Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Ow. That's what you want. Home. Woohoo! It's amazing how slow a minute goes.

Okay, it is 6:30. We'll call the meeting to order for the plan commission. Uh, roll call, please. Smith here. Molz here. Bo here. Paula here. Vancampen here. Meer absent. Schnelli here. And Nelson here. Thank you. Thank you. Move on. Uh I'll call the village board to order for Thursday, February 5th, 2026. I would ask her to call roll, please. McDaniel here. Marks here. Nipper here. Kersford here. Higgins here. Peterson here. And Vancampen

here.

Thank you. We move on to item uh five which is new business with these amendment to the village of Oregon comprehensive plan to change the future land use map designation for approximately 2 acres of parcel 0610-313-9061-0 in the town of Dunn from AR architectural agricultural to institutional. First item we have verification of proper legal notices which we've had for the public hearing. We have that presentation of proposed amendment by the village staff. We have that. We also have a public hearing regarding proposed amendments. So at this time we'll open the public hearing. We have an acknowledgement of submitted docu or comments for public record.

We did not receive any comments on this uh comp plan amendment. No, we do have something from some Oh, I'm sorry. That's for that's for Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the public? Any comments that anybody wants to make regarding this subject? It's a rather quick public hearing. We'll close the public hearing and move on then to discussion of a proposed comprehensive plan amendments by the plan commission and the village board. Discussion. Anybody want to make any comments? It's pretty straightforward. We've talked about this before. Wow.

Everyone knows what we're talking about. Any questions? since the annexation will be coming up um in the next few weeks here at the board. Well, at least I got to see the village board. Thank you. Okay, then we'll move on to item uh five. There it is. It's resolution 26-01, resolution recommending uh uh amendments to the village of Oregon comprehensive plan. Uh there are some items in the notation from I think we've met all those. Is that not correctly release? Elise. Yes. There's only conditions for the the um CSM the comp plan. The CSM is something we'll be handling shortly here.

Yep. So, yep. Comp plan amendments good to go. So, we need re motion recommending to the village board approval of resolution. Re resolution. I'll get it 26-02. um with the additional items regarding uh approval of the condition use or the uh uh I'll get it. So move of the certified survey. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any discussion? Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. All in favor say I. I.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. back to the village board. Uh without objection, we are journed. That's Thanks, guys. Thank you for coming on out. Wow. Drive. What? More time driving. Oh, I was going to say it's just, you know, awesome. Well, you know, and it'd be just an honor if you'd sit in the audience and watch for I'm sure you had enough of those. Hi, Amanda.

Good. How you been? Take your time. We're not in a hurry. They took me up on it. Now I'm under pressure. Okay. All right. We're going to move on now. We have approval of minutes of January 8th, 2026. Do we have a motion to approve? So move. Second. We have a motion of a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries.

I'm going to read this anyway. This is for public appearances. Part of the agenda allows Wow, this is loud tonight. Allows members of the public to provide information to the planning commission, including items both on and off the agenda. The agenda allows the commission to receive information and to ask questions of a presenter to facilitate a better understanding of the information. Commission members may discuss procedural matters relating to the information, such as whether the information should be directed to staff or placed on a future commission agenda. However, plan commission or commission members may not expand their discussion beyond such procedural matters. Anybody want to talk to anything that's off the agenda? We're going to move on. Thank you.

Okay. She has something to talk about on the agenda. Do you want to talk? If you can but but okay then I'll read the rest of the statement because I

for the remainder of the agenda items the plan commission may not invite in public comment to the public comment but the public is welcome to observe and listen. The public will be invited to provide comment at that time regarding the u any items on the agenda if you want to do it now or you want to wait until we get into that. Okay, let's do it all one time. Thank you. Thank you. New business. Review and possible recommendation of village board of a certified survey map for Hillrest Bible Church, 752 Northeast Netherwood Street. Any comments on it, Elise?

Um, yeah, let me get to the right screen here. So, uh, we've seen the CSM before. Um, something unique here. We're This parcel is not going to be, well, that's currently in the town of Dunn is not going to be its own parcel. um and then later combined with the Oregon parcel. Just the meats and bounds of description of this 2 and a half acres which is part of a larger parcel um is what has been kind of circulated and um anyway our attorneys reviewed that and is fine um with that approach. So there's just a couple contingencies here. Obviously the comp plan amendment making sure that that gets finalized through the village board. um the annexation which will happen again in the next few weeks here at the village board meeting and then um just that the ownership um is all under one entity. So right now the two and a half acres is still owned by the Sorenson but that closing is coming up here um likely later this month. So, just making sure that Hillrest is in possession of that piece of property. Um, and the CSM doesn't have two owners, but is all under Hillrest ownership

and and I see the village engineer has essentially signed off on it. Yep. They're satisfied with all the changes on the CSM. Okay. Okay. Typically, what we do is uh if it's outside the village, we don't always we just simply take no action on it. But in this case, we need to approve it. Yeah. because it will be in the village, right? It will be in the village. It's not yet. Yep. But yeah, this is not an ETJ CSM. This is a combining with um this is currently the village parcel. Yes. On the left and then this rectangle on the right. Um the CSM will combine those two parcels into one.

