Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Home. Boom. call the meeting to order.

First item is roll call, please. Bo here. Meyer here. Mozzan here. Hold on here. Schnellie here. Nelson here. Van Campen here. And Smith back is out tonight. Thank you. Next item is approval of minutes of March 5th, 2026. Do we have a motion to approve? Second. We have a motion of a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to move on to item six A. Since we have no what? No. Okay.

Because I don't think No, I'm sorry, but no, I'm being questioned why I didn't do item four. Okay, fine. You people will do it. I just signed my paper with joy.

Oh, you did? Okay. Well, this agenda item 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 related to the information such as whether the information should be directed to staff or placed on a future commission agenda. However, commission members may not expand their discussion beyond such protocol matters, procedur procedural matter, excuse me. Otherwise, the agenda will proceed as posted. For the remainder of uh the agenda items, the plan commission will not invite public comment. Anybody want to speak to anything that's not on the agenda? No, you do.

I'm you are up and I apologize for 6A, right? I think I have Well, no 6A. Yeah, but that's this was 4A. You can speak on whatever you'd like. Oh, so I can really I can just talk about anything. Well, you can you can actually only for three minutes. Three minutes. That's all you're going to get. Okay, that we'll time it. But I'll as long as you want to talk about six. Yeah, we go 6A. Yes, that's what we're going to do.

I And Michaels, 630 Southwoods Edge Drive representing self and a housing advocacy. um with Green Pastures Living and just wanted to thank you for um you know the the work that has been done for rewriting just providing people more opportunities for housing um with some of the rewrites and just wanted to review and remind of some of the things that have been worked on um and just considering some of the AP best practices and things that we talk about um in the advocacy group that I belong to, Madison Townmakers and um you know just grateful that in some of the wording we've opened uh you know increasing the the the square footage and the no parking and no impact is really giving people more options and I know there's people waiting for this to be approved and um at least probably know has has a list but um just grateful for that but I know that tonight you're you're also considering some things um that um I think just reminding you that the purpose is to open up that accessibility and affordability and I know sometimes we can be focused more on on other things and and the two things I just wanted to highlight was uh first the the issue of matching the principal structure and you know just really seeing and considering ing the importance versus the cost of it. Um because I just wanted to reiterate Heidi coming on in February, you know, and her she has a yellow brick house, but her garage that she would like to be as accessory dwell in is beige vinyl. So if that was needing to be matching principal structure, that would be cost

prohibitive. So that's just an example, you know, and and what how important it is to to match it. And yet I think there's also things to consider with the attorney of like what is it subjective? So just things to consider, you know, just weighing just iterating the importance of why we are rewriting this is to making more options um and to increase the affordability and accessibility as well as the future of this, you know, and that goes to my point of the owner occupancy. I'm not saying whether you should, you know, include it or not, but also to consider um ARP makes the point of like sometimes um people trying to get financing for this um makes it very hard if it has to be ownership. Um and also the long-term effects of um having very um stringent requirements of of owner occupancy. So just just things to consider. That's kind of one that I wanted for the public comment of just keeping the importance of having um that affordable and accessible options to people um in front of mind when you are making these rewrites as well as you know the legal prospect of it. Um but that's all I had to say. Just I'm just excited for um the people that I can help through this um new zoning rewrite. So, just thank you for all that you're do.

Thank you. Nice. Okay. You want to lead us through this, Elise?

Sure. Okay. So, we're on 6A now. Um, continue conversation on our ADU uh zoning text amendment that we're working on. Uh there were some of the comments from last month incorporated and um just on that point that was brought up about matching structure. Um I think last time we just talked about maybe consistent with neighborhood design or something like that. So I'll make sure that that wording is a little bit more clear. But um in short, I think the issues that we sort of still have on the table to discuss and it seemed like there were some, you know, there was different perspectives on this within the planning commission last month was owner occupancy and sort of what can be um legally controlled and what do we want to kind of get into and then short-term rentals um versus long-term rentals and overall just sort of the possibility that um a single family, you know, structure with an ADU you on the lot. Um, if both could be rented, you know, that could essentially make a duplex situation and are we okay with that? And again, what to what scale do we think this is going to be? Um, within the village, you know, built out in the short term, long term, how, you know, is this going to be a trend that we continue to see? Um, so we've been doing a lot of back and forth with Larry Kipeki, our village attorney. I'm not sure if all of you have had a chance to meet him yet. Um, but I figured we could just cut out the middleman, which is me, and maybe have a chance for Larry to um, go through, he's had a lot of experience working in other communities on these issues. Um, so I thought it'd be helpful for you to hear directly from him and then, you know, ask any questions you have and hopefully we can, um, try to find a a common direction here so we can uh, move towards the public hearing and getting some of this text actually written into an ordinance.

Okay. Yeah. So, on the on the owner owner occupied question, the the there's always been a a a general rule in W under Wisconsin law through court decisions that um that if you're if you own property in a residential district, you have a right to rent that out for at least 30 days or longer. Um that was codified in statutes. I say recently, but you know, within the last 10 years, um maybe 15 now. And in in in a statute that relates to short-term rentals, that statute also captures long-term rentals. Um and so there haven't been any cases that have interpreted the long-term rental component of that statute, which is what we potentially be talking about here. But my interpretation of it is that it it disallows um at least arguably disallows a restriction on rental based on requiring someone to live in either the house next to it or in it. Um and so and one of the things that we we've struggled with in this project is that there are other communities that do have that kind of a restriction. Um and so you know there's quite a few out there actually I think that Sonia found that that that do have impose that restriction. Um I think it's somewhat questionable as to whether that could be enforced and and so your options are to do it and wait to see as the law evolves and find out. But my caution to you would be since there's at least some uncertainty as to whether that kind of a restriction would be enforcable that I think you make your decisions about what to do with edus not expecting if you decide to impose that kind of a restriction not expecting

or doing it only because that restriction was in place. So, if you're not comfortable with rental of either or both of the units on the property, putting into the ordinance a restriction like this is not something you should necessarily rely on in terms of your decision-m about whether to do it at all. I suspect it probably more likely than not that it would be impermissible to impose that kind of a restriction. Admittedly, there is some gray area there. Um, so just don't make that decision based on that. Okay. Another way that you kind of described it to me earlier is, you know, obviously right now we have um all of our residential districts. Um this would be permitted by right. Um I think one way you kind of put it is wherever you're uncomfortable having a potential duplex situation, you know, maybe don't allow these. So, just know that that is likely a possibility that at some point in time could fluctuate, but both of these units could be rented given all these other, you know, the right to rent and other um residents in the law right now. So, if we're okay with that situation in, you know, single family neighborhoods and things, then we could continue to have it written as permissible in all those those SR districts. But um if you felt that was inappropriate there, then that would be one area maybe we could take a look at and only allow in in two family. But I think again back to the intent, my understanding was we want to create, you know, gentle density within our neighborhoods. This is an opportunity to add um housing stock without really changing the character or look of the neighborhood um to a large degree. And again, we've even seen in cities as large as Madison, this is not being it's still very cost prohibitive like I have kept saying every every month. So small numbers or if these are getting built, technology may improve and construction materials and maybe their prefab

structures that um become more affordable, but um you know that's just kind of what we're seeing other communities is still pretty low scale. So to sort of weigh how much do you want to get into the weeds and really restrict these? Um but you know we don't have these yet. So now is the opportunity to try to get ahead of some of the concerns we have. It's obviously harder once you have properties that are existing and some are grandfathered and then some are operating under a new set of rules as well. Okay.

