Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I didn't have

and it's not on the website. Yeah, I had some questions.

Yeah, I don't know. Like I said, I talked to a little bit about Thank you. Thank you. It's Facebook.

All right. Good evening. We're going to call the meeting to order tonight for the joint planning commission and village board meeting uh for September 11th, 2025. If you could stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisibley and justice for all.

Uh clerk roll call. Buckles. White Niles here. Nelson here. Heckers. Dable Uh, village board Stigler here. White Niles here. Adams Buckles here. Uh, open meeting law and compliance check confirming the agenda is posted and distributed as noted in the agenda on or before 6:30 on the 10th. Yes.

Very good. Citizen comments. Any folks like to come up and speak? If so, just come up one at a time and give us your name and address first. All right. Well, hearing none, we'll move on. Thank you, folks. Uh, approval of previous meeting minutes, specifically August 14th, 2025. Hopefully, we've had a chance to review those. Any comments, questions, concerns? I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes as they were printed. Okay. Motion on the plan commission to approve the minutes for August 14th. Is there a second? Second.

Rob seconds it. Very good. Any discussion? Plan commission. All those in favor of approving the minutes signify by saying I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Uh, village board. Same. I'll make a motion that we accept the minutes of the August 14th meeting. Okay. Seconded. Good. Motion seconded to approve the minutes on the village board for the August 14th minutes. Uh, all those in favor say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Motion's unanimous there as well. Very good. Thank you. Uh notice is hereby given that a joint public hearing involving the village of Wakaaw plan commission and the village board will be held uh at this time. uh to consider adoption of proposed amendments to the village ordinance chapter 42-83 for the agricultural district and 42-84 for the residential single family estate district with respect to agricultural uses and livestock shelter offsets and height. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Anything?

Uh yeah, it's pretty simple. We talked about this conceptually last month uh at the the plan commission and board meeting. The changes are essentially to to remove any limit to offset for buildings sheltering livestock um except for the minimum offsets that already apply to accessory buildings. So for instance in A1 which requires 20 foot offset from side and rear lot lines um instead of requiring a 50-ft offset for uh egg buildings that uh contain livestock it would just be the the standard 20 ft. And that would apply to any district that allow that allows livestock as well. So, you just have to abide by the minimum offsets um for livestock. And then in the A1 district specifically, we removed a reference to farm structure building height. Um there's an exception that's written in there currently about farm structure building height. And then it also references the special exceptions for height. Those farm structure exceptions are already handled in the general exception section. So, it was redundant and a little confusing. So, we clean that up. And then finally, we added pigs to the allowable permitted agricultural uses and districts that allow livestock. So those changes specifically got made to the A1 and the ER district, but other districts that allow livestock basically reference back to those districts where we made the changes. So that's it.

Okay. Any public comments? Sandyham West 230 South 3827 Milky Way Road. I read through the red line changes in uh 83 and 84 of chapter 42 and I'm in favor of the changes. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments? Anything from the board? Go ahead.

More commission. There's a little confusion yet, at least in my mind, but I'm pretty simple. So, um, it comes under the exceptions for the height. Um, under 4237, the exception for egg buildings. um uh all the structures um cannot exceed twice the distance from the closest lot line. So I I don't have that section in front of me because we didn't make changes specifically to that. So you're saying

okay can repeat that again. Um exception B is uh the following shall be accepted from height regulations of a district. However, the height of any such structure shall not exceed two times the distance from the nearest lot line. Okay. Yeah. So that what that means essentially is that um if you're 40t off, you can have a 80 foot high building. If you're if you're otherwise allowed to be 80 feet, right? Right.

If you're not otherwise allowed to be 80 feet, it doesn't doesn't matter. So for in for like a residential building for instance because that comes we talk about this section all the time when it comes to accessory buildings. Our normal limit is 18 feet. Sometimes people come in with 20 foot buildings and we say that's fine but you have to be offset at least another two feet for each additional foot of height above 18. So if you're going to go two feet above 18, you got to be set back another four feet. So instead of 20 foot set back, you got to be 24 feet set back. In no situation is that going to get you 80 feet for because your your limit for an accessory building is only 10 feet above 18. But but certain farm buildings are allowed to go up to 8 ft. Well, that's that's where item two comes under their agricultural buildings using solely the agricultural purposes.

Um but they can't exceed 85 ft, right? So they could, you know, they fit under they have to be they'd have to be set back far enough to get to that height. Okay. I guess that's where the confusion comes in. But it said but it says you have to be you have to be set back at least what does it say twice

maximum height restriction in any district no building or structure shall hereafter be erected or structurally altered to a height in excess of that here and after specified by the regulations of the district. The exceptions the following shall be accept ex exempt from the height regulations of a district. However, the height of any such structure shall not exceed two times the distance from the nearest lap. Okay. So, the 85 ft building. Okay. 42 1/2 foot offset. Well, then it goes into list things. Item one is chimneys and flu and item two is agricultural buildings solely used for agriculture purposes, but they can't exceed 85 ft. Right.

So, so you could have a building 40 foot off the property line and could be 80t tall. That's right. Okay. in a zoning. But then when you get down to letter C, that's where the confusion comes in because that's the increase permitted exception, right? And that says the maximum height of any building uh may not increase by more than 10 ft. Um and that's where the one foot for every two feet of offset comes in. Right. Right.

