08-04-2026 Plan Commission Agenda & Packet

AGENDA PLAN COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 4, 2026 The public may view/listen to the meeting by: • Viewing the City's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofriverfalls CALL TO ORDER – 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the July 7, 2026 Plan Commission meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS (None) REPORTS 2. Comprehensive Plan Implementation Update* 3. Planning Update ADJOURNMENT *There are no advance materials for this item Council members may be in attendance for informational purposes only. No official Council action will be taken. NOTE: Any person who has a qualifying disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires the meeting or materials to be in an accessible location or format, may contact City Clerk Amy White at (715) 426-3408 or in person at 222 Lewis Stre et, for accommodations. Requests for accommodation should be made at least three (3) business days in advance of the meeting. Every effort will be made to arrange accommodation. Published: 07/29/26 in the Pierce County Journal; Posted: 07/30/26 Page 1 of 6 Community Development Department 222 Lewis Street River Falls, WI 54022 715.425.0900 www.rfcity.org MINUTES PLAN COMMISSION JULY 7, 2026 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Chris Holtkamp, Rob Gormanson, Diane Odeen, Rebecca Prendergast, Steven Severson, Michael Woolsey Members Absent: Alison Page Staff Present: Emily Shively, Becky Corson, Harley Mehlhorn , Joe Reardon, Anna Shakal CALL TO ORDER Meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Gormanson, S/Woolsey to approve minutes. Motion carried 6/0. PUBLIC COMMENTS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Special Sign Permit for Sycamore Two Senior Living/Memory Care at 816 Sycamore Street (Frisbie Companies, LLC, and RF2 QOZB, LLC). Anna Shakal, Planning Intern with the City of River Falls gave a presentation on a Special Sign Permit request for the Sycamore Two Senior Living/Memory Care facility. Shakal provided a brief recap of the project which is currently under construction and will be a 24-unit senior living facility with 8-units of townhomes. Shakal presented that the proposed monument sign consists of a 5’ 4 1/2” by 9’ sign display area, with a total square footage of 26.7’. Shakal indicated that the sign would be supported by a brick base and stone capping that matches the architecture of the development and that the sign would be lit by 2” overhead lighting that would be powered within the cabinet. Shakal summarized the design aspect of the sign meets ordinance requirements. Shakal indicated the deviance in the ordinance is in the location of the sign. The applicant is requesting that the sign be placed 2 feet from the property line rather than the 10 -foot setback required by City ordinance. Shakal highlighted that the proposed sign would be located on the intersection of Esprit Way and Sycamore Street. Shakal highlighted an area map as well as covered the requested improvements of a painted stop bar and stop sign to ensure reduced setback does not create unsafe conditions in this location. Page 2 of 6 Shakal covered the criteria that must be met to approve a special sign permit and indicated it meets the requirements based on aesthetic quality, that the sign won’t cause inconvenience to traffic or pedestrians, and consideration to neighboring property owners with the placement and illumination of the sign. Shakal indicated they have met all these required criteria in addition to applying and paying the fee for the permit. Shakal summarized that based on this staff recommend forwarding approval with a favorable recommendation to City Council. Michael Woolsey made a motion to forward the proposed special sign permit for Sycamore Two to City Council for approval. M/Woolsey, S/Holtkamp – carried 6/0 Conversation was had about the location of the sign and location of a sidewalk. Shakal indicated that the sidewalk is on the street side of the sign. Resolution regarding a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) for The Creamery at Cedar, a planned brewery, tap room, and event center at W. Cedar Street and River Street (Bearcat Investments, LLC). Harley Mehlhorn, Senior Planner with the City of River Falls , gave a presentation on a Planned Unit Development Specific Implementation Plan for The Creamery at Cedar. Mehlhorn indicated that the SIP is the second and final piece of a PUD and must be substantially conformant with the Council approved General Development Plan which was approved by Council on April 28 th of this year. Mehlhorn covered where the site is located and that the site is approximately 0.43 acres in size. Mehlhorn discussed that the site is located within a few layers of plans that impact the feasibility and vision for the development of the area. Mehlhorn presented the downtown overlay district map and discussed that this was considered when the commission and council evaluated the merits of an unorthodox parking plan, as was approved in the GDP. The site is located within the downtown transitional district. Mehlhorn covered that the subject site is zoned B-1 General Commercial District, which has been historically limited to the Downtown Core, with all parcels within the CBD being B-1 and a portion of the parcels within the Transaction