Um was there anything about short-term anything else about short-term rentals? Yeah, if we want to get into that. I mean, while I'm here, I guess that's um we we've had Lisa and I have had a number of conversations about whether the village should engage in a discussion about regulating short-term rentals. And the answer we usually get is we don't really see a lot of that here or and it's not rising to the level of, you know, police calls or or, you know, uh complaints at this point, whether they're happening um or not. Uh, I will tell you that if you wait until those things happen and then try to create an ordinance, it's much much more difficult. Um, when there's people who are vested in it and maybe there's even some emotion involved. Um, if it isn't happening yet, it will. Uh, that's certainly the trend. Um, it's not to say that they're bad. I stay in them. Um, I think probably most of us have at least done that. It's u, it's not a question whether they're good or bad. It's a question of whether you feel like they should be regulated and if so, how. Um, one of the challenges that I see is that once there's a problem, you as a plan commission, your recommendations to the village board and then the village board and their legislative decision on the ordinance will really be pushed hard to put a very restrictive ordinance in place that will likely have impermissible components to it. And it's very hard to withstand that pressure when you get into that situation where there's some people who are pretty fired up about it. Um, and so if you're going to do it, the best time to do it is when you don't have a problem. Um, and then you can just have sort of a rational, less emotional at least discussion about what an appropriate level of regulation is. And so, you know, it's always my recommendation to do it because it'll eventually be something that will come

before you and the village board as a problem. When you can't say, but there will be disagreement amongst people as to how to handle that. And that's very much tied with the reason we're bringing it up today is because it's really tied to this, not directly, but you know, like like Elise said, it's it's not inexpensive to have to to build a second dwelling unit on your property. And if you're doing that, the example we talked about today is, you know, if you're doing it for your parents or one of your parents, um, and they spend three months in Florida, Arizona, there's going to be a strong incentive to to rent that short term to cover those costs, right? If some people will, some people won't, and we don't expect this these to pop up all over the village, but um, it is going to be a trend. It's probably won't be accelerated all that much by this ADU decisions, the this ADU ordinance, but um it will be in front of you. It's just without question. It's the trend. Any questions, guys? Patrick, you had a before you had some discussion last meetings or something.

No, I I wasn't at the last meeting. So, before No, I guess the only I had highlighted on kind of dealing with owner occupancy is it's stated in here for for a period of at least 10 months which I don't understand why it's limited at 10 months and I think that you don't mind

I think that sort of underscores also one of the challenges of imposing a residency requirement what does residency mean you have to define it as something you know you could say you know where you're registered to vote Well, not everybody's registered to vote. How long, how many days a year, you know, some of the ordinances on short-term rentals that have now been invalidated in the in the courts would say, you know, you had to that had to be where you slept for 180 days a year or you have to if you're going to say a if you're going to have a residency requirement, you got to be real clear about what residency means. Um, so that's it's not necessarily that there's any magic to 10 months. It's well that's why I questioned it because typically state residency is 6 months in one day

right or or for voting it's 30 what is it it's even shorter right yeah and currently we have the recommendation that we would not have any occupancy restrictions I think that what's in italics there with the 10 months was just kind of throwing a bone at if this was something that we wanted to pursue the language was language that Larry had suggested a couple months ago that we could build something similar to that and have um they have a restrictive agreement between the property owner and the city or the village and it's recorded and um but hard to enforce gets complicated. Yeah. and that and that the italics uh the ital italicized provision in your in your report

that would probably be the closest we feel like we could get to imposing a a owner res owner resident residency requirement um because you as Elise just mentioned you know you'd almost have to create some sort of agreement between the property owner and the village because again from a regulatory perspective like how we regulate everybody's use without agreement. It's um it's questionable as to whether the village has the authority to do that. So that's sort of a way you bootstrap into it if you really wanted to go that route. I wanted to say one more thing about enforcability. It's probably not again arbitrary 10 months, whatever. You got to pick something. But then how do you enforce it moving forward, right? We don't all I mean other than with potentially with voting, we don't all report back to our community how many days we lived in what house. And so it is it's challenging in that respect too. I think what ends up happening in the communities that have this kind of a restriction is they look for the obvious examples of somebody's not living there. They're getting the mail somewhere else. They haven't been seen. They're, you know, you you can see that they're renting out both houses on VBO every day. Um, so there's some obvious ways you could you could enforce something like that, but when it gets down to the close calls, it's just there just no way you would be able to to to determine whether someone was living there or not.

I guess I don't remember removing the requirement for primary and secondary residents of ownership being on the on the property. I don't remember having that discussion. As a matter of fact, I feel pretty strongly about having ownership on the property, primary residence. The reason is this is a desirable place to move in the country. This is a place that is become marketable and you see it year after year with growth of the areas in and around Madison. It is also a target for business to come in and buy properties and turn those properties into a full rental situation. So if you do that, you remove the ability to have this ADU and it becomes purely a profit source for a business. Something that we don't want to have in this situation. That's not what we're trying to set this up for. Um I have seen it personally in that the places that you talk about Airbnbs, you know, whatever. Um companies come in and they slowly buy up these homes and then they change the HOAs to their favor where you don't have the ability to have a primary residence and then they control the HOA, they control a subdivision and then they can really start to change a community's situation. I think that's not what we want to have happen. So, I think we need to find some tooth to it. I don't know what that is. That's not my voodoo. Um, I also think that I can speak from experience in the communities that my children live that are desirable places for people to move that they are seeing businesses come in and buying large tracks of homes, subdivisions, and developing them purely as rental

homes. Um, and it changes the complexity and nature of uh an area. Um, again, something that we're not wanting to do with this simple ADU. I think this is intended to be an affordable, for simplicity sake, mother-in-law's house kind of thing. Um, um, and I think that's the right thing to do. So, I think we need to find a way to make that work and we need to set that up on the front side

and and I I'll give you a very direct answer to that. Two things given that uh perspective to to give effect to that perspective, you need to have a short-term rental ordinance in this village. So, that's, you know, if if there's enough people that feel that way on this body and on the village board, that's that's step one. And then on the definitive answer on ADUs, I don't believe that there's a way that you could put the teeth in ahead in the early in the early stages like we're doing right now where I would have confidence that it would stay that way. So, we can say whatever we want in an ordinance, but I I don't have and I told Elise this, I don't have confidence that if we put provisions in the ordinance that impose the teeth that we'd like that maybe you would all like to see that those will last. Whether that be through challenges directly to the villages ordinance or as this works its way through other communities and other court cases. I suspect, and I've talked to quite a few other people who are practitioners in this area in preparation for this meeting, and everyone agreed that we're not sure that you shouldn't make a decision to allow a second dwelling unit. If the reason you're doing it is because you're confident that you could keep people from renting those to someone else. If that's an important enough piece, then then it you shouldn't do it because I don't think that will those teeth will last. I think they'll be invalidated over time. All right. So, I'm a little bit confused, but so so you're saying that that the owner occupi occupied requirement may be challenged somewhere along the line.