So that conflicts with the agriculture building exemption above. But it doesn't conflict because that's that section above is specific to agricultural buildings only for agricultural uses. C applies to any other accessory building including residential buildings. Okay. As long as that's clear so that and that's how we've always used it. I mean we can we can look at that. We just can't make that change tonight because that would that section changes to that section were not noticed uh as as part of this. So, if we want to I I can certainly make a note about that next time we crack open the zoning ordinance. We can take we can clarify that. Am I making sense? I mean, that's very

totally make you're totally making sense. I've always interpreted the way I mentioned, but we can clarify that's for residential accessory buildings on C and then and then A is for B. Suits my purpose. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, we'll put a pin in that for next time around. Anything else board or public? All right. Hearing none, we'll uh close the public hearing. Uh moving on to discussion of possible action for number eight, discussion of possible action on proposed amendments to the village ordinance 4283 and 4284 that we were just discussing with respect to agriculture uses and livestock, shelter, offsets, and height. plan commission. I'll make a motion that we approve the suggested changes to this ordinance.

I'll second it. All right. Any further discussion? All right. For the plan commission, it's been motioned and seconded to approve the uh updates the ordinance as drafted and discussed. Those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion's unanimous. That carries. village board. We'll make a motion that we accept the planning commission's requ uh request to approve the discussed uh amendment to the said ordinance 4283 and 43 428384. Got it. I'll second it.

And it's been seconded as well. Any discussion between the three of us? Hearing none. Uh those in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimous. All right. Make the ordinance adjustments. Thank you, gentlemen and lady. Uh discussion and possible action on accessory building request for petitioner Kurt Bushman for the property located at West 230 South 4353 Milky Way Road. tax key W AKT138899605 for a 145 square foot addition to an existing 128 square foot detached garage to be used for agricultural and residential purposes.

Yeah. So that's essentially it. We looked at this um certified survey map last month um and it was approved. Essentially there's um two lots on Milky Way. um a large portion of the lot that was to the north that includes environmental corridors was moved to the lot to the south essentially. So lot two is is much bigger now. So that's the lot where these this addition is being proposed. Lot two is over 20 acres. Here's the existing garage um again which is which is 1,028 square feet. The addition is,045 square feet being added to the side in the back. It meets all the requirements of the ordinance. This specific location of the building as well is um it's pretty well um wooded. Here's the there's the property itself on the aerial photograph. This is the garage and so the addition is going to be right back here. So obviously not to be seen by the neighbors as well. At any rate, um the the building itself is going to have hor horizontal lap siding um and then some stone ways coating to match the rest of the building as well. So, here's the addition and an additional bay, garage bay, and then and then the rest. So, I don't have any um other comments on this. Greg, did you have any comments?

Yeah, taking a look at it, I guess, from the grading perspective. I don't really have any issues. One thing I think isn't very clear, I guess, from the application is whether or not any sort of land disturbance uh will be needed to construct this or if it's just, you know, erect the building on on a poured slab or something like that. Um if that's something that petitioner could clarify potentially may impact what kind of erosion control is needed out there, but um be very minimal and that would be the only thing from my perspective. Go ahead. Sorry, one thing I forgot to mention in the in the conditions, the general um accessory building approval conditions are in my staff report. I just wanted to point out two. One of them is that the CSM that was approved has not yet been recorded, but all of the comments that Greg and I had from last meeting have been addressed. We saw the updated copy. It's it's going to be recorded very very soon. So, we we're asking that that be recorded um prior to the issuance of the zoning and building permit for the for the accessory building just to get that cleaned up. And then based on the size of the building, um the standard deed restriction would be put on the property basically saying that the building is for residential and egg purposes only. So it can't be used for commercial purposes. Otherwise, the rest of the conditions are standard. I'm I'm Kurt Bushman. Uh West 230 South 4353 Milky Way Road. I'm the petitioner for this property. uh the grading process that you're talking about. There's a major swale that actually goes through between my house and the and the existing garage that comes from off of Milky Way and actually weaves its way through and goes through the property. You can kind of see the low area there. So the the part that we're going we're actually going up onto the higher ground, you know, so the grading part of it will really not become an issue at all.

This is the swale here. Yeah, it goes right right through here. Oh, gotcha.

So, I I guess is there potential for, you know, while you're constructing this addition for runoff from the site, you know, if if it were to rain from runoff from the site to leave the site, the water would the water would the water would come back onto my property. Okay. that because it's higher. It might by neighbor is higher than we are going that direction. Okay. And this just to clarify this wouldn't trigger any WA County storm water erosion control requirements because it's not large enough on the project. Plan commission board.

Okay. Um have you ran this through the building inspector? I guess I do a lot of commercial construction, so residential is kind of out of my wheelhouse, but um based on what I was looking at on this being drawn, that's a 30 foot span's a lot to ask a 2x4 to hold up. Have you run this through the building? Trust roof truss is there. We do that all the time. I'm a residential builder, so yeah, that's why I'm asking. I'm Yeah. No, that's a very not engineer tells me it's good to go. It's good to go. But it falls within our local building codes, right? That's not an excessive span at all. Okay. Well, depends on what you put on it. Well, roof trusses. I would say roof trusses. Yeah. So, once the snow hits it and all the other stuff. Yeah. So, that's well within your requirements.

But it it runs within our building. Somebody's looked at it and said, "Yep, not yet." But I mean, after this process, so we'll submit a building permit application and then Jar look at it that again for two reasons. I'm asking and trying to educate just to make sure we're all looking at it from a distance. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else?

Planning Commission, board. Anybody? Oh, motion. I'll make a motion that we approve the addition to the garage on Milky Way Road. Okay. Motion. Anyone in second? Second. Second by Rob for the plan commission. Any further discussion? All right. All right, plan commission. Uh, those in favor say I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Village board. I'll move to accept the recommendation of the plan commission for the addition to the garage on Milky Way Road. I'll second that discussion. I did. Okay.

I threw her off a little. All right. Uh those in favor on the board of approving the motion to approve this uh addition say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries there as well. Very good. Thank you, sir. recorded as soon as I got. Thank you.