Okay. We a motion recommended village board. Yeah. Village board approval of certified servant map for the Hillrest Bible Church, 752 East Netherwood Street. Move to approve. Go ahead. Oh, I have and we have a motion. I second. I mean, excuse me. Have a second. I'll second it. I'll second. Okay. My question is discussion is question of process. Um,

I understand I don't have any question in my mind or concern about the ownership of the property. It's a question of process because it's not yet in the village. Can we really do this? It's going to hang in limbo until the annexation happens. So, all of these items will be on the same village board meeting. So, the annexation will happen prior to the CSM being approved. Obviously, it's not going to be signed and recorded right away that night at the village board meeting, but the plan is to have all the annexation items first on the agenda, then the CSM and and and the comp plan, everything kind of arranged such that there's not going to be this You know,

it'll be you'll have contingencies until the annexation actually occurs. Correct. Correct. Yep. And the annexation the ordinance annexation ordinance approved by the board is the actual mechanism that moves property from one municipality to another. It has to be recorded whole bunch of different places so that it's you know assessed properly with the right municipality. Need to make an approval contingent upon. You can just make an approval and it will follow a normal process. Yes. So, I was just kind of listing those steps out just so you know that those are going to be happening alongside or prior to this because ours is a recommendation to the village board and then they will handle it at that point. Perfect. Thank you. All right. So, a motion and we have a second and we've had discussion. Any any more discussion?

All in favor say I. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Move on to item 10A for discussion only. It's continued conversation regarding potential zoning text amendments. The reason is accessory uh dwelling units.

All right. Would you like to give me a little back or like me to give the background before we have folks in the Yes, we've got Yeah. Okay. We had extensive discussion, but let's make sure we got it right.

I can kind of give some background for folks that weren't here last month, too. But, uh, so, edus, accessory dwelling units, also known as tiny homes, granny flats, backyard cottages, carriage houses, lots of different names. Um, same thing, detached small dwelling units on properties. Um, this has been on our list of items to address for a long time from our affordable housing report to um just recommendations um to update our code, which is now 20 years old this year. So, um, we had, uh, good discussion at our January meeting, uh, just looking at kind of background, what do we currently have in our code? What are some of our neighboring communities have, what are some best practices recommended by the American Planning Association? And um and I think generally was you all are in support of expanding this uh m making sure that um we're granting um flexibility, trying to prioritize affordability, keeping this process simple um and that you liked the EPA's um kind of best practices guide as a place to start from. So um Sonia has put together some recommendations, not in kind of an ordinance format yet, but just some tables. So, we can scroll to that and look at that. Um, and then just wanted to mention here on my cover memo, there's a couple other sections that uh we'd like to update as we move through a zoning text amendment. Um, this exurban residential ER1 district is it's not a uh we don't have it on our map. It's a district we have, but there are no parcels assigned to that district. Um, and just because we're updating tables of what uses are allowed in which districts, um, sounds like Vanwell is actually working with quite a few communities to eliminate this district. Um, it was often more of like really large lot parcels that were in town, you know, maybe in the township, maybe brought in with an annexation and not

fully integrated into, you know, a normal kind of village neighborhood density, that kind of a thing. But um we're not we haven't really seen that and I don't think that's something we necessarily want to be promoting to have farmets and things like that within the village. So um proposing that when we get down to that point we can loop in um that change and then also just the zoning administrator description um that was always under public works and that before my position existed. So just cleaning that up a little bit too. But um she kind of did a similar table here. So um each topic whether it's which zoning districts are allowed or how we hander handle owner occupancy um what's common approach um in other communities and then what would we be proposing in Oregon. So we would strike the ER1 there but all these other districts um it would be allowed on properties that have single and two family residential. So, I asked her about this like MR8 or it's our multif family district. Um, there might be a parcel that's mapped in that district. Um, but doesn't have like an apartment building on it yet. It's just part of a larger area where multif family or two family might be allowed. So, um, we're not saying that there should be tiny homes in the back of apartment buildings. It just would be if that happens to be the zoning district that would be, um, allowed. So, um, as far as owner occupancy, keeping it flexible, um, both units could be rented. Um, both could be owned or a combination thereof. Could also the owner, you know, live in the smaller unit, rent out the larger home or vice versa. Um, ADUs would be prohibited in front yards, but otherwise kind of follow our accessory structure guidelines for sheds and things like that as far as 5 foot

setbacks from rear and side property lines. Um, allowing up to,200 square feet, uh, but never larger than the principal structure for size, height. Um, accessory structures are typically just maxed out at 15 feet. Um, and again, if there's a gabled roof, remember that's the halfway point between the eve and the peak of the roof. Um, if there was a detached garage and a unit wanted to exist above a detached garage, she's proposing that we would allow up to 25 ft high, but not taller than the principal building. So, um, I, for example, if it was a one-story ranch, we wouldn't want that garage to be towering over the house. Um, no off- streetet parking requirements um, for the ADU itself. design standards, making sure that it's compatible with the the primary structure, not having subdivided lots, but having them all be on one parcel. Um, utilities. Lauren can speak a little bit to this, but I think um we would allow people to continue to have one water and sewer service um to to both units if they wanted to. if they wanted to add a second um service, that would sort of be their prerogative if they wanted to have them build differently and things like that that capture where we're at. Okay. And then um no major changes to our in family suites, kind of the mother-in-law suites that exist within the code already. Um, and then just exploring and we probably need to talk to our village attorney on this too, how impact fees and connection fees and things like that could be either waved or reduced to help um make ADUs more affordable and access accessible. So she starts to um change some of the language down here, repealing the exist existing ARU accessory residential unit, granny flat

