Plan Commission Agenda & Packet (PDF)

City of Plymouth Plan Commission M embers: Please notify us if you are unable to attend the meeting. Ch airman; Mayor Don Pohlman Me mbers: Ron Nicolaus (Vice Chairman) Angie Matzdorf Jane Meyer Jeremy Schellin John Wyatt Justin Schmitz The C ity of Plymouth Plan Commission will have a meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 6:00 PM in Room 305, City Hall, 128 Smith St, Plymouth, Wisconsin. The agenda w ill be as follows: 1.) Call to Order & Roll Call 2.) Approval of Minutes from September 3, 2026 3.) Site Plan Approval; 4200 County Road PP, SFC-Plymouth LLC (Sartori Cheese), for the alteration of an existing parking lot in the H-I Heavy Industrial zoning district. Wagner (enclosure) 4.) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Resolution; from Industrial to Parks & Open Space on the Future Land Use Map; Tax Parcel 59271802310 and 59271822200 (former Plymouth Utilities building at 12 S. Milwaukee St. and pedestrian foot bridge). Johnston (enclosure) 5 .) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Resolution; 107 Plaza Lane and adjacent properties (parcel 59016218760, 59016218771, and 59016218772) seeking commercial land use designation on the Existing and Future Land Use Maps of the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. Meyers Motors (enclosure) 6 .) Rezoning Recommendation; A petition to rezone ~4.37 acres of land at 107 Plaza Lane and adjacent properties (parcel 59016218760, 59016218771, and 59016218772) into the B-3 Highway Business District. Meyers Motors (enclosure) 7 .) Final Plat Recommendation; Consideration of phase 1 final plat for Heritage Grove residential subdivision. Neumann Developments (enclosure) 8 .) Final Plat Recommendation; Consideration of final plat for Scholar’s Ridge residential subdivision. Sheboygan County Economic Development Corporation (enclosure) 9 .) Staff Request: Discussion on potential zoning code audit to be incorporated into the 2027 City of Plymouth Budget. Johnston (enclosure) Page 1 of 59 10.) Communication – Letters, E-mails, or reports Related to the Plan Commission (Chairman, Secretary, Plan Commission Members, City of Plymouth Staff/Alderpersons) 11.) Adjournment It is possible that members of and possibly a quorum of members of other governmental bodies of the municipality may be in attendance at the above stated meeting to gather information. No action will be taken by any governmental body at the above stated meeting other than the governmental body specifically referred to above in this notice. Please note that, upon reasonable notice, efforts will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact the City of Plymouth, located at Plymouth City Hall at 128 Smith Street, Plymouth, WI or call 920-893-1271. Page 2 of 59 City of Plymouth Plan Commission UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Mayor Pohlman called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM on September 3, 2026. The following members were present: Jeremy Schmitz, John Wyatt, and Jane Meyer, Justin Schellin. Also present: Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Jack Johnston, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cathy Austin, Fire Chief Jim Klug 1.) Call to Order & Roll Call: Mayor Pohlman called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. The meeting began with a roll call of the Plan Commission. 2.) Approval of Minutes from July 9, 2026 Motion was made by Schmitz/Wyatt to approve the minutes. Upon the call of the roll, all voted aye. Motion carried. 3.) Extraterritorial Certified Survey Map Recommendation; N6123 Willow Road (Parcel numbers 59026385560 and 59026385680) – located on Willow Road and County Road O in the Town of Sheboygan Falls. Kohlman (enclosure) Chad and Joy Kohlman have submitted a certified survey map (CSM) for extraterritorial review and approval from the City of Plymouth due to the property being within 1.5 miles of the extraterritorial review area of the City of Plymouth. The property itself is located within the Town of Sheboygan Falls and received Town Plan Commission approval on August 6, 2026. The Sheboygan Falls Town Board approved the CSM at their meeting on September 1. Joy Kohlman was present for the meeting explaining the CSM would rearrange lot lines so a future home could be built. Motion was made by Wyatt/Schmitz to recommend approval of the extraterritorial certified survey map as presented. Upon call of the roll, all voted aye. Motion carried. 4.) Site Plan Seeking Approval; 1908 Eastern Ave, Michael and Luanne Harvey, for the construction of a 10x12 storage shed in the B-3 Highway Business District. Harvey (enclosure) Michael and Luanne Harvey have submitted an application to construct a 10x12 storage shed on the western area of 1908 Eastern Ave. The property consists of two multi-family homes, a garage, and another small 10x10 shed. The Plan Commission does not typically review additions or new constructions for residential properties, but as the property’s base zoning is B-3 highway business district (housing is a permitted use), a site plan review is required by City code. Mike Harvey was present for the meeting explaining that there were interested in building a small storage shed on the property and noted it would be offset at least 3’ feet from west lot line. Motion was made by Wyatt/Schellin to approve the site plan review for 1908 Eastern Avenue for the construction