Uh, next opt next item, discussion of possible action on a certified survey map uh, request for petitioner David Johnson for properties owned by David and Christine Johnson and James and Bruce Barton located at South 38 West 27502 and South 37 West 27438 Jese Road. the tax keys WAKT1367998 and 1368978002 to adjust the property line between the two existing lots.

Okay, so this is on its phase pretty simple. Here's the here's the 1acre lot and here's the 6.15 acre lot on Jennese Road. Um, essentially 0.15 acres is being moved from the big lot to the small lot based, you know, just like a pie shape here to kind of even this out and make the lot line perpendicular to give the Johnson property just a little more um square footage and all that makes sense. That's all valid. It meets all the ordinances and so on. Um, but there are a number of accessory buildings on the property to the east. We've actually seen this property a couple of times. um once was four years ago when it was um there was a three lot CSM being proposed basically two lots out of here and then a reconfiguration with the with the property here as well. So that was approved four years ago but the CSM was never recorded. Some of the conditions that were part of that was that um the buildings in the property were in various states of disrepair and in addition there was uh too much accessory building for a property of that size and the size was going to be decreased. So the plan commission and board essentially said we'll approve the CSM but you have to remove a number of buildings and you can keep so many buildings. They granted a waiver essentially from the accessory building section. Um what was allowed to remain was um essentially 3,400 square feet of buildings, accessory buildings, including the three 3,000 square foot storage building, which is the big one, and then the silo on the property was allowed to remain. So it was still a little above what was allowed for the size, but because these were pre-existing buildings, um and most of them would would be removed, the the waiver was approved as part of that. So since then, um some of the buildings have come down. I think there's been some violations, non-compliance violations for disrepair on the house and some of the accessory buildings. So, not all the buildings are there anymore. They are they are being removed, but

they're still too many for uh because we're be creating a new lot essentially with, you know, with with the adjustment and and moving some of that square footage to the lot to the west. It's a new lot, so it's got to be in compliance. And so, there actually is no waiver request submitted yet for this process. What the petitioner is asking at this time essentially would be to approve the CSM, approve the lot line adjustment and I have a couple conditions that are written in here that says essentially that the the owner of the the large lot, the the Bartons um would obtain approval for a waiver request um for any accessory buildings to remain on the on the proposed lot that would exceed the quantity of three or total area of 3920 square ft. That's that's the maximum that would normally be allowed for a sixacre lot. Uh or remove the the the property from the property, the accessory buildings exceeding those limits prior to the signature of the CSM being recorded. Uh CSM being signed and recorded and that any buildings that would remain in the property would also be in compliance with our ordinance as well. So being in compliance uh with the with the disrepair and so on. So, we could approve the CSM tonight and then at some time in the future, the the the Bartons would come in for a waiver uh and then also clean up of the building. So, it wouldn't be signed and recorded until everything was on the up and up. So, or you can choose not to approve the CSM and wait for the property to be cleaned up and the waiver to come in. It's up to you. All right, petitioners, you have anything you want to discuss or bring up? You come up to the microphone, give us your name and address, please.

James Barton, S37 W27 336 Jeny Road. And uh it's not just me and my brother. It's my me and my brother and my two sisters are the owners of the property. It was inherited from our father. So that I don't know if you need to correct that. And uh we are in the process of tearing down the buildings. The only thing left will be the house and the the stone and concrete silo and the long cement block building. The other one buildings we were I didn't know we needed a raise permit when we started tearing it down. And I've I've been cutting down the large trees around the small buildings there. One of the neighbors over in the subdivision saw me working on the buildings and he stopped in and said he has a lot of equipment. He'll come over and help us tear down the buildings for free. So that that will all that will be taken care of. I'm I'm we're tearing down the buildings right now. Like I said, I'm cutting down the trees. Uh the the three structures there. There's old milkhouse and a uh oh, sorry. Uh stuckle and uh tile garage and uh uh it used to be the old produce stand when we were running the farm. And those are all in the process. They're about half torn down now. We rented a $400 dumpster like 20 yard or whatever it was and we were working on that over this summer, but it rained so much this summer we bogged down that we only got about half full. So, we got to get another dumpster to put that remains in. But, we got to contact the neighbor to have us see what his arrangement is. We'll have to pay him something just for his time. So I I could tell you if what you say is going to happen, if all that's going to be left is the house, the large barn, and then silo, if that's all that remains, it'll be in compliance with the number and total accessory buildings for a sixacre lot. So you wouldn't need a waiver to be granted for that. But again, you want to make sure that whatever's left is in good repair and then what what's taken off the property

is actually, you know, what's claimed to be taken off is actually taken off. So would no longer need a waiver if that's going to be the case. And we could give until no, I think it's November 10th to work on these. Yeah, that was the extension we gave back in spring, right? Uh what about the condition of the house where you at with that? Looks like the hole still in the roof. Pardon? The hole is still on the roof.

That's got to get patched. I got to get see if this neighbor has equipment that can get us, you know, like lift truck or whatever it would be to get up there. But I can get up there and start cutting on that. Like I said at the previous one, I have a associates degree in construction technology, so I know what I'm doing. It's just getting the time to work on but and if not, we'll start hiring people for doing that. It's a fairly small area, but the house need it was built in 1900, so it just updating it in general. But the the lot line, that's a a adverse possession situation and we're working on we had to retain an attorney and he advised us that would be the the least expensive way to deal with that situation.

How long if we approve the CSM, how long do we have before it needs to be recorded before it has to come back to us again? Oh. Um I think it's three years six months from the last for CSM. Yeah, please do. I'm guess. It's certainly more than till the end of November. But just for clarification, I guess on that then that the lot division that was previously approved and such is that's that's that one is no longer valid because it's been four years and that's that's clearly expired.