section, and then um replacing it with a new section that's ADU accessory dwelling unit and then some of those guidelines that we talked about in the table above and just other um areas to change. So that's kind of overview of the changes reflective of um some of the comments that we heard um last time. I will say we talked about I think conditional use permit was mentioned before. I think that would definitely not be the direction we would be recommending. One we're trying to reduce conditional use permits where we can after act 67 which came out about 10 years ago. Really takes a lot of the teeth out of conditional use permits and adds a big administrative burden and cost for folks to come through planning commission and everything. um you know planning commission doesn't review any single or two family homes um so I think kind of treating it like that there would need to be I think some kind of a the staff level review to make sure that the design u is compatible with the um principal structure so not putting that on the building inspector but otherwise it would just be kind of a standard building permit they're already you know checking setbacks and things like that in any other building permit case whether it's a shed or a new home or So, putting more of a more of an administrative review and and trying to streamline the process. Again, I don't think there's going to be a lot of these. If we had one or two a year, I would be really surprised and pleased with that. Um, but that seems to be the the recommendation and trend across other communities to to keep the process um simple.

Okay. Questions of anybody? this kind of going along with well essentially looking at other municipalities that have this kind of a situation. Yeah. And and a lot of municipalities don't touch on subjects that we, you know, would like some more clarification on. So, this is pretty closely following the American Planning Association's best practices um kind of tailoring it to our code. Yes, sir. Is there any uh have any discussion or thought about uh prohibiting short-term rentals? Do you know if that's done or

Yeah. Um I've attended a couple webinars. I know one of our other village board members has as well because I saw him on there. Um it's very complicated. Um there's a lot of state law changing about short-term rentals. I think at this point um it hasn't been a huge problem in Oregon. think um the recommendation from our attorney was just kind of let it lie for now. There's some neighborhoods that um prohibit short-term rentals and their covenants and deed restrictions and so it's sort of a private property HOA type issue to have those enforced. Um and I think if it becomes more prolific around the village, we see more of them or becomes more of problem or there's some health and safety concerns, then we could start talking about it. But it does sound like there's some state law that's kind of in flux right now. So, um, might be best to wait and see where that lands and then see if there's anything we can adopt.

Thank you. Where do we go now? We have a couple folks that want to talk to us, correct? So, let's let's do that. We have Heidi Putnham that wants to talk. All right, Peggy. Come on, please. Just give us your name and your address so that it's got to go on the record. That's fine. Thank you.

So, I'm Heidi Putnham, 112 Sterling Drive here in Oregon. I am a first-time homeowner here in the village and like many others, I'm feeling the pressure of rising living costs, and I'm also beginning to plan for aging parents um who may need to soon live closer while still maintaining some level of independence. Allowing accessory dwelling units would give my family the flexibility to either provide space for them or if circumstances change, rent the unit for supplemental income to help us keep us rooted here in this community. In reviewing the proposed regulatory approach in tonight's packet, I'd like to highlight a few areas where additional flexibility could make ADUs more accessible to residents like myself. First, I encourage the village to broaden allowances around design compatibility standards. Many homeowners, myself included, have existing accessory structures that could become ADUs with relatively minor updates to meet safety and habitability standards. In my case, I have a detached garage that the previous owner finished inside and used for a home business. It was built about 40 years after my home. So, while the exterior does not match the primary structure and materials or color, it is well-designed, so much so that delivery drivers have mistaken it for a neighboring home. requiring full exterior matching would make conversion financially unrealistic even when the structure is already well integrated into the neighborhood. And second, I asked the commission to allow flexibility in utility metering as well as hookups, which I think Alisa's already alluded to that I was unaware of before. Uh, but some home owners may prefer shared utilities while others, especially those planning for non-family renters, may prefer the separate meters. And installing or removing these can be very costly. In my own case, my property came with two separate electrical meters already, and I'm paying for that additional monthly fees to have both of them, but I'm waiting for clarity here because I knew this was coming up uh to see what direction the village would go to choose if I should keep it or get rid of the second one. Allowing more options for metering hookups would help uh reduce unnecessary financial burdens and allow more choice for homeowners. I also live on a home corner where hookups for

water and sewer is less distance to the side road than it actually is to my own house. So having that flexibility would definitely reduce the costs for us. I want to be clear that I support the overall direction of the recommendations and deeply appreciate the thoughtful work that has gone into this. I simply hope that we can make some final tweaks to that to be able to make sure that it's truly attainable for a wider range of homeowners, not only those with ideal lot conditions or the financial means or newer matching structures. And thank you again for your time and your commitment to this important decision for our community. Thank you. Thanks for your input. I'm just curious how did you I just how did you know about all this and who spoke last time? Okayurers. Yeah. God.

