Okay, well, we have a quorum so we can get started.
You have to what?
I get beat box or something.
I get beat box if you'd like.
Good, we're good.
Good evening, everyone and welcome to the Port Washington Planning Commission meeting for July 16, 2026.
Roll call, we have one member is Nate coming.
Nate is excused and Mr. Strum is on his way.
So as roll call, is there anyone willing to make a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes?
There's a motion and a second.
Any questions or concerns on the minutes?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
All right, motion carries.
That brings us into public comments and appearances.
Is there anyone willing to make or wanting to make public comments this evening?
Public comments?
Public comments?
All right, we're going to move into item number four, then extra territorial plat review.
The consideration possible action on a proposed certified survey map to redivide two lots in the town of Port Washington, 4322 County Road, L.L. John closing and L and closing of the applicants.
Planning Commission is being asked to approve the subject CSM located in the town of Port Washington as per its extra territorial plat review authority.
The staff is recommending approval of the certified map.
Mr. Harris.
So that is kind of the summary of that agenda item kind of just kind of takes up what I have here.
This is the city's using its extra territorial plat review for a proposed CSM here on the screen.
And in your packet, you do see the existing lots along County Highway LL just to the east of 43.
These are the two existing lots.
And then we just have the reconfiguration and the creation of the new lot for the closings.
This has been all approved by the town of Port Washington.
And just the city's signature is remaining for its extra territorial review.
And staff recommends approval.
And if anyone has any questions, Mr. Pinkwitz is here to field them.
Any questions?
There's a motion to approve.
Is there a second?
Second.
Second.
All in the numerator.
Any questions on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Motion carries.
You guys have a good night.
Thank you.
All right.
That brings us to the second agenda item, which is the consideration and possible action on proposed 1800 square foot industrial building edition located at 1151 Mineral Springs Drive.
Oliver construction company is the applicant.
The plan commission is being asked to approve an application for a building site and operation plan for the proposed.
For the purpose of constructing an 18,000 square foot addition to the KMC stamping facility located at 1151 Mineral Springs Spring Drive in Port Washington's industrial park.
Staff recommendation is approval of the building site and operation plan subject to the following conditions.
A civil plans approval by the city engineer.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
So some of you probably know, some may not know, KMC stamping has two facilities in the important industrial park.
The one facility on South Park Street and then the facility that's part of our discussion tonight is on mineral Springs Drive.
And we see the facility highlighted on the screen.
KMC is experiencing some some good business and they are requesting to add that 18,000 square foot addition to the south side of their facility.
It meets all zoning. They are adding the landscaping.
And this has been two design review board Tuesday night.
The recommendation from the design review board was to approve as requested.
And staff recommendation is to approve the building site and operation plan subject to the condition that the mayor noted.
Final civil plans by the city engineer. I want to amend that and actually include a revised updated site plan.
As we learned of additional site improvements on the parking lot and designer view board.
But overall staff recommends approval with that condition.
We have representatives from KMC that are here. If you have any further questions.
I don't I'm just really excited that KMC is expanding in Port Washington.
So we are very grateful that you're staying and continuing to be a great local business and provider of good jobs in Port Washington.
Anybody else have anything?
No, I would just like thanks for investing in Port Washington.
And I hope I hope you're successful for a long, long time.
Is that a motion?
Yeah, I'll move to approve.
So the motion to approve would be a staff recommended that the building site and operations plan subject to the following conditions.
The civil plans approved by the city engineer and revise an updated site plan.
Correct.
So that is the motion. Is there a second?
Second.
Second.
Any questions or concerns on the motion?
All right, seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
It brings us to the third agenda item number six.
Consideration and possible action on a concept plan for a 20-unit townhome development located at 104 West Washington Street and 365 North Wisconsin Street.
Next sudden door is the applicant.
Plan commission is being asked to review and approve a conceptual plan for the redevelopment of the current city police and fireblock into a 20-unit single family townhome development and the staff recommendation is to approve the concept plan.
Mr. Harris.
All right, so as many of you know, this block was highlighted as a key redevelopment site in the city's downtown and lakefront plan.
So we see that in the slide in the image below.
And so an RFP was put out.