I think I think that those requirements I there's a lot of communities that haven't c caught up with the state law that I was just talking about. Um that's that state law hasn't been tested as far as I know in this context. It's been tested with short-term rentals and it's been in owner occupancy has been invalidated in for short-term rentals. So, we have that data point on short-term rentals, but it's the same statute that codified the historical common law of the right to rent for longer term, and it uses the same words that that were the basis for the court to invalidate a residency requirement for short-term rentals. So, I think it's pretty likely that it's uninforced. um that question hasn't been answered, but you're fortunately you're at a point in time where you can make a decision about whether to do this at all. I just I just have to tell you that if the only reason, again, I know I've said it before, if the only reason you're doing it is because you feel confident that you can keep it from being rented, just know that that you shouldn't have that confidence. And I guess I don't have the same concerns, John, and I I haven't lived other places. I haven't seen other people come in and buy homes and do things that you clearly have seen, but to me, I don't know that having that owner occupancy is necessarily a requirement that I would feel needs to be in there personally. Um, I mean, I see, you know, I see kids that live together all over the place, right? They're college buddies. One of them now lives in that house and then their other buddy lives in the other house, right? They're not related. Maybe they're both, it's a parents house, they're both living there. Like, I see other ways that these

could be used, right? And I just I feel like it might reduce the people that really want to build these, that live there, that want their mother-in-law. I just worry that if we put too many barriers there, we are um creating kind of a a code just to be able to have a code. I I guess personally, but I I get what you're saying, John. I just don't know that I think it would be as as important as you guys do.

Well, in reality, we you were looking at this to a certain extent as grandios. We're going to have all this massive development and we're not. The reality is we're not. So, this this is going to be pretty minimal. I think I could be wrong. I mean, I can't imagine building another building in my backyard. Um, and Bammont sure heck's not going to allow it. So, where there's an HOA, there's to to John's point, where where there's an HOA, they make their own rules.

Yeah. Well, true, true. But effectively, we're we're making every every lot in these districts where this is allowed, we're making that a potential duplex lot. So, you know, Patrick lives between me and John and decides to chew up his whole backyard and put an ADU in there that we don't find attractive. We're we're now sitting on our decks looking at it and and potentially dealing with, you know, more residents and more problems and more cars parked in front of our mailboxes because there's no parking requirement. So, you know, there there are potential problems with it. And you know, it looks good from the 10,000 foot view, but you know, individual cases it'll be problematic. In other cases, it'll be quaint and hardly noticeable. But the less scrutiny and regulation we put on it, the more potential there is for problems with it. And you know, people that aren't going to be happier, the surrounding couple of neighbors that bought their house with what they thought was their view, and now it's changed dramatically. You know, I've always I've always tried to um look at my position here on the plan commission um from the perspective of the village in the long term playing the what if game.

Um and yeah, I mean if we take a a micro picture of this, is it a big issue? No. Could it be? Hell yeah. So that's the whatif game that I'm playing is I don't want that whatif game to happen. So how do we sort of get that taken care of on the front side? And I you know I don't think anybody here on the surface would say that ADUs are a bad thing. I don't think anybody would. I don't think anybody would say if you just pulled us right now are ADUs a bad thing? Nobody would say no. It's the details that we're just getting hung up on. And I and again, my personal experience, I've seen it. I've um I've seen it. And I don't want that to happen here. Um and it seems like it's a pretty easy thing to do with a short-term rental ordinance. Correct. Um which would fall back into sort of Phil's court.

Yeah. It's just a matter of having it prepared. Um I I would I would make a couple public comment pardon me there u to your comment John about you know uh owner occupied or short-term rentals and and I certainly appreciate your your concern about private equity coming in ving up these neighborhoods etc etc but I think the other side of that is is those same firms are the ones that are most likely going to challenge our ordinance because they have the back the money to do so. And I would if you agree with that or

Yeah. And and there there's I mean I I work in places where exactly what John said is happening all the time. You know, any any community in the four corners of counties around the Dells I work for Monakqua. I work for I mean this is what you've described is a it's not rumors. It's absolutely true. It's just not happening here yet. Um, and so the question is how do you I just I I don't think that there's much you can do about that other than the shortterm rental and of course that what you know what that means is less than 29 days, less than 30 days, more than six. Okay? So less than a month, let's call it, you have some room to regulate there. That's what a short-term rental ordinance is. The statutes allow the opportunity to do that. Um, and you can you can require them, for instance, to only do that half a year, right? But what but what we're talking about here in terms of owner occupancy is not just short-term rentals, which an ordinance on that would would help, but also long-term rentals. So, if mom passes or mother-in-law passes or moves or and you could have a full-time year-round renter in that um and I think that what's been discussed is that as long as the owner of the lot occupies one, right? is that kind of where occupies the primary dwelling and that's okay and they have to be next to it and they have to live with the the um the in the italics in the in the um in the report the idea was brought up well maybe we could do a some sort of a deed restriction where if someone wants to build one of these they have to agree that the owner has to reside in one or the other or the however you decided to do it one or the other or the primary. Um, again that gets into how do you enforce that? How do you measure it? Um,

but if you could do it, I think the concerns John raises would be mitigated by doing that. I mean, it's not a bad idea for to solve those issues. It's just that I don't know that you could ever enforce it. And in my experience, the the private equity firms that are buying up all the houses, they're not just looking for ones with two units. They're buying a single family home. Yeah. And but maybe something like this would be more attractive because it's two rentals. I don't know. But yeah, you're kind of stuck in a tough spot.

And to your point, Larry, I agree. You know, I in my world, if you've got a two tenant building and you put a wall between the two, if a thief wants to get through it, he's going to find a way. But what you're trying to do is stop the honest thief. They see the wall, they stop. It's the same kind of thing for this. Um, if if somebody sees an ordinance and all of a sudden they go, "H, I guess I just really don't want to fight that." You know, if they've got deep pockets, yeah, they're they're going to go, but I think you're trying to stop any you're just trying to slow it is what you're trying to do.

I would agree with that 100%. And and I'm not saying that this would be invalidated, right? I think we're just my job is to like you said sort of think long term what we think the outcomes might be. It may very well be that that is different enough than the cases we've seen that it would be validated depending on the court depending on the day. So I'm not saying it's not allowed. I'm just saying you shouldn't bear all the weight of your decision on whether it would be enforced. So, with that being said, yes.