Yeah. Plus uh in graduate school it was kind of a case study for myself like I were hopeful when I bought my house here three years ago this might happen. So I've been waiting. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. I'm very very very I will say yeah there's been a handful of other property owners that um have reached out over the years to ask about this too. So, I kind of wanted to see where we were going to land and how quickly we wanted to move in this, but I will um start reaching out to them over the next couple weeks to let them know. And she had some good comments we should look at, too. So, thank you. Thank you. Next one. Peggy, you have another one? Actually, no. The other one was in regard to process. So, Oh, it was Oh,

he didn't. He was only here to answer, so he didn't really want. And we have and we also have uh from Annie comments sent through. So you want to share them or everybody's got a copy. You want me to read them? Um yeah, why not? Why not? I'll just I guess some here. Um

so Ann Michaels from Green Pastures Living. She was here at the January meeting. She sent an email and asked that we share this with you all. um just the AARP. Um I know I see them at conferences and stuff all the time. They're really pushing ADUs as well as a senior housing option whether folks want to stay in their home and add income or to live within communities, live with family. Um so there's just some areas of alignment here, some different sections that she's included. um the size limitation. I think um our recommendations I looked through this earlier. I think our recommendations are pretty well in line with what the ARP is okay recommending, but we'll certainly include this in the recommen.

Yes, certainly consider this. Okay. Anybody else want to have any comments? Thank you. So, where do you think we should go with this Elise as far as let uh Vandy Walls, what do you guys think? like some people thoughts. I see red I see red comments written down on Patrick's cut. He's going to have something to say. For the most part, I I'm in support of all of this. Um I like Ann's sentiment. Keep it simple. Keep it flexible. The one concern I have is removing owner occupancy. Uh you know, I was thinking about it about a week ago and I thought, who cares? And then I thought, do you want a bunch of basically duplexes in your neighborhood?

Yeah. That's not zoned as that. So I to me owner occupancy is a key part of this and I don't think it should be removed. That's the only thing I object to. But you'd be comfortable with owner occupancy in either structure. In either in either. Exactly. It's just some type of ownership. And I wouldn't go so far as saying that the owner has to be there for a period of at least 10 months a year. By law, I think it's six months and a day to be considered a resident of a state,

right? So, I don't think you need to specify all that. Um, I did like the ants uh clarifying the occupancy language so that it could be caregivers and doesn't have to be relatives or, you know, so keep that flexible. Yeah. And I think we weren't going to include any language about caregiving. There doesn't even need to be any relation. So, if somebody wanted to either do a short-term rental or a long-term rental and have it be so I think yeah, I just don't want to see both units rented as, you know, a landlord that just wants to try to get more rent out of a piece of property because that to me is not in the spirit of what this is about.

It's a good comment. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else? Um, a couple of generic questions before I get into it. Um, has there been any location that you are aware of where ADUs have been successful in being created more than just a handful at a time? More than just a handful.

Um, I don't know of any in Wisconsin. The ones I've heard about through conferences or webinars or something have been where a land trust has been involved. So, um, people can essentially rent out their backyard to somebody who they kind of take care of all of this. So, they rent a piece of property from a landowner, they do the construction, they own the structure, they pay um, rent to the parcel owner um, and as a basically you're giving us the space, we're going to put the structure on here. They manage the property. They take, you know, rental applications, show the property, manage tenant stuff and repairs and everything. Um, that's the only example I've seen and really heard of where in a large scale. I think it was, um, I want to say like somewhere in the north, maybe Seattle, um, or California, where they did this to a larger scale. I think the cost of construction is sort of what it is right now. And even if you're building a smaller structure, there's still all the same pieces that you would need in house, just, you know, less. But that adds up pretty quickly. I think most people end up finding that it's hard to build these for probably less than $100,000. Um, so and that's, you know, there are some prefab models and things like that, too. And I guess I'd like to hear your thoughts on the comment regarding, you know, what does architectural compatibility mean to you? Is that materials? Is it colors? is what kind of flexibility, you know, I maybe that's something that you'd want to give some input on. I don't know if that means that every .edu that comes across we bring the planning commission or if that's a separate review committee um that can help me with that or if there's clear enough guidelines. I mean, there's probably language from other communities we can look at and see if that suits our

goals. What? So, so these rental agreements have to be put in place on the front side. They can't be something that's after the fact is a development. Correct. Um like if there was already an ADU and then somebody wanted to turn around and like a typical home here in Oregon, if we wanted to create an ADU in this type of situation, it couldn't really happen because that is not in place. Or would that happen?

The land trust that I was talking about. Yeah. I mean, there's no in those cases out west, it was a a nonprofit that was a land trust. So, they had funds in order to build the units, lease the land from the property owners. They had all the kind of lease agreements and stuff um set up there. I will say the other thing, I think I mentioned this in January that I've seen, I don't know how much this is necessarily helpful, but definitely saves folks money and can help reduce barriers to actually building these is if there's an approved set of blueprints that the um there's different all kinds of different guides online that um you can purchase, you know, various layouts and blueprints and say these are ones that are already, you know, they meet our they're um larger than 12,200 square f feet or here's one that could be above a garage or whatever kind of arrangement and we can make those available to people and you know if they're going to build these that they don't have to go and purchase their own set of blueprints but maybe there's five or 10 pre-approved designs um you know maybe exterior color choices and materials need to be similar to what's on the property already but um that could be another way that we could help. Um, you know, you would know better than I what the cost of a set of blueprints would be for a building like this. But

