7-13-26 PZ Commission Meeting — Minutes

Village of Brooklyn Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 13, 2026 The Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and public hearing were called to order on Monday, July 13, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. by Mike Brusberg. Commission members present were Christian Allen, Janeen Podgorski, Dale Arndt, Mark Bruner. Member Jacob Bachim was not present. Also present were Kaysie Labno and Connor Babcock, Richard Martinson, Jeff Martinson, Kevin Pape, Riley Buol, and Clerk-Treasurer Linda Kuhlman. Discussion of possible new citizen member – Christian Allen said Riley Buol is interested and present at this meeting. Bruner also has a promising candidate, Mike McCauley. 200 S Kerch Street sidewalk – Allen asked about excavation. Connor Babcock said there will be a slope and excavation required. The house is higher than the road, so mostly toward the house. Allen asked how big the retaining wall will be. Babcock said it depends on what they see when they start digging; maybe 4-5 feet at deepest. Allen asked if they are excavating to show the side of the basement. Babcock said right now there are little windows at the top, and they’re looking to have a straight walkout with a full-size door. Bruner asked what’s the approximate size of the sidewalk to put in. Babcock didn’t know offhand. Bruner made a motion to recommend approval of this to the village board. Podgorski seconded. Allen asked with the sidewalk to the curb, are they doing curb cut or step down. Babcock said ideally a curb cut but can do step down. Allen talked about ADA compliance and would public works need to be involved. Babcock said it will be full ADA compliant regardless. They will be running a daycare. Bruner said to get public works perspective regarding the curb cut, just for uniformity and for plowing. Allen said it should be tapered on left and right. Motion carried. Northern Metal – Kevin Pape from JT Engineering. Allen didn’t see anything particularly concerning. Bruner said Strand had questions. Arndt was talking to Spilde about location of sewer/water. Spilde would rather see it come down the front of building and turn into northwest corner where mechanicals are. Pape said they’ll work with them. Arndt said they also need a sampling manhole. Kuhlman said there is information in ordinances about that. Pape has been talking with Strand. Arndt said the plans show existing building and stormwater tied onto new lot, and that was a comment in Strand’s review. They have to be separate stormwater. The old building is being sold. Allen thinks it’s been vetted enough, and they will need to update plans to reflect comments from Strand and public works. Arndt says in one plan it shows cold storage in front along road and another that shows it in back along residential. Pape said the location he was given is in the front, and he thinks they’re just planning electric on that. Allen made a motion for conditional approval pending Strand and public works comments and revisions. Bruner seconded. Allen amended motion to include RPS comments. Bruner seconded. Motion carried. Second Street – Dick and Jeff Martinson bought Lot 30 on Second Street. The lot is 9/10 acre. He’s proposing to make it two lots, rather than just a single lot, and building one and possibly two houses between 1500 and 1800 square feet on first floor. He changed the plan slightly and added a driveway on south end and 25 feet is what he’s proposing, Each lot, Lot 30 and Lot 31, will be 1763 square feet on front one and 2670 on 2nd. The front house would have a driveway to the front, and the back lot would have a driveway. They’ll need to know how deep sewer is at the street, because they’ll have to have fall from the back lot. The other thing is there’s two storm sewer grills, one is pretty close to driveway and second one would be also, so is there a riser and grill available for those storm sewers. He’ll need to have a certified survey and building permits. He’d like to know input on one lot to two lots. Arndt asked how come it’s not coming off two separate driveways, as wide as lot is, with a deep lot in the back. He could split it the other way, and each would have own utilities, own driveways. Martinson is thinking of a flag lot, with a driveway agreement, but why not use a separate driveway 25’x175’ to the second lot and that way have more square footage on second lot. Otherwise they would be long skinny lots, with a lot of backyard and no front lot, and the house to the north is 10 feet off the lot line, and he would like to have more area, like 40-50 feet between the lot line and house. Martinson said the front lot would be about the same, but the back one would be towards the back. Arndt doesn’t know of anywhere else in the village like that. Allen mentioned the duplexes on the north of town have a driveway into them and back. Brusberg doesn’t see this for single-family anywhere else in the village. Podgorski asked if they’d be renting or