Um, I guess kind of a related question. Larry's kind of gotten to this, but there are, you know, there are elements of short-term rental regulations that you do feel are would stand up in court and are and and he talked about, you know, maybe there's a template we could definitely take a look at. Is that something that we want to I guess do we feel like we're close enough with the ADU ordinance kind of elements that we have where we can keep this moving forward, get this wrapped up maybe, you know, early summer here and then address short-term rentals or would you like to pause where we are, work on the short-term rental language and we can, you know, still do a a zoning touch to them and, you know, kind of keep everything moving together. But, um, do we feel like it's important enough that we want to have that short-term rental language, um, in front of us for discussion sooner rather than later, or do we want to just wrap this piece up if we are at a point where we can wrap it up?

That's a good question for the village board to direct us on what they want us to work on. Well, you guys are a recommending body to the board as well, so they're probably going to want to know what you guys think. I guess we could recommend back. I mean, WE CAN SAY THAT they should probably direct us to do that and there's going to be some costs to have Larry work on it. So, the board has to it's not a bad idea make that decision. But, yeah, you know, if you're looking my my personal my personal opinion is I don't think that you can have one function without the other.

Um, I think that for it to really be cohesive, you have to have them both work in tandem. Um, so yeah, I guess I would recommend that we pass it to the village board to give us direction on Wow. That would work for me. Well, what do you think, though? I think you're I think we're going to punt it right back down here. So, we don't I think I think if it's something you guys want to work on, we should just work on it. I think the board's going to be supportive of what you guys think is necessary. What I want to do is have an attorney just tell me what the heck to do. That's what I want to do. Yeah. Well, that's the point. And make that attorney responsible.

Let's Let's look at this. We have I think we have two things at hand, perhaps three because Scott brought up another point. Yeah. One was owner occupancy, right? Yep. And the other is short-term rentals. And uh Larry is telling us that we can write in anything we want. Some may be found invalid later. Larry may tell us some of these things are invalid on your face. So I think we should say what what I think John has verbalized some of the things that he would like to see. Um and Larry said Larry's response has been that's fine but it may not stand up. But it may but it may but it may.

And so maybe we should incorporate language with what we can agree on. send it back to Larry and lease and they can say this will probably fly or Okay, that's that's good idea. I give me a little clarification again on the short-term rental.

What does that really do for us? What is what is the what is it? I'm I'm not maybe following it properly. So, in the to to many of the the concerns that John brought up, uh the I think that the idea is that the shorter term that someone rents, the more likely it is that they're not going to be sort of bought into being a good neighbor. And that's not always true, but that's sort of the the way thing people look at these things over, you know, in communities around the state where they're having problems. So, if you have somebody who signs a one-year lease to rent the mother-in-law suite after mother the mother-in-law gets tired of living next to you or whatever happens. Um, that person is sort of invested in being able to stay there for a year, not being evicted, you know, having good neighbor relations. as opposed to someone who the idea is is maybe just there with some friends for the weekend. Maybe it's going to be more recreational outside fire pits, whatever. You know, just not going about daily life, right? And so that I'm not saying that that's necessarily true. I think all different kinds of people use these. But if you regulate short-term rentals through an STR, short-term rental STR ordinance, you can limit how much, how often, how, what portion of the year. There's specific things in the statute that you're allowed to do that at least make it so that it's not going to be every weekend or every week for an entire year. And that maybe makes it more attractive to someone to do a longer term lease to have someone who's an actual resident rather than a visitor. Um, so that's the value of a short-term rental ordinance is that it it it lets you know where they are, who's running them. They have to um they

have to get a what's called a tourist rooming house license from the department of a there's the potential to require some um inspections to a reasonable level that it's something that's safe for someone to be renting like almost as a hotel room. So there's some value there. Um and and I guess the idea is that if you know that's what it is and that's what you you can manage it in a way that maybe minimizes some of the neighbor conflict.

So maybe if I'm again I trying to follow this engineers don't do that good. So I'm looking at this differently as a short term. So you're saying you're you're regulating the short-term rental agreements and in in to a certain extent they kind of favor you to or not favor you they kind of in in u incentivize incentivize you to maybe make a longer term that's not the purpose of it but no but

if you could only rent that property for a max of 180 days then what do you do with it? You know, it's hard to find maybe a six-month long-term rental by doing again the short-term rental. What are you doing with that? Are you are you limiting only short-term or what are you doing with the shortterm? They can still use the the unit for whatever they want to use it for. I mean, you they can live there themselves. Some people rent out their own home. That's the whole thing that was just invalidated, the requirement to do so, but they could have guests stay there that aren't renting,

but they could only rent it out for however many days the village allows it no less than 180. So, you can't can't push it below 180. That's that's that that's the cut off. But the rest of the time, they could use it as their painting studio or let us there. Um, but so you may get So, I'm sorry. I get I'm looking at it. So, you're saying it you can't have it for a You're limiting the short term. How much how many days a year is an example, right?

And that and so no building is either a short-term rental or a long it's just depends on what you're using it for on that day.

Okay. So, the I guess the the biggest advantage that my clients say they get from the short-term rental ordinance is that they get their hands on what's going on where in the community people have to come in and get an approval. Um there's certain requirements for reporting and how many days. It also adds to the room tax um once you have, you know, but should be doing that anyway, but but you can kind of keep an eye on that. and that one of the things is that maybe it's more attractive to do long-term rental, but also it's going to be empty or at least not rented to somebody who's just off the website half the year, which to the neighbors, you know, if you're talking about sitting in your backyard, if there was one that was a problem, you don't have to deal with it all the time.

Okay. So, you thought of working on this some more on Well, I think on the short-term rentals, it sounds like u We could go ahead and and use what Larry is suggesting here and at least as a starting point, have him bring bring that back and have and we look at that. And then the other is the owner occupied element. Right. Right. And what we want to do with that, which is what I thought originally that one of the one of the reasons why this was brought before the plan commissioner of the village was because we're looking at essentially what would be an owner occupied for at least one of the units, right?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Excuse me. Just for Yes. Yes. One. Yeah. Never thought about being the exesty, but it could be either either building. Yeah. Yeah. The other advantage to a short-term rental ordinance is the statute is a little bit

wonky in terms of how it's created. But what it starts by saying is you may not restrict the rental of a building of a residential unit for 7 days or longer. And then it says, but if it's between 29 less than less than 30 and more than six, you can limit it. Which means that you can completely eliminate rentals for less than seven days. And most communities that have an STR ordinance do that. Um so that at the very least if somebody's coming in and they want it for two nights, they can only rent to one person on two nights for that 7-day period. Um and it isn't limited to 180 days per year. It's limited to tell us when you're going to do the first one, 180 days later, you're done. So during that period, there might be a whole lot of days that there wasn't someone there. So there's ways you can do it to kind of limit how many nights that this that they'd be used for this kind of purpose. Um and and so

but essentially that's the Airbnb ordinance, right? Yep. That's the Airbnb or but I mean the seven days fits you're trying to cut down on the Airbnb rentals, right? Well, you completely cut Airbnb rentals but only for a week for seven days or more, right? because you can with that ordinance you can prohibit rentals for less than se less than seven days. Yeah. That gets to a big part of some of the things Greg brought up. Yep. Yeah. Now now I'm getting a hang of it. Yes.