of a 10x12 storage shed as presented. Upon call of the roll, all voted aye. Motion carried. Page 3 of 59 5.) Site Plan Seeking Approval; Parcel number 59271827944, encompassing ~5.88 acres of land, located on the east side of N. Pleasant View Road in the City of Plymouth, for the construction of six duplex homes in the R-3 Two-Family Residential District. Calvey (enclosure) In December of 2025, the Plan Commission reviewed a concept plan for a six building, 12- unit owner occupied condominium plan along the east side of Pleasant View Road next to the existing Pleasant View Townhomes development. Following positive feedback from the Plan Commission at that meeting, the applicants came before the Plan Commission in March 2026 to rezone the property out of PUD and into R-3 Two Family Residential as well as amend the comprehensive land use designation from commercial to residential for that property. Both the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment were approved by the Common Council on March 31, 2026. Now, the applicants have prepared a full site plan and condominium plat for the property. These applications, if approved, will allow the applicant to divide the land so the condos can be bought and sold, as well as allow them to seek local building permit s to construct the project. Kacey Calvey and Logan Ketelhut were present for the meeting. They affirmed that the plans from earlier concepts and rezoning applications remain unchanged. They would like to build six duplexes. Mayor Pohlman asked when they were hoping to break ground. T hey anticipated a spring 2027 ground breaking for the project. Assistant City Administrator Johnston provided a staff report including review from Kapur. He noted that Kapur is no longer requiring a wetland delineation for the project and to strike comment #1 from their review letter. He noted the rest of the comments were minor and nature. The applicant’s engineers have reviewed the comments and will make the necessary adjustments. Motion made by Wyatt/Meyer to approve the site plan review for Parcel number 59271827944, encompassing ~5.88 acres of land, located on the east side of N. Pleasant View Road in the City of Plymouth, for the construction of six duplex homes in the R-3 Two- Family Residential District, contingent on the comments from Kapur being addressed. Upon call of the roll, all voted aye, motion carried. 6.) Condo Plat Seeking Approval; Parcel number 59271827944, Commonwealth Real Estate Investments, LLC for the approval of a condo plat as outlined in PMC 14-1-22 through the preliminary plat process for the Pleasant View Condominiums. Calvey (enclosure) This item continues from item #5. Motion was made by Schellin/Schmitz to approve the condo plat as presented. Upon call of the roll, all voted aye. Motion carried. 7.) Concept Plan Seeking Feedback; 625 Sunset Drive, Schroeder and Holt Architects, regarding a concept plan for a potential Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be known as the Armory Annex. Jasen (enclosure) Tony Jasen purchased the former National Guard Armory building located at 625 Sunset Drive a few years ago and converted the building into a single-family home that he now resides in. The parcel containing the armory building also contains the parking lot on the north side of Grove Street, which the National Guard previously used for parking and excess storage. Page 4 of 59 Mr. Jasen approached city staff in early summer seeking options about building a detached garage on the parking lot property, as well as the potential for some future housing on that property. The entire property has R-2 zoning, which allows one detached garage up to 750 square feet. The garage Mr. Jasen was proposing was 2,400 square feet. Due to the uniqueness of the lot and the sheer size of the garage requested not being compliant to typical R-2 zoning, staff advised Mr. Jasen that some sort of variance from code would likely be required. Mr. Jasen has since engaged with architect David Baum from Schroeder and Holt Architects to present a concept plan to the Plan Commission called “Armory Annex” for the parking lot property. The concept currently includes seven townhomes, and the potential for an eighth. Also included in the plan in the 40x60 garage Mr. Jasen proposed to staff earlier this summer. Mr. Jasen and Mr. Baum are seeking initial Plan Commission feedback on this plan before considering a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for this property. PUD is a City zoning district “intended to provide for greater flexibility in design and to provide for a combination of uses in a manner compatible to each development and to the surrounding environment.” It allows flexibility from zoning setbacks, lot coverages, building heights etc. in unique circumstances for properties that would otherwise struggle to meet typical zoning requirements. David Baum of Schroeder and Holt Architects was in attendance at the meeting to present on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Baum summarized the plan and pitched the idea of a PUD that would include the 2,400 square foot garage in addition townhouse units on the property. A lengthy discussion was held on fire access, utility infrastructure, appearance, etc. In general, the Plan Commission was comfortable with the idea of a PUD for this property due to the uniqueness of it and the location. Mr. Baum’s concept showed a potential second garage on the north side of the property. The Plan Commission requested the second garage be dropped from the plan in favor of potentially one more housing unit. Staff also requested that any updated plans address the vision triangle concern on the southwest of the property. Mr. Baum thanked the Plan Commission for their time and noted he would prepare a revised concept with his client for a future Plan Commission meeting. 