Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

to the October 22nd, 2025 plan commission agenda uh meeting. And the first order here I'm going to say is we've got on there under C is public comment. Any public comment will be taken at each of the items that we we look at. So we will not be doing open public comment prior to that anyway. So we have roll call, please. Basil. Yes. Basinowski. Yes. Washburn. Hi. Meer here. And we Rahm and Frank are excused. Or are they? I have not heard from Wait, I did hear from Frank a while ago that he was going to be on vacation. That's right. Because it changed. Okay. Yeah, they're excused.

Uh, chairman. Yes. So, I had emailed Sam that I have a heart out today based on my messing up my calendar and not being able to change at two o'clock doctor appointment. So, I anything that we need to vote on because if I leave, you're only going to have three. So, absolutely. If you can watch your agenda in that regard, Robin, that would be great. Most of the items are fairly short and non-controversial and then a couple resolutions about rightways. So, okay. Well, six looks intimidating. It's not. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Nancy. Appreciate that. Okay. Um, old business. I need a motion on the September 17th plan commission meeting minutes.

I'll move to approve the plan commission meeting minutes from uh September 17th as submitted. We got a motion and second. All in favor? I I passes. Okay. All right. New business. First on the agenda is ordinance 14-2025617 Washington Avenue zoning map amendments ZMA25-09. Robin.

Okay. Hello. So the applicant proposed to amend the zoning code from for 6625 and 6617 from RL lowdensity residential to C2 moderate and density commercial in order to expand the businesses the business currently operating under a home occupation permit. um they had sort of stressed the boundaries of that and they needed to convert. Um staff um at its own behest and as allowed has added the other five parcels for the same amendment. Those parcels either already contain businesses um 6611, 6533, 6525 or are currently being marketed as commercial um uh vacant for commercial 649 and 6401. Um those would be the parcels that are sort of next to the car wash. Um the 6525 parcel is also currently splitz zoned um which you can see right here. Um it's the sort of one that shares the pink and yellow um which is currently prohibited by Mount Pleasant zoning code. So it's kind of an artifact. Um and that will have that fix be fixed. Um the 2035 master plan lists all of these properties as mixed residential commercial and given their location on a hightra state trunk highway staff's opinion is unlikely that any of these properties or or that they will have future RL uses or will expand their RL uses. Um the C2 district accommodates moderate intensity commercial, low inensity manufacturing and upper story residential. Um, high intensity commercial uses such as drive-throughs, gas stations, and auto repair and car

washes are not allowed by Wright and C2. Um, so it's pretty much zoning it as it has been used um for quite some time. Uh, I actually had I made a slight error in calculation on 6633. I was contacted that by that property owner, Dennis Hardy, and he emailed me and Sam about that conversion um and did not was not in favor of it first. Uh we put up a sign in front of his house and he took it down. Um and we I actually got to talk with him on the phone and then worked it out. Um and told him that his property had been assessed as commercial for 20 years. um that the zoning change does not prevent it from being rented out as a house. It's a legal non-conforming until eternity. Um his taxes wouldn't go up or change at all because I confirmed that with the assessor who whom he knew. Um and that uh it could increase the property value if somebody wanted to purchase the property considering the flexibility um and alignment with the future zoning. uh he withdrew his objection and put the sign up and emailed uh me and Sam uh thanking us and and welcoming the transparency um and uh professionalism. And so uh and definitely said it was a contrast to his previous dealings with um planning staff of Mount Pleasant that no longer work here. So, um,

yeah, kudos, Robin. Kudos. I mean, you know, you he wrote a very nice email. I might it might go in my CV someday, you know, like this is it was really nice to to hear and and the one person that had had called me about it and was upset, they flipped the script on it and was like, "Okay, we're fine." So, after I clarified that. So, everything else is pretty simple. Which parcels are actually the applicants? the the ones next to Rocky RCOO 6617 and 6625. Okay.

Um they um have other licensing requirements beyond this. So um those decisions will be in front of the board at a later date. Okay.

