_09012026-1710

Page 1 of 3 Community Development Department 222 Lewis Street River Falls, WI 54022 715.425.0900 www.rfcity.org MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Rob Gormanson, Chris Holtkamp, Arriety Lowell, Diane Odeen, Steven Severson, Alison Page Members Absent: Michael Woolsey Staff Present: Emily Shively, Harley Mehlhorn, Becky Corson, Joe Reardon CALL TO ORDER Meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Odeen, S/Lowell to approve minutes. Motion carried 6/0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Alicia Cosgrove (514 River Hills Drive) – Spoke regarding the City’s driveway width regulations. She discussed the evolution of driveways in older neighborhoods, specifically River Hills, noting that many properties have expanded driveways or added gravel extensions over time to accommodate extra vehicl es. Cosgrove suggested that the City consider an overlay or other approach that could encourage the use of permeable surfaces when driveway expansions are needed. She stated that while the larger driveways may provide easier and safer access and reduce the number of vehicles parked on streets, the City should also consider preserving the appearance and character of neighborhoods. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Proposed ordinance amending Title 17 Zoning, Chapter 17.08.020 regarding driveway width. Harley Mehlhorn, Senior Planner presented the proposed amendments to the City’s driveway regulations. Mehlhorn explained that the proposed changes were originally part of a larger package of zoning updates considered in 2025 and early 2026. The driveway pr ovisions raised questions during the City Council’s February meeting, and the Council tabled the item and directed staff to further evaluate the regulations and return with a revised proposal. Mehlhorn explained that the revised proposal is intended to accommodate existing conditions and current development trends while balancing neighborhood aesthetics and stormwater considerations. Mehlhorn discussed how under the current ordinance, driveway widths are limited to 25 fee t at the right-of-way or property line in R -1 districts and 35 feet in R -2 and R -3 districts. Mehlhorn indicated that the current regulations established driveway allowances based on the zoning district rather than the actual land use of the property. Page 2 of 3 Mehlhorn explained that staff conducted a random sample of five neighborhoods within the City, all constructed within the past 40 years, with most developed more recently. The review found that more than half of the homes sampled were nonconforming under t he existing 25 food allowance, with an average driveway width of approximately 27 feet. Mehlhorn showed pictures with examples of driveway configurations that create abrupt tapers or notches and can contribute to landscape deterioration and material being carried into the right-of-way. Mehlhorn stated based on the data and recent development trends, staff recommends increasing the maximum driveway width to 30 feet. Mehlhorn stated the change would bring most currently nonconforming properties into conformance, allow for more gradual and aesthetically appropriate tapers, and better accommodate three -car garages. Mehlhorn also indicated that the proposed driveway width allowances be categorized according to lan d use rather than zoning district, so that the allowance reflects the actual use and associated impacts of a property. Mehlhorn summarized that next steps would be for City Council to hold a first reading of the ordinance on September 22, 2026, and recommended the Plan Commission forward the proposed amendments to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Conversation was had on how properties with driveways that remain nonconforming after the adoption of the proposed 30-foot standard would be treated. Mehlhorn indicated that the intent is to establish a reasonable cutoff that would address most of the nonconformities without creating a blanket exemption for all existing nonconforming driveways. Mehlhorn indicated that proactive enforcement of driveway widths is difficult because measurements generally require staff to visit the property and some driveway work may occur without permits. The intent of the amendment is primarily to provide reasonable flexibility for current development patterns, including three-car garages, rather than automatically legalize every existing nonconforming driveway. Conversation was had on whether increasing the allowance from 25 to 30 feet could result in property owners constructing increasingly larger driveways, such as 33 to 34 feet. Mehlhorn explained that driveway expansions require permits and that the permitting process provides an opportunity for the City to review proposed widths. Mehlhorn understands the concern but stated that based one experience with zoning administration, increasing the allowable widths does not necessarily result in excessive expansions . Mehlhorn indicated the City would remain attentive to this issue during implementation. Conversation was had on whether the proposed 30-foot maximum would require all properties to expand their driveways to 30 feet. Mehlhorn clarified that the amendment establishes a maximum allowance, not a required width, and property owners could retain narrower driveway extensions. Conversation was also had on whether a homeowner’s association could impose a more restrictive driveway width. Mehlhorn indicated that private covenants and HOA requirements may imposed additional restrictions beyond the City’s ordinance and may be enforced by the HOA. Conversation was had on clarification regarding the proposal to categorize driveway widths by land use rather than zoning district. Mehlhorn explained that land use refers to the actual physical use of the property, while zoning is a regulatory designation . The two generally correspond but can differ for nonconforming properties or properties located in zoning districts that allow a range of uses. Mehlhorn provided an example of a single-family home located in an R-3 district where the current zoning-based approach would allow for a wider driveway even though the property is being used as a single-family residence. Mehlhorn indicated that under the proposed approach, Page 3 of 3 a single-family residence would be subject to the single-family driveway allowance regardless of whether it is in an R-1 or R-3 district. Conversation was had on where driveway width is measured. Mehlhorn indicated that the measurement is taken at the property line, where the public street and right -of-way meets the private property. Conversation was also had on how the proposed regulations would apply to a single -family property with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Mehlhorn indicated that the ADU is considered an accessory use and would not change the property’s principal use for purposes of administration driveway regulations. A single-family property with an ADU would therefore remain subject to the single-family driveway allowance. Conversation was had around encouraging permeable driveway and hardscape surfaces. Mehlhorn indicated that stormwater considerations were a significant concern when the driveway ordinance was previously considered by City Council. Mehlhorn consulted with the City Engineer regarding the proposed amendment and reported that the increase in allowable driveway width would not create stormwater conditions beyond those already addressed by the City’s existing regulations. Mehlhorn stated that the driveway ordinan ce provides an additional allowance for hardscape, but stormwater regulations continue to apply independently. New impervious surface exceeding 1,000 square feet triggers stormwater mitigation requirements under the City’s existing ordinance. Mehlhorn also indicated that there were no current Citywide campaigns specifically encouraging permeable driveway surfaces or rain gardens, and that the choice of a surface currently remains with the property owners, subject to applicable stormwater requirements. Chris Holtkamp made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance amending Title 17 regarding driveway regulations and forward with Council for approval . M/Holtkamp, S/Gormanson – carried 6/0 REPORTS Planning Update Emily Shively, Assistant Director of Community Development provided a brief planning update and directed the Commissioners attention to the Community Development Department update included in the meeting packet. Shiv ely offered to answer any questions regarding the report. Conversation was had about the Focus River Falls updates and expressed interest in the upcoming process to review and update the City’s planning documents, noting that conditions have changed and that the timing is appropriate for the review. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Odeen made a motion to adjourn at 6:46 p.m. S/Holtkamp; motion carried 6/0. Respectfully submitted, Becky Corson, Community Development Coordinator