8.) Communication – Letters, E-mails, or reports Related to the Plan Commission (Chairman, Secretary, Plan Commission Members, City of Plymouth Staff/Alderpersons) Assistant City Administrator Johnston noted that the subdivision projects were going well and expected final plats in the coming months. He also highlighted that Carbliss had purchased the former Kmart building on Eastern Avenue and plans to revitalize that location into their next corporate headquarters. 9.) Adjournment Motion by Wyatt/Schmitz to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 PM. Upon call of the roll, all voted aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Page 5 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3739 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: September 15, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director RE: Site Plan Seeking Approval; 4200 County Road PP, SFC-Plymouth LLC (Sartori Cheese), for the alteration of an existing parking lot in the H-I Heavy Industrial zoning district. Wagner (enclosure) Background: The Plan Commission approved the Sartori Cheese expansion project late last year. As part of the overall site plan approval, the Plan Commission approved the building as well as the associated parking and landscaping. At this time, Wagner Excav ating on behalf of Sartori is coming back to the City to alter the parking lot design to add additional parking spaces from what was approved last year. Public Works/Plymouth Fire Department Review: Both Public Works Director Austin and Fire Chief Klug reviewed the proposal and have no concerns. The additional parking would not trigger any additional updates to their existing stormwater management plan. Plan Commission Consideration(s): Sec. 13-1-173(a) requires that no building or zoning permit shall be issued for any construction within any R-4 (when more than two dwelling units are planned), R-5, B-1, B-2, CB, B-3, LI, or HI district, new or modifications to parking lots, etc. Parking lot standards are dictated through Sec. 13-1-92 which includes the following language: a) Application. The off -street parking provisions of this chapter shall apply to all new buildings, to any existing building where the intensity of the use is increased or the size of the building is increased, and to any building which is converted to a different use. b) Plan commission approval required. New parking lots and alterations to existing parking lots are subject to plan commission approval. This includes parking areas accessory to commercial or multifamily uses. The plans submitted should include the parking layout, landscaping, drainage, driveway location, lighting, and other information deemed necessary by the plan commission. Staff comment: L andscaping, drainage, lighting, etc. was included in overall site plan review and approval in 2025 and is not being altered as part of this parking lot expansion. c) Surfacing. All parking lots, new and alterations to existing parking lots, shall be paved with bituminous or cementitious material and maintained in good condition. Gravel parking lots are not allowed. The heavy industrial (HI) district is allowed to have Page 6 of 59 gravel trailer parking or storage areas with approval by the plan commission. The gravel areas will be appropriately located on the site pursuant to section 13-1-34(c) and screened to avoid such gravel areas as being a dominant visual aspect of the site. Staff comment: The existing drive and the additional parking will remain gravel, which is allowed in the H- I district. d) Design standards. The design of the parking area shall be such that no vehicle is required to back into a street. Each space shall have at least 136 square feet, with a length of at least 16 feet, and a minimum eight and one- half foot width. Where a parking area is adjacent to a R -1, R-2, or R -3 zone, a four -foot high fence or equivalent plantings are required as a visual screen between the parking area and residential yard. Staff comment: Parking spaces are well over 136 square feet in size. Screening/plantings not required. Overall landscaping plan was approved as part of site plan review and approval in 2025. e) Location. The location of the driveways and parking spaces on the lot shall be as follows: 1) R- 1, R-2, R-3, and agricultural zones: Three feet or more from property lines. 2) R- 4, R-6 and B-1 zones: Five feet or more from property lines. 3) B- 2 and B-3 zones: A minimum of 15 feet from street rights-of-way, and a minimum of 15 feet from residentially zoned property lines. 