Any questions from the commission? I was just wondering on the other hand. Yeah. So, uh there's actually a potential subdivision um that we're in works with talking to the south. It was an abandoned subdivision back in the mid 2000s and we're finally cleaning up some of the property issues in order to be able to move forward with that again and that's an issue that would be addressed by that having a street behind there. Uh the other thing is such requirements of access and stuff would assume that the um the building would change so that they would apply for a new building with commercial parking lot and all those kind of regulations. Um this would be much like a lot of other homes on our state highways that are converted to businesses. They are operated as small offices essentially. Um, we have insurance companies working out of them. Um, hair stylists. I think Despin's plumbing on Newman and Spring is just a house um that's been kind of converted over. That's the sort of um uses that C2 would envision and allow. um any type of redevelopment beyond that would either res really need an upzone or more property. So most of it would be that toet work with

the traffic that exists which is very low. So, I I think I understand Tasha's question and I I think, you know, along Highway 20, if these were if this business were to grow, change, or he would combine it with one of the other lots and expand, he's going to have to get an access approval from the DOT. And at some point, you know, we may be able to help through planning drive a rear roadway back into that And I I would applaud that if it happens, but it seems to me that the Department of Transportation is going to have the most to say about it, about their accesses and and whether they can

there is one expand their business and still keep that access.

There's one consideration that I would love to hear of any thoughts on is that the connection of Sunny Slope right there. um that speaking of previous um community development uh administrations, they uh wanted that to be turned into a culde-sac like it is. Um our propos our thought is if that subdivision were to develop, we would want that to connect. Um and and it's right next to the Quick Trip. Uh, I don't think they would ever deny being another corner um or through traffic by them. And I've even spoken to Rocky Verokos about it. They have concerns about some setbacks and stacking, but no concerns about the access portion of it. Um, that would kind of lead to an availability for a back access um like you were speaking of. So,

yeah. And I I think that's my question as well as regards to that access off of 20 because those are just driveways now and they're just small businesses that run out of those had like I said if somebody develops something more substantial there they're going to have to widen it in ingress and eress and the DOT is going to have to have a say in that I would think. Yeah. assuming all has been agreement with the neighbors, all the all the property.

Well, what I'm saying is that we're we're we're going to be giving approval to for them to develop a a a different type of business on those properties and do do we have to get that okay from the DOT for a roadways? I mean, Sam, no. No, no. The DOT will give that. The only time the DOT would be involved is if the access changes. They're trying to add road connections to 20 um or provide road connections in a different way that affects 20. But barring that, we wouldn't even contact them for a change in tenant or anything else.

But if somebody's going to be bringing a business in there, those driveways are going to be inadequate to supply in and out of the off of Highway 20. That's and we're going to have to go back to the DOT to to be able to widen those entrance ways. Correct.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the user and the business. I mean, a typical driveway could be, you know, single direction, 10 to 12 feet, double direction, 20 to 24 ft. Most driveway connections are that size um for residential driveways. So, if it is slightly undersized, it'll probably function fine if it's a low traffic business. Um the only time it would be an issue is if it were a higher trafficked business um like a car wash or something which are most drive-through uses are prohibited in the C2 district that we're recommending.

So I think we're trying to kind of thread the needle there of you know potential uses that would be allowed to operate by right under the zoning are typically ones that won't generate enough traffic to be a concern on either the driveway accesses or needing to reach out to the DOT. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And and a lot of these um in a lot of these situations, they are already being used for commercial uses such as the split zone property um and and marketed as that by the two vacant properties and the 6400 block and those are next to car wash which we've gotten complaints about. So I've that's why it was key to mention that C2 does not allow those. All right. Right. Before we take a roll call, um any comments from the audience at all? Nothing. Okay. Then I look for a motion.

Mr. Chairman,

I'll second that. Okay, we got a motion and a second. All in favor? I I'm sorry. 25. Okay. So, we have a motion in a second. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion passes. Next up is 1501 Meadow Lane Avenue certified survey map CSM 25-08. exam.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant applied to divide the property into two lots. The division removes a double frontage lot and the new lot configuration matches the lots both north and south of the subject property. Staff recommend five conditions of approval. One, the applicant shall update the map to dedicate 40 feet to the public for the South Emerson Road rightway. Per the village comprehensive plan, South Emerson Road is a collector street, not a local street, so a slightly wider right ofway. Two, the applicant shall update the map to show all the utilities underneath which we require for new lots just to so that they can be served by public utilities. That's a pretty technical map cleanup. Three, the applicant shall update the village's signature area um to match the current clerk Jill. Four, uh they'll need to construct a concrete sidewalk or asphalt path on one side of all frontage streets or on one of both sides of other streets within the land division. Um mainly the new we can get into that a sec. Well, I'll just round back to that one.