District as well, such as the case with this site. As evaluated the proposed uses are compliant with the zoning. Mehlhorn explained that the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Designation for this site is “Mixed-Use” and this land use is identified as critical to the future planning of River Falls. This designation encourages vertical mixed -use development downtown, meaning a mix of commercial types and residential types, often in the same or adjacent buildings. The L and Use Technical Memorandum specifically identifies sites downtown along the river as candidates for Infill development with reduced setbacks and parking to accommodate efficient, human scale, and downtown compatible development types. The Kinni Corridor Plan also identifies this site as an area for potential economic revitalization and infill development. The KCP also outlines goals as it relates to the preservation of the Kinni, reducing thermal load from large parking lots proximate t o the River, and to generally reduce impervious surfaces downtown, which are all critical pieces in the analysis of a parking and site buildout strategy Mehlhorn explained. Mehlhorn highlighted that the proposal is for a 17,000 sq ft building with a footprint of 5,800 sq ft with three levels. Level 1 will be a taproom and small restaurant, level 2 is proposed as event Page 3 of 6 space for weddings and other gatherings, and level 3 will contain four short term rentals. Mehlhorn indicated the proposed architecture and layout is consistent with the council approved GDP. Mehlhorn indicated that staff find the proposed site plan to be in conformance with the GDP site plan with a few minor site changes proposed mainly the reconfiguration of the previously shown deck into an at-grade patio with more seating. Mehlhorn explained that there are various guiding documents affecting the site which were taken into consideration as the GDP was approved. As such, the remaining item to discuss is the formalization of the parking plan which the GDP does allow for the ado ption of a non -standard parking plan in the SIP, which was contemplated to be created by combining off -site private parking agreements, limited on -site parking, proximate public parking, and limited on -street parking. Mehlhorn summarized the code required parking spaces needed to be 177. The proposed parking plan identifies 214 stalls, with a mixture of private spaces with private parking agreements with the Moose Lodge (50), Jensens (16), 8 on -site stalls, and public s paces such as Heritage Parking Lot and Main and Division Parking Lot. Mehlhorn indicated the forecasted demand in the provided study also shows the supply to be oversized as compared to the anticipated demand, namely that an average weekday demand ranges between 30-45 spaces and a weekend event typically produces demand for 113 spaces, while peak demand is the estimated 177 spaces. Mehlhorn covered the reasons that staff supports the parking plan. First the total load of the site during peak hours events on any given day is projected to be far less than the spaces provided. Second the parking plan meets the goals of the conceptual approval within the GDP, mainly that the parking agreements have been entered into record with the county and the City has been provided a copy of each. Along with the applicant agreeing to reasonable condition on limiting occupancy in the case that a privat e parking agreement is terminated. And third the proposed plan is in alignment with the same policy, framework that underpinned the approval of the GDP those being the Comprehensive Plan, the downtown overlay, and the Kinni Corridor Plan. Mehlhorn summarized by indicating that staff is aware there will likely be an increase in on-street parking adjacent to the proposal along Clark, Cedar, Pine, and Lewis. Though mitigatory measures are being taken, economic activation downtown often does result in an increase in on- street parking and from a planning perspective, if done correctly it is a sign of a desirable and healthy downtown. Mehlhorn summarized by indicating that staff have found conformance with the GDP, the Comprehensive Plan, and other guiding documents, and as such staff recommend forwarding the approved resolution to City Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the proposed conditions. Commissioner Odeen made a motion to forward the proposed resolution regarding a Planned Unit Development Specific Implementation Plan for The Creamery at Cedar . M/Odeen, S/Woolsey – carried 6/0 Conversation was had on counting the spaces with the Moose Lodge and Jensens as well as what will be available at Jensens with cars waiting to be serviced. Mehlhorn indicated that those are entered into a formal agreement for these spaces to be used for events at The Creamery. He also indicated that currently The Creamery is not taking any of the allotted 30% for on -street parking and that can be utilized if they exit the agreement with Jensens. Page 4 of 6 Conversation was had on the downtown overlay district allowing for development without parking included. Mehlhorn indicated that B-1 zoning allows for general commercial to have no parking provided but that is not a general blanket applied to all and something staff will keep in mind as future downtown projects are underway. As well as questions were asked about painting lines on