4) HI and LI zones: A minimum of 15 feet from street rights -of-way, and a minimum of 25 feet from residentially zoned property lines. Staff comment: Property has HI Heavy Industrial zoning. Additional parking is located several hundred feet from County Road PP right-of-way as well as the Sartori Whey right-of-way f) Landscaping. Landscaped areas shall be provided which equal at least ten percent of the surfaces drive and parking areas. Location of the landscaping is subject to approval by the plan commission. Staff comment: Landscaping plan was submitted and approved with 2025 site plan review. No changes needed to landscaping plan for additional parking. g) Number of stalls. The number of required parking spaces is determined by the building use as follows: 1) Manufacturing Plant: 1 space for each employee in the most populous shift. Staff comment: The submitted plans from 2025 included parking for approximately 188 vehicles across two existing parking lots. This additional parking will bring the off- street parking at this location above 200 parking spaces. This is well over the most populous shift at Sartori. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Plan Commission approve the additional parking requested by Sartori Cheese for their ongoing expansion. Copies Mailed/Emailed To: I. Gregg Wagner: gwags@digwagner.com II. Derek Wagner: dwagner@digwagner.com Attachments: I. GIS Map II. Proposed Additional Parking Plan Page 7 of 59 Attachment I: Proposed new parking Page 8 of 59 EXISTING BUILDING 83,854 S.F. F.F. = 795.00 ARCH. F.F. = 100.00 PREVIOUS BUILDING ADDITION 22,400 S.F. F.F. = 795.00 ARCH. F.F. = 100.00 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMO PLAN SCALE: 1"=30' N P:\2024-CONTRACTS\2024-168 Sartori Whey Plant Additon And Remodel\Phase - 2\Construction Documents\S.3 Site\2024-168 - Base.dwg September 30, 2025 A EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMO PLAN 200 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 788.25 42" N INV. = 777.97 42" S INV. = 777.97 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 788.25 42" N INV. = 778.69 42" S INV. = 778.69 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 786.85 42" N INV. = 779.61 36" S INV. = 780.11 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 789.63 36" N INV. = 781.16 36" S INV. = 781.16 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 791.20 36" N INV. = 782.08 36" SW INV. = 782.08 12" SE INV. = 783.58 EXISTING STM FES 12" INV. = 789.26 EXISTING STM FES 42" INV. = 776.85 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 791.52 36" NE INV. = 782.99 12" N INV. = 784.99 36" W INV. = 782.99 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 790.40 12" N INV. = 785.93 12" S INV. = 785.93 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 790.40 12" S INV. = 786.05 EXISTING STM MH RIM = 793.25 24" N INV. = 784.94 30" W INV. = 784.19 36" E INV. = 783.94 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 790.38 24" S INV. = 785.38 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 790.38 12" E INV. = 786.70 EXISTING STM MH RIM = 793.10 12" N INV. = 786.08 12" S INV. = 785.83 30" W INV. = 784.58 30" E INV. = 785.05 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 792.25 12" N INV. = 787.07 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 792.00 24" NW INV. = 785.55 30" E INV. = 785.05 EXISTING STM INLET RIM = 790.10 12" S INV. = 786.47 EXISTING SAN MH RIM = 789.15 8" W INV. = 777.43 EXISTING SAN MH RIM = 793.05 8" NE INV. = 779.48 8" W INV. = 779.58 EXISTING SAMPLING SAN MH RIM = 793.05 8" E INV. = 779.83 8" W INV. = 779.93EXISTING 3,000 GAL GREASE INTERCEPTOR EXISTING HYDRANT ASSEMBLY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED. TREE REMOVAL TO BE PERFORMED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION HATCH TYPE INDICATES PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE HATCH TYPE INDICATES GRAVEL TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE DEMOLITION LEGEND HATCH TYPE INDICATES UTILITIES TO BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF OFFSITE LINE TYPE INDICATES FULL-DEPTH SAWCUT TO BE PERFORMED REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL RELOCATE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY AND VALVE, SEE UTILITY PLAN FULL DEPTH SAWCUT BID SET 25.00 ft 7,000 Total SF 28-Stalls 280.00 ft Page 9 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3745 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: September 23, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director RE: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Resolution Recommendation; from Industrial to Parks & Open Space on the Future Land Use Map; Tax Parcel 59271802310 and 59271822200 (former Plymouth Utilities building at 12 S. Milwaukee St. and pedestrian foot bridge). Johnston (enclosure) Background: In August of 2026, Sheboygan County and the City of Plymouth finished a pedestrian bridge project over the Mullet River next to the old Plymouth Utilities building located as 12 S. Milwaukee Street. This new bridge addresses a pedestrian connection gap by connecting the downtown pedestrian trail along the Mullet all the way through Meyers Park to the south. With this project now complete, staff would like to consider future land uses along this corridor near the City’s downtown. The parcel leading up to the new trail bridge, as well as the former Utilities building at 12 S. Milwaukee Street to the south, are both designated as industrial on the City’s existing and future land use map. Staff would like to consider reclassifying both of these parcels to “Parks & Open Space” on the City’s Future Land Use Map to allow for the potential of future redevelopment and expansion of the parks and trails network in this area. This update would not restrict the current uses going on there from continuing, however, and the Existing Land Use Map would remain as “Industrial” for