so my next question then is in your experience from going to conferences or talking to people, what has been the major hurdles for this not becoming something more popular? I mean, Madison has had it for a while and we brought it up last month and they've only had a good one. Yeah, I think it's like 15 to 20 that they've had in the last maybe five years, but think about how many parcels are in the city of Madison. So, um I would say the cost of construction and then also permits and fees and connection fees and impact fees and things like that. You're adding another dwelling unit. So, you know, the park impact fee, library impact fee, all those things would typically apply unless there's some policy that reduces or waves those fees. Um, I know Laura and I were talking about like if there if there is a new utility connection, you know, need to pay for a meter and some improve I think that would be kind of handled differently, but some of the impact fees that we typically see with single family homes and and every dwelling unit that's created within the village, apartments and stuff too, we want to think about reducing those. you know, these are going to be smaller families. You know, either usually single people or couples. Very rarely would it be, you know, a small family um has a little bit less of an impact than, you know, maybe a different type of dwelling unit, but also our average household size within the village is is pretty low. I think it's 2.2 people or something like that already. I think on the surface I don't think you would get an argument from any of us that would say that this is a bad idea. You know, it's once you start to get into the weeds and go down the rabbit hole, which I did, unfortunately. Um that you start to run into sort of like those uh oh moments kind of thing. um you know uh the property tax issue, the

the um rental um um taxation, the you know impact fees, yada yada yada. Um what as a plan commission do we have the ability to sort of provide input on? You know, we can't do anything about property taxes. We can't do anything about whatever. What can we as a as a plan commission have a conversation about?

I think um obviously you're recommending body to the village board here. So I think we can talk about those impact fees. We can talk about administrative review process. You know uh if there is going to be any kind of you know just the building permit fees is that where is there flexibility um and that that we could recommend to the village board to consider. Um, again, I think it's largely the impact fees because that doesn't affect our building inspectors. Those just go right to the village. Um, you know, all this policy language to allow flexibility where we feel comfortable to allow flexibility. You know, that language could be recommended to the village board. Um, another thing I hadn't really considered you brought up last time was how can we promote this in new development? Um, I don't think we can require new subdivisions to allow these, but I think we could have language we encourage um, ADUs to be allowed. And maybe there's some kind of carrot that says if you allow ADUs or you don't restrict them, don't prohibit them within your new neighborhood, do you get some sort of incentive on the other end or some density bonus or some waiver on impact fees slightly or something like that? How can we encourage it? We can't require it, but how can we encourage it? Um, I hadn't really considered about new neighborhoods coming in. Um, I'm sure you know, Veridian, I believe Highlands of Netherwood, Bergammont, all those neighborhoods. I believe that separate detached dwelling units are prohibited in all those neighborhoods, which is a fair, you know, portion of our village lots. bill. Um, we can also, so I think some of the guidance on code changes, you know, that would be kind of chapter 18, the subdivision code, but um, or policy recommendations to the village board. I

think that's where you all have the power to try to reduce barriers and encourage these to be built where possible. In my opinion, I think that um I think that this is a a good idea to sort of and and let's be honest, AARP is a segment of the society that has a whole machine geared to what they want to make important. I think that there's another segment of the population that is not part of AARP that we need to also consider. Um and that's where I was going with the hotel tax. That's where I was going with the sort of long-term rental agreement, which is something that I think Patrick sort of touched on. Um, do we want to limit the length of these leases? Um, otherwise we start to run into that hotel tax. Otherwise, we and the the things that we don't really get involved with. Um, and you know, just because of the nature of what I do, I start to run into things like utilities are easy to get there. Gas, electric, you know, three feet down on the ground, you're good. Sewer and water are another one. You know, if you're going to have these dwelling units, you're going to want to have a bathroom out there. And some of the places in Oregon, the utilities are deep just purely because of we're pretty low. Um, so to get a second service to these places, you got to come in from your house. Does that mean that you really want to tee into something that's in your front yard or do you want to tee into something that's in your basement? Do you want to bring water and sewer in from those? How do you do that? You know, I don't know if that's sort of the stuff that we can be privy to or we need to dictate. Um, you know, that's where my head goes on these sorts of things. Um, again, I think that on the surface you

don't you wouldn't get any of us saying that it's a bad idea. is once you start to get into the weeds that it becomes complicated. Um and that's why I had asked sort of what is our sort of parameters that we can work within. Um I think that we need to cap the square footage. I don't think that we should we should make it a percentage of the uh square footage of the primary residence up to a certain square footage. I think that we should allow the height of the building to be no more than the height of the primary residence. I think that um we should limit the rental term of that unit to a minimum length. I don't think we should let set it as a maximum, but I think we should set it as a minimum. I don't want to have it as a nightly thing. I don't want to have it as an Airbnb. um that begins to start to run into that hotel tax issue question that we don't get involved with, but let's make life simple for everybody. Um so, uh the utility stuff is voodoo that we're going to have to figure out or somebody's going to have to figure out. Um but that's sort of like on the first blush surface where my head is at.

Okay. As far as short-term rentals, I'm not sure if you're aware, but so any properties that are Airbnb, Verbo, that type of listing, um they do those companies automatically collect room tax and send that to the village, I believe, quarterly now. So, that's not something that's on a property owner to separately collect and send. That's sort of part of their listing. But um yeah, that's a policy disc discussion about do you want to limit and and that'd be something I need to check with our attorney to can we limit length of stays also? How is that being enforced? Um I mean, yeah, I can check listings on those sites and things like that, too. Um are we going to limit it to no less than 30 days, 7 days? Again, if it becomes a problem, neighbors notice a lot of coming and going, that's probably how we would become aware of it, I would imagine.

