Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Could I get a roll call, please?

Baino?

Here.

Meyer?

Here.

Nelson? Here. Holda? Here. Van Campen? Here. Molzon? And Smithbeck are out tonight.

Thank you. Seeing as how we have a quorum, we will move on in the agenda. Item three is the appointment of a chair. Are there anybody that would like to nominate somebody for the chair position?

I would nominate Greg Schnelly.

I'll second the nomination. Second that. I'll move to close nominations.

That's what you get for not showing up.

Yep, yep. Choo-choo. All right. All those in favor of Greg as the chair, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Opposed. Congratulations, Greg. Item number four, appointment of vice chair. Open nominations.

Nominate John Bienol.

Second the nomination.

Right.

Do you accept?

I do. Anybody else? Okay, I guess we'll close nominations. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, yay me. All right, thank you, everybody. I appreciate that. I do. Thank you. Number five, approval of minutes April 9th and May 7th. Anything that anybody sees that is out of order on those? If not, I'll take a motion to approve. So moved. Got a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes for April 9th and May 7th, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries. All right. Item number six is public appearances, and we have public. So at this time, we open up for community input. It's just an I'm not going to give a cliff note version of this. It's a time when we have for open communication with members of the community. We like to give about 15 minutes of opportunity for people to speak. We request that you try to keep it to three minutes or less if possible. We as a planning commission cannot really react to it. If it is something that needs to be attended to, we can refer it to a future meeting. So if there is somebody that would like to speak, I heard that we have at least one person that's registered. Is that correct, Joy?

Here we go. I'm Ann Michaels. I live at 630 South Woods Edge Drive. I'm here to represent myself as well as my nonprofit. Oh, it looks like somebody else. And I am speaking again just as we pick up the conversation on the accessory dwelling units. I wanted to just share with you some things that came out of our educational program last Wednesday. Both morning and evening session I had some Oregon residents, we talked about certain challenges that they had with housing and And I did bring up the process here where we are rewriting about ADUs. And in both sessions there was participants that were very intrigued to know that there is a possibility for the rewrite to include more opportunities for renters. And I know in the last discussion of the ADUs there was some debate of ownership versus rental. And I just wanted to share that even there, there was a diverse group of people. Some were single, some were married, some were homeowners, some were renters. And we really just were aware of the biases that we had from our past experiences and how that affected our future decisions. And I feel like that was something I wanted to share here even though some of the participants just had me share what they had shared. And it was really just the bias that came with renters. And I did a little more research and surprisingly there is a growing segment of older adults who are choosing to rent. And I just wanted to have you keep that in mind when you are making that decision in the code of if the unit or the ADU, the home is both renters, both owners, one or not. I know you didn't make any decisions on that, but just wanted you to have that in mind because I feel like what you do decide is what we call upstream solutions. You have the power here locally to create some intentional, thoughtful change that will open up housing for people here in Oregon. who are looking for rentals, or who are homeowners who are looking for another option. Like the example of, you know, if it's an older couple who owns a home and wants to put an ADU in the back, I did have a gentleman who was thinking about that. Greg, welcome to the show.

I'm sorry, what? What did you want? I apologize, I'm sorry.

But I just wanted to share that having more flexibility in housing through ADUs is a great way to enter gentle density scale into our village. And just appreciate you considering that when you bring up the discussion for rentals and ownership at that point. So thank you so much.

You're announcing them?

Yeah, Bill would like to speak next.

Thank you. Bill, yeah, come on up. I'm sorry, wait until you get to the microphone, thank you. They have to write it down, thank you.

I'm Bill Brock, I live at 914 Foxboro Drive. I'm here to try and talk about The golf course, staying 18 holes and keeping the other person happy as well. And I've talked to several people that know how to build golf courses or whatever. One would be, idea, would be if you guys are familiar with the golf course, number four and number seven. So 7 is the little par 3 that goes down to the new homes now. And 4 is the long par 5 that goes way back. If we did those two holes for homes, and of course, the house that's there now that Mike lives in and the shed, there could be over 100 lots with his measurements. That'd be a lot of money, you would think. And that's 100 new homes in Oregon. That's a lot to take. And we still could keep our 18-hole golf course. We'd have to add two holes because we're taking two away. They both would be par 3s, which would take our course down to par 70 instead of a par 72. It would appease. I know there are a lot of people over here that are concerned losing the golf course. We only have one public golf course in. Oregon at the time. The other one's private and it cost mega bucks to join. I actually work on the golf course and the maintenance crew and mowing and whatever. I see all the people that come there from all over. It'd be a shame to lose all those people that come from out of town and all the people that I'm starting to know that live in the city of Oregon now that golf. Any questions? Nope. Thank you very much for your input. Appreciate it.

Jacqueline Kamen.