We received three responses to that RFP.
All three reflected the city downtown plan vision of wrapping that block around with townhomes once we have completion of the public safety building and they have vacated the premises.
We have been directed.
Council has directed us to work with a fine line development to come to an agreement on the property that Council approved and offer to purchase.
And now we are going through developer agreement finalization along with starting to tee up the entitlement process for his proposal.
So we're starting with that tonight with the concept plan and I know you've seen this, but I think we'll just walk through it one more time. So it's a 20-unit townhome development.
There's, I think there's one, two, three, four buildings, mostly, you know, side by two unit side by sides with a four unit in the rear of the lot or the west part of the lot.
And a lot of this was taken to a point taken to account kind of the funky curving topography of the site.
This is a view of the concept designs looking to the northwest with Wisconsin Street labeled in Washington Street's finish.
So we see kind of the idea for the architecture and design of the townhomes and the earth tones that they're going to be going with, at least in this rendering.
Again, looking at some of the, the main design theme on each, there is different tweaks to that, kind of the variation of that theme.
And moving along and here we see a Washington Street, those are more of the walkups and with kind of the pitched roofs.
And then we kind of see the, you know, looking at Jackson Street and then again, just kind of a tweaking of those designs.
And that is the concept plan. I think that was, it was well received as part of the one that we received the RFPs and we are looking at a concept plan approval.
Mr. Sutton Dorf is here. If you want to have any questions or comments for him, but starting tonight, we plan to roll out, you know, all the entitlements going forward and hopefully by the end of September, we've buttoned a lot of this up.
But at the matter of hand, we have this concept plan for approval.
Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any questions?
Mr. Ehrlich.
So, first of all, I really, I love this concept. I think this is going to fit right in very well.
I do have a question about the, why did you go with flat roofs for a portion of it?
You know, I would have, I would have thought that something that would have fit a little bit for residential would have been more of the pitched rough a little steeper, pitched rough and do more of the lofty.
Is it, you just lose the square footage or?
It really had to do with the neighbors to the West and the views over top the development.
So the Washington Street and Jackson Street buildings, they have dimensional shingles and pitched roofs, but as you can see, they're shallow.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And that was to keep the overhaul height down across the being kind to the neighbors.
Okay.
Okay.
The Wisconsin Street buildings are closer to.
The downtown, which is on the east side, more commercial.
So even across our site, we were sort of trying to transition from.
That feel of the downtown area to the more residential to the West, which.
Okay.
Okay. Yeah. I mean, I love the way you've addressed the street and.
And how you've kind of worked that pushed that closer to the Wisconsin Street, pushed the buildings closer to Wisconsin.
And then in the back is you have a little bit more of the parking and you have.
And I like the idea that you have a little bit of a yard back there too.
And it's not all just asphalt.
I mean, I think you could do some really cool.
Communal things within there, you know, such as a pergola or fire pits or things like that.
We're, we're kicking around all those ideas right now.
It's kind of shown with the two walks in that center.
Space.
Yeah.
Yeah, we are going to incorporate something.
Sure.
Sure.
No, I think it's.
Final.
It's really well done.
Yeah.
I agree with what Mike said.
It's really nice.
I like the way that you're differentiating the appearance of the buildings.
It's nice that it's not all completely uniform.
It's really good.
I think the only thing that stuck out to me is.
If the rooftop.
Step back on the West Hill design.
I imagine that's just so that those people have a view.
Yeah.
And you'll notice we only did the rooftop on the center two units.
And that was to kind of maintain the view.
From the people that are on Milwaukee street at the top of the hill.
Looking over that had we done the rough tops on the two end units that really blocks.
The people who are there now.
Their view to downtown.
Yeah, that would be my only feedback is just.
I'm a.
I'm a height person and.
That would be the only thing that.
Maybe reconsider that.
But overall, I think it's a really, really nice project.
It's.
Great with the.
Green space in the middle.
Looks super nice.
Thank you.
Yeah, just for context for the other commissioners.
Nick did a nice job with his team.
I mean, they went and met with almost the entire area.
Made sure to demonstrate what they're doing.
They did his diligence.
Showed them.
I mean, we had even seen.