Sidewalks. Sidewalks. Sidewalks.

And then five, they'll need to plant street trees of a species approved by you all. Um which is subsequently in our ordinance as well. Um along the frontage for every 50t of frontage. Um so these lots just need a couple trees. Um, I think the main issue out here is sidewalks. Uh, you all have the power under land divisions to wave the requirement for sidewalks as we talked about last month. Um, if you choose to do so, uh, we think it would be reasonable on the meadow lane side because there are no connecting sidewalks and none within, you know, even a few hundred feet. But I would recommend that we continue to have them on the South Emerson roadside. Um it they're only a property away from a sidewalk connection that goes through the reconstructed roundabout on 16th Street. So that one is, you know, within 100 feet of a connecting sidewalk. I think I would recommend that the plan commission keep the requirement for the sidewalk on the Emerson Road side. That side also is the would be the vacant lot. Um and so the zoning would also trigger the sidewalk requirement when they build a new house. So we think that's why it makes sense on that side. But if you get rid of it on the, you know, we'll take one on the metal lane side, but if you get rid of it, we won't lose sleep and that is it. Otherwise, it uh complies with all the land use uh ordinances and regulations.

Yeah. Yeah. To Robin's point, it gets more legal. Getting rid of a double frontage lot is nice. Well, I agree on that. I I think that's really smart of them to do that, particularly if they have the intent. I don't know if they're here to sell the other one. There's a huge demand for single family lots. So, they've created a lot of value here, I think.

Yeah. Yeah. You can see the the fiscal performance is not great um because, you know, we have some low density uses along Emerson Road, which is a collector street. So, um that side doesn't perform as well, but it does perform better than it does now because we're adding an additional house. So over twice as good as it does. It's, you know, we typically try to require a little bit more uh density, but in this case, we'll take what we can get. And I think they're going in the right direction. Well, exactly. And to divide this any further would be it would not fit into the neighborhood. What I mean, it just would make no sense. Exactly. It's a nice big lot, which someone will appreciate someday.

Yep. So, no other issues. Um, I would just need the motion and then clarification on which uh side that you'd like to require sidewalks or any other amendments to the recommended conditions. The street the uh property then directly south of the subject parcel has no sidewalk but the one then more adjacent to that to the south does. So how do is there some vehicle by which we can get those at least those three lots to all have sidewalk or are we going to have sidewalk no sidewalk sidewalk

for the short term that's what it will be but the village actually has a sidewalk replacement fund and when people do pay the in lie of fee um uh funds to uh the public works sidewalk fund um that has some money in it because we've had a couple people do that um so I think this is a really prime candidate to spend, you know, a couple grand to make that connection just, you know, less than a 100 feet southwards. I'd look forward to that big help.

Yeah. And the right of ways out there because, you know, there when they did the Sixth Street um roundabout, they kind of cleaned up some of the rightway near that roundabout. So, I think it should be a pretty easy just, you know, I can talk to the public works director if this gets approved by the village board and I think we can get that sidewalk in as part of the paving program next year pretty easily. I think that'd be great. Is that something we should put in a motion? In other words, to recommend that staff No, because it doesn't that's an off-site improvement, so it doesn't relate to the land division at hand. I think we'll just take that as a note um kind of from you all to staff, but it doesn't need to be part of the motion. Okay. Good.

All right. Well, I would make a motion to approve the certified survey map CSM25-08 for 1501 Meadow Lane Avenue. Uh, subject to removing the requirement for sidewalk on Meadow Lane, but keeping the sidewalk requirement on Emerson Road. I'll second that. Okay, got a motion to second. Before I take the vote, is there anybody in the audience that has anything to say about this? If not. Okay, we have the motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? It passes.

Got it. Thanks, Robin. Okay, moving on. Item number three. 6611 Spring Street, Certified Survey Map, CSM2-09. And Sam is still up there.