Yeah, that would probably be complaint driven. I don't think so much as a as a long-term is a issue, is it? Why would long-term rental? Yeah, normal, right? renting to any again I I somewhat I'm still looking at this trying to think are we looking again as a parents something like that um grandma grandfather um whatever almost like a relative type thing yeah adult children

that's what I would almost expect but maybe not I'm just trying to figure how we can go about this and that again I'm envisioning like you somebody here I you said that before John but like a duplex it kind of gets you to the point we're putting two dwelling units on one property um if there's an owner occupancy requirement though absolutely no absolutely but then the dynamic there yeah it does change a little bit but

I think the nature of the cost to do this is going to prohibit a lot of you might be right implementation so like the case of having a detached garage that's finished and someone could move in there and live without it. I don't want to prohibit that necessarily. I think that's the intent of what we're after, but to build something like that from scratch would be an investment and so we need to make rules that are that protect us. But I think I don't think it's going to be 100 people applying to do this on the first I don't want to overdo it either. And we get into ourselves, like you say, get into the weeds. I find sometimes we get so far into it that, you know, you can only do so many whatifs.

Yeah. And sometimes you have to move on and get yourself to a point and hopefully you made not too many mistakes doing that and you can get through it. We could change our mind. This gets out of control.

I keep on thinking about the chickens. I keep thinking about the chickens and the weeks and months we went. Another point that I've seen kind of of concern or you know questions that people have asked and I've talked to the building inspector about this too. So if there is a situation where maybe there's a garage and then an adjacent room or workshop that somebody might look to convert to a a dwelling unit, there's obviously a different code for dwelling units than there are, you know, spaces that are not occupied and slept in. And so making sure that if there's anything that's connected to a garage, if it's above a garage, next to a garage, that um you know, things like venting are designed properly so there's not worry of car exhaust getting sucked into intake for air um in these units and things like that. So, um I do need to kind of loop back with our building inspectors and see um if there's any specific building code requirements that we want to maybe put in this section so that um as people are looking at this and trying to maybe plan it out on their property that um they're aware of any requirements to if it's a space that's maybe being converted from nonoccupied to occupied that it's done in a way that's safe. Fire protection, smoke.

Yeah, I know all of that stuff. There's still two units. You're still under the residential code. You know, there's no requirement for sprinkler. There's no requirement for ADA. There's none of that. Yeah. None of that. But yeah, and you mentioned about the utilities. I I'm not overly concerned about that too much. I'm not I'm not worried about sewer and water. I'm worried I'm sorry. I'm gas and electric. I'm worried about sewer and water. Well, if you're going to build, you have to figure it out, don't you? I guess you still have to get a building permit. You still have to have an inspection. Yep. So, again, we're getting ourselves to a point where let's limit how much Well, I should say how much we have to say about it, but before we

we can go through a lot of what it'll take a a year to get through it and it's it's just not So, what do you need from us worth it? Well, I got some notes. I guess I want to I guess here as far as the owner occupancy, are you all in agreement as far as you'd like to have one of the units be owner occupied?

Um, do we want to have any limitations on the rental unit as far as and again I can look into what we actually can restrict. um if people have if it's not restricted in their neighborhood, do they have the right to have a short-term rental or only if we have kind of a larger short-term rental ordinance in town? I think we probably would need to be consistent with ADUs and all other structures. I guess within the village, if we want to go down that rabbit hole, the advice I've been given is not to touch it right now, but we could dig into it if that's of of interest. We could do a little more in, you know, have some more in investigation on, but I'm almost I'm thinking also we're not I don't think we should be looking at this from a standpoint of we're we're doing an weekly like, okay, yeah, we got this place for rent. Somebody's coming into town to go to uh horse show or something like that. You know what I mean? In other words, it's not I'm thinking this is more oriented towards

longer term. longer term and possibly family or something like that or or some kind of relationship of friends or something whatever. I'm not looking at I'm I don't think so. I think we deal with it with like the rest of the properties in the town and the village. If we if something comes up we're going to have to Yeah. But again, we you know, it's not like we have a globe in the neighborhood. Yeah. In Las Vegas. Yeah. I mean, it's a huge investment. So, if somebody was going to do that and then change it to be a short-term rental, I mean, you would think that they would be, you know, responsible with it, right? And and want to have that kind of traffic and coming and going that would be within their backyard, right?

I'm just trying to envision how you put this in somebody's backyard. I just, you know, I'm looking at typical village, right? I would agree. I think most communities, most folks, it's adding it for somebody who they have relationship with or friends or and it'll be a small type uh dwelling or something, right? Yeah. Can add some language too about I think there's already something here about it would not be exceeding the square footage of the principal structure. Um 1,200 square feet up to,200 square feet. But yeah, maybe you say it's more bigger than my first house. No. 50% or 70% of the square footage of the I mean there's plenty of houses that are in the village that are 1,200 square feet. They are. Yes.