both of these parcels. Comprehensive Plan: The City’s existing and future land use map designates Parcel No. 59271802310 (foot bridge) and 59271822200 (former Utilities building) as industrial. Both properties are owned by the Gerard R. Thompson Estate. Land uses around this area range from commercial, industrial, and residential uses stemming from the proximity of these properties from Plymouth’s downtown. Amendment Request: City staff is requesting the Plan Commission and Common Council consider amending the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: • Amend the future land use map for parcel 59271802310 (pedestrian foot bridge) from “industrial” to “parks “parks and open space”. • Amend the future land use map for parcel 59271822200 (former Plymouth Utilities building) from “industrial” to “parks and open space”. o This land use change would allow the current property owner to continue using the property as it is now while also giving the City the flexibility to plan future park and trail expansion efforts. Public Notices: Wisconsin law requires Comprehensive Plan amendments to satisfy public noticing requirements prior to Common Council adoption. A comprehensive plan amendment requires a 30- day notice prior to the public hearing. A 10 day by mail notice is also required to any nearby municipalities within 1,000 feet of the affected Page 10 of 59 properties. These notices will be published in the Plymouth review leading up to Common Council action, which would be expected in November. Next Steps The Common Council the comprehensive plan amendment request at a meeting later in the fall and will hold a public hearing for it. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend approval via resolution to amend the future land use maps on the Comprehensive Plan as follows: • Amend the future land use map for parcel 59271802310 (pedestrian foot bridge) from “industrial” to “parks and open space”. • Amend the future land use map for parcel 59271822200 (former Plymouth Utilities building) from “industrial” to “parks and open space”. The Common Council would then consider the change at a future Common Council meeting. Attachments: • GIS Map • Comprehensive Plan Resolution for Plan Commission Action Date Status Comp Plan meeting at Plan Commission; recommendation 10/1/2026 This meeting Comp Plan Public Notice in Plymouth Review 9/25/2026 Published Mailer to nearby municipalities within 1,000’ for affected area N/A N/A Comp Plan Public Hearing at Common Council 10/27/2026 Upcoming Common Council Final Action on and Comp Plan Amendment 10/27/2026 Upcoming Page 11 of 59 Page 12 of 59 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OF 2026 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICULAR PROPERTIES FROM INDUSTRIAL TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the Common Council adopted the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan to promote public health, safety, and welfare of the City by effectively guiding long- range growth and development within the City and its statutory extra -territorial planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be used as the basis for, among other things, updating the zoning ordinance, accomplishing extra -territorial zoning, and as a guide for approving or disapproving actions affecting growth and development within the jurisdiction of the City of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, the City of Plym outh, through its Plan Commission and Common Council may amend the Comprehensive Plan from time -to-time including amending the Existing a nd Future Land Use Maps; and WHEREAS, the C ity of Plymouth wishes to update the Comprehensive P lan’s Future Land Use Map for approximately 1.70 acres and 0.35 acres of real property lying west of S. Milwaukee Street and being Parcel No. 59271-822200 and Parcel No. 59271-802310, (the “Properties”); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan currently provides for an intended future land use of this area as Industrial and the City requests an amendment to Parks and Open Space; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth Plan Commission has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at a regular monthly meeting and believes the amendment will promote the orderly and logical development of land within the City of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing to be held on , 2026, the Common Council will decide whether to adopt by ordinance the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and (The remainder of this page intentionally blank.) Page 13 of 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City of Plymouth Plan Commission hereby recommends the adoption of an amendment to the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan Map pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 62.23 and 66.1001 to change the designation of the Property from Industrial to Parks and Open Space. Adopted this day of October, 2026 Donald O. Pohlman, Chairperson City of Plymouth Plan Commission ATTEST: Jack Johnston Plan Commission Secretary Page 14 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3739 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: September 24, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director RE: Property Seeking a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Recommendation; 107 Plaza Lane and adjacent properties (parcel 59016218760, 