Yes. Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the application proposed splitting the existing lot into six lots and two outlots. Lots one through four would be available for development under the existing RM zoning district guidelines, which set a minimum of nine units per net acre. Lot five contains the existing Aurora Medical Clinic and lot six provides shared access to the western lots. Outlot one contains extra land and outlot two contains a storm water pond that serves the site. The staff recommends that the plan commission move to approve subject to four conditions of approval. One, the applicant shall modify the map to merge outl lot one with lot one. Um two, the applicant shall modify the map to change properties zoned RL1 to RL and RM2 to RM. That's just a designation cleanup on the face of the map. Three, the applicant shall modify the map to add the existing zoning uh within the proposed land division. They added it extra the extra territory around it but not internal. And then finally for the applicant shall add the utility information that we previously called out which they can get from the public works director. Um so that are those are our recommendations for approval. You can see in the fiscal analysis um attached that this thing performs pretty well above all our target um uh financial figures and ratios. Um particularly uh this is a low estimate because we just use the minimum um density per the zoning district. If they go in above that it would likely perform even better. So this is a really nice infill project along a you know arterial street in the village to add a little bit of density but still complying with the existing zoning. So we really like to encourage these types of projects. Um I think the only additional note um and it shouldn't hold up your recommendation but something that we wanted to talk about is it's a little bit of an odd map when you look at it. um particularly lot

six, that shared access roadway. In large part, um that's because some of the the zoning district guidelines set a maximum lot size of an acre. And so they're not able to pick up some of the ancillary parking um for lots three and four without kind of subdividing that and creating that tooth pattern that you see there. So, while we don't have an issue, and I don't think any of these lots are technically illegal under our code, it's certainly not our intent of this is how land divisions would look like when they come in, right? Like the idea is that you you subdivide lots and then you design buildings to those lots. Um, and this is trying to kind of merge those processes together. So, I just wanted to call it out and that we've had a lot of internal discussions about it and we're likely going to come back to the commission with some updates to the recently adopted residential guidelines. I think this was a really good test of how some of those are working. And while I think the project when it's all said and done would look pretty nice when it's finished, um I in the meantime, I think we we owe you some updates uh and perhaps some reconfigurations of some of those lot sizes and things to to clean up what these maps will look like in the future. So again, we recommend approval with those conditions. Um and uh we'll be back with some cleanup as we typically do.

Can answer any questions and the applicants here. Where's the access point for lots and it'll be across lot six which there's a shared access there already. It goes all the way to to sunny slot. Oh yeah, there will be some shared access. Sorry, some shared access across lot two and one as well. um mostly across lot two and out lot two. I may have missed you may have covered it and I was thinking of something else but um how is that ownership do is has the applicant given you any idea who's going to own lot six and how it's going to be managed?

Uh lot six uh you know I'll let the applicant answer that. Uh ownership is their negotiation between all the lots so they can talk about it. Our assumption is it would be a shared ownership with lots one, two, three, and four. Um, but they can speak to those negotiations directly. Okay. I guess another possibility would be to let those lot lines go all the way to the rear as as much as they can up to outlaw two or does that make them too large?

It makes them too large, which is why we need to update the zoning, why I called that out. So, it's our it's our own rules and, you know, we always try to be self-reflective. So, we'll we'll fix it. We don't want to hold this one up because they have a offer to purchase and we think this is a nice infill project and honestly when it's all said and done you won't notice the lot lines really when you're out on the site. Um but I think there are some easy fixes that we can do that would have made this map look a lot more reasonable without changing the development. So

yeah, we can find some relief valves for applicants there to get these things a little bit cleaner. Um, notably the applicant hired, you know, Pinnacle, um, for the map, but also, um, they've submitted some draft building plans, uh, site plans to us, um, from Rinka, pretty good architecture firm. So, you know, we appreciate them willing to kind of work with us as staff through the process. It's not someone trying to just get it in as easy as possible. They really took a lot of time to try to understand the code and the limitations, and it just ended up that this is what that looks like. Yeah, I I appreciate seeing these proposed development plan. It's helpful in looking at the survey.

Yeah. So, any other questions for me? Otherwise, in regards to why four lot or why the division of the lots and why not one if it's if it's going to be a single development or is it going to be sold as individual lots and then different buildings put on by different developers?

