLICATION FOLLOWS THE LAND USE ELEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RH FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND DOES NOT CHANGE THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY CONDITIONS WE HAVE IS THAT CHAPTER 74 REQUIRES PUBLIC STREET LANTS AT STREET INTERSECTIONS AND PRIVATE COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS. SO THAT WOULD BE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THEIR ACCESS DRIVE WITH EMERSON. THEY ALREADY HAVE SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES ON EMERSON AS FAR AS I CAN TELL. AND THE NEW LOT, EVEN THE NARROW LOT THAT IS BEING DIVIDED ACTUALLY COMPLIES WITH THE RH ZONING BECAUSE RH DOES NOT HAVE A MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. AND THEY COMPLY WITH ACTUALLY THE DENSITY AND LOT SIZE STANDARDS AS WELL. LOOKING AT SORT OF THE FISCAL IMPACT, IT'S VERY MINIMAL BECAUSE IT IS AN INFILL SITE FOR BASICALLY AN EXTENSION OF AN ALREADY EXISTING multifamily development. Generally, the platting and lot divisions here are an absolute mess, but this just happened to work out, which is great. But the future residential construction would increase the expected value. Just basically taking an estimate based on what the current buildings are, RH requires a minimum of 12 units per acre. THE EXISTING PROPERTY HAS 24 UNITS ON IT AND THAT WERE BUILT IN 1980 EXCESSED THAT 1.4 MILLION. A NEW 12-UNIT STRUCTURE, WHICH IT'S ONLY SIX TENTHS OF AN ACRE, BUT A 12-UNIT STRUCTURE, THAT CAN MAKE SENSE, WOULD HAVE AN ASSESSED FLOOR OF 1.5 MILLION AND THAT'S EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE. BUT THAT'S JUST SHOWING THAT THAT WOULD BE THE VALUE ADDED BY SPLITTING AND PUTTING ANOTHER BUILDING ON THERE. And that is really it. Almost everything is there already, and it's a lot simpler than I thought it was going to be when I first got this across my desk. Any questions? Well, yeah, we recommend approval.

Robin, could you switch back to the other screen? Thank you. Sorry, grab your mic there, too.

Was my mic off? No, no. Oh, okay.

I actually don't have a comment. I'm looking at the aerial now on Google Earth, just comparing it to what I can see.

What's wonky about it is that lot one of the CSM, when you look at the other map, Robin, that you had up, the legal description for those two existing buildings has to be really interesting because they sit over multiple lots. They sit on lot one, well, what will be lot one of the CSM. And then how does that work if you?

I think we need to bring in some attorneys to answer that one, but it's preexisting and it apparently works. AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT THIS NEWLY CREATED LOT, WHICH IS ABOUT AS CLEAN AS IT GETS. THIS LOT ALSO COULD HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO IMMERSON. I DON'T SUPPOSE IT WILL, BUT YEAH, I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL OF THOSE SHARED AGREEMENTS WORK WITH THAT EXISTING LOT AND EXISTING BUILDING.

SO ON THE CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP, THE SIGNATURE IS REQUIRED will be Nielsen, Manson and Barber, The Cellar and The Village. So my question is to our fellow plan commissioner, Tosh, how does that work in terms of title? If there is a building on an existing lot and now that lot, well, in this case, those buildings are on multiple lots and now part of one of those lots is going to now become lot one of a new certified survey map. Would the lender have something to say about that?

Because when you look at the aerial,

you can see that this property as it's been, the other map, can you put that other one up Robin? There you go. When you look at that one, Tasha, and you see what's in blue, that is lot one of the new CSM. And it's going to be a part of actual structures. So that's why my question to staff is simply, can we do the research to determine if the lenders need to sign off on this and be a signature to the CSM?

I would say A, it doesn't matter to us because it doesn't affect any of the village ordinances. But B, a more detailed and less flippant answer would be if you look at the actual property lines that run through those detached garages, they're pretty precise. So my guess is that there's a shared agreement where the properties to the north which are all owned separately, likely they just split out the individual garage units from those structures. Like we own these three, you own those two, and then there's a shared maintenance agreement.

So basically you're putting that onus of discovery or responsibility on the Developer on the Ansari's or whoever.

Yep, because it's an existing building and structure on the site So our reviews mostly considered with is the newly created lot legal and buildable and have all of its stuff Which is on the front half of the property and doesn't impact those so I think from the villages perspective We're fine with it. They're kind of developing the the easier and cleaner areas Robin noted and if they have existing legal issues with those existing structures and they can work that out through their own title company and attorneys if it's an issue for their closing or anything else.