Two questions if I could please. Um one thing that we're trying to do with this ADU is to is to minimize some of the costs. Um because we were uh doing away with park fees and some of the other stuff that's been structured. if we go this route that we're suggesting right now. You said that there's some inspections and things like that that have to happen as part of that. So, I'm assuming for short-term rentals, not have to, but you can certainly

Okay. I mean, there's the the Department of A side. They do that. That wouldn't be the village's involvement other than I would typically in an ordinance have them at least supply the village with a copy of that license, the tourist rooming house license, but we wouldn't impose more cost as a as a result of that. And the second thing is hypothetically in this situation um if we call it a mother-in-law suite and I rent it to my mother-in-law, if I charge my mother-in-law rent, I kind of like my wife and things would get prickly in my house. So, can I rent to a mother-in-law hypothetically free?

Yeah. So, that that you can see where the question of whether you're renting or not gets very hard to enforce because I mean it. I know of all kinds of places where up in northern Wisconsin where, you know, it's somebody's friend and you're paying them a thousand bucks for the weekend, but it's only through word of mouth and nobody's paying taxes. There's no that you're just paying them to stay at their place. So there's an enforcability issue with respect to any kind of restrictions on that's why the the short-term rental ordinances are so developed because you actually have to get a license you have to get licensed by and and if they're doing that sort of under the table you'll never know but if they're using a site like VBO or you know somebody finds one and it's it's up listed um you know there's there's also the question of whether and who's going to enforce who are the village staff that are going to do that work. But but yeah, it's there's a whole thing you build out to try to regulate short term. Um even just figuring out where they're being rented, right? But as soon as you get what ends up happening is somebody will be upset with the person who mis you know described the place that they come from Nevada to stay in and they go and they say well I'm going to call the village of Oregon and say you know this place isn't isn't safe for whatever reason there were no fire extinguishers and then you go oh we didn't know they for a rental and they're supposed to have a license and then you go enforce. So, it's all of the enforcement side of this is first of all, it takes staff time, but it's also really hard to pin down.

Well, that I think that and I might add that goes to John's point earlier, and that is we're trying to stop the the full stop at a wall. So, I can tell you right now, we're not going to hire staff to try and I think you all know that. But when we have a complaint or an issue, you have something in place to say these are the rules. And and it's also to John's point, you know, a lot of ordinances aren't written because somebody's going to be looking over your shoulder to make sure you do it every time. But if you prohibit short-term rentals below seven days period um and somebody rents for two days and you find out about it, it's that's a ordinance violation and they get cited just like anyone else.

Yeah. Um 29 to 7 is that gray area. Over 30, you can't impose restrictions. I'll I'll say since it looks like it's possible that you'll include this kind of residency requirement. There is an argument that you can and I haven't gone into the arguments either way, but the argument is that requiring someone to live in that house doesn't mean you're requiring them to live in the one you're renting. I'd love to see that ar I'd love to have have to make that argument and see where it would go. There is to be clear there is a a logical argument that you could impose this just don't assume it's going to be there right in the end

right so I think we have something to work with on the shortterm part everybody so now how about on the occupy where where are we on that one of the units I go ahead sense you're gonna say something I feel um pretty strongly with John that owner occupies is key to this. I don't care which unit it is, but the fact that they're on site that it doesn't become two rental properties, you know, uh I I would not be happy if suddenly my next door neighbor, you know, decided to build another structure and leave and, you know, let it be rentals. Yeah. So, can you write something into that? I think

I'll follow that up with a question, please. So, what Elise said before is that The easiest thing to do would be to allow these in places where you think two units on the same lot is acceptable. So in areas where you would allow, let's say, a duplex. Um, so it's two units separated versus two units together. If you build a duplex, there's nothing keeping you from running both sides. Exactly. And in fact, I think you'd be procluded from doing that, right?

Um, so there it isn't necess So you have two two ways to approach this. One is to look at that list of zones that's that's in the the memo and determine maybe a lesser group of zones that you'd want to allow this kinds of places where you would normally have multiple units on the same lot

or allow it in all those zones and impose residency requirement for at least one of the structures and then figure out a as as Patrick was saying before figure out a way define residency and give a direction to staff as to how over time you're supposed to keep track of whether someone's living there or not. Um, do you have experience with other communities on this particular issue? I haven't written an ordinance that has a residency requirement.

Have not. There are ordinances out there and certainly we've come across some of those. But I still I still think which which way residency requirement or less zones cut off that that permit by right and put it in the zones where you would be happy with a duplex. Well, there's already a duplex on all the duplex lots. So now you're adding a third unit to a duplex lot potentially, you know, and there are certainly areas in on single family lots where there's room for this and it could be done nicely.

Yeah, I think we did talk that is actually addressed somewhere because I asked the same question like why would they be an MRE? We wouldn't want this like behind an apartment building or something. And I think um maybe it's not in this table, but in the language that it would only be allowed on uh property where there is um a building just a single family home. So because there are single family homes in TR6, like North Main Street, for example, a lot of that is TR6, but there are single family homes. That's what I That's what I So let me see if I can That makes sense. Yeah, you would you would if it if if there's a maximum number of units and if they've already got that maximum number, you don't build another one.

So, in other words, there's two ways you can do this. And I think the easier Well, it may be worth thinking about doing it in more of a limited area where you'd be comfortable with multiple like if somebody house burned down, they could build a duplex there. Maybe that's the place um to start at least. And then you don't have to worry about

Yeah. Here's the language. This is part of what is um recommended to be replaced. So an ADU may be located within or attached to a principal single family dwelling. So that's what we currently have that attached in-law suite type thing. Um or located within a detached accessory building on the same lot as a single family dwelling. So it's not saying which district that's in. We have that in a separate section where it's allowable. But if there was already a duplex or a forplex or something on a MA lot, that would not be allowed to have an ADU on it.

And and if someone was not in one of these zones and they wanted to build a um a second uh dwelling unit and there's a single family residence there now, they could come to the village board through through your recommendation for a reason to get into a zoning district that would allow it. And at that point, because it's a request for a legislative decision, you may impose in specific situations some sort of a condition of reason to at least put up the stop sign as you're talking about, try to impose some restriction, but it may very well be they come to you and it's a corner lot and they're telling you, "We'll build it right here." And there's a good it's not obstructing anyone's view. It's not next to anyone's deck. and you might say that's an appropriate place to reszone for this. I think from an administration standpoint, it would be easier to pick the zones that you're comfortable with no residency requirement than it is to impose a residency requirement in all of the zones.