It's four different buildings. Um, and so generally they're required by our ordinance to have four separate lots for those individual buildings. And that was a change we made for for residential projects to have one building per lot to try to encourage better land division design. Obviously, in this case, there's room for improvement, but the long-term goal is for us to have um more orderly like lot and block development. Um, so even though they might be owned by the same developer, um, and have some shared ponding or other things, it would make it more flexible in the future if they ever decided to sell one of the buildings. Um, they could do that without selling the other three. Um, or, you know, they could the other relief valve that we have under the ordinance is they could have condo platted it instead, but they would have still had to meet these lot guidelines. So it was quicker for them to do a CSM and and frankly I think it was a better test of our own rules. So

well and then we also received well technically a lighting and a tree plan submitted but why isn't that coming with a site plan? Um because residential developments are reviewed at the staff level but the uh the lot uh or the land division requirements require lighting and landscaping. So, the street trees and the public street lights um are something that you all can by ordinance review as part of the land division. Um really just in relation to what fronts the public streets, but we don't have anything here that shows any kind of a layout of the buildings. I mean, they're it's sketchy at best on on the drawings as far as what the buildings are.

Yeah, we haven't received a site plan application. Again, that's by ordinance reviewed at the staff level. The whole idea is that they would split the lots and then apply for individual site plan review for each of the individual buildings on each of the individual lots is the property line phototric site plan that we do have. I see some faint outlines of buildings. Is that what that is? Yes. But again that's not subject to your review. So I want to be very clear. So, but to review a lighting or you know that kind of plan doesn't make any sense if we don't know what the buildings are just in relation to they gave you everything but the only thing that the land division ordinance cares about is the public street lights and the public street trees in the right of way. So, they're adding street trees along Spring Street.

Um, and they're adding the only lamp in that lighting plan that you really care about is the one at Sunny Slope because that's where it's required by the land division ordinance. Everything else they gave you is just extra info. Okay. Okay. Well, I'd like to hear from the developer if we can go for it. It'd be perfect. Looks like

name and address, please. Lee Haramo. Uh, North Terra Real Estate Group, 5226 Clover Lane. Uh, Calonia. Sorry, Calonia. Just on the other side. Uh, I'm a co-developer with Impact 7. I'll let Carol introduce herself and then I think it's best that we have Rinka talk a little bit more about the lot lot lines. This is sort of we're we're sort of the guinea pig project. Can I say it that way? And we did everything that we were required to do under the new guidelines. So, this is sort of a new trial. We would prefer to have one big square lot, but you know, we're we're trying to adhere to the rules here. So, Carol,

hi, I'm Carol Keane. I'm with of Impact 7 Real Estate Group. Um 2965 Decker Drive, Rice Lake, Wisconsin.

Hi, I'm Jess Timmer, the architect with Rinka, our address, 756 North Milwaukee Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Um happy to answer any questions you have. I think this is a little bit of a first-time process for all of us um of having to subdivide, you know, because we have four different buildings. Instead of approaching it with one single lot, it's literally subdividing each lot to make sure each building meets all of your zoning requirements on a, you know, individual basis and that they can stand on their own. So, they're meeting the um maximum lot size of the acre, the parking requirements, the open space, the minimum density per acre requirement, which I think is nine, but we'll exceed it on some of the lots, which is good. And um literally kind of testing the zoning code as written, which you guys just updated, I think in the last six months or year or so. But Sam's been super helpful, informative. We walked through the entire process. I think the plan for this is going to be great in terms of bringing more units um that are you know badly needed uh in the the area that's going to be still a high quality architecture um with a mix of scales. Um we're happy to tell you a bit about the buildings if you want to know more even though I know it's not maybe subject to your purview. Um so there'll be two of the buildings will be singlestory sort of what we call a cottage style. So individual units on ground level um with attached garages. Um and then the other two buildings will be kind of what we call a garden style. So two stories um also with some attached garages, some with detached garages. There'll also be bike parking on site and then there'll be a clubhouse, an amenity that's shared across them. And then one of the outlets is the storm water management um in the bio retention pond.

Yeah.

Part part of the preliminary site planning is we we we did this in conjunction with Aurora talking trying to be good neighbors with them and discussing and Jack is here uh sort of on their behalf um is to do something tasteful next door basically instead of having some we we probably could have went much denser for what we're thinking. Obviously, we're still moving around with the site planning, but we wanted to be good neighbors and do something tasteful in of the in the area. Um, one question you guys had was lot six. Is that lot six? That is part of our purchase agreement with Aurora. So, we had to incorporate that as part of part of the purchase of the development. And so, that's why it looks a little funky because we will then now be in charge of sort of that that that easement um coming into the overall development. That's why it looks a little funky, but that was part of the purchase and sale agreement of of this property of this five acres. You guys have any other questions? We could knock out the site planning right now today if you want and just stamp it and be done with it.