59016218771, and 59016218772) seeking commercial land use designation on the Existing and Future Land Use Maps of the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan. Meyers Motors (enclosure) Property Seeking Rezoning Recommendation; A petition to rezone ~4.37 acres of land at 107 Plaza Lane and adjacent properties (parcel 59016218760, 59016218771, and 59016218772) into the B-3 Highway Business District. Meyers Motors (enclosure) Background: Meyer Motors on the corner of Plaza Lane and Eastern Avenue is comprised of four parcels of land. The former Wells Fargo building located at 2110 Eastern Avenue used by Meyers Motors for vehicle storage and office space is located in the City of Plymouth and has B-3 Business Highway District zoning. The other three parcels of land, made up of their principal building and car lot at 107 Plaza Lane, the parking lot across the street on Plaza Lane, and a small strip of land directly north of the Plaza Lane building are currently located in the Town of Plymouth. Earlier this summer, Meyer Motors approached the City of Plymouth about connecting to City utilities. Except in extremely rare circumstances, the City requires property be within the City of Plymouth to hook up to the available utilities. To that end, Meyer Motors has worked with City Attorney Fieber and prepared an annexation petition that is currently being reviewed by the State of Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) to annex the three parcels currently in the Town and bring them into the City. After the DOA completes their review, the Common Council will review the annexation petition. In preparation for the annexation petition to come before the Common Council, the applicant has submitted a rezoning application and a comprehensive plan amendment application to obtain appropriate City zoning. Typically, annexed property is brought in with a temporary agricultural zoning designation and the applicant would then be given 6 months to one year to rezone into the appropriate City zoning district. Since this property is already developed, staff requested the applicant to seek the appropriate City zoning district classification and comprehensive plan amendment application immediately. Comprehensive Plan: As these three parcels are currently in the Town of Plymouth, they do not have an existing or future land use designation on either the Existing Land Use Map or Future Land Use Map on the City’s 2022 Comprehensive Plan. The Eastern Avenue corridor in this area is designated as commercial on both these maps. As such, staff has requested the applicant seek a commercial land use designation for these parcels as that would match the nearby properties and be harmonious with the present and future anticipated use of the properties. Page 15 of 59 Rezoning: These parcels currently fall under the Town of Plymouth’s zoning. As part of the annexation request, City staff and the applicant consulted the City’s current zoning map and have determined that B -3 Business Highway District is the most appropriate commercial zoning district for these parcels. B-3 would match the existing zoning of the former Wells Fargo building already in the City of Plymouth and the other commercial properties along this corridor of Eastern Avenue. Additionally, the other car dealerships in the City are share this zoning classification and the use of the property as a car dealership is a permitted use in the City’s zoning code for B -3 zoned properties. Public Notices: Both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning petition require public noticing and a hearing before the Common Council before final adoption by ordinance/statute. The rezone notice requires a class 2 notice with the last notice at least one week prior to the public hearing at the Common Council. The comprehensive plan amendment requires a 30 day notice prior to the public hearing. A 10 day by mail notice is also required to any nearby municipalities within 1,000 feet of the affected properties, as well as notice to property owners with 100’ for the rezoning petition. The newspaper notices will be published in the Plymouth Review leading up to Common Council action. Anticipated publication dates for the rezoning petition and comprehensive plan amendment application are included in the table later on in this report. The by-mail notices were sent in late September. Staff anticipates the public hearing and action on both these items to be held at the Common Council meeting on October 27, 2026. Next Steps The Common Council will consider the rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment request at a meeting later in the fall and will hold a public hearing for both requests. Due to public noticing requirements for both the rezone and comprehensive plan amendment request, it is anticipated the Council will hold these public hearings and consider action on these requests at their regular meeting on October 27, 2026. The associated annexation petition will be considered by the Common Council at the next available Common Council meeting after the DOA completes their review. This could be as early as the October 13, 2026 meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment application to commercial (via attached resolution) as well as rezoning request to B-3 Highway Business District for the three parcels with tax-key numbers 59016218760, 59016218771, and 59016218772. Recommendation to approve these applications