So according to that verbiage, you could not ever have more than two residences, an ADO and a single family on any lot. That is that my understanding? So they take a duplex and then put an ADU on it. Yep. These would only be allowed to be added where there are single family where there's a single family home. What if it's too flat? They have an apartment upstairs already. Can they build an ADU in the backyard and they essentially I think that would be considered No, I think that'd be considered a dup. Two dwelling units are already there. They could eliminate the they could convert it into one and then build one, right? Yeah. People will get creative with it.

They will. Um I mean I guess I don't really see that scenario. You were mentioning that somebody would come for a reason because this is all of the residential districts. So we pulled some of those out. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. And then you could look at it more on a case by case basis. Um the other thing I wanted to address was John, you were talking a little bit ago about the cost burden with the short-term rentals and the inspections and stuff. I mean, in my mind, the we don't want to have that cost burden on the people who are doing this, you know, for the family and things like that. So, if the their intent is not to do the short-term rental at this time, they wouldn't have to deal with the it's not like just because you have an ADU, you have to get it certified as a short-term rental if you chose, no, I'm just going to do this for my family or guests or my artist studio in the back.

You wouldn't have to do those inspections and things like that. So, it wouldn't apply to necessarily every ADU. No, it wouldn't definitely not. Um, it would apply to the single family homes and apartments and other things that are already being rented.

And and to John's previous point about looking forward, you know, what we have to think about is I live here now. I've got this intent, but I'm not going to live here forever. And so then if there's some sort of a deed restriction or, you know, how do you I suppose you'd sell it as something that You could never buy it to rent it out the whole property, right? Because it's some sort of a rest. I think it it gets complicated when you start talking about

to me it's it it it might be cleanest for administration to to figure out which zones you are comfortable with multiple units and maybe make some zoning changes as it relates to that too. M zoning map amendments as it relates to that. But I if we're going to include every residential zone and and a residency requirement between the risk of um invalidating that residency requirement and at least two of you have said that's key to doing this and then the administrative challenges associated with that. It might be worth trying to figure out if you could if you could say these are the zones looking at the map where we'd be comfortable with it without the residency requirement. If somebody wants to do it somewhere else, they've got to come and get reszoned to one of those permissible areas,

right? But then we probably end up with spot zoning, right, with a TR6. Yeah, that's okay. Another item that you brought up was, you know, will we see this potentially used with some older homes that aren't in the greatest of shape being demolished and creating a new duplex lot, you know, kind of in a backdoor fashion, you know, through this. You know, we hadn't really considered that. The thought is that somebody just builds this quaint little structure in the sideyard or the backyard, but it could be used to just redevelop the entire site. you know, have to decide. Is that inherently a bad thing? I mean, somebody could do that now, right? Build a modern

not necessarily. It has some some bright spots, but for the neighbors that, you know, thought they were living in next to a single family home, now find themselves next door to a duplex, they're not going to be very happy. They're going to be pounded on on your door. So my question is, could you not just create a unique zoning identity for for this and whoever wants to do it has to come in and ask for a reasonzone and then you can have those restrictions to that specific kind of maybe like a conditional use permit type something. Yeah.

It' be better to do it as a separate zoning district because then it's a legislative decision because we're so restricted on what we can impose for conditional use. That's true. Right. conditional use permits. Then you handle it on a case- by case basis and then it's a little more work I guess but at least you can say this is an appropriate use of of you know this plot versus you know trying to be generic for for the whole village. Well you could do location on the lot size characteristics. But those are all what we already have here in in this I mean we could use this framework but I guess

yeah what's I'm just curious like what do you think would be the test say oh this is appropriate here but not appropriate here or maybe it's appropriate this is going to be your mother-in-law whatever you sell the property in two years all of a sudden that situation that you thought was happening on that property has changed now is it no longer appropriate that any of these restrictions they're going to be tied to the land they're not tied to that owner. So if the ownership changes like just with a conditional use permit, it's tied to the property. Can that can that use be tied to the owner? No. Conditional uses can't and zoning can't. The only thing that could be tied to the owner would be maybe something like what we have here in italics. This I think that would run off the land restricted. Okay.

Yeah. I mean that's kind of everything we do, right? Is if it's appropriate for one person to operate whatever a ice cream stand here. It shouldn't matter who runs it as long as they're operating it the same hours and you know all that stuff certain certain things or whatever but right you can't say you can do this but no this other guy can't yeah I think we're getting uh just just in a side note but getting back to the reason what Larry statement earlier was he has no communities with owner occupied uh restrictions I don't have any but I do know they exist Yeah, we know of many. I just haven't done it myself, but they could be challenged. It just hasn't

happened yet. So, it's being challenged in other nonedu arenas, right? Other housing parts of the statute. So, um we've been about this about an hour. So, I just want to check in with you guys. You know, we don't have to to make any decisions today. you want to think about this a little bit, we can have Larry maybe come back in May or if you want us to move forward with some language drafting, we can work on that. Um, in the meantime, I think we certainly want to have some language to move forward on part of this. And I think there's some things that we still all have questions on that we need clarification. And um

but we keep on getting in the the whatifs and all kind of weeds and and I I I I agree with you 100% that some language gets us in a direction hopefully. Does that make sense? Maybe we could do two options limitful list no requirement and then we could do I mean the requirement is easy because just as sure and sort of like pros and cons. we can kind of talk through each and then the short-term rental sounds like you already have kind of a template we can look at that too whether it's whether it's May or June we can bring that back for discussion okay let us take a whack at it I think we we have a good sense of the varied perspectives here so

it' be good for me if anybody has any more quick has any more strong thoughts on this issue of um occupancy owner occup occupancy speak now or send me send me an email. One question I had reading it and it's the number of occupants in an ADU shall not exceed one family and then what I wrote is what about a live-in caregiver? Does that restrict that?

And and we can we can do we can do language um that ma more matches the statute. It says um a building or structure that is used or intended to be used as a home residence or sleeping place by one person or by two or more persons maintaining a common household. So it doesn't necessarily Yeah. I just see that as a big scenario, right? Somebody's needs care.

In the summary, I think we're talking about it's not a multi-unit, right? It's a single unit. But there's all kinds of different scenarios. It could be a friend staying with you or, you know, it's still one considered to be one residence, right? One household, two groups that are good. All right. Have all right to be continued. Like I said, we spent Yeah, it's it's enough on it. All right. Thank you.

Thanks, L. Move on to item 6B for discussion only which we just had but conceptual uh presentation or development Bergamont lot 505 1012 Wingfoot Drive move to deny oh sorry too early Ron

do you want me to give a little background I can introduce Ron here so I think um most folks are probably um familiar with this lot whether you know it as lot 505 or not, but this lot is about just over 5 and a half acres just to the west of the Bergammont um tennis court in the pool area. Um this was one of a couple of higher density areas on the original Bergammont plat kind of circa 2003ish that were um shown on the plat for higher density. They were all at 15 dwelling units an acre what was um permitted in that plat. So lot 505 is the last really fully undeveloped lot of those. But the other ones are um the Lavallet condos. Um those kind of Italian looking condos there, the roundabout at Augusta and Bergammont um the Bergamont Town Homes um out by Bergamont and CC and then uh Legend Hills up um just north of the clubhouse. So that was that was intended for multif family and then turned into those more narrow lot single family homes. So generally everything has been downzoned over time. I think most recently was probably either Legend Hills or um there was I think you most of you were on when the lavalac condos came in with sort of a kind of like Eagle Drive a duplex um replat. So obviously that hasn't been built yet but um Ron class is here as a representative from the development team um with a concept to do um single family homes on that parcel um kind of similar to what is nearby at um the adjacent culde-sac. So, I'll guess I'll turn it over to you and share a little bit about um the concept that you've presented tonight.