Hello. Hi there. I'm just gonna straight read to you guys. I'm not gonna try to make any eye contact right now. My name is Jacqueline Knie and I live at 884 Fox Run Court. I'm here to ask the Planning Commission to stop discussion and further considerations of the rezoning of Foxboro Golf Course for housing. As a prior resident of Fitchburg, we've been a part of the Oregon School District since before 2005. And in 2014, we enrolled our first baby in kindergarten. We generally loved that experience with the district, which is what led us to relocating to Oregon in 2020. We're fortunate to have landed in a great neighborhood and have felt excited to be a part of the community that was grounded in high-ranking education. But after living here for over five years, I'm deeply concerned that what was once a sweet community is quickly turning into a sleep-only commuter town. Oregon, its residents and businesses deserve a quality of life that includes community from its people and its commerce. Sleep-only communities lose local funds through retail sale leakage. This results in residents bearing the burden of continuing to raise taxes rather than sharing the responsibility with businesses in our town. Communal towns with poor commerce also lead to higher per capita municipal service costs, which is about 15% to 25% higher than mixed-use areas. Continuing to add housing without balancing our infrastructure strains our vital systems, including law enforcement. There's no real plan to address the school rush hours traffic that is already significant. And unfortunately, a roundabout is not going to cut it. Our chief of police is currently serving as an SRO, which is not sustainable for growing the community. The SRO position is being stretched to the absolute limit, serving 3,500 students, when the ideal rate is one SRO per thousand students. This is just one of the strains on our law enforcement before adding new residents to the town. We need to stop chasing easy residential tax dollars that will ultimately devalue existing homes and start planning for a sustainable future. As our neighborhood cities continue their own development, there is a real possibility for retail dollars coming here rather than leaving, and transportation infrastructure like bus systems, that would be a great benefit to Oregon and its residents. Oregon is filled with people who put roots here over decades and decades ago, like returning graduates, raising to raise families, or starting careers because they love their town. My fear is the nostalgia for our sweet town will fade, and any attraction to stay or relocate to Oregon will dwindle because we lack true character and commerce. Using the most basic web search, I was able to find a few resources to tap, such as the EAP Smart Growth Self-Assessment, a toolkit to kickstart sustainable planning in cities, the USDA Rural Business Development Grants, or private funding like Amazon Small Business Grants and FedEx Small Business Grant Contests. I think we could also incorporate things such as a business mining day to see how we can help businesses and business-minded residents attract to the area, collaborate with retail space owners about subsidizing rent to help the businesses establish itself, and host listening sessions or call for proposals to hear what the residents of the community are looking for. The village just hired and heard results from a contractor reporting the future needs of law enforcement and the same type of reporting and research is available for how to develop a sustainable town. I urge this board to hire a professional to provide growth plan rooted in data and research that will allow Oregon to be a great place to live now with the capability of handling new infrastructure and housing development when we are ready. I'm asking the planning commission to focus the incredible community that already exists and strengthened the foundation to position Oregon as an up-and-coming sweet spot, nimble and ready for growth, not just a pass through town.

Thank you. You didn't quite use all your three minutes. You used more than three minutes. That's okay. But you did a good job. Thank you very much. So folks, we've got to try to hold it for three minutes, please.

Susan?

Suzanne Claiborne, I live at 859 Fox Run Court. And I'm a new resident to Oregon. I moved here in July. And when I moved, the former residents did not notify me that there was a possibility of development of the golf course. And I moved to where I live. because there is a golf course. So I'm here just to let you know that I am in opposition of the development of the golf course, as is a majority, if not all but one, person that I know of that lives on the golf course and does not want it to be taken away, doesn't want it to be reduced to a 13 hole or a 10 hole or anything. We want it to remain an 18 hole golf course. I also... I'm curious to know that if it is redeveloped and all of our property value decreases significantly, what kind of compensation, if there is any, that the village can propose to the homeowners? When somebody builds a house, which I did not build a house, but I bought a house because it's on the golf course. When someone builds a house on a golf course, they do that Expecting to have a golf course for the duration of their residency there, so it's a great disappointment to the residents and then the other thing I wanted to bring up if I can squeeze it in in my three minutes is the We've been having meetings the developer has been holding meetings, and we've been discussing our opposition but I wanted to make you aware that the last meeting flyers went out to neighbors and but the majority of the people who live on the golf course did not receive flyers. So I'm going to ask all of you for total transparency and letting us know when things like this happen because it felt a little bit sketchy that we were not made aware of the meeting and what the next proposal was. So I want you guys to make sure that we are all in the know so that we can attend all meetings and let our voices be heard. That's all. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We are aware of the situation, and I think we've made some effort to correct that.

Yeah, I explained that at the neighborhood meeting, but we assisted the developer with the mailing. He paid us for time and materials, but the list that was pulled from AccessDane had a number of addresses missing. It was mailed out to about 600 folks, but there was obviously some people that were not included. So if there's a future mailing, we'll obviously be making sure that doesn't happen again.

We will try very, well, not try. We'll make sure we do a better job, okay? We will. Thank you. Next.

Just one more here. Tina? Tina?

Hi, my name is Tina.

Do I need to state my address?

Yes, please.