Kind of digitally created views from all of the different elevations to ensure that.
You know, we didn't nothing there would disrupt it.
That was really important to the council as well to ensure that.
You know, we didn't put.
Another mistake on the lake.
You know, 14 story building right there and then just destroy the opportunity for other people to see those pieces.
So you had to bring that up.
What's that?
Well, I've.
I will.
That old house.
Anyways, that's just a bad thing for that.
Yeah.
I just want to thank Nick too, because I've heard a lot of pushback on previous ideas in that area there.
And I have not heard one word from any of the residents.
So thanks for giving that a lot of thought to appreciate that.
I support the project.
Thank you.
Any other wonderings?
Was that a motion then?
That would be a motion to staff recommendation.
All right.
And again, the staff recommendation is to approve the concept plan.
So any questions or concerns, otherwise looking for a second?
Second.
There's a second.
Any questions or concerns on the motion?
All right.
Seeing none.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Motion carries.
Good luck, Mr. Sundorf.
Happy fish day.
I have a group of people in town and people were walking around wishing everybody a happy fish day.
Totally.
If you don't live here, not relevant at all.
Do we just have 4th of July?
Listen, if you don't live here, then don't worry about it.
Happy fish day.
Okay.
Next one is special exemption consideration, possible action on a request for a residential shed to exceed the maximum square foot requirements located at 1027 West Third Avenue.
Taylor Curtis is the applicant.
The commission is being asked to approve a special exemption to allow for a backyard shed that exceeds the maximum square footage requirements and the staff recommends approval.
Mr. Harris.
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
So this is one of the we haven't had a shed special exception and not many of them.
In fact, I went back and looked.
This is probably this is we've had two in the last 10 years as far as shed size or special exceptions of this of this kind.
So just a little context there.
So here's a request for a special exception.
This is on West Third Avenue.
It is this triangular lot kind of tucked away off of Third Avenue and the alley.
And you see the location of the existing and you see the exist the location of where the new one will be.
So it'll be similar.
Same location.
Not too much different.
It'll just be a taller shed.
We're going from whereas 150 feet is the standard and the request is 288 feet.
And some of that rationale is just due to the notation in the zoning code where you can only have two accessory structures on your in the property.
This will be the only one.
And so they're they this is kind of remaining within the realm of reasonableness per the zoning code in the criteria for the special exception.
So I didn't have too much to say on this.
I think it is a reasonable request given the zoning code language along with the criteria that the commission can consider for granting such a special exception.
And therefore my recommendation is to approve.
And if you do have questions, Mr. Curtis is here for any questions.
Any objections from your neighbors?
So I'm sorry, you have to step up to the microphone.
I haven't had any anything from the neighbors.
I will say I have not spoken with the two that where the shed would be located.
I guess really the only one would be the lot that backs up right to where the shed would be placed.
I have not spoken with them.
However, they do have a 10 foot fence already separating between the yards and then additional on our side.
There's about 18 foot arbor vites that make a natural fence line as well.
Thank you.
Looks like there's a little shed community there anyways.
Yeah, really hard to see from this illustration.
But like I said, from where their shed is to where our, you know, we would like to put that the shed.
And even where our existing shed is half of it would be blocked by their shed.
But really the bulk of it's where those are varieties.
So from a neighboring standpoint, I doubt they would even be able to see once it's done.
Any other wonders, Mr. Ryer?
I can understand the logic behind having one big one instead of two small ones.
But for me, this is just like a ball and strike type thing.
So no offense.
Is there someone willing to make a motion to approve?
I will make that motion.
All right. Is there a second?
Second.
Seconded. All right. Any questions or concerns on the motion?
All right. I'll never signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
All right. The motion carries.
Okay. That brings us to the last agenda item or the second.
Yeah, the last agenda item, the zoning rewrite staff update and discussion item only on a draft appendix A.
Mr. Harris is going to give us a review of the draft use tables with the commission and follow up on previous discussion items.
I will. Thank you. So let me just give you an update real quick.
So I've received all of the draft articles for the zoning code as of just a couple of weeks ago.
And it is my intent to see if you'll see the project website probably get changed tomorrow and go from just how it's rolled out by the dates into just wrapping all of the draft articles just into here is the draft zoning code.