the street to identify for parking spaces. Melhorn indicated if needed we can look into that in the future. Conversation was had about permit parking if residents are having an issue with no available parking and if Council could act on that and Melhorn indicated that is correct. Potential ordinance amendment to Title 17 – Zoning: Chapter 17.08.070 – Fences; regarding setbacks and performance standards (height, materials, landscaping) for fences abutting a street. Harley Mehlhorn, Senior Planner with the City of River Falls gave a presentation on fence and boulevard maintenance ordinance updates . Mehlhorn covered that the fence ordinance has a long history of amendments going back about 40 years with the most recent of such being the 2018 fence ordinance amendment, which introduced the current 3’ setback standard for fences along street sides as well as the landscaping requirement. Mehlhorn indicated the amendments are due to a unique situation of fence encroachments into the right of way along Division Street between Main Street and Dry -Run Road on the south side of Division. These encroachmen ts must be relocated out of the right of way but in working with property owners, many independently noted the increased bur den of having to setback the fence an additional 3 feet beyond the property line due to existing structures on their private property. Mehlhorn indicated this feedback prompted conversations with staff internally to look at the ordinance and upon that it was noted that the ordinance has some implementation difficulties and is, to some degree, a subjective policy decision. Mehlhorn did indicate that changes to ordinance would be applied universally in the City, not just exclusive to the encroached properties. Mehlhorn stated for boulevard maintenance it was long assumed that property owners or occupants would maintain the strip of land between their properties and the curb, whether a sidewalk is there or not. There has been no recorded issue exclusive to boulevard maintenance, but there is nothing in code making this an explicit requirement, as such staff is bringing forward the ordinance as well this evening. Mehlhorn highlighted the existing standard for fences 3’ tall must be setback 3’ along any property line abutting right of way. Side and rear yard fences may rise to a height of 6’ provided they are setback 3’ and planted with landscaping on the street side which must be maintained. Mehlhorn indicated various considerations were discussed before bringing this forward to Plan Commission. First , the current ordinance has proved a bit difficult to implement, mainly the landscaping requirement has been difficult to administer. Some plantings are absent or unmaintained, some blend into the boulevard making separation of public and private opaque and there are few actual examples of the conditions the ordinance is intending to capture as corner lots are inherently less common than mid-block lots. Mehlhorn indicated in discussing this with our City Engineer, he felt that there is unlikely to be any benefit or detriment to the current 3’ setback. Mehlhorn highlighted a few graphics on screen to show examples used to illustrate the need for the amendment. Two images of fences along Division were shown with no landscaping between the fence and curb. In contrast another image was shared showing the ideal ordinance compliant case, a fence adequately setback and planted to create an aesthetic streetscape and to prevent conflict with sidewalk or utility work. Page 5 of 6 Mehlhorn indicated that staff discussed internally multiple ideas as potential amendments such as materiality, incremental reduction in setbacks rather than removal, landscaping standard changes, and more. As for materiality, it was determined that while this is also a legitimate policy consideration, it does not have bearing on the setback question inherently and introduces another variable into the discussion. As for incremental reduction in setbacks, such as keeping a setback but reducing it to 1 – 2 feet, this was determined t o be converse to the goals of the ordinance. Mehlhorn indicated that a 3’ setback allows for maintenance, access, and some visual impact, whereas a smaller setback would still be an additional requirement with little public benefit as realistically it would be difficult to plant and maintain. Mehlhorn indicated that there are two options for consideration for the commission. Option one would be to recommend taking no action and to leave the ordinance as is. This would have the result of requiring the Division Street properties to fully comply w ith the existing ordinance and preserve the status quo across the City. Option two would be the removal of both the 3’ setback and landscaping requirement, this would have the effect of a more permissive ordinance and more usable private space for resident s while having the tradeoff of potentially reducing the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. The City Engineer stated that if the fence footings are outside of the right of way, there is no engineering concerns or impact to infrastructure. Mehlhorn summarized by saying either option would be legitimate to policy decisions and neither to be detrimental to the public good or contrary to the Comprehensive Plan. Mehlhorn next discussed boulevard maintenance and that the proposal is that property