When we had the meeting there about that back then uh we were told the surveyor the way he drew up the where it was going to be the division. Sorry. It was uh they he wanted to put in had it down as a 20- foot easement running from the existing driveway over to what would be the like and a half lot. And the when we had the meeting with the town board, they said they wouldn't grant an easement because if they did that, then everybody would want one. So our surveyor contact is somebody he knew at the state department of transportation. They wanted to move the driveway so it would be straddling the two lot lines and you know branching off. I I guess we don't need the whole history that way. I guess just off but so that's not occurring anymore. Just

the state department of transportation said they wouldn't grant changing the the one lot line. Just this one little wedge. It's like 15 feet at the top. It's 0.15 acres, right? That's that's what it is. So you could you could approve that. Um and again wouldn't be signed and recorded until the property is brought into compliance essentially. So that could be the stipulation brought into compliance in terms of state of the buildings and the number and quantity of accessory buildings. Once that happens then it could be signed and recorded.

In answer to your question, the certified survey map is offered for recording within 12 months after the date of the last approval and within 36 months after the the first. Thank you. So it be it would be 12 months in this case because we are the first and last approval.

Mr. Answer your question 12 months then they can file they have up to 12 months. It was approved. If it's approved tonight that's the date of the first app. I'm a little puzzled here. I'm sorry, Dan. Go ahead. What is your ultimate goal, Mr. Barton?

My ultimate goal is to move to Florida. No, is to that was our our our grandparents bought the farm in 1928. So, it's almost a hundred year anniversary. My dad moved in when he was five weeks old. So, it's the nostalgia more than common sense, but to get the house restored the way it, you know, looked when it was originally built and keep it there and then eventually we are we're getting to the age where we're going to have to sell it just for, you know, future money. But we'll get that fixed up now. But, like I said, all the other buildings have pretty much been brought down. And the main thing we want to do is to solve this the situation with them because we had to retain the lawyer and it's burning through all of that money already. Thank you.

Yeah. Oh, I have another qu uh question. There's a what was I gonna say? There's a thing in all the emails that our attorney was sending us. There was something about anybody within 300 ft has to be notified of this or is that that would have been if there's a waiver required. So, if we if if you wanted to keep some of these buildings and you see to the amount, then we have to do the waiver. But it sounds like we're not going that approach. Okay. I think. So, just to clarify, you're going to take all of the accessory buildings off except the brick except the brick building. Well, it's concrete block. Okay. Concrete block building and then the silo. Yeah. And the stone silo that doesn't show up. Doesn't show up on there, but it's like over here. Um and again, those

and the house. But if that's true, then then it will be all like I said, these three there are basically down. We just need that guy to come in. Like I said, I've been cutting the large trees so you can get in with the equipment. Just pull them down and have it hauled away. Do you think you're on track with the November 10th date? Yeah, we're making progress. If if it stops raining, pouring rain, you know, five inches of rain messes it up. But yeah, we should be done pretty good by then.

That that includes the two buildings towards the back, too. Those are coming out, too. Yeah, there's a actually the the one where it's a kind of an angle thing. That's the old barn. And I don't know why. Oh, I think that's where it says just building up there. That was a quonet hut kind of corrugated iron barn that that's down too. And that, you know, you're just prying the sheets of corrugated iron off. And then it was the laminated beam. So that's a like a one day project for if he brings over his equipment. Now it says building. Does that mean you also have to like jackhammer the foundations or because it's like I don't know.

No, I mean the foundations themselves aren't buildings and there's nothing in our codes that would prohibit a foundation from remaining in the property as long as it's safe and Jerry would determine it to be safe. I don't see any problem with the foundation being left. Do you do you have an issue with that? None of them have any basements or anything. So it just be some slabs all there. Yeah. and elevated for when we were loading livestock and you know things like that.

I guess I'm not I'm in favor of getting the CSM approved and and not filing it until all the cleanups done, but I'm in favor of going that route. I don't think there's a reason not to. I'll make the motion that we uh approve the CSM based on staff recommendations and uh that the owner follows through with his commitments and staff recommendations. Okay, I'll second the motion. Chad Chad, yeah,

we do have a handful of technical comments and I don't need to go into specifics. Um, but we would just ask that those be addressed as a contingency to any approval. So, you both agree to add that? Make sure that's in there. I'm good with that in that. Thank you. All right. So, that's part of the motion then as well. All right. Any further discussion? All right. For the plan commission uh to recommend the approval of the CSM with the uh staff's recommendations and the engineers uh concerns. Those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous village board.

I will make a motion that we accept the planning commission's recommendation to approve the CSM with all the staff recommendations. Okay. I'll second that as well. All those in favor of approving uh the request say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. So, you'll be good with that. We just have to get all stuff brought to compliance and buildings down and such. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh moving on. Discussion of possible action on a request to reconsider conditions related to a previously approved accessory building for petitioner Kyle Berky uh for the property located at South 58 West 22340 Glengary Road. Tax Key WAKT 1433004. Sean.

Yeah, I don't have too much to add here. We've already talked about this and the accessory building was approved. It's a 2,000 foot building. Um, here's the property. It was it's going to be in the back of the the the property here. One of the conditions that came out of the plan commission and board discussion was for a minimum 12 foot with driveway for access to the proposed building to be completed by occupancy. Um, and so that was added. I I did issue the zoning permit. Added that condition in there. The petitioner was not at the last meeting when this was approved. his builder was here. Um, so he wasn't here to answer questions or address any issues. Um, he's asking for reconsideration of the driveway. Um, and that's where we're at.