I live at eight nine eight Fox run courts in Oregon. I've lived there for 22 years. I used to live in Seminole Hills and we backed up to the road. And when that road was expanded, it became very loud. And so when we moved to Oregon, it was quite lovely. We were on hole number seven and it's now been recategorized. I personally I've golfed three times in my life, so I do not use the golf course as a golf course, but my son golfs did junior golf. did golf within high school and is now an adult and living at home as he just graduated and will continue to use the golf course as does my husband. As do many friends of mine and looking at the junior golf league, which I don't know why that was canceled, but there is a demand for the golf course as an 18 hole golf course. We obviously have been there 22 years expecting to have that green space behind us with the golf course and the pond is behind us. So I take many, many a picture of the nature, the wildlife, sunsets, sunrises, and it's very significant to me, the quality of my life, the peace that I have as compared to living on a road that was widened and Fitchburg and Seminole Hills. I moved there for peace and quiet and serenity, and that will be taken away from me if this is developed, so I am for the record stating that I absolutely oppose any additional development of the golf course, and it is, I think, ridiculous, and I understand errors happen, but I don't know how every single person who lives on the golf course did not get notification of the meeting that was held by Glenn to talk about development options. And in his mind, it's one or the other. And all of us, except for one person who's had multiple damage to his home has said, we don't want this. We would like to continue to have a public golf course. And it's significant. I think to our community, I think it's significant to our community to keep it a small, intimate community. And the more development we have, I just feel that being lost. And Jacqueline, who is my next door neighbor, said everything very eloquently. I don't have a formal statement written because I understand that you guys haven't even had anything proposed to you yet. But I want it known that my voice is heard, that this is not something I want. And I think if you were in my shoes, you wouldn't want it either. You would like the peace and calm and serenity of what you bought 22 years ago to stay. Because I love my neighbors. Many of my neighbors who are here, I know almost every single neighbor in my neighborhood, and I think most people can't say that. I have an incredible space. They are incredibly kind, and it would be a loss for all of us and for our community and all the people who come to Oregon for the golf course. Thank you.

Thank you. You didn't need notes. Thank you very much.

Anybody else?

Okay, that's it. OK, folks, we're going to move on to a regular meeting. And if you're welcome, stay and watch. But we won't be discussing anything further about the course or anything, OK? Thank you. We'll move on then to item seven, which is new business, which we have. Let's see what we got here. Unfinished business, which we have none. Move on then to new business items for discussion and or potential action. Item A, 7A, review and possible approval of site plan revision for Hillcrest Bible Church at 752 East Netherwood Street. Applicant is Hillcrest Bible Church.

All right, I'll give a little background. I know the applicants are here to answer any questions and fill in any gaps, but... You guys were made aware of the Hillcrest Bible Church project a couple of, probably almost a year ago when we started a comp plan amendment and then an annexation of some property from the town of Dunn. So that has all been wrapped up, has now been annexed into the village. And we are now seeing their site plan revision for an addition to their activity center, which is the building in the back of their property as a kid's wing to provide some classroom and meeting space for activities happening in there, as well as an expanded parking lot. So I included some pictures that show the activity center, which is kind of that barn-like building with the cupolas in the back on the south side of the property. So that's the view from 14. The view from Netherwood is just below. The sanctuary building is in front with the activity center behind. The addition would be towards the highway. And then I think there's maybe one more picture, similar from Netherwood. So we've shared this with the fire department, our engineering consultants, planning consultants. I did just get the engineering consultant's letter on Monday. He's satisfied with all of the changes they made. I haven't been caught up to date on the, I know the fire marshal was going back and forth with them on a couple questions, and maybe you guys have an update on, I don't know if he made it out to the site, but just have... No concerns, really. Recommendation is just contingent on the final approval by the fire department. But otherwise, they're meeting all requirements for landscaping, parking spaces. Building materials will be matching what's existing there to the activity center. So really just.

Everything is acceptable pending the approval of the fire department. Yep.

And I don't know if you guys want to come up and share any other updates or any other information about use of the space that I didn't mention.

Thank you, Alicia. You did a wonderful job. You served us very well. Dan Hale with Hillcrest Bible Church. As far as the function goes, it is five classrooms for students. It is taking the classrooms that are currently in the gymnasium and moving them to a dedicated space, which really frees up the gymnasium for students used by the church itself, but we also get routine requests from the public to use the gymnasium. Renee is our operations director, and she gets calls all the time, and unfortunately we have to deny them. So we're able to free that space back up for church and community use. Okay. We did meet with the fire marshal. He asked some comments. No exceptions to the comments. We're working through those. It's a sprinkled building on a pump and a tank. It's just a complicated system, so we're working through the details.

All right. Anything else? So really all we're dealing with is just simply a waiting for the fire department, and whatever you do, you will obviously make the changes that are required. Oh, certainly, yeah. To meet their requests.

They'll need to fulfill his request before they can get the building permit. Right, absolutely.

So we have a contingency on the motion to approve the site plan. Correct. Okay. In a motion then to approve the revised site plan for Hillcrest Bible Church, 752 East Netherwood Street, contingent upon final approval by the fire department. So moved. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Is there any discussion?

Yes, I have one question to ask. Okay. On your site plan, I think that it's a great project. I think that it's a lovely addition to the building. I think it finishes off. I have no problems whatsoever. My question is more functional. If the intention is to add more parking, right there. You've got the wine jug here on the right-hand side of that plan, which is a whole lot of pavement, when you could have just simply added probably at least six more parking stalls.

We agree 100% with you, and we anticipate making that adjustment and requesting an amendment.

I would add that as an addendum to give them the flexibility to add up to eight parking stalls at the wine jug here if they so see it. Thank you, John. I appreciate it very much.

So you're amending your motion. I'll amend my second.

All right, thank you. Then obviously if you guys do change that plan, just make sure I have a copy. But it sounds like we don't need to come back to Planning Commission for that minor of a change.

You guys are awesome. Thank you.

Okay, we motion. We have a second. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed to that motion, curious. Thank you for coming out.