owners or occupants must maintain the boulevard, which is the land between the property lines and the curb, to the same standard as private lawns. Mehlhorn indicated this has been a long-standing expectation without a formal ordinance. In cases of negligence, the same code enforcement process as sidewalk snow clearing requirement would be followed, giving a notice followed by a remedy period then potentially the City contracting th e work and holding the owner responsible for fees incurred. Mehlhorn reviewed two maps with areas showing different boulevard conditions that would be held to the same standard, and he indicated residents would only maintain the boulevard adjacent to their property. In summary, Mehlhorn indicated staff recommends forwarding a recommendation regarding the fence ordinance and boulevard maintenance to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Conversation was had about boulevard trees and who would be maintaining those. Conversation was also had on a difference between commercial and residential properties in the City. Conversation was also had on if the fence would be within the right of way e ven if there is no sidewalk in that area. Mehlhorn indicated they can not put a fence in the right of way ever. Commissioner Holtkamp made a motion to forward the proposed ordinance amendment to Title 17 – Zoning: Chapter 17.08.070 to option of no setbacks to City Council M/Holtkamp, S/Woolsey – carried 6/0 Charles Beranek (421 N Dallas St) – Spoke on the fence was already in the property when he purchased his home. He spoke on pulling the fence in another 3’ into his yard which only leaves a little bit of side yard space. Conversation was had about how changing the ordinances to allow for smaller lots and smaller setbacks provides a more compact use of space which is consistent with that if we move forward with the no setbacks option. Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Odeen made a motion to forward the proposed boulevard maintenance ordinance M/Odeen, S/Holtkamp – carried 6/0 Planning Update Emily Shively gave a planning update that another link for a webinar was sent out from WEDC on development. Shively also indicated she can send out the link to watch the recorded webinar afterwards if you are unable to attend. Shively also indicated we were not awarded the BUILD grant that we applied for earlier this year. There was only one project funded in Wisconsin and it was a transit project in Milwaukee. Shively indicated we believe we had a strong application, and we will evaluate applying for this grant again in the future. Shively did indicate we applied for the Safe Streets for All grant, and we will hear more from that one later this year. Conversation was had on how this impacts the process with improvement projects. Shively indicated that this would have funded the majority of the street improvements with utility funding the other portion. Shively indicated we will evaluate applying for this grant again in the future if it is funded again. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Woolsey made a motion to adjourn at 7:07 p.m. S/Holtkamp; motion carried 6/0. Respectfully submitted, Becky Corson, Community Development Coordinator Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 1 of 3 Introduction This report is provided monthly to update the Plan Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and other interested parties on Community Development efforts of the past month as it relates to the City’s Strategic Initiatives and the Department work plan. 2026 Community Development Major Projects *Denotes a Council Strategic Initiative CONNECTED COMMUNITY Kinnickinnic River Corridor Plan Phase I * o Senator Baldwin included the Kinni Corridor Project design funding in her list for 2027 congressionally directed spending initiatives. We’ll know more later this year if it advances. Safe Streets Action Plan* o The Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan was adopted by Council on May 12th. Glen Park Phase II* o Staff is working to determine next steps for implementing Phase 2 of the Glen Park Master Plan. Locust Street design o Preliminary roadway design is complete. Engineering design is expected to be completed in Fall 2026. The project will provide a looped watermain connection to the Oak Hill subdivision and provide a roadway and multi -use trail connection from Apollo Road to West Locust Street (adjacent to the School District Bus Garage). The project is anticipated to go before council upon design completion to request authorization to proceed with the project. Mapping o Map of available sites for development o Map of current development in River Falls ECONOMIC VITALITY Downtown Project* o Our 2026 BUILD grant application to the Federal Highway Administration was not selected for a grant award. The Safe Streets for All Implementation Grant application has been submitted for a downtown reconstruction project and we expect to be notified in Fall 2026 if that grant application is successful. Continued Infill in Corporate Parks/Innovation Center Expansion* o Work with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) continues on the grant to expand the Innovation Center. o In January 2026, Sterling Ponds II, LLC purchased a 4.8-acre lot in the Sterling Ponds Corporate Park. o In February 2026, the City Council approved the sale of