So, the builder said that they were going to keep the drive. The the building Yeah, the builder was at the meeting and said, "Well, there's going to have to be a driveway or pad put down, you know, get back there." And thought it wouldn't be an issue to keep the driveway and, you know, pave it all the way back there. But since then, the owner was not intending to do that. All right, petitioner, come on up. Give us your name and address, please. 2000. Kyle Berkkey, S58 W23340 Glengary Road. Okay.

Um, so what our our builder was doing was um so they said that one of the options was to lay a temporary gravel drive down just to get like a a concrete truck and dump trucks down there. Um, and then we were kind of toying with the idea, well, if they're going to lay all this gravel, you know, does it make sense to just make make a permanent drive? So, we were kind of toying with that. Um, and then when we saw the recommend recommendation for a for a 12 foot wide drive, just the the width of that kind of caught us off guard. Um, because I mean, there's driveways that aren't even 12 feet wide. Um, so what we've ultimately decided to do if it if it would be approved is do a a permanent drive down. Um, and uh what our builder the greater uh his his dozer is 10 ft 6 in wide. And so what we'd like to do is is put a um 10 foot 6 inch wide uh you know permanent drive down with the intent of doing an an 8 foot wide asphalt top over that. Um so I guess yeah we're just asking to reconsider just the width requirement of the drive.

Okay. This is just because the drive would have to go in design here tight to the the patio and and we don't have um boats, campers, anything like that. We're just storing, you know, lawnmowers. I have a skid steer, you know, garden equipment type stuff. Dan Stew, what's uh what's the average width of our fire trucks? You know, our our engine is is almost 11 feet wide.

Yeah. Almost. That's just shy of that. But um and we have buildings that don't have driveway access all over the village. I mean, it's

But typically with a building this size, because it is pretty good size and the distance from the road, we like to have some kind of an access. Um, would the fire department drive back there? Probably not all the way. They But they'd probably go in there part way. Um, but to lay hose 600 feet to a building that's on fire is a lot of work, especially in the winter and there's snow, it's even worse. Um, but you know, if if there's some kind of an access back there, I I think we could live with that. I mean, 10 foot six inches wide, I think they could make that work. And and like I said, they're not going to drive all the way back there anyway.

Yeah. I guess I just I ask right away just because something actually does happen back there and we're potentially damaging the driveway back then too if we're hanging off the edge of the asphalt both sides. Oh, yeah. Well, and the likelihood of getting the engine stuck doing that is even greater than wrecking the driveway, right? That too.

And I will say the I mean I mean while it's you know I guess technically 2,000 square feet, it's 1500 square feet of enclosed space with a um you know covered porch that makes up the other 500. Um I guess our our thing was if it's um you know if we would have been 1,200 square feet or or less we wouldn't have had to come you know before the plan commission and the village doesn't require drives for accessory buildings. So that's kind of where we were kind of you know kind of leaves the impression of well the 1,200 foot building catches on fire that's not a problem but if it you know 1500 to 2,000 square foot does you know that's That's an issue that's kind of where we got a little confused.

Did I hear Mr. proposal? This is when lawyers say don't say anything. You weren't here. To our young lawyers at some point, stop talking. I I I don't want to tell you what to do, but I have a sense that since the gentleman who put the condition on is satisfied with your proposal and he's readapted with that proposal, you might be good. Well, we'll see what the other commissioners and board members have to say. You can stay up here, but and see if they have any other comments.

Yeah. Either way, you can sit or stand. It's up to you. I tell you, do one of the other Anybody else have any comments? So, I just have a question. So 10 foot 6 in base. Doesn't really matter what's on top as long as the base is 10 foot 6 in. Yeah. I think he's only going to pave I mean I don't care if it's gravel forever, but it's but if he wants to pave it that makes it cleaner, but that's up to him. But I'll make a motion to the effect that we accept his proposal for access to his back building and and make that change to our previous approval. Second. Second.

Okay. Okay. It's been motioned and seconded, but just for clarification on the motion, it's a 10 and a half foot base with a what? You said a 8ft top. Um, yeah. He said his his his dozer blade is is 10 foot six. And so we were, you know, talking about doing an 8 foot finished asphalt. Probably next year once we we we do our our driveway, we'll do it all all at the same time and then give this path, you know, some time to settle. Okay. But but if I heard Mr. People's condition, he wasn't requiring the asphalt. Or were you? No, he's not requiring the asphalt. That's fine. As long as it's 10 foot stone, minimum stone maintain stone base. If he wants to do more than that, that's up to him. Correct. Okay.

Is there a way of putting in there that we're held harmless? If anything does happen, if we have to do get back there, I don't know that any damage to the driveway or anything else. If we have to get back in there, is it something we can add to it or um I don't know how we we could, but then we'd have to do a deed restriction, things like that. That's fine. I don't know what the risk is. If you find that the 10 and a half is reasonable, um you could add, but that could be for any driveway or anything then, right? Yeah,

technically. I mean, if you don't think the 10 and a half is adequate, then we shouldn't improve it. If you feel the 10 and a half is adequate from a safety standpoint, which is all we're trying to address, you know. Yeah. I go a lot with the too. I doubt if we'd ever go back there, but at least you got a smooth surface to drag holes on for 600 feet. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Uh, plan commission, anything further? All right. for the motion on the floor that's been seconded to approve the modification to the the plans uh to allow for a 10 and a half foot wide base uh for the driveway access to the accessory building. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Thank you. All right. Motion carries unanimous. Village board. I'll make a motion that we accept the planning commission's recommendation to approve the accessory building and driveway that we've discussed. I'll second that.

All right. It's been motioned and seconded to approve the request as stated. All those in favor? I I I opposed. Motion's unanimous. We're good there. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Ajournment of the Planning Commission. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say I. Anyone opposed? You are excused. Thank you. I wasn't.