So that was the vote on the amendment, so now you have to vote on the actual motion.

On the actual motion. Yes, Candy.

Aye. That's what happens when the clerk's here.

That's what you get for having only dotted I's. You have to cross the T's.

So, can we have a motion and a second for the additional? Okay. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now you're done. You what? Now you're done. No.

Now you can head out. Thank you. Thank you. You've been corrected.

Thank you, Candy.

Thank you. Yes. Good job.

All right, moving on, then we'll go to item 7B, review and policy recommendation of the village board for extraterritorial jurisdiction, certified survey map at 900 Hillcrest Lane in the town of Oregon. Property owner is Scott Templeton.

All right, we haven't seen one of these for actually almost about a year, but Hillcrest Lane is just south of Windridge Road. Sorry. Flip that around. Windridge Road is just off of Hillcrest Lane. But this is a lot, if you just scroll down a little bit, just being split into two buildable lots in the town of Oregon. This is in our ETJ jurisdiction. So Laura and I have looked at this, and we don't have any concerns. So we're the last to review. This has already been reviewed by the town planning commission and board in Dane County and has received their approval. So we just state that we are not in opposition. This will go to the village board. later this month, and then we'll be able to sign.

Typically, in that sense, we can pass it on without any objections. Correct. Okay, so we need a motion to recommend the village board. No opposition to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of certified servant at 930 Hillcrest Lane, Town of Oregon, property owner Scott Templeton. We have a motion?

We have a motion.

We have a second? Second. You can't hear me Really that sounds pretty low I'm gonna eat it. That's my daughters what I eat the microphone, okay for discussion only only Continuing conversation regarding potential zoning text amendments accessory buildings its adu short-term rentals strs and assorted minor updates Okay, see if this is too loud now is that okay Tim okay, so continued

I think it was two months ago, we had Larry here talking about accessory dwelling units, which then morphed into conversation about short-term rentals, Airbnbs, that kind of a thing. And then this has kind of been dragging along, but there are some minor text amendments that are truly low-hanging fruit cleanup items that need to be addressed, I think, probably sooner rather than later. Those are listed in those bullet points there. So just before we get into the meat of the discussion, I just wanted to note those four items there. If you'd like to have any discussion, we certainly can. The latest one we added was reduced lot size requirements for twin home lots, just slightly moving that. I think it's from 5,800 square feet to 5,500 square feet or 5,200 square feet. But this is kind of driven by we have a lot more corner lot duplexes now than we've had before. And obviously a lot more zero lot line duplexes than we've seen in the past. So with the way that those have laid out in different neighborhoods and how the corner lot duplex is actually built where the shared wall is, sometimes it can result in a slightly smaller than average lot size. There's a project right now in one of the new neighborhoods that's being built right now that they'd like to split it, but they would not meet the minimum lot size requirement. So we've taken a look at what some of our neighboring communities have. Our minimum lot size is fairly high compared to those others. So consulted with Sonia at Van de Wall and she was comfortable recommending a slight reduction. So there's a memo towards the end of this to kind of describe that change. We can have the larger discussion, but I assume we're still going to need a little bit of time, especially to check in with the village board on where they are sitting with the accessory dwelling units and the short-term rentals. So if you all don't have an objection, I can work on preparing the ordinance and a public hearing for those cleanup items for the July meeting. And then we can kind of take care of those and then just focus on the larger discussion. kind of more policy level discussion on these bigger items and hopefully get to a public hearing maybe early fall. Okay, that works. Is that right with that? Okay. So we brought Larry back to kind of talk through some of these items. Sonya put this table together for us with kind of six different approaches for EDUs from most flexible to most restrictive and Larry, maybe you can talk through that. And then Larry also prepared a kind of a bare bones basic short-term rental ordinance that would be a great starting point. And maybe it's an ending point for the short-term rentals, kind of depending on what our different areas of concern or interest might be. So I'll kind of hand it over to him to talk through some of the pros and cons. But we did try to kind of address some of the questions and discussion that was brought up back in April about some of these different points with the ADUs.

Right. So as Elise said on page, well, it's up on the screen, I guess, Sonya put together a helpful, I think, helpful table to talk through the options. Yeah. to talk through the options of what you might do with ADUs. And as it's laid out, it provides sort of a most permissive to least permissive continuum. The first would be just a broader permitted use in a broader set of zoning districts. and with a high degree of flexibility. And you can see some of the details in that table as to what the approach would entail and the potential benefits and concerns, all the way down to just prohibiting ADUs and with the same information. And as you can see, number two has the proposed approach, which is an adjusted version of number one. So it's a fairly permissive use, but tighter standards to control some of the impacts that have been discussed and that those tighter controls would include limiting, reducing the allowable size of an ADU. And then there's some discussion points for you all to decide related to whether there'd be limitations on detached units, that sort of thing. And whether or not to apply more restrictive setbacks So with that, I guess we can take any questions.

Anybody want to jump on that? Scott, you're smiling.

No? Okay. Maybe I missed a meeting. I don't remember option one being the current proposed approach. I thought we were sort of landing on three last night, remember, where we were talking about having some sort of structure for ownership to rental opportunities, to having materials being similar in nature. I didn't think that we had much of an opinion as to whether they were attached or detached. That was my memory.