Working with the consultants and myself as we as I got the final materials and I'm reviewing and giving them feedback is to really bring this to a close in front of the commission in September.
I think there's a number of things that they have to do on their end, including their own legal team to review and just getting myself because I'm still getting feedback and kind of.
You know, kind of soliciting some parts of the code that I think may want to get a heads up on it for certain folks. And so if I can get that done, I think I'm really ready to get this out in September.
There's a lot to it. I'll show that in a second.
But I think in the end, you know, I could we could just be going around in every little tiny thing, but I think it's time to.
I think it's pretty much time that we have all the drafts pretty much all lined up now.
And I don't need before I get this out the door before the stress eats me up.
So let me just give you a little bit of where I am and some of the feedback I've continued to get in how I'm addressing it.
So on the larger scale of things.
You know, you've seen this. This is the land use table that's been out there for a few months now.
We've been slowly tweaking it just to.
It started off a little more expansive on the allowance of multifamily into a lot of the districts, particularly the R five districts. So.
Let me just say that the R one are two and the R five that 10 that makes up all pretty much all of the cities.
One and two family districts that brown are five is, you know, the older neighborhoods.
The single family neighborhoods and two family neighborhoods around downtown and the older parts of towns.
The R ones are kind of those larger lots up by the up by the bluff on the north side and spinnaker west.
And then R two is the is the most common single family neighborhood is kind of those relatively older subdivisions.
And then I mean 70s and 80s and continuing on and all the newer subdivisions that we just had.
And so we've been trying to roll back some of that more expansive multifamily because we're not here to make draconian changes to these districts.
We're not here to, you know, try to get too expansive with multifamily.
We want to maintain pretty much these single and two family neighborhoods as they are use wise.
So we've been rolling them back, including the kind of the older R five district, which is now the CCM.
And just allowing, you know, to continue the single to two family units and introducing some smaller scale townhomes and come up with some of those two residential districts that's been the update and the feedback.
I received and just my own, you know, guiding my own self.
So I think we're firming up these, these large, some of these larger use questions.
Two remaining items that we just recently discussed, particularly with, you know, plan commissioner commissioner,
Ryer's questions is we're looking at, you know, some of these care facility uses these CBR of larger 15 units, hospices, nursing homes.
Right now, a lot of them are, you know, we see them in a long more of the commercial areas or just kind of separated off, you know, from like a subdivision.
So I have, you know, my, I want to look into say if, you know, can we kind of get back to that and, you know, can we, these uses, can we have them more concentrated in more the multifamily and commercial, rather the single single and two family district.
So that's the issue remaining issued address.
And the last one is really, I just, this is, I'm just want to bring this to your attention.
I wanted to point out with retail sales, it originally had 15,000 square feet or less of retail sales, or it had an unlimited size amount.
So what I asked for is to have retail sales uses up to 50,000 square feet.
And the intent of that was really to keep kind of what I see as the commercial districts in port as still relatively smaller scale, relatively speaking.
I think, you know, the big box uses that we see, I think those have a home over in Grafton.
And so I kind of think it should, it kind of keeps, you know, the smaller port commercial intact.
So I'm, I'm, you know, we have that now and I'm just bringing that to your attention.
I'm also same similarly with warehousing uses.
Again, I'm, you know, and I have general here, the suggestion is they have general warehouse, no more than 50,000 square feet.
The largest warehouse is under construction at the data center district.
That's 50,000 square feet. And again, similarly, I think the idea was that, you know, poor Washington is not, you know, it's not the type of community is going to have the large.
100, 200 half a million million square foot distribution center. So I think this kind of keeps it intact of where we are now.
And that's what I wanted to bring to your attention. Again, this is a discussion item and just giving you a heads up and initial feedback.
And again, you know, getting, I'm getting the, you know, follow up and inquiries, you know, offline.
So that is kind of the larger one, just a smaller scale one, just to give an example of just the breadth of, you know, what we're all dealing with.
And I'm a little sheepish to bring it up to begin with, but I just want to point out, you know, the idea, the suggestion was, you know, is we've seen these special uses.