You never know. I don't want to offend anybody. I just trying to give him a little practical advice. when you're interjecting with saying I can live with it and then he starts to talk again. I'm thinking

all right moving on uh for the village plat. Yeah. Uh discuss moving discussion and possible action on a signage request for petitioner Dave Sulcen doing business as signs of lines by stretch on behalf of custom staffing for the property owned by Glengary Holdings LLC located at South 30 West 24682 Sunset Drive unit 100 tax key Wakt 13335985 for approval of a freestanding sign.

Pretty simple. Um, we recently approved the site plan, plan of operation for custom staffing in the building. Um, there's a here's the building here. There's a sign out front. It's about 14 ft back from the rightway, about 14 ft back from the from the west uh property line. The sign is again existing. They're just here's the sign. They're just replacing the copy on it um with their custom staffing and skilled solutions sign. Um, it's about 26 square feet per side. It meets the requirements of the ordinance. That's all I got. I'm here. Okay. You can come on up. Sure. Just give us your name and address, please, sir.

Yeah. I'm Dave Sulen. I live in Wawaossa, 571 North 67th Street, Wawaossa, Wisconsin, 53213. I'm an employee of Signs and Lines. Um, everything is fine. I just wanted to point out that the current sign has two possible tenants. They're only converting it to one. Thank you. And to to to build on that, this is only 26 square feet per side. A business or a partial is allowed up to 400 square ft of freestanding signage. So if a new tenant came in and wanted another sign, they'd be able to do that. Okay. All right, gentlemen. I'll move to approve the sign request for signs and lines or is that the petitioner? Is that correct?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The only comment I have is that Well, before you do that, I'll second the motion. It's getting nitpicky, but uh on the application, it doesn't have the complete address. The only one that's got the complete address is your paperwork for the village planner. Otherwise, they're missing the four and everything on that. Oh, I see what you're saying. I don't know if it's We can change that. We can Yeah, we can update it for the file. Yeah, I just don't know if it's a issue or not. So, thank you. Thank you for pointing that out. On all the pages, it looks like it's missing, right? Yep. I can except for you. You had the right one. I think I saw that originally and then looked for the right address. So,

you could change that. I can change it on the applications. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Any further discussion? All right. Those in in favor of making Oh, good lord. Those in favor of approving the motion to approve this sign, say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous for good. Thank you very much. Discussion, possible action and science request for Steven Soders.

Sorry if I said that wrong. representing Walker County for Fox River Park owned by Washer County located at West 264 South 4500 River Road tax key WA KT137699 for approval of a freestanding sign. Another simple one. Here's Fox River Park on River Road. There's an existing sign here. Um they're simply replacing that with a new sign. This is what the existing sign looks like. This is what the new sign will look like. It's fairly similar. Um, it's about 38 square feet per side, 11.5 ft tall, set back 23 feet from the road right away. So, it meets all the requirements of the ordinance. You Stephen, yes,

you can come on up if you have anything you want to add. You can give the county address. You don't have to give your home address. Steven Sidlars, uh, 515 West Morland Boulevard, WAW 53188. I It's fairly simple. Just replacing inkind the new updated sign roughly the same size. So nothing other than that. Okay. Very good. Thank you. I'll move things along. I'll make a motion to approve the sign and the request as uh discussed. I'll second it. All right. Any further discussion? Nope.

All right. Those in favor of approving the sign say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We're good. Thank you, sir. Uh, up next, proposal for the 2025 elicit discharge, detention, and elimination and department of public works storm water pollution prevention program, uh, inspection services.

Yep. Thanks, Chad. That's me. So, I'll try to breeze through this and not over complicate it, but um Village has an MS4 permit that helps them helps helps you guys manage your storm water. And through the DNR, there are several programs that you're required to update and maintain and stay in compliance with as part of that permit. Um, typically these permits are five-year terms. So, a new permit was just issued this past November. And as part of that, several of the the programs that are within this permit um have some action items that and I think we need to address sooner rather than later to make sure the village is in compliance. So the two programs we're talking about in uh particular within our proposal are the elicit discharge detection and elimination program and then the storm water pollution prevention planning program. We call that this the SWIP. Um so starting with the list of discharge essentially what the village is required to do is once per permit term inspect um and and screen each of the villages 11 major MS4 outfalls. So outfalls that are of a certain size or convey enough water that they need to be inspected. Um what we're looking for is any discharge that isn't storm water. And so what you're required to do is inspect during a period of 72 hours of dry weather. If nothing's flowing through it, you're done. If there's something flowing through it, we collect a sample. We test it for a list of pollutants. Um chloride, chlorine, um sediment, and there there's probably eight or eight or nine different pollutants that we're testing for. There are DNR action limits and if you're over any of those action limits, you're just required to report it um to the DNR and follow up the following year. Um typically, I mean, the majority of these

in a lot of communities when we do inspect, they're dry, you know, during the 72-hour dry period as as you would expect, but obviously um if there's something flowing through, we want to follow up and make sure it's being addressed if it's over a certain level with a contaminant. um we would then compile a report of the findings and submit that with the villages annual report that goes to the DNR each each March. Um so what the DNR wants you to do is essentially tackle roughly 20 to 25% of your major outfalls each year of the permit term. So the village has 11 outfalls that need inspection at least once in the next five years. What we're proposing is to complete three of them this year. three of them essentially the next three or so years until we've done all of them. There's probably a year where we wouldn't do any. Um the I guess the reason why we would leave an extra year is in case there is a hit for any pollutant on any of these outfalls, you're required to follow up the following year. So we want to give ourselves some time to to do that if there are. Um and so the first part of the proposal we submitted is to do those screenings for the three of the outfalls. doesn't necessarily matter which three. We want to do three of them ideally this year. Again, during a 72-hour dry period, um fall is the best time to do that. Typically have the best luck this time of year. You know, scheduling them and then being able to predict the rain as best as possible. Um so the cost for those inspections depends on whether or not we get any hits or anything flowing. Obviously, if we go out and inspect these three outfalls and nothing's flowing through any of them, there's relatively little work for us to do and the cost kind of reflects that. Um, so I think, you know, the maximum if we inspected all three of these outfalls and there was something flowing and we had to test and sample and then um, you know, report on them,