an approximately 5.8 -acre lot in the Sterling Ponds Corporate Park and a Development Agreement with Stellerie Bop, LLC. On April 17th Stellerie Bop LLC purchased the property. o On April 28th the City Council approved the sale of a portion of Lot B in the Whitetail Ridge Corporate Park. Ensure sustained (re)development of the City from the prospect stage through construction o Brookgreen – Occupancy granted for Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and Clubhouse. Buildings 7-10 are under construction. o Oak Hill – 3 permits issued, 1 COs issued. o The Preserve – 0 permits issued, 0 COs issued o Thompson Heights – 0 permits issued, 1 COs issued o Wildflower Meadows – 0 permits issued o The Wildflower Meadows subdivision on Powell Avenue is under construction. Water and Sewer utilities are currently being installed. Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 2 of 3 o An application for a Planned Unit Development Specific Implementation Plan (SIP) has been submitted for The Creamery – a brewery, taproom, and event center with four short -term rental units at W. Cedar Street and River Street. Plan Commission recommended approval of the request at their meeting on July 7, 2026. City Council approved the SIP at their meeting on July 28, 2026. o At the July 7, 2026 meeting, Plan Commission approved a special sign permit request from Sycamore II for a monument sign; the permit was requested in order to locate the sign closer to the property line than the ordinance allows. The proposed location was reviewed to ensure sightlines are maintained for vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed sign meets all other ordinance requirements. o Plan Commission reviewed two proposed ordinance amendments at their July 7th meeting: ▪ Plan Commission recommended approval of an ordinance that makes it clear that property owners are responsible for maintenance of the boulevard adjacent to their property. This has been a long-standing expectation but was not written clearly in the ordinance. ▪ Plan Commission discussed a change to the requirement that residential fences abutting a street be set back three feet and landscape plantings be maintained between the fence and the right-of-way. Over time, the landscaping requirement has been hard to en force and the three-foot setback is not necessary for health and safety reasons (sidewalks and trails can be installed in the right -of-way safely). Plan Commission voted to advance an ordinance amendment to Council, with a favorable recommendation, that would remove the three-foot setback and landscaping requirement. ▪ These proposed ordinance amendments are anticipated to be reviewed by Council at the end of August. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Examine Impact Fees* o Finance Dept is working with a consultant to examine impact fees for development Economic Development o The Economic Development Manager is a member of RFEDC, WEDA, River Falls Chamber, and St. Croix Valley Innovation Center Management Committee. QUALITY MUNICIPAL SERVICES Library Remodel* o The majority of the library remodel is complete. Fire Station Remodel* o Fire Station demolition began the week of February 9th and is ongoing. Vertical pre-cast concrete walls are up and there will continue to be short term roadway closures on Second Street and Elm Street for utility construction and site work. Division Street crosswalks o The Safe Streets for All Action Plan includes a concept plan for an improved pedestrian crossing at East Division and Wasson Lane. BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED Permit Type JULY YTD Permit Value JULY Permit Value YTD Building Permits 18 164 $7,179,093 $39,408,000 New Home Permits 3 47 $670,000 $12,386,000 Community Development Department: July 2026 Page 3 of 3 WIDNR Urban Non-Point Source Pollution grant o MSA Professional Services is completing a City-wide phosphorus model to document compliance with our stormwater MS4 Permit. Stewardship of Public Infrastructure o The 2026 Mill and Overlay project was awarded to Lepke Trucking and Excavating. Work will occur starting in July and will occur on Paulson Road. City staff prepared a grant application and the City was awarded a Wisconsin Local Roads Improvement Grant for $50,000 to support this project. Conservation and Parks Division o Park and Recreation Advisory Board recommended approval to City Council a combination of new park land and cash-in-lieu of land be accepted for park dedication for the Ironhorse neighborhood (EW Homes) at CYU Hwy M and 1060th Street. o Jackson Tody, Eagle Scout candidate, fundraised for and installed a dog agility course at the River Falls Dog Park as a part of his service project. The project was completed on July 24, 2026. o Improvements to the fishing pier and picnic area along the White Pathway were completed. Staff cleared invasive and overgrown vegetation to improve visibility from the path to Lake George. Over 300 native shrubs, perennials, and grasses were planted. The Community Development Department oversees the Plan Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Business Improvement District Board , Historic Preservation Commission , City Board of Appeals , Downtown Design Review Committee , Extraterritorial Zoning Committee (ETZ), Extra Territorial Board of Appeals, and River Falls Economic Development Corporation.