I appreciate that explanation because that's my first, I'm going, whoa, you know, but that is their... Yeah, if they drafted a new CSM that put lot lines through buildings like currently exist, we would definitely stop that in its tracks and be like, okay, well, this has to be, you have to show us that this is legal and, you know, a legal lot division, which... generally wouldn't meet setback requirements because I don't think we would allow all the sewer lot lines through garages, through accessory buildings, but it is what it is. But this one, the lot two is a clean lot division, about as clean as you can get. The only question I have is essentially going to be at the point of development is whether the access is going to come off of the access drive or is it going to go directly off into Emerson. That is an option that probably the future developer will entertain.

I would assume off the existing access. That's right by, that's a busy area.

Me too, but I mean, the, For the legal requirements, the legal frontage is still Emerson.

Right.

It won't affect Lot 2. It won't affect Lot 2. So I apologize. I might have done what I typically do, and that is overthinking. I took it too far.

I never have that problem, Nancy.

But I will, the only comment I would have if we can make sure under the village's certificate that we have the proper information.

Cool.

The clerk's information is incorrect.

Oh, okay. I guess my question would be is, are they doing this to sell it? Or is it just to be able to put another building on it?

I believe the intention is to sell it.

Yeah. Because, again, he wouldn't be able to do it if he didn't clean up that. He has to divide it in order to be able to put something on that lot, I would guess.

I mean, it's a lot easier in any way to kind of separate it out. And, I mean, if there are sort of restrictions to other owners on the current lot, dividing this lot out would relieve you from some of that burden.

So I always thought that this was all just one big community, but you're saying most of these are individually built. It's an absolute mess. Okay. Yeah, I did not know that.

Yeah, it is kind of wonky over there. I started poking around all the parcels, and it does look like one real community, but it's not. It's all different owners.

And I think one section is actually like owner-occupied condos, like that each one has their own lot number. Yeah. Okay.

The other thing, I stand corrected as well. On page four of the CSM, there is a party wall agreement taken off the title policy. So it would appear that the agreements regarding the garages are in place without reading the document, which I'm not going to do.

Any other comments?

Robin, I'm still trying to understand. So in the lot one, Are they planning to build next to the existing building or what?

No, there's been no conversation about any future construction on lot one whatsoever. And I would say that is almost impossible. So this is only about creating a new buildable lot two.

Okay, because the description If I got it wrong. Okay. The purpose is to develop the newly split property, and the proposed CMS does not approve new construction, which is fine.

Yeah.

Newly split meaning lots of. So they're just dividing the old property into lot one and lot two for now.

Yes. Yeah. And the newly split, that is a reference to lot two being the one that they would like to sell and develop.

Okay, on that then, I'm looking for a motion.

Second.

Okay, got a motion and a second. Any other comments? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes unanimous.

All right. And we have no staff reports. No staff reports. See you August 19th.

Can I make a plan commissioner request before we adjourn? I should have done it under, well, we don't have new business. I really enjoyed hearing at our last meeting, we were talking about the new state laws.

Uh-huh.

And there's a number of them and they are very, very relevant to what we're doing. I'm wondering if Sam and Robin, you can take your time, but can we have maybe a little more at the plan commission meeting? Can we take them one at a time and have a little more in-depth review? Act 68 is a great, is a great, I need to know more about that. And I think it was 173 is another one that's very, very relevant. And you were trying to talk about very important things in a condensed form. And I'm just wondering if, and I wouldn't even mind having a separate session if we felt that it was not germane to what everybody wants to know more about. I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO DIVE A LITTLE DEEPER.

I DON'T KNOW, SAM, ARE YOU ABLE TO DO SOME SORT OF SEPARATE PRESENTATION ON THESE NEW LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS?

OR AT A REGULAR MEETING, BUT JUST A LITTLE MORE IN DEPTH.

I'M MAKING A JOKE BECAUSE SAM IS PRETTY MUCH ALREADY WORKING ON THIS.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS TWOFOLD. SHORT ANSWER IS YES, WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. WE DO HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT TO BEGIN REWRITING THE VILLAGE'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH SEWER PACK STARTING LATER THIS YEAR. SO I THINK A LOT OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS RELATE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. AND SO LET'S PUT A SLIGHT HOLD ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DIVE RIGHT DEEP INTO MANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO BEING ABLE TO PAIR STARTING TO REWRITE THE COMP PLAN WITH THE CHANGES TO STATE LAW WILL BE A VERY NICE ONE TO pairing. So, and we'll start that later this year. So just, it won't be next month, but in a few months we can certainly bring something to you.

Yeah, that's great. Most of them don't even go into effect. I think one goes into effect in October and the other one's the first of the year. So if we can have that, that would be great. All right. Thank you so much for that. I apologize.

Okay. Move to adjourn.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? Aye.

We're out of here.

Okay.