Yeah, it was back in April. We last talked about this because last month was the Old Village Hall joint meeting. I think there was discussion about some more owner occupancy language with some members of Planning Commission. I think maybe where we left was coming back with some proposed approaches. And I think there's still some concerns about enforcement specifically, but also just sort of I guess the ability for requirements to potentially hold up long term legally. So I think before we went down the route of actually drafting an ordinance, we just wanted to lay out kind of all of the options before. What was I guess originally proposed as that top line, that was kind of the draft text we were working on. And then we got into some more of these specific items about owner occupancy requirements, square footage, things like that. So the second approach, like Larry said, 800 square feet is more common, what we see in other communities for ADU. Limitations that if you guys have an opinion on 800 versus 1200 there's a lot of you know Small ranch homes in the village that are probably less than 1200 square feet So I think we have some language about it can be bigger than that But even 1200 square feet is a pretty significant size edu so to maybe keep it a little bit more of that secondary type use made more in line with 800 square feet might be a better fit I think probably where more of the Discussion needs to happen and if there's a recommendation that you all have that you want to bring forward to the board We haven't really checked in with the board yet on this topic. How do they feel about it? ultimately, they're gonna have to be you know proving any recommended code changes, but I Don't know Larry you want to just kind of give a refresher on some of the challenges with the owner occupancy language and what I if anything, you would feel comfortable recommending, and we talked about an agreement with the property owner that's deed restricted.

Yeah, we do see that in other communities, and that was in the packet for that April meeting, possibility of having an owner occupancy requirement for one of the two units. I do think that that's questionable as to whether that's enforceable, and as I said in April, because of that, if you know we just need to make sure that whatever decision is recommended and then adopted by the village board that people aren't relying on that enforceability to to uh you know to sort of drive their decision um but the as at least alluded to in the in that previous packet there was an idea that if someone applies for this they would deed restrict their property that just shows the level of Difficulty there is in doing this as a regulatory function requiring an owner to occupy a residence. So I think that is somewhat questionable as to whether that would be enforceable. To your point about number three, we'll be talking about STRs too. I think number two and number three on this are the same except whether or not you add the STR approach on top of this.

All right.

This is a challenge. It's a big challenge, and it opens up a lot of trouble in my mind. And we started out with the idea of this accessory granny flat or little apartment or something. And I think we can all wrap our heads around that and say that that would be kind of unique and purposeful in places. But if we do this wrong, we've made every residential lot in Oregon a duplex lot. Without any regard to what the people next door think about that. They chose not to buy a duplex lot or live next to a duplex lot. They're not going to like that. I personally don't have a problem with it. I've lived in and around duplexes and live in a duplex today. And I don't have a problem with that, but a lot of people do. Every time we have a multi-family proposal come before us, there's always a healthy audience of people voicing opposition to that. So in doing this and not putting enough limitations on it, any house in Oregon could be raised in a duplex put there, and the people next door would be quite amazed that that was allowed to happen.

Well, to clarify, it couldn't be a two-unit building like a traditional duplex. It would still have to be, if it's in a single-family zoning district, would have to be a single-family detached home. and then an EDU, but they could both be rented.

We talked about it being attached or unattached or above or below or over the garage. Nothing in here says it can't resemble a duplex when it's done. Or maybe we say both front doors can't face the street. Well, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a duplex.

Or do we start looking at this thing and trying to put some kind of standards on it and then go to item number four, conditional use?

I think the thought was we don't have a lot of ability to deny a conditional use. We get a shot to put a few conditions on it.

You do have. Again, if you have the standards.

Or option five, which is... No, I'm sorry.

That's six.

No, you were right. CUP is number four. Number five was... If this is a two family situation that you're creating, would you want to maybe just allow them in the TR six zoning district? We have language where if you already have a duplex, you couldn't also add an ADU. So you're not creating a three family situation, but there are definitely plenty of single family homes in the TR six zoning district. Like the entirety of North main street is TR six. A lot of South main street is TR six. So if you happen to have a single family home, you happen to have room. you want to put this in. Obviously, that limits a lot of where this could go. It doesn't mean that we can't rezone areas as TR6 later, but then you're kind of back where you started. But as Larry said, if you prove this, it, again, effectively could create this two-family rental situation and other areas where you don't want to see that happen. And if so, the easiest way to do that is through a zoning district that's the most enforceable, consistent, clear way.

We had lengthy discussions about the ownership requirement and Tim made some very good comments last month, public comments about that and I thought a lot about it and at least for me, nothing in that train of thought was a negative on renters. It was just trying to not create situations where a landlord would create a less than ideal situation in a neighborhood. Again, making every lot in town a potential duplex lot. requirement to have owner occupancy with more to control the situation and not just make it a money hit for somebody to run around and do this all over as a financial opportunity. We're looking at it more as an opportunity for multi-generational living. Gentle density. Gentle density and giving some people some ability to maybe help supplement their finances by having an additional unit, that sort of thing. At least for me, nothing was a negative towards renters in that discussion. It was just... trying to put additional restraints on this so it doesn't run away from us. And maybe that doesn't work, but that's at least where I was going with that part of it. Totally.

Just a reminder, too, I know quite a few of the newer neighborhoods that have existing covenants and deed restrictions actively don't allow these, so there's already kind of a decent segment of the village where the HOA would you know, their covenants and deed restrictions not allow these as well.