Thanks, Elise. Um you have the materials in front of you. So, I'll keep it brief, but the goal here is to create single family homes as part of the Bergamont neighborhood where they would look and feel the same as everything around them with a private drive similar to the other roads out here within the gated portion. private drive, private road that would serve those lots. Access would be off wing foot and the lots would be incorporated into the HOA of Bergmont so it would become seamless with the neighborhood. That's what we're after. There's going to be challenges. uh access to wing foot is uh has to be figured out. It is currently not available to this lot. So, we need to work on that. Um there would have to be uh uh things done to incorporate it into the HOA. None of those are village concerns necessarily, but internally uh we're working on that. But as Elise mentioned, it would be a change in the comp plan to a lower density here. Um, we met last night with a small group of the immediate neighbors and I think it's fair to say that uh they support this and Jim Purden, president of the HOA is here if you had questions for him. So, the goal tonight is just to get input and feedback so that I know I can take the next step and head in that direction.

Who wants to go first? I think it's been sitting there for 20 years and yeah, nobody's wanted to to pull the trigger on the higher density and I think this is a a reasonable fit if you can make all those you know meet all those logistical challenges and figure out how to get access and water and sewer and cluster mailboxes probably and you know all all of those things. Um, you know, I see it being popular with the immediate neighbors, of course, and yeah, we've had uh apartments in Bergammont before and that was real popular.

Ron, is it the intention for these lots then to meet the same covenant restrictions and site design layout requirements of Bergamont itself? That is correct. All the same covenants and restrictions. Okay. architectural review as well. Are they intended to be marketed at about the same price point or are these lots slightly smaller so they'll be at a lower price point or what is the intention for that?

It would be I think uh in the same general price range. um they're not on the course, so they're not in the same range as those. And some of them are deep, so they get bigger, but and and this may not even be the final layout, but uh yeah, in the same range as the last phase that went in uh off of uh 18 171 18. I I I think it's fine personally. So, and and I would think that all the neighbors would be happy with it also

as opposed to what theoretically could have been there. Mhm. I don't like the word intent, you know. I do. Okay. That's why I use it. I know. So, we're doing a not a heads. Yes. A nod. Yes. Yes. For me, yes for everybody else. way it sounds so great. Yep. So, as I mentioned in the memo, there would be a comp plan amendment needed for this and obviously a plat um amendment probably to the Bergamont plat to fill in this uh this lot here. So, those would all be approval steps coming before you at a later date should this move forward. Okay. Thanks, Ron.

Thanks all. Thanks for coming in. Thank you for listening to the the ADU conversation too for a little bit there. fit in with the current comp plan amendment you have moving or is that already too far along? No, the Hillrest one has already been adopted. So, yeah, this would be a new one that process again. Yep. Yeah. But three or four.

Thanks a lot. Thanks for thanks for sitting through the the other stuff that was so interesting. Move on to uh 6C. Review and possible approval of site plan revision the cell tower equipment changes to on the village of Oregon water tower 5199 Lincoln Road. The applicant is T-Mobile.

Okay. Um this is um some uh equipment changes for T-Mobile out on our Lincoln Road water tower. Um, this is not expanding the footprint of anything that's on the ground, but switching out some equipment and then um up on the tower itself, some equipment being replaced as well as it is um outdated. The other thing that's kind of in the works here, I mentioned uh we're still working with T-Mobile on an updated lease arrangement um just with it gets updated every few years for inflation and other kind of impacts to our infrastructure here. So, um that's still being negotiated and obviously we'd want to have that in place before um giving official go ahead on the site plan, but um Lauren worked with uh Strand Engineering who does this u particular kind of review and I think just minor comments just some details they wanted to see as some equipment choices were finalized and some final plans um but nothing major so she felt comfortable with just bringing it before you tonight for discussion if there's any questions we might be able to answer. There's nobody here from T-Mobile that I am aware of. Um I know you two and I don't think you work for T-Mobile. So, um but um I'll just scroll down to the plans here, but any questions we can answer otherwise we didn't have any concerns on this.

Yeah, you're going to have it's just newer equipment basically is what we're doing. Can it be orange? I'm just kidding. Sorry. Just kidding. I know you are. No, we're not talking about the whole water tower. Just a little little bit. So, and move to approve or recommend approval. Recommend approval. Yeah, we got recommend approval. Yes, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. And opposed. That motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Item 6D for information only. Oregon bicycle and pedestrian plan request for proposals RFP.

All right. So, this was actually just published today. Um, there were some minor um changes made, but um just to refresh everybody's memory, back in 2022, Lauren helped uh me apply for a TAP grant, transportation alternative program grant through the DOT for a bike and pedestrian study. Um, so we have until 2029 to spend those funds, but the project does need to be started by this summer and finally have a small moment to breathe. So, finally got the RFP together. there's a um T who um is responsible for for the TAP grant. So he's reviewed the RFP, given it the thumbs up, um gave us some templates to work from and all of that. So um it is a 8020 split. So village is only responsible for 20% of the costs. Um estimated project costs about 70,000 or less. Um so RFP, like I said, was posted today. It's posted on the Wisconsin League of Municipalities, the American Plan Association, Wisconsin chapter page, and on our website, too. So, um, the proposals are due May 1st, and then I think we're going to have review and then, um, interviews on May 14th. So, if anybody is interested in helping a small team of staff review uh the RFPs that may come back, please let me know and we can coordinate schedules and um if we need to do the interviews and things, making sure that works for everybody. So, this is more just for information, but I do have the planning commission kind of more or less, you know, running some similar like the downtown plan. You guys more or less kind of looking at the drafts and um approving and making a recommendation to the board. But this will largely be a planning commission type plan. So it's looking at what we currently have, where are there gaps, where are there improvements that could be made, and then creating a plan for us that we can work into our CIP um for projects. So hope that this will be done by next April or so, if not sooner, and

then we can um use that in our CIP planning process next summer for projects for the next decade or so. Good. Thank you. Any other new business? We move on then to communication miscellaneous business status of public and private development projects.