Well, I see one thing. It's called Pike Pike Creek Commons. Is that what it's So, it is a one development. Is that what it's called? Yes, it is. It is one development. Yes. Okay. That was my main concern when I saw the lots is like, wait a minute, you're not This is really G. And then you also mentioned you're going to have a clubhouse, right? which is key to that. It's actually a development, a single development. Exactly. And and it looks funky when you look at it. You're like, "Holy cow, I don't want to see that in in my community." But obviously, you won't see the lot lines. But it's just part of the new the new code that we had to follow here. I mentioned that lot six looks like one of those old wooden horses with the the horse on a stick that you would jump around. So, I just call it the horsey lot. The horsey lot. Horsey Lot Commons. Yeah, maybe we'll change that.

Oh, I like that name. Just a com just a comment even though it's not subject to our review. I think what I'm hearing is it's it'd be wonderful to be able to see um plans and elevations just to give it some context if for if it's not forbidden by our code.

Well, I want to be extremely careful about that. I understand that the plan commission would like to see that. However, um anytime state law requires that if they submit something and it complies with it, we have no option for residential development but to approve it. You have no legal leeway to deny a residential development that otherwise meets the zoning code. So, while we'll try to provide you more information about that, we're trying to dance very carefully about not setting expectations for something that you don't have any say over. I I I think that when we made that change to the code, that was an area where we had a discussion about it and we weren't real happy about it. The plan commission was being there was a review being taken away from us that historically had been in the plan commission's hand and had given us the opportunity to weigh in on some of these questions we're having and to be not be in a position where we had items before us to approve that we couldn't envision how they were going to function. So, I I think that is a reasonable request and yet I understand Sam's point.

Yeah. I mean, we're not trying to withhold information from you by any means. We're just trying to make it very clear about what you actually, you know, by statute have the authority to approve or deny. That's why we've made this focus to more land division that's created this whole kind of downstream effect. Um, you know, I I think that was due to a change in state statute. So, we're just, you know, trying to

keep up on that in in a way. Frankly, I'm just going to blame other communities because we're perfect here. But, um, you know, the state legislature changed that law purely because a lot of communities were just denying things that they otherwise should have approved by right and zoning. So, they kind of took away the toy from the toy box because there were some naughty children in other areas. So, unfortunately, we're having to adapt to it. Yeah. They ruined it for everyone. So, I'm just going to blame other people cuz yeah, again, we're we're doing our best here. But we'll try to provide you more information or a little bit more context to help you envision what's going on these lots in the future while still making it clear what you're actually voting on.

Even if it's outside of the submittal, if it's just a over here somewhere, you just have something to look at. Yeah. Or part of the presentation or something. That's it's a fair note.

And I ag I agree that we we we lost the control of that. However, the developers like Lee and that they see the they see the public input from the adjoining neighborhoods and when you're open and open with that and and you even though we not might not be able to control it, we can at least say, "Hey, would have you thought about doing this? Putting a burm here, putting extra trees here, yada yada to to mask some of the some of the stuff." They don't have to do it, but I think it's it's in intuitive to to the village that we say, "Hey, you know, we care about what it looks like." It's a very, you know, obviously open spot and everybody's going to go, "What's going on there?" You know, and I think it would be nice for people, the neighborhood to know that, hey, it's going to be a quality built, you know, uh, housing project. Y I just want to add in if it come if it brings in like like access and circulation and stuff like that and if the buildings being put on them makes that difference that certainly comes under the purview of a lot split and what your review can be about and like well you could be say well on lot two well the building's facing the wrong way like where you know this is how it should align for better access that would go under this purview and something that you can review I But I mean, you wouldn't have you wouldn't require

Okay, now we have staff con staff conflicting with each other. Yeah, I don't know about that. But, um, not to rush us along, but we have three other items that absolutely need to get voted on tonight. So, uh, if we could call the vote unless you have any other questions pertinent to the land division itself. I do. If I might. My question is, first of all, these are rental properties, are they not? Yes. Okay. So my question has to do with the 45 foot access. In other words, I thought that under our code, anything being subdivided had to front onto a public right ofway that met our right-of-way standards of 66 ft.