And again, we're not getting a decision tonight. I just want to bring it to your attention.
You know, are these side driveway pads? These are in some zoning codes.
Should we go in that direction or keep it as, you know, kind of the just in front of the garage doors or, you know, special exception, or just keep them as or just have the idea, have them available as a matter of right.
And I just want to bring this up. It's a small.
But wait, before you move on to the galvanized. Yes. Yeah, just, yeah.
Is there a way in the zoning code to write it so it's discriminatory in the, in like the age of the home?
So if it's a home built before 1990, you can have the side garage piece homes built after 19 or homes built after 2020.
The only reason I ask is, you know, I think up to like the first home we lived in when we were kids up on Barry Avenue.
Single car garage offset off the house.
I mean, today you wanted to try to put a suburban in that thing.
You're going to rip the mirrors in the roof rack off. So like, what do we do to accommodate older homes, et cetera? And can you can you have that?
You couldn't separate out. We haven't our current zoning code. It says something built or developed after adoption of a certain date.
Okay. And I'm just, I don't know what that date would be.
Yeah, exactly.
That would look like, I just, I don't even know if the other commissioners would like that.
I just, I think if you build, if you, if you built a home or you bought a home that was built kind of in the last 15, 20 years,
usually garages are appropriate in size with, et cetera.
Okay.
Yeah.
It's, it's what I wanted to put on these little things. And yet it's the, they're the, they're the most common.
Trump to goes back to Mr. Ryan bringing up a fort like we want to call balls and strikes.
That's part of driving it. And one, here's one thing. I originally, I think on fencing materials, I think,
I think chain link was like not a, was a prohibit, it was prohibited material, but it's a pretty common material.
It's a pretty common fencing in particular in commercial and industrial areas. So I think it's, it'd be a bit much to say.
And again, I'm just, just throwing this out there for feedback or your attention.
You know, I think it would be a bit much to make that a such a common type of material prohibited.
What I, you know, what is a suggestion is sometimes these galvanized chain link fences and commercial or industrial areas get a little,
shall we say, challenging in appearance.
And one suggestion is to, and these are becoming more and more common is just go with the, the black coded chain link.
And perhaps that's a, the type of chain, if you're going to use commercial chain link, industrial change link.
That's your option to get away from more of that, that industrial almost penal look.
That's all. It's just a suggestion. It's a small thing, but it's a very common thing that would affect a lot.
So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
I'm, I'm actually really good with that.
I mean, in 2026, if you're throwing up a galvanized chain link fence around your yard.
Unless you're looking for that retro, you know, 50s aluminum backdoor look.
Yeah, that's why I wanted to bring this little thing up because I think it's.
Those are good catches a little catch. Yeah.
Well, that, that would indeed be confirmed. Yeah.
Because sometimes people can't afford to go to the need to go together.
Correct.
But I think for at least in a minimum, if it's industrial or institutional or commercial user.
Yeah, yeah.
No.
Yeah, so that's the breath for dealing with.
I guess I would agree on.
I would not want not want to see a galvanized chain link fence in residential.
I guess I'm going to, you know, start again in the balls and strikes things.
You know, somebody has a dog run or something.
I guess same thing. I guess we make them put up wood.
But it's just kind of going back to driveway pads that that's when we're doing road reconstructions.
That's our most common question that we get.
Hey, can you make my driveway wider? Can we get a bigger entrance?
So it is a definite need in the older neighborhoods.
Yeah.
We have so many houses built with a one car mindset, right? So.
I would comment on the wider.
When they redid Milwaukee Street, I requested not the widest driveway possible because at the time I had.
Five cars.
Three kids looking at home and trying to get my boat out of the garage and getting around people and the older neighborhoods.
I do understand that.
I wouldn't want to restrict that too much.
So that's my thought.
Okay. Yeah.
Do these two little things? I thought, you know what, I'll take them to plan commission and get some feedback.
Awesome.
Yeah.
Any other wonders or worries, friends?
Is it for me?
All right. Well, Mr. Reyer, take us home.
Move to adjourn.
Is there a second?
I was like, what was the pause for?
All right.
Any questions or concerns on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
All right. This meeting's adjourned.
Go pirates.