A lot of those expire, you know, in a certain amount of time. Right, yeah. So those, you know, that's where I have the problem with, you know, making it too broad, and yes, it would be nice for, you know, promote this and see it pop up here and there a little bit everywhere, but I don't want it to become what we didn't intend it to become.

I agree. And I think the other thing that we brought up was the gentrification aspect. You know, I brought up the example of where my son lives, where they're coming in and building subdivisions that are doing this sort of approach. And it's changing neighborhoods. It's changing regions of a community. And again, not a knock on renters. I think every one of us has rented an apartment or a house at some time or other, myself included. It's just that when this sort of well-intended approach becomes something different, that's what we don't want. So I guess what we're trying to do is, and what I had hoped was somebody to come back with an example of how do we keep this folksy folk approach that we want to be well-intended. And I don't know if, and I appreciate what I'm looking at here, but I don't think that we're, in my opinion, I don't think we're there yet on that level. But I certainly don't, I don't think it's one, I don't think it's six. I think it's somewhere in between.

Can I ask you guys a question to help me understand? Where do you think this would be appropriate? Because it sounds like you're saying we don't want duplexes, we don't want to rent we don't want where would you find it appropriate because it sounds like we don't even necessarily to me what I'm hearing is need to have an ordinance like this because you don't want to have two people living in the place I just want to understand where it is you think that this would apply so maybe that would help them be able to to come up with some of those restrictions or things like that like where would you see this happening in the village for me it's not a question of not wanting duplexes or not

It's a question of Scott's point, you know, we don't want somebody on a golf course all of a sudden that has sort of come in and feels very passionate about their living here for 20 plus years and his serenity and then all of a sudden the house next door gets sold to Company X that turns this into a long-term duplex and then Company X is those two families are retiring, hypothetically, of course. And now all of a sudden, you've got this example where this person who wants a serene golf course existence has two duplexes on either side that they didn't want either. And that changes the complexity of a neighborhood, and that just sort of cascades or continues.

So then to me, it sounds like we're looking at that T6 option. That's what it sounds like to me.

Neighborhoods that already have that level of density.

Yep.

And you're right. It could be.

And that's just an example that comes to mind.

No, I'm with you. I'm trying to help us guide where that next conversation goes. You know what I mean?

Keeps reminding me of the chickens.

Right. I mean, we thought the chickens would be easy. I mean, I don't know if there's, obviously, we're not at the point of really making a motion. If there's any kind of recommendation, I guess it'd be helpful to know, like, we don't have everybody here tonight with the Planning Commission too, but are we like 50-50 in how we, you know, split in how we care about this? Is everybody kind of in agreement? I think, again, before we start drafting an ordinance, we want to take something to the village board. It's just, what are we taking? Are we leaving it pretty open-ended as well and just letting them know, well, this is where the Planning Commission has had the conversation. These have been some points of discussion. Do you have any strong feelings about this before we kind of choose a path to go down?

I know the question's been asked. How many, where else have we seen these? What other municipalities do we have?

Madison, I think Monona, a lot of them have been, you know, I mean, some of the, yeah, surrounding communities as well. And then obviously larger cities have seen these as well.

I'm looking for something smaller than Madison.

Yeah. There's still, even in Madison, like I said, there's very few of these that have been built. Maybe there's not corporations that are, any business can buy any house at any point, right? It's just this creates maybe another opportunity. Maybe somebody's looking for opportunities for communities that allow these. The other thing is we can repeal it we can change our zoning code, too So this is a trend that we start to see or this isn't working. We need to tweak it we can always change this ordinance just like we're We're doing now, but we let the cat out of the bag and yeah, I don't see how you know that's It's a big big part of the village in this case.

I mean the golf course you were talking 600 letters went out or whatever, and here we're talking how many thousands of properties that could be affected by this. I personally wouldn't have a problem with it, but I know that the majority of village residents on a single family lot would have a problem with it and would be concerned about their property value and their privacy.

I think, oh, sorry, go ahead.

I was just saying, are there that many lots that are big enough with all the setbacks and everything else? Like, I picture, like, my lot is big enough, right? Like, I live in downtown. I can... You've got a deep yard. I have a deep yard. I have space, right? I'm just picturing going around town trying to think where this might even... go and I apologize I'm new on the board so I'm really just trying to kind of yeah I just I look I'm I know we want to be look in the future and plan and but I also like in looking trying to figure out where this might even who and what this might even affect so I don't know yeah so we're being cautious that's what's happening and this could be it could

We've talked about, can this be above the existing house, below, in the basement, above the garage? So it doesn't have to be a separate building or have to have room in the backyard. could be within the primary structure itself.

Right, and actually currently we have what's called an in-family suite that is allowed, but it's more of its connection through the main house versus its own entrance. But I think what was recommended before for setbacks was treat this like an accessory structure, which is only five feet from side or rear property lines, and then I guess depending on how many square feet it would be, You know, 800 square feet is probably going to be one story. That takes up a pretty good footprint in a backyard. Obviously, it could be as small as 200 square feet or 400 square feet or something. But I agree. I mean, there's a lot of neighborhoods. Newer ones tend to be the smaller lots. But even some of the older neighborhoods, I know like off like Dewey and Lincoln, those are some pretty small lots. So there's probably not. It may be interesting to take a look and see how many of those really have a viable space for 6,800 square feet.

