Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

with a quorum present for the plan commission on Tuesday, January 20th, 2026. It is 5:03 p.m. Wasau City Hall council chambers. First up is public comment and on agenda items and reading of the city Wasaw comment statement. Seeing no public comment, any public comment. Jeremy, you here to speak? You're filling in for Sean. Thanks. All right, we'll move on to consideration of the minutes. The preceding meeting which was November 18th was in the packet. Would entertain a motion. Make a motion.

Motion from Balkan. Second from Bugamin. Questions, changes? Seeing none, those in favor signify by saying I.

Any opposed? None. So, we have a public hearing tonight. This will be the longest part of the meeting hopefully on discussion on amending sections 23.02.30 SR2 single family residential to zoning district 23.02.31 SR3 single family residential zoning district 23.02.32 02.32 SR5 single family residential 5 zoning district 23.02.34 it's an MH7 mobile home residential 7 zoning district 23.02.40 DR8 it's a duplex residential 8 zoning district 23.02.41 41 TF10 two flat residential zoning district 23 02.16 MI industrial zoning district section 23 02.62 heavy industrial zoning district section 23.0270 0270 Intensive Outdoor Storage Zoning District 23.03.30 is temporary uses and 23.06.06 off- streetet parking and traffic circulation. Section 23.06.20 exterior lighting standards. 23.06.40 fencing standards. And finally section 23.09.27

signed permits application enforcement and revocation. So the public hearing is open for all of that. Again nobody did does our public comment that came in via email count for this? Uh there was one that that came in. We should have a copy of it in the packet. Correct. It was uploaded. Oh, okay. Uh, was it emailed out to people? Okay. It was sent in a separate communication. Uh, not in the packet, but sent to members.

Okay. So, members have that. Do I need to read it if somebody didn't get it? Um, we certainly can. Sure. Or you want me to read it? It's up to you. Is it a short version? Yeah, let's let's read it just in case somebody didn't get it.

Okay. Uh it's from Jonath Jonathan Smith sent in a comment about the proposed zoning change addressed to Mayor Denny and Bill Heert. Said, "I reviewed the plan commission agenda and saw that there are recommended lot size depth changes for residential lots. I currently live on a lot that is zoned TF10 and that is only 110 ft deep. So, I appreciate this update to ensure that the depth of the zoned lot is accurate to lots that are actually zoned TF10. However, I would propose a change to the municipal code to reflect that the overall square footage of the lots that are zoned TF10 also change and to check square footage of the other zoning areas whose depths are proposed to change. He goes on to say, "My lot is 60 by 110. The proposed lot minimum size for TF10. The minimum square footage for TF10 as it stands is 7,000 square ft. With the adjusted depth change, those lots won't meet square footage minimums and will not fit TF10. Uh he goes on, I would recommend a lot square footage minimum of 6270 square ft or 95% of the square footage of a minimum lot size of 60x 110. This should give some lenience in case there are TF10 lots that are 60 by 110 but were plotted at slight angle or some of a lot is taken for right of way acquisition. Thank you Jonathan Smith. Okay, thank you. Anyone else for public comment? Looking around, Michelle says no. Anyone else for public comment? We're going to close the public hearing. Move on to item four, which discussion and possible action. Uh a first off is the amending the zone sections listed above and I'll spare you reading that again unless somebody wants me to would entertain a motion to amend the zoning sections as listed. Brad, did you want to comment on

any of the if there was an issue with that public comment?

Oh, um yeah, thanks. We talked a little bit about this amongst staff and you know we're really looking at the lot depth with this amendment and maybe Bill can give some better reasoning why we're doing that but you know the area is a separate standard. It it's not really related to depth per se. We actually passed out a a chart there um that has the minimum depth and width and lot area. And you can see that the area is always a little bit bigger than the minimum times the minimum. Um just gives a little bit of flexibility. Say if a lot is at the minimum width, it should be a little bit bigger um in terms of depth. So and that's true across all 28 zoning districts. Um, again, it's not a this times that equals that. It's a separate standard. Um, if you look, they're all rounded off to a usually a thousand nearest thousand. Um, you know, there's not these odd numbers uh that are based on some calculus. It's um, you know, even numbers to make it transparent that you know, this is what it is. It's easier to administer on our end. it's easier for surveyors and developers to, you know, kind of think in terms of, well, how big should these lots be? If it's this, you know, if it's 100 feet wide, then it needs to be, you know, 70 ft deep or whatever. So, those kind of calculations are easier in the for the on the developer side as well.

So, the consensus is this doesn't negatively impact any existing lot owners, I would say. Okay. So, I mean, if it's already plotted, it's a a legal lot. It's it's not like there's especially since the the zoning code was adopted, all the the lots that were in existence were made fully legal. So, there we don't see a concern of this necessarily, you know, impacting existing lots. Okay. I would entertain a motion to accept the amended zoning sections as listed.

Second. Motion from Balk and second from Bugamman. Further discussion? Seeing none, those in favor of the amended as listed signify by saying I. Any opposed? And that passes. Item B under section four is approving a blade sign at 328 Washington Street for finishing touch. Uh what's a finishing touch signs? would entertain a motion to approve. Bugamman second Watson discussion comment self-explanatory. Those in favor of approving the blade sign 328 Washington Street signify by saying I.

Any opposed?

That passes. Uh we have a discussion item five rescheduling the February plan commission meeting to Wednesday February 18th due to the spring election on that prior Tuesday. Any objections to that or any other suggestions? Typically by ordinance it would be the following day but uh it seemed like moving well that is the following day. I'm sorry. So that's where it would be unless we would look to put it on the next Tuesday or a different date. Anyone have any issues with that? Wednesday, uh, we didn't list the time. Would be the same same time, five o'clock ideally if that works for everyone. Yeah. Let's uh keep we'll put it on the schedule. If somebody has an issue with it, Michelle has a month to uh help us massage that. I don't think we need to take a vote on that. No,

more of an announcement and we have one one member missing. So if if that if if uh if he if George would have an issue, he can let us know as well. All right. Uh would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Watson Bulan. Those in favor. See you later.