should be contingent on the associated annexation petition also being approved by the Common Council at a future meeting. Copies Mailed/Emailed To: I. Gary Schmidt: garys@gomeyermotors.com Attachments: • Action Table • GIS Map of Properties • R esolution for Comp Plan Amendment Page 16 of 59 Attachment 1 Action Date Status Mailer to property owners within 100’ of subject properties concerning rezone 9/22/2026 Mailed Mailer to nearby municipalities within 1,000’ for affected area 9/23/2026 Mailed Comp Plan Public Notice in Plymouth Review 9/25/2026 Published Rezone and Comp Plan meeting at Plan Commission; recommendation 10/1/2026 This meeting Rezone Public Notice in Plymouth Review 10/9/2026 10/16/2026 To be published Rezone and Comp Plan Public Hearing at Common Council 10/27/2026 Scheduled Common Council Final Action on Rezone and Comp Plan 10/27/2026 Scheduled Annexation Petition consideration by Common Council Unknown Not Yet Scheduled Page 17 of 59 Eastern Ave Pla za Ln 59016218760 59016218771 59016218772 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 HARN WISCRS Sheboygan County Feet; Map Rotation: 0 -- Saved By: RSUEMNICHT on 9/22/2026, 09:26:53 AM; File Path: G:\Planning\Production\Static_Maps\Zoning\1-APRX\Rezone_2026_Sept_3_Parcels.aprx; Layout Name: Rezone_Parcels_2026_Sept_11X17L NOTES: 1. PARCEL AND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES ACQUIRED FROM SHEBOYGAN COUNTY. BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE AND NEED TO BE VERIFIED WITH A SURVEY. 2. PARCELS TO BE REZONED TO B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT ZONING. LEGEND PARCEL TO BE REZONED TO B-3 PLYMOUTH CITY LIMITS F 1:9601" = 80' PARCELS TO BE REZONED B-3 MAP DRAFTED ON: 9/22/2026 Page 18 of 59 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLAN COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OF 2026 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXISTING LAND USE MAP AND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN MAP CREATING THE DESIGNATION OF PARTICULAR PROPERTIES TO COMMERICIAL WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the Common Council adopted the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan to promote public health, safety, and welfare of the City by effectively guiding long- range growth and development within the City and its statutory extra -territorial planning jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be used as the basis for, among other things, updating the zoning ordinance, accomplishing extra -territorial zoning, and as a guide for approving or disapproving actions affecting growth and development within the jurisdiction of the City of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission has received an application from GLS, LLC (dba Meyer Motors) to amend the Comprehensive Plan for approximately 4.27 acres of real properties lying north of Eastern Avenue, as well as east and west of Plaza Lane being Parcel No. 59016-218772, 59016-218771, 59016-218760 (the “Properties”); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan currently has no land use designation for the Properties as they are currently located in the Town of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, the applicant, GLS, LLC submitted a petition for annexation to the City Clerk’s Office for the Properties on September 17, 2026 which will be reviewed and considered by the Common Council at a future date; and WHEREAS, the City of Plymouth Plan Commission has reviewed the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at a regular monthly meeting and believes the amendment will promote the orderly and logical development of land within the City of Plymouth; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing to be held on , 2026, the Common Council will decide whether to adopt by ordinance the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and (The remainder of this page intentionally blank.) Page 19 of 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the City of Plymouth Plan Commission hereby recommends the adoption of an amendment to the City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Map and Future Land Use Plan Map pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 62.23 and 66.1001 to designate the Properties as Commercial. Adopted this day of October, 2026 Donald O. Pohlman, Chairperson City of Plymouth Plan Commission ATTEST: Plan Commission Secretary Page 20 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3739 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: S eptember 24, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Tim Blakeslee, City Administrator/Utilities Manager RE: Final Plat Seeking Recommendation; Consideration of phase 1 final plat for Heritage Grove residential subdivision. Neumann Developments (enclosure) Background: The applicant, Neumann Developments, is seeking approval of a final plat for the first phase of Heritage Grove, a proposed 119- lot, ~67-acre residential subdivision. The proposed final plat includes 43 single- family residential lots with the remaining land placed in out -lot for future phases, stormwater management, as well as land dedicated to the City of Plymouth for a future neighborhood park. The applicant will pursue approval of f inal plats for the remainder of the preliminary plat area in future phases, which is expected to be built out over the next several years. Approvals Leading Up to Now: Neumann first presented this project as a concept plan to the Plan Commission in September of 2025. Following positive feedback from the Plan Commission, the applicant moved forward with formal City zoning approvals including a rezone out of A -1 Agricultural and into R -5 Traditional Neighborhood District, as well as amending the Comprehensive Plan to designate this land as residential. The Common Council approved the developer’s agreement and phase 1 specific implementation plan (SIP) earlier this year. The Plan Commission approved the 119 lot preliminary plat earlier this year as well and construction began in June. A full breakdown of municipal meetings and approvals is provided later in this report. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning/Setbacks: As noted above, the applicant sought and was approved for a comprehensive plan amendment to redesignate this land as residential on the existing and future land use plan. As such, the proposed final plat is harmonious with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The developer is proposing R-5 Traditional Neighborhood District for the subdivision. This district encourages smaller lot sizes (6,000 square feet up to 0.75 acres) with greater flexibility in terms of building setbacks. The developer ’s agreements memorialized that the lots shall have the following setback restrictions: twenty -five (25) foot front yards, twenty -five (25) foot rear yards, seven and a half (7.5) foot side yards, and fifteen (15) foot side corners. Traffic/Access: Vehicle access for phase 1 will be off of STH 67 near the existing intersection with County Road E. A traffic impact analysis was completed by the applicant at the request of the Plan Commission as part of the preliminary plat approval process In February. To summarize, the findings were that Page 21 of 59 no intersection improvements were warranted at this time for STH 67 & Hill and Dale Road/CTH E/PP. However, WisDOT controls STH 67 and the are requiring the following upgrades to this intersection. • A n additional lane so that thru traffic can proceed uninterrupted • A left turn lane onto County Road E • A right turn taper lanes into the Heritage Grove subdivision Park Plans: Out-lot 2 on the final plat will be a future City -owned public park. The inclusion of the park was included in the early concepts of the subdivision as well as negotiated and included in the developer’s agreement approved by the Common Council earlier this year. The D.A. outlines that the developer will be required to “construct and install, at a minimum, a swing set, playground equipment and a basketball court, pursuant to such plans and specifications acceptable to the City Administrator/Utilities Manager on such park land in accordance with the GDP and the applicable phase SIP.” Staff is working with Neumann at this time to develop a site plan for the park and finalize options on playground equipment to provide to the City Parks Board at a later time. Civil Plans/Stormwater/Utilities: As part of their engineering submittal, Neumann provided full civil plans (including erosion control), stormwater management plans (SWMP), as well as utility connection plans to the City’s consulting engineers at Kapur to review. Kapur has reviewed these plans over the summer and submitted comment letters back to Neumann to address. All comments have now been addressed by Neumann and Kapur has provided a letter to the City indicating such. It is included as an attachment. A stormwater maintenance agreement will need to be approved between the developer and the City at a future Common Council. This can be done after the final plat approval. Engineer Plat Review: Kapur also conducted a technical review of the phase 1 final plat and has included a review letter dated September 18, 2026 with minor review comments to be addressed. Neumann has received the review letter and will make the technical corrections prior to consideration by the full Common Council. Department of Administration Approval: The Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) will also be a reviewing body of the final plat. The developer will have to work with the DOA to also obtain their approvals. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests the Plan Commission recommend conditional approval of the final plat of phase 1 of the Heritage Grove subdivision with the following conditions. • Addressing comments from Kapur letter dated September 18, 2026 • Adjusting City Treasurer name on final plat to “Paul Seymour” to correct scribe error Copies Mailed/Emailed To: I. Kevin Anderson: kevin@neumanncompanies.com Attachments: I. Heritage Grove Narrative for Phase 1 Final Plat II. Final Plat Map; Heritage Grove, Phase 1 III. Kapur Review Letter on Heritage Grove Phase 1 Final Plat Page 22 of 59 IV. Kapur Review Letter on civil, SWMP, utilities Action Date Status Plan Commission Meeting; Concept Plan Review 9/4/2025 Rec. Proceed Plan Commission Meeting; Rezone/Comp Plan/CSM 11/6/2025 Rec. Approval Public Notice: newspaper notice for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11/7/2025 Published Common Council Meeting; Comp Plan/CSM 12/9/2025 Approved Public Notice: newspaper notice; mailer to neighbors/Town of Plymouth for rezone 1/9, 1/16 newspaper 1/14/2026 mailer Published Mailed Common Council Meeting; Developer’s Agreement, Rezone 1/27/2026 Approved Plan Commission Meeting; Preliminary Plat 2/5/2026 Approved Plan