We allow when people will get really creative.

Yeah, configure it.

They'll figure out ways to fit these in.

But like the Viridian neighborhoods, for example, wouldn't be allowed, probably per their HOA, to even have these. They wouldn't have room either.

I would say, you know, to Scott's point, you know, most people that live in a single-family neighborhood now probably don't want this done next door, which means that most of those people don't want to do it themselves. I think I've mentioned before, I think there'll be very few of these, especially out of the gate. But If we make it too restrictive, there probably won't be any. If we go light on the regulations to begin with, we can try it and we can learn from that. And we can't change the ordinance. It's not a big deal. We run into trouble, we come back, we make a recommendation to the village board, we need more restriction. But I don't think we're going to learn maybe a painful lesson from 50 of them, we're going to learn maybe from three. That's correct. You're right. And so I think it creates more housing. It may create opportunities for people that are struggling in their single-family homes to add income. It's been mentioned in the past, what if my neighbor does this? Well, what if your neighbor sells their house to undesirable, it's the same thing.

It's a risk.

But I'd really like to see us try it by starting with the minimal regulation and then increase if we need to.

So you're somewhat leaning towards number two, possibly?

Yeah.

OK. I like the thought about 800 square feet, which, again, it's a decent size, but it's not too large. I'm just trying to envision that on somebody's lot, and I just can't. How do you put a structure that big?

Yeah. It's not going to be every lot, for sure.

It's like four and a half parking stalls. Well, it's not, yeah, you're right, it's not that big. I mean, if you want to relate it to something.

So are we in somewhat agreement, or how do you guys feel about that? Is it a problem with going with number two, or do we wait for the rest of the commission to be here?

There's only a couple people missing. I'd like to move something forward, but to your point, Phil, if there's a problem, the impetus to change it isn't going to come from this committee. No, I understand that. And by that time, that change request could be too late. So while I respect your minimal approach, I think that we need to have a little bit more than minimal. That's my opinion. Sure.

Like I wonder, could we do like the .5, the TR6 sort of like a pilot approach to see how that would work in the village? probably the spot where you might most likely see it anyway.

We could, yeah. I think, you know, to your point, we don't really know who would be interested. I mean, I know a couple people who would be interested in this just because they've been asking me and I know where they live. But I guess I... one or two of people would say, well, can I just rezone my property to TR six? I think that's probably what we don't want to see is the spot zoning where it's, you know, one TR six lot in the middle of a whole block. Um, but to your point, it's, it's a start and it's something that we feel like we can enforce. Um,

I think that potentially is a better trial run to see if it creates problems or what comes up in the process of it.

I don't object to it. I guess I'd go with that. I could live with it.

So. Do you guys then want to just recommend that to the board just again in discussion before we get to any kind of public hearing? This is kind of the background. This has been the discussion. This is maybe what an approach you guys are recommending. Do they agree with that? And then we can see if there's alignment before we draft it.

I'd still be curious to see some other ordinances or some other. I would really like, you know, because we're just kind of on our own doing this. We're just developing this on our own.

The first memos that Sonya started doing last, well, I guess it was this winter, probably February or so, there was examples of this is what Winona has, this is what Mount Horeb has, this is what Madison has, so I can include that in the next packet. I'm old and I've got a short memory. That's all right, me too.

I'm sorry, I can go back and look at it. I can do that.

Any other wildly different thoughts or direction?

It sounds like I think we're all kind of, as we walk through this thing, I think it sounds like let's look at trying to get something going on this.

Let's try to, and if we have to, we'll have to modify it.

But we need to get through this and get something done. Yeah, okay. So proceed with that.

On setbacks, I guess. Number one or number two on setbacks? As we build out number five, would we do that?

What are the differences in the setback requirements? I thought we were just doing accessory structure rules, which is just the five Cs.

I think one is accessory structure rules, and two is principal structure rules for setbacks. So I guess when we're building out this for TR6, we'd want to pick one or the other.

Pick one or the other, yeah.

I don't know if the board will get into that level of detail, but do you guys care as far as setbacks? Do you think it should be consistent with where homes can be or where detached structures, like detached garages and sheds can be?

Otherwise, you're not going to have any flexibility at all. If you're going to deal with 30-foot front yard setbacks and side yard setbacks, you're just... Well, you're going to have a front yard setback. It's going to be in the backyard, right? But I'm seeing all of a sudden you're going to be doing...

I think it's 20-foot rear yard setback and 10-foot side yard. 10 is what most of the single and two-family neighborhoods have.

Yes, you're right. I'm thinking of accessory building, just accessory.

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with 10 side and rear, but I don't know if that excludes a lot of places where this otherwise might happen.

It shouldn't. Nothing wrong with 10-footers, yeah. Especially a building that's going to be occupied. Ten? Yes, yes, I agree.

Siding and rear?

Yes.

Okay, so we can kind of create our own. Okay, should we talk about short-term rentals now? Sure. Okay.