the maximum cost for that screening this year would be $5,450. Um, so again, trying to split up all of those inspection costs over the next four years essentially to make sure the village is in compliance with their MS4 permit. The second part of the proposal is the SWIP. So the village's MS4 permit requires each municipality, each municipally owned storage area that has the potential to generate storm water pollution to inspect that at least once per the permit term. In the vill's case, the only SWIP that's needed is for the DPW uh facility here, the campus, you know, just behind this building. Um, so the last time we did a SWIP for the public works building was 2016, which is I would have been a couple permit terms ago. So, the village is slightly out of compliance in this. Um, it's a relatively straightforward inspection. we have a staff member come out um look for certain things make sure you're in compliance with you know spill prevention programs, storm water pollution programs, maintenance plan um anything that's out of compliance just gets noted. I think a major aspect to this would obviously be you know the village is working on planning and designing and constructing a new public works building. So any deficiencies found in this facility would obviously be incorporated into that future one which we I believe will be incorporated into the plans that are being developed regardless. Um so part of that inspection is we'd take Rob with us. We train him how to do it so that next time it needs to be done. Ideally he just does it himself. It's a very simple inspection. Um the total cost for that inspection $1,750 and again includes training of public works staff um for any future updates that are needed. um kind of a lot of info on those two programs. Again, the idea with this is

to make sure the village is in compliance with the DNR permit. DNR is making a bigger push during this permit term to try to audit each municipality that has an MS4 permit at least once during their permit term. Um, some municipalities we work with have already gone through audits, which can be kind of an intensive um, experience. Usually nothing super troubling comes out of them. They just want to make sure you have all your documentation in a row and you're doing everything you should be. Um, so some of this is taking the right steps to prepare for that eventuality. Um, if and when the village is is audited to make sure you're in compliance with your MS4 permit. If I'm seeing correct then the maximum fee is the 7200s in the the document. That's both those combined. Correct.

Correct. Okay. And did you say you do that inspection 72 hours after a rainfall or you have to have 72 hours of dry? 72 hours of dry weather. No rainfall. Okay. So you're not looking for a rain and then Exactly. So, we want to make sure that if we do inspect an outfall and there's something flowing through it that it's not rain, that it would be some other illicit connection, discharge, someone's dumping something through a pipe that they shouldn't be. There's a connection that there shouldn't be, what have you. Sure. Okay,

gentlemen. Well, we have to comply with this anyway, right? I mean, this is a The DNR is requiring this. DNR does require this. Yeah. And I don't think any of us are I mean, you you said Rob can do this after this year. In future years, I think that's what's most prudent is Rob or some other DPW staff does the not necessarily the illicit discharge inspections, but the public works facility inspection. Okay. Um, it's it's a pretty simple procedure that I I don't think in future years, as long as Rob is, you know, learned up on what goes into it. He can't do it himself, but this time he will be going with Yeah.

on the elicit. He would come with our staff member. Uh, well, if if you want him to, but there's really no reason for him to do the illicit discharge inspections. Um, again, that's like if there's something flowing through it, we collect a sample. We have a a testing kit that will test out in the field and gives us, you know, readings on a number of pollutants. So, okay, I guess we got to comply with it anyway. I make a motion that we accept the contract from Rukert Milky for a maximum of $7,200. I agree. I'll second it.

Okay. So, the motion is to approve the proposal for both the elicit discharge uh detention and elimination program and the public works storm water pollution prevention program inspection services combined in one as far as the 7200 are correct to do both. Correct. Just making sure. Correct. All right. Any further discussion? All right. Those in favor of the approval say I I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Good there. All right. So then 2025 pavement surface evaluation and rating uh for the road ratings. Go ahead.

Yeah. So I think initially this is going to be a discussion on the road ratings we just completed, but I think it's opens up a larger discussion about road improvements in 2026. So, um I'm sure you guys are all aware every two years we complete um road ratings on a kind of visual basis of all the roads in the village. Um drive them, assign them a road rating from 1 to 10 based on, you know, visually what we're seeing. Cracks, deficiencies in the road. Brand new roads, you know, get nines and tens. Not so good roads get ones, twos, and threes. Um we then submit all that data to WISDOT. Um, the ratings help inform village staff which roads are most efficient, help facilitate improvement planning and budgeting. Also determines or allows the village to receive general transportation funding. Um, so we just completed the 2025 ratings this past summer. In total, 66 miles of village roads were inspected. Um, I believe you guys probably got the the letter I put together. So, no ones or twos, which is good. I believe um the last couple years we had taken care of all of the roads that were rated four or lower. This time we did the ratings, we came up with one and a half miles of roads rated at three, 11, just over 11 miles roads rated at four, 20.9 miles at five, etc., etc. Of the square yardage there as well. um gives you an idea of, you know, where most of these roads in the village sit at in terms of of rating. And again, threes and fours are what we're kind of addressing with a polarizing overlay or or a, you know, complete reconstruct. Fives and sixes, if you ever get to that point where we're um addressing those, those are more of a nonstructural fix. Um sevens and eights, maybe you're you're crack filling, that's about it. And nines and tens, you're just kind of