Not if they have shared private access.

Okay. Number two, my comment is I would prefer to see this as a condominium plat. Because in your review, some of the comments you made were if they want to sell off a building, if they want to sell off a part of the project, I would I think this bodess much better for some kind of a condo plat and overall site plan because in my mind it would be ridiculous to sell off any part of this in a peacemeal basis because you do have a clubhouse, you do have different types of units, and you know, in my mind, it's one project that should not be sold off in pieces. So, I would certainly promote, you know, again, you're talking about we're still working with the code. We're still trying to figure out where it works and doesn't work, but I think in this case, it it certainly would have made sense to come in with it platted as one one project.

The setbacks still would have applied. So, I think I understand. Well, that's good. You know, that's right. That's really what we what we would be concerned about. Yeah. and looking down the road 20 30 years if one of these buildings were sold and it began to deteriorate over time reflects poorly on the others as well. Sure. So treating it as one development I think has some advantages from um streetscape from value to the um residents as they drive by the value to the residents who remain in the uh undilapidated building. So I I think there we'll look at the ownership stuff um for future ordinance to maintain it as a as a single development.

So having said that because of the way our code is written I'm not sure that we could force that request on the applicant. I think we could suggest it and if they want to come back to us at a at a later time in with some different methodology that would be fine. But in the meantime, I will make a motion to approve the certified survey map 259 at 6611 Spring Street. Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Um, any other comments from the audience? Nobody's here. Okay, so let's go ahead and vote. Uh, all in favor? I opposed. Motion passes.

Good luck. It'll be nice to fill that in. be interesting to see the minutes for this meeting. You can talk to Brandy about that. Okay. Item number four, 5312 Spring Street, certified sur map CSM2-10.

Mr. Chair, the applicant proposed splitting the existing lot into two lots. Parcel one contains an existing detached house and parcel two would be a new developable lot. Staff recommends uh a motion to recommend approval to the village board subject to eight conditions. One applicant shall obtain approval from the Rine County Department of Public Works for any additional driveway connections to Spring Street, which is also County Trunk Highway C. Um, upon review, uh, I did send this over to the county and they said they would not grant an additional driveway one additional driveway access. So, instead, I'd like to amend condition one to say the applicant will need to update the map to show cross shared access between lots two and one. Oh wow, that's going to be tough.

It will be very tough. Um, but that's too bad. A pretty black and white answer from the county. They said it doesn't meet their adopted width for access standard requirements anymore along the county highway. So, it was I don't think they'll get one. Um, they could try to apply for some sort of variance from the county or whatever the county's, you know, approval process is, but that's between them and the county. I I think in the meantime to allow a developable lot, we have to force that shared access. Yeah, but the way their house is turned, they can't even put them side by side.

And maybe they can work with the county to relocate an existing driveway and and bend it and still do it. But yeah, it's going to be a little bit iffy either way. But again, yeah, that's

that's tough. But marching on, uh, number two, the applicant shall remove county signature line from the plat. Number three, the applicant shall update the map to include the data drafting. Four, the applicant shall update the map to include the existing zone within and adjacent to the proposed land division. Five, applicant shall update the map to show the minimum lot area required by the zoning district in which the land division is located. Six, applicant shall update the map to show utilities. Seven, the they construct a concrete sidewalk or asphalt path adjacent to the land division unless waved by the ring county department of public works. My guess is the county will not allow a sidewalk in that because they have not in other places. So, I'm assuming the county is going to say no sidewalk. And then number eight, the subdivider shall plant street trees uh of a species approved by the plan commission and village per the ordinance. So, really pretty standard, just kind of some technical map information that we want to see on there before it's recorded, except for that shared access uh requirement, which we don't have a lot of control over. So

that might just kill the project. I wouldn't doubt it, but at least we're not killing the project. So we're doing everything we can to make it uh, you know, viable. It's going to go across the whole front of his house.