And this might not be... relevant given that conversation but because rental and how these units may be used and we ended up in the discussion about short-term rentals and in the packet there's a there's a very bare-bones draft ordinance and it is basically just the kinds of things that are sort of the lightest touch on short-term rentals. Again, since it's been a couple months, the short-term rental is a rental for fewer than 30 consecutive days. The kinds of things that we see in these ordinances that are not in this one yet are, one, The law allows a local government to prohibit short-term rentals for less than six days and also allows you to prohibit short-term rentals for any more than 180 days a year. And that's not built into this draft because this draft is just the tree without the ornaments, right? So those are two things, Lisa and I had, and Sonya had some conversation about this. If you decided to do one or both of those two things or some portion of them, you might want to consider treating different zoning districts differently as it relates to that. So for instance, if you were to adopt an ordinance that says we want to generally limit the number of days someone can do a short-term rental, in the village, you might not apply that to the zoning district downtown where there's a lot more activity, a lot more units, maybe apartments, things like where somebody would, the short-term rental would likely be an apartment, maybe above one of the restaurants or something like that. So the things to consider if you're interested in moving forward with this are there's a bare bones ordinance. There's a couple other things that the statutes allow. There are a lot of other things that other communities put in these ordinances that are questionable. One of those, and the reason we were talking about owner-occupied with ADUs is because a lot of ordinances for STR, short-term rentals, had a limitation that it had to be your home. So you had to be either renting a room in your home, or you had to be somewhere else and renting out your home. That's been invalidated by the courts. not surprisingly. There's all kinds of other things. There's parking requirements that go beyond what's required of someone who long-term, rents for a long-term. There's a lot of other things, but those are just the starting point. Those are some starting considerations for you if you wanted to move an ordinance forward. Just know that we know you can prohibit less than six days. We know that you can prohibit half the year in effect. And those are some of the things to think about.

Do we know how many short-term rentals we have in the village now? I know there are some.

Yeah, I think probably five to eight right now.

There's not really a required registration or anything of those.

No, we are. I mean, you can obviously go to a website and search Oregon. We also receive room tax from Airbnb, Vrbo, those types of places. quarterly from those websites. So I don't know what level of detail, but we at least know that there are several available. I've had some families stay in some downtown. It's been a really great way for them to support businesses and be able to get coffee right away in the morning and get to kind of see. But we also have others that have been Lou 1 has been a problem that I can think of. It's in a single family neighborhood, but there's also an HOA and some covenants that aren't being necessarily

That was going to be my next question.

So yeah, that's really been the big issue. And right now, because we don't have anything, it's just telling the manager of the HOA, you need to do your job. And I think all the residents have just started filing all the questions to him rather than to me, because there's really nothing we can stop filing any village ordinance right now. But to Larry's point, I think he talked when we met about With the short term rentals, you know, there's a lot of comings and goings, right? People showing up maybe on a weekend and they're unloading all their stuff and maybe they're visiting or they're playing out in the backyard or they're friends that are enjoying a drink on the porch or something like that. And that might be more noticeable in certain areas of the village versus, you know, downtown or something like that where there's already a lot of kind of transient folks going out to eat and drink and running errands and things like that too. So, um, that again was kind of the approach we talked about with the EDU is having it different rules for different zoning districts. While it's a little complicated, that could be one way to address that where we're okay with shorter, shorter term rentals in this location, but not in these zoning districts. Um,

Yeah, I think that's what I wanted to cover there.

This is one of those things where I'm fine with the tree. You know, I think this is where we let time sort of add what decorations you want to put on it.

And it's happening already and we have nothing, so this would be a big step in the right direction. Yeah, yeah. Right.

If we allow these, I mean, again, if there's problems, We could potentially have grandfathered uses in areas where we wouldn't want to see them, but then we wouldn't maybe be able to continue to have more of those. Right.

Yeah, so when we're talking about non-confirming use rights and grandfathering, if someone does it and they're the example of why we want to be more restrictive, they likely get to keep doing it. We would just be curbing the problem for the next one. Um, so that's just part of the challenge you face in determining any zoning related sort of requirement.

All right. I'm fine. Works for me.

The other thing that this would, the, just the tree alone would do is we do get room tax from the people who use these online booking systems. There's a lot of people who don't, you know, they're on Craigslist, their word of mouth, whatever. Um, The room tax is one issue. It's not a lot of money, but Also if you do rent for more than ten nights a year I believe it is you're required by law to get a tourist rooming house license from the state through the county and and the intent of that is to tech people from their waters tested. There's an annual review of the sort of condition of the space. And it's not a very high bar to reach, but it's still something. And so you might get a little more room tax, and you might be able to at least enforce if someone's doing this without the proper licensure. Great.

Sounds good. Looks real happy. Okay.

Happy, happy. All right.

We'll keep this, I guess, in our back pocket and get the ADU item kind of finalized, and we can run these together later this summer.

Okay.

Okay. No other new business? Move on to communication, Ms. Sonner's business. Status of public and private development projects. I suspect we don't have anything on that. Is that right?

If you have any questions, I think it's hot in here. Lauren did email me kind of a list of the project updates if you want me to read it. Otherwise, I can email it to you if you want.

They're still going on?

They're still going on. The big thing that's about to start is the intersection out here, Alpine and CC, that'll start right after school ends next week. and East Lincoln Road will start around. Lincoln Street, not road. Yes, sorry, East Lincoln Street between North Main Street and North Perry will start after June 15th.

Okay.

All right, good. Upcoming plan commission meetings, July 2nd. August 6th, I will not be here. Family vacations. Planning staff meeting, you can look at it May 7th. Any other items for future meetings? None? Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.