So would you want to have one of those also in the back or Yeah. something along John's you know at 50% or something. I I think that capping it at like 1,200 as a max is good because there are homes that are sizable here in the community that a percentage you could get well over that pretty quickly. It's a good point. But those homes homes you probably typically wouldn't see this kind of if they have a deep backyard though. True. That's very true. Easily put in like Yeah, you could. Um, so again, Liss, where do you want to

Yeah. Um, I guess the only other thing I wanted to get clarity on is architectural compatibility. What does that mean to you? Or would you like to see some some digging on what other communities have and see if some of that language speaks? Well, we could, but again, there's a detached garage that's been built 40 years ago or the building was built 40 years ago or whatever was done. So, right. I I'm thinking more along the lines that this is going to be a newer thing and when you're going to build something new, you're going to want to match make it look similar to what is there and make it look good. Obviously, good point, Phil. So, I mean, I look at my house, right? I have a stucco house that's 150 years old.

If I put something new in the backyard, it's not necessarily gonna a stucco small. You know what I mean? I think there's some practicality to to what that means. I don't think that we're going to expect that if you live in Bergammont and your house is all brick that your backyard is going to be brick. Oh, I think it would have to be out there. Okay. For example, yeah, for example, but I think it's just kind of making sure that it's good quality, that it's not, you know, you're not some 2x4s and living in a shed, I think, is the Yeah. Yeah. would be to me. Again, you're, you know, you're going back again and and seeing what you can find. you know, find some have some help maybe from VanDeral or something too.

Yeah, I'll look into that and the short-term rental language. I'll check into a little bit with our attorney as well. Um, and some other communities, but I'm happy just chugging along in this. Again, I think there's some other folks that I haven't been able to reach out to yet that I want to that I know that have been interested in this. So, I want to make sure they're looped in before we get too far down the road. But let's if you guys are okay with it, take another month, get some more ideas and feedback and then if we feel like we're at the point where we're all in agreement on this, we can start with looking at actually crafting the ordinance, take a look at that and then get the public hearing. Perfect.

Finally, another recommendation would be I don't think that we need to or want to specify that it needs to be masonry, hardy plank sighting or vinyl sighting. I think that it should be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. You know, something There you go. But there you go. Y not necessarily on the on the lot. And the same thing with the architectural aesthetic. You don't want to have a if if you're in a a neighborhood of one-story ranch homes, you don't want to have a threetory, you know, walk. Yeah. Well, that raises all the questions. They limit it to one story.

Yeah. Yeah, I think um in this height section they would be I think limited to 15 feet. If there's a multiple story home and you wanted to build over a garage, you could go up to she's suggesting 25 ft here, but no taller than the principal structure. But again, at that point, you're utilizing an existing structure and you're ch you're not building a brand new structure. So, okay. I suppose you could build a new detached garage with a unit above, but that's a new structure. Keep Yep. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Anything else? That works.

Okay. I'll come back with more, but hopefully I think we're we're narrowing down on what we want here. So, good. Thank you very much, Elise. Okay. Answer that. Move on to communication. There's nothing. No other unfinished business, right? Move on to communication. Misin business. Status of public and private development projects. Lauren. Okay.

I was not sure I was going to be here tonight, so I wrote a lease list and now I'm going to use it because I wrote it. So, and I'll remember things better this way. Um, so just going down the list for public projects, we've got the wastewater treatment plant. That one's still going. It's on schedule and it's generally on budget. There was a really nice update, as there is every month, um, in the last village board packet. Um, those are great because they also chart how we are paying out versus how we expected to. So those are really nice. U for Richard's Road that is lumped into the wastewater project. Overall, the one thing to note on that one is that construction was originally planned for fall and winter and we found out in about the last month that actually the contractor is looking at moving it up to the summer. So, that has not been formalized yet. Uh, but once it is, we'll bring the new schedule back here uh to the board and then of course publicize it so that people know what's going on. Uh well three and well six are at this point kind of on the same schedule. They're both scheduled to finish up and start commissioning in mid-March. So hopefully have two wells back online and going here in uh just over a month. Um the Alpine and CC project, we did receive bids on those in late January. Uh the bids were below the engineers estimate. Um, we are still working with the county to figure out how that will be paid as far as what they are willing to cost share on versus what they are not going to cost share on. So, we're hoping to be to bring a bid recommendation to the village board on either the 16th or the 2nd of March depending on how quickly they they

figure that out. Um the Gary Dish Park project, we have also received bids for that. Um they have been analyzed and recommendations are going to go to the park board next week um and flip to the village board without objection on the 16th. Um Park and Waterman Street intersection as well as the senior center. Both of those are out to bid. They are separate projects and they are coming back on different dates. So, senior center, uh, bids are due on the 10th, next Tuesday. Park and Waterman intersection, those bids are due on next Thursday the 12th. Um, the East Lincoln Street project, and that is, as a reminder, between North Main Street and North Perry Parkway, that is also out for bid. Um, that one's out of our hands. That one is being done uh through the STP, the surface transportation program urban program uh partially funded by federal dollars. And so WISDOT has at this point taken it over. Um they are running the bidding and then they will also do uh the primary construction inspection out there. So those bids also due on the 10th. So hopefully we will have some numbers on those on either the 10th or 11th depending on how fast the state moves there. Um, two projects that uh are are kind of floating around, but just so they're on your radar, uh, there is a partial roof replacement at the public works garage that we are looking at. So, that one did go out to bid actually last year. We did not receive any bids. Um, the timing wasn't great on that. So, we are putting that out next week to bid. We'll get bids back on that at the end of February. And then we do have a request for proposals for design. I'm sorry. Master planning and design services for Bethl Greenacre Park. Um those will be