letting them be. Those are pretty good roads. Um, so I think this information, I mean, we collected and we use it obviously as we're planning the village's future road programs. Um, the last several years the village has the improvement strategy has been to basically take the lowest rated roads and fix as many of them as you can within a predetermined budget. Um, these are all rural roads, no ditches, no curbs and gutters. So, usually the best way to fix those cost efficiency wise is pulverize um address any subgrade stabilization concerns underneath that material and then pave on top of the pulverized material to get a thicker base. The road surface is elevated four or five inches. Um but overall addresses any structural concerns that those roads rated at three or fours may have. Um I wouldn't recommend doing anything different going forward. It seems to be a good um program to address the lowest rated roads. If you had ones or twos, they may be a different story, but I think given the roads we're looking to address are at a a three or four, I think that's remains the best recommended option. This past year, we just completed the 2025 road program. crunching those numbers, you know, depending on what kind of stabilization was needed. Um, under the subgrade that range from $20 per square yard for the the roads that had very minimal improvements needed to 35 square yards, $35 per square yard for the roads that had a lot of undercutting and subgrade stabilization needed. Um, you know, if you were to use this cost range to kind of project out, if you wanted to tackle all of the roads rated at threes, which is again 1.5 miles and just over 17,000 square yards, that puts you somewhere between 400,000 620,000 to improve all those roads. Um, you know, a

lot of this is going to depend on the available budget for a roadway program going forward. And and you know, there are always going to be roads to fix. I wouldn't necessarily recommend ignoring those, but I know there are a lot of other um things going on in the village that there may be less monies available for a road program. Um wanted to make sure the village board had this information, hope to to spur a bigger discussion about the 2026 road program. But, you know, I think the next step is determining what kind of budgets available. We can put together a program or a number of alternatives for roads to include like we have in years past. You know, present that to the board, take into consideration the need for improvement based on the ratings, um, other known needs from public works or other staff, location of the roads, and and estimated cost. Um, with that, you know, I'm open to any questions or any larger discussion as far as a 2026 road program may be concerned.

The portion on Sunset that's in the threes, is that the concrete or the asphalt section? Um, is that the Prairie Avenue section? I'm looking Oh, do you have the spreadsheet up? Sorry, I had it I had it zoomed up too far. I was looking at Sunset, but it's actually Prairie Avenue disregard. I had the left column that was actually saying where it was was blocked on my screen.

Got anything discussion wise questions? There's nothing action wise to do today. Just I remember last year we had some roads that were close to what you wanted to do. Are you are those prioritized again this time? Maybe talk about that.

Yeah, we we have a list going and it's from last year's road program, roads that didn't get done. Working with Rob most of the summer he's got roads he would want to get done. Um I think there are a number of different angles to attack this from. It's either just go with what the road ratings say and get all the threes or we have the roads that maybe are used more that have a higher priority because we we know their issues more so than what just a road rating tells us and we have a list of those roads going and they include you know the roads that we weren't able to do last year which I I think some of you know if we were put together an option of just the road rating roads and the roads that we already have a list of I think there's a lot of crossover for those roads. Um and that's where you know we put together a number of alternatives and present to the board and go with the best solution.

Obviously we'll be able to deal with this more so after we get a budget put together. So gives us something to work on for the budget work with.

Right. One of the roads I guess probably a good time to mention it and I think Rob you know wanted to bring it up at some point but Hillside Drive was a road we had considered doing as part of the road program last year did not end up getting done due to I think budget available to do it. It's a road that portions of it are city rightaway portions of it are village kind of switches back and forth. The city of Oshai has reached out and let us know that they're going to be doing a utility project on that portion of hillside that crosses over into the village owned portions of that road. Um, and they're going to be resurfacing it. They don't they're they are planning for that to be in 2026, but not certain yet. And so that that may be something that comes the villages way and ask for support for obviously to to fund the village, you know, percentage of that. Um, Hillside Drive was rated as a a three. It was in bad shape last year. Obviously, it didn't get any better. Um, so just to keep that on your radar, there may be outside of whatever the village chooses to do with that road, um, a project from the city side of things that, you know, the village ends up getting involved in regardless.

Do you know, Greg, what percentage ours is that roughly or not? If you go from beginning to end, it's it's probably 20% maybe. It's it's a couple small chunks of it. Yeah. Okay.

So, in a case like that though, if they're tearing up the village portion to put in, I assume it's sewer lines or something, then we're just having to pay for the resurfacing. They're doing the base work that they're taking out and putting back in, right? We're not in the hook for fixing our base,

right? Um, I think it would be anything related to the the roadway improvements. Obviously, not utilities because those are city utilities. So, it' be a good question on how how it gets split up because if they are removing everything for the utilities, you know, they'd likely cut a trench in forever the sewer is, but maybe proof roll everywhere else on the base material and be making subgrade repairs as needed. Um, if some of those subgrade repairs fall on the village section, I'm assuming they would want the village to to cover that. That would make sense. I guess just to the point though, if they're trenching the road, we shouldn't be paying to fix.

No. Anything that's related to the utility would I would hope would be separated entirely from the road work. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Nope. No. Very good. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Well, with that then all we've got left is the uh authorization of payment of the bills which I will authorize the payment of the bills in the amount of $104,6168. There we go. I'll second it. Okay. Motion seconded to pay the bills in the amount stated. If you're in favor, say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Adjournment. Make a motion we adjourn. I'll second it. All those in favor of adjourning? I. I. You can. Oh, no. It's fine. We're still going to beat you. All right. It's adjourned. Do you want to discuss something? No. It's usually joking around. So, I guess he wanted to tonight.