Yeah. Yeah. It's I mean, if they wanted to do it, it might be a situation where both lots are a tear down rebuild kind of thing or something. Yeah. Yeah. They don't live there. So yeah, maybe that's it. I we certainly like, you know, people trying to add some value and some housing to the village. So we're not opposed to the use or anything else. It's just we don't control the access and there's no rear access or anything else available in that area. So it's it's pretty limited. If they want to try to get a variance from a scene county, good luck.

Okay. Well, I yeah, I think that would be my caution to them because once they record the CSM, the land division is done and their second lot's going to be taxable as a developed lot. Yeah. So, well, that's why I want to see it as a condition. Yeah. Before we record it, I want to see some sort of approval from Mercine County. Otherwise, it's super.

Yeah. And honestly, if it is a single access point and the county doesn't allow it, we would prefer it stay a single parcel because then you could theoretically upzone it into something, you know, like a six-unit building or something that better utilizes the land there while still add some density. So, generally, it's not our favorite to add these single homes along busy highways as the reason that we Robin spoke to first is kind of moving us away from that. So, you know, it's again trying to balance some needs and wants here, but All right. Well, I'll make a motion to approve certified survey map CSM25-10 for 5312 Spring Street subject to the conditions uh noted by staff.

Okay. Do we need to word that in there in regards to the county again? Yeah. Yeah. I would I would just you know as a friendly note say um you know subject to either getting approval for a secondary access drive as the condition is currently worded or getting a shared access uh updating the map to show shared access between lot one and two. They can do either or. All right. I'll recommend adding that additional language to my motion. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Any nobody here so there's nobody from the public. Um all in favor I I opposed. Motion carries.

Number five.

Resol resolution 11-2025. Couple easy ones here to wrap it up. Um both are the same. So both are going through the discontinuence process which is a lengthy one by the Wisconsin statutes. Uh the village board introduced a resolution. Um we post some public hearing notices and then the plan commission has to make a recommendation on these. The first one is a public walk uh that was platted but never improved. So there is just kind of a random strip of land that runs between these four properties. They would like it removed. They've been maintaining it the entire time. And again the sidewalk was never constructed at the time of platting. Um, so it's kind of an extra land to nowhere that they're already maintaining. So we have no issue with uh discontinuing it. These are all four of the property owners are the only property owners adjoining this public walk. So there's no one else affected by um this. It doesn't extend east or west at all.

Yeah, these Mr. Chairman, the these were part of the discussion we had over the subdivision that's being built to the west of them off of Brown Road and there's no connectivity from that subdivision. So, we agreed at the board level and I think in discussion that that was not a problem and that way they won't have to worry about people walking through their yards indiscriminately anymore or and so forth. Give them some additional land and privacy. Yep. And there's no access to anything. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. It's not going anywhere. Go back into the private lands. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah. Based on the plats that were approved. So, I would make a motion to approve resolution 11-2025 for vacating the public way. I'll second that. Got a motion and a second. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. All right. Last one. Number six, resolution 10-2025, discontinuation of portion of Megan's Way.

So, same thing um here, discontinuence. Um when they constructed Megan's Way, due to the approved site plan, they actually bent the road a little bit further north than it was originally platted. So, they just need to remove this kind of sliver from it to the south um and clean up to get the final right ofway. There's not a road or anything else here. It's just kind of extra land. So again, we'd look for your recommendation to approve.

Yeah. 1100 square feet. The tax bills over there are going to be hard to deal with. Now I'll make a motion to approve the uh resolution 10-2025 discontinuing a portion of Megan's way. We discussed this a while back. I remember this. I don't know if it was at the board level or where, but I know this we saw this coming. Yeah. So yeah, both of these will be on the first meeting in November for final action. So I made a motion. Okay. Any other questions? Anybody? Second. A motion and a second. Um all in favor? I post. It passes.

And the one thing I asked Sam to add to the agenda, I'm apologize for not being able to um listen to it, but I will get on the um Yeah. Well, without a quorum, we can no longer meet. So, I would just for the staff, we'll hand out I printed out an explainer from the League of Municipalities. We can talk about it at the next meeting for a more thorough update. But for now, I gave you guys some reading material so you're at least up to speed on where the proposed bills are at in the Wisconsin legislature. So, then we're just up for our last motion then, right? Correct. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. I'll second that. You got a motion to second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. We're out of here. Is there anything else I was supposed to add to that? No.

Okay. You should share with Our father