due, the proposals on those are due on the 13th, so also next week. It's going to be a very busy week next week. Um so that should be fun. Uh we have had some interest in that. I think I've had at least three people reach out with questions um and and interest on proposing on that, which is great. So, private development, uh, just on the subdivision side, and I'll let Elise cover anything on kind of the structure side. Green View Preserve phase 4. We have gotten engineering plans for those, uh, and they're deep into review with Rukert Milky. They are planning construction in 2026, although I don't think we have a firm start date, and we are working on a developers agreement, but I would expect that to start up probably in the early part of this year. Um, Highlands of Netherwood phases 4B and five. We do not have any schedule on that yet from the developer. We're still waiting. Uh, they've they've made noises. I know that they are working on it, but we don't know anything at this time. And lastly, because I have gotten some questions, there was a park uh built with the Green View Preserve Phase One project that has been completed at this time. It has not been accepted by the village. So, we're hoping to accept it. We're treating it essentially as we do a street project. So, we need that warranty on it. So, it looked really good when it was put into place, but we just want to make sure all the grass comes up. There's nothing that needs to be fixed before we take ownership of it. So, that will hopefully be accepted this year.

Thank you. Um I think the only other um project I wanted to mention and then I had another date here to add for the next agenda item to to save the date if you wanted to attend. But um not sure if I mentioned this at the January meeting, but there's a grant opportunity that the village was presented with for 235 North Main Street, Pocket Park. So that's the former 249 North Main Street. Yep. So many numbers. Yeah. 247 249.

247. Yep. uh the old new library site now um where the North Point main street town homes are. So we if you remember we sold them two acres those town homes are now occupied and then uh we split the parcel and we have about.7 acres of park there. So, um, some of the funding that was given actually for the Habitat project on Jainsville Street and then also for, um, North Point's project is the CDB GDR. So, community development buck and I'm my brain is tired this week. Uh, so, uh, there are about $400,000 remaining in funds that are federal funds that were given to Dane County related to the 2018 flooding that was out in the Cross Plains area. So it has to be spent in Dayne County on projects, infrastructure or housing that's um related to low and moderate serving low and moderate income families. So um because that parcel was all had not been subdivided yet, uh a lot of the due diligence that North Point had to do in order to qualify for their funding makes that park parcel eligible for these funds. The village wouldn't be eligible ourselves because we are our median income is too high. um across the village. So, um there's an opportunity to do some improvements in that park and use that grant funding. It's not a loan, just a grant. Um and it actually would be kind of administered through North Point. Um in order to qualify um for the funds. So, they would take care of all the grant reporting. They would do the construction, but at our direction um we would they wouldn't be putting anything into the park that we didn't support. And so, um, we did a neighborhood engagement meeting last week, which is pretty sparsely attended, but we got a thumbs up from the neighborhood to continue on, which they wanted to kind of hear that the the neighbors were in support of taking advantage of this opportunity because we weren't planning park improvements until about 2029 out there. So, that might

still stay in the CIP, but there's opportunity to have some stuff in there sooner. So, um, we'll probably be doing more surveys, um, and meeting with different stakeholders, daycarees and schools and stuff in the area to understand what people would like to see out there. The catch is that all the construction has to be done by September 30th of this year. So, it's not going to be a big park project. It's not a huge park. There's beautiful old oak trees and some topography out there. So, it's there's a lot of park amenities that wouldn't qualify or fit out there. Um, so it'll be something small. It's not going to have likely off- streetet parking. It's meant to be a neighborhood park that you walk to. Um, but excited to see where that goes. And that'll we might have some stuff coming to you guys as well, but that's going to be a pretty quick um burn to get that stuff installed and be able to take advantage of that money. Um, and then just before you mention the planning commission dates, uh, there is a this is an optional for you guys, but we will list it for possible quorum. um joint meeting of the village board and the Fitchburg City Council at um the Oregon Public Library on Wednesday, February 25th, uh 5:30 p.m. probably until 6:30 or 7. Um, if you haven't heard yet, we are working, uh, Karpsy is kind of serving as the third party mediator, but we're working with Fitchburg to explore options for some kind of joint development on the north end of the village and the south end of Fitsburg off of North Main Street County Highway MM. So, there's been a variety of different stakeholder meetings with property owners. They've met with the village and the city, different staff, different board members, too. Um, so there'll be a report and a presentation at that meeting on the 25th if you'd like to attend. I imagine that'll be published in a packet and everything as well and we can certainly include it in um the March or April packet for the planning commission if we have time. But you're welcome to attend. It'll be in

the community room at our library that evening. All right. Thank you. That's it. Yep. All right. Plan staff meeting agenda is attached. You want to review it? Uh any future item meeting uh for the meetings any future items thinking about nothing motion to adjurnn second. All in favor say I opposed the motion carries feel I got to do your your how' you do yours so much more efficient without

obj for you find free care guides at aarp.org/caregiving. org/caregiving. We would never hit 12 drunk. Never send it drunk. Do a stopy drunk. We would never drip drunk. So you should never drive drunk. Drive.