selling. Jeff Martinson said they would sell. Brusberg asked if there’s a reason, beyond just setback from neighbors, on why they’re just not seeking to adjust zoning requirement. Kisely, the previous owner, didn’t want a multi-family because problems with rentals. This would be two single- family homes, raised ranch situation. The lots are relatively flat. His preference was drawn so it will utilize front lot and back lot and driveway would service that lot. He’d like to keep the house no closer than 40 feet from south line, and north line would be the same. On front, right now it’s behind the other house a little bit. Brusberg said they typically don’t see that in the village; it’s usually in rural areas. Martinson has seen some in Oregon. Paul Larson did 50 and older homes and there’s a similar setup with private driveways on all of them. His new configuration has two separate driveways. Allen likes the long skinny lot. Arndt said you’d need easements for power, water, sewer and going across the front lot. Kuhlman mentioned about fire comments. Podgorski said the reason to split this way is for bigger homes, versus longer. Martinson said the other way there would only be skinnier houses. With his setup he could maximize the lot size. If he splits it the other way, it would be a lot of underutilized space. Brusberg said the two houses immediately north of this parcel, their average frontage is around 60 feet. Allen said they prefer to split the other direction, simplicitywise. There are a lot of properties that have 70-foot frontage, left and right is tighter but would match adjacent properties. Talked about two separate driveways. Kuhlman said side yard setback would be 8 feet for high density. Martinson said utilities are close to each parcel. Arndt would now have cleanouts between house and street because so far back. Brusberg said the biggest thing for public works, there’s a 6” sewer and water laterals. Not having a shared driveways alleviates some concern. Fire/EMS need reliable access and new plans will need a wide enough driveway to get access to vehicles Chief Barber said as long as 20’ and no parking, it would be fine. Arndt said they will need two sewer/water stubs. Allen sees what he’s trying to do and using lot nicely, but a lot of concerns trying to make it work in the neighborhood. Martinson said it would be largest in neighborhood. Allen could get away with 20’ without making it a shared driveway. Jeff Martinson said they could do 20’ driveway and still have front house have its own driveway. It would be a long private driveway. The house to the north has a long skinny driveway. Brusberg asked how marketable would the house be in the back. Jeff Martinson said very marketable. It would have privacy. That would be on the final rendering when they do the permit. He visualizes it as the driveway to the house on the south side of the house, so driving more straight in. Arndt can’t picture anywhere except the 55 and older, but a lot are duplexes and older. Podgorski saw one in Stoughton. The front of the house on the east would be facing the neighbors back yard. Podgorski asked if it’s about the type of house they want to build, because if change whole plan, it would be a single floor, narrow home. Jeff Martinson said you would have a back-loaded lot. Allen said you want to do a single story building, for what reason, as opposed to two-story to maximize footage. Martinson said he’s catering to 50 plus on single story. Paul Larson did a nice job in Oregon and put lower level living, mother-in-law rooms, and things like that, and can get by with 1500-1800 on single level and family/living in lower level, and that’s what he’s catering to. Bruner said he’s open to the new plan that he just gave us but would like to see it reviewed again by all parties. Allen said we want to be flexible and help do what he’d like. Martinson said he would build front one now and get second one later. He’d like to get answer on splitting the lot. Brusberg said it’s hard to give a dedicated answer tonight without having it rereviewed by public works and others. He doesn’t have as many qualms about updated plan with dedicated driveway, and as long as it’s 20’ wide to the back house with a hard surface. Allen also what’s to stop using 20’ for parking spaces and then it’s not 20’ anymore. Bruner said they would have to have covenant no parking on that driveway. Brusberg what’s difference with shared driveway versus single driveway. Allen said we can’t do conditional approvals until new plan is approved by parties. Jeff Martinson said they have no timeline. Brusberg said we can rereview in August, just provide something a little more finite. Allen said their preference is to have two separate driveways. Podgorski, the driveway, is the intention to be blacktop or concrete apron and blacktop. Martinson it would be hard paved. Next meeting set for August 3 at 5:30 pm. Bruner made a motion at 6:37 pm to adjourn. Allen seconded. Motion carried. Linda Kuhlman, Clerk-Treasurer