All right. So quite a list as always. Um I'll try to make it relatively brief. Uh two well projects still under construction, still nearing completion. Um individual issues came up on each of them within about the past week. Uh for well three, the one out on Hillrest, I think we're past it at this point. And we're looking, it is currently being disinfected, so we're looking at getting our safe samples out of the reservoir next week and hopefully commissioning by the end of next week if all goes well. Um, well six some coordination issues with Alliant, but I think we have a path forward on that. Looking at startup that third full week of April, everything else is is pretty much in place there. Um, we did have some pretty robust SCADA upgrades for our water system that's now been finished. Uh those were all kind of put into place at the end of March um early April here and and we're good to go on that. Wastewater treatment plant project on schedule, still going. Um change order came to the board for some site changes on the 6th. Nothing not a real big surprise. Pretty standard stuff. Um the change orders are well within consist contingency, so no big concerns there. Um, North Oak Street, that one is finally substantially complete. So, we have gotten some comments from residents, uh, some areas of restoration that didn't fully take pretty standard. Uh, we will have Fiser come back out probably in May once we have consistently good weather and just have them clean that up. But, um, but really pretty much done there. For 2026 projects, not a huge amount of changes from last month. uh Alpine and CC still scheduled to begin in late May and early June with an end date of August 31st. Uh contractor on that is Rock Road Companies and on-site engineer

is going to be KL. You've probably noticed a lot of work being done out in that rightway. Uh that is Alliant. They are doing gas and electric upgrades ahead of that project. Uh working with Dne County in that rightway since it is theirs and us now as they move up towards Alpine. Um, so hopefully getting out of the way before Rock Road comes in and starts our project. Uh, we do have a village project website for that. And I know public works committee is going to work this this month on starting to publicize a detour plan for that since that will be a significant change in a lot of people's traffic patterns. East Lincoln Street uh, between North Main and North Perry, that's our other major street reconstruction project this year. that is going to begin on or after the last day of the school year this year per the contract hopefully completing in September or October. Uh we're very very aware as is the school of the limitations and access to Prairie View and Netherwood. We've been in pretty close contact with them um very aware of how that's going to have to be phased to maintain that access in there as well as been cognizant of Lincoln Street's um importance to the high school. So that will be led by WISD dot. We'll have quite the team out there. Uh we've got JT Engineering doing administration on that construction inspection by core and then we have hired Town and Country Engineering to do inspection of the village funded utilities, the water and sewer out there. Um contractor on that is James Peterson Sons. They're out of the west side of the state. Um, Little Street project, Park and Waterman Street, probably is going to look like a an offshoot of the senior center project, but it is its own project. That one is uh done by Speedway Sand and Gravel, inspected by Town and

Country. That's likely to start up here in May. Yeah, probably May, and finish up by mid June per contract. That's likely going to be about three weeks of work that you see out there. Um, and then that one should be wrapped up. Speaking of the senior center, uh, which is being done by Portzson, they have the construction fencing up, I'm sure, as as is pretty obvious, they are still waiting. It sounds like there were some discrepancies between the structural plans and the architectural drawings. So, they've been hashing that out. Uh, per the PM at Portzson, it sounds like that is being finished up tonight or tomorrow. And at that point, they're looking to hit foundation work pretty hard. So hopefully going to start seeing some mobilization and some heavy equipment out there. That is good progress. Gary Dish Park on our southeast side in the Autumn Ridge uh phase 2 neighborhood that is being performed by Speedway Sand and Gravel and overseen by Rutler which did the design for that. That we have a precon scheduled for next Friday. It's looking like it's going to begin in May or early June and probably finished up by August or September. um kind of has to be given the amount of grass out there. So, doesn't look too complicated to them. So, hopefully it will be pretty straightforward. Uh last in construction projects this year, uh the public works garage roof replacement. Probably not a project any of you guys were aware of or would have been aware of if I didn't mention it in this meeting. It's probably going to be about a week or two of work being done on the public works garage. uh that's going to be done by Advanced Building Corporation and fit in essentially in the next couple of months around garage door replacement. So just some work being done out there that again hopefully not too noticeable or we're not doing our jobs right. Couple design projects just to keep you guys in the

loop on them. Uh County MM Wolf Street phase one, so Jainsville Street all the way down through Pleasant Oak. Um that project is moving ahead with the roundabout option. Uh it is currently at about 60% com design completion and we're still targeting a bid date of this fall. So November December time period with construction happening in 2027. A reminder that that is a joint county and village project but the village is the lead on this project and we will be going out to bid by private contractor unlike past jurisdictional transfer projects. Um we are working through some real estate acquisition probably most notably with the school district right now that's been um pretty pretty friendly so far. Hopefully it continues. Bethl Greenacre Park improvement project scheduled for construction in 2027. Um planning and design is being done by JT Engineering. We've completed the major stakeholder outreach there and they're working on concept plans. So, we're looking at a public informational meeting for those concept drawings in miday. That'll be going on the May calendar when that comes out. Um, to Jenny's point, next year we also have water tower painting and rehab for the south standpipe and the Lincoln road tower. So, it's actually interesting timing with what T-Mobile is working on. We are going to be looking at doing what we did for the north standpipe at both of those and giving them kind of a refresher to keep them in good condition. So we we have not gotten to colors yet. Um but requests are welcome. Strand is working on that for us as they did on the north standpipe. They they did a great job on that. So we're optimistic that that's going to be a good project. Um lastly we have the kind of water system master plan slashnew

water tower and interzonal booster station planning sighting effort. So we have been having town and country work on an update to our water system master plan. Kind of chief among the goals of that is to identify where a new water tower and a new pump station are going to go for construction right around 2028. So, they've been working on that in the background. Um, kind of trying to assess if these things are needed, um, how big they should be and where they should be going. And they do have some preliminary conclusions. So, those will likely go to the public works committee meeting here at the end of April or possibly in May so that we can meet our CIP schedule. But some more information on those kind of major facilities projects for the water utility will be coming here in pretty short order. Um just to wrap it up, private development, Green View Preserve Phase 4, they're on top of things. Um DNR is reviewing all of their plans. We have already approved them on our side. They're looking to start construction in May or June. Uh Highlands of Netherwood phase 4. um a a bit of drama there, but that will be completed in 2026 per the developers agreement and we are working uh with them as well as with our internal legal council to make sure that happens. Highlands of Netherwood phase five. Uh FDG and LAR have both indicated they're interested in wrapping up the Highlands of Netherwood development with that phase five bit, but we have not seen anything formal and we don't really have great uh a great handle on where things are with that project. So with that, I'm finally finished. Thanks for sticking with us.

Thank you. That was Yeah, that was well longwinded. Okay, moving on then to upcoming plan commission meeting dates which is May 7th. That's a joint meeting with the village board. Correct. Correct. That's and you're going to discuss the former village hall, Spring Street. And adjacent environ Yeah. redevelopment. Okay. And the next one will be Thursday uh uh no and Thursday, June 4th. Probably in light of the joint meeting, I'll probably have Larry come back I think in June so we don't make the May meeting too heavy. I don't I think we're gonna Yeah, that'd be smart. Okay. Unless the board wants to wait because we'll put that on the agenda first, right, Larry?

Yeah. Okay. Plank staff meeting agenda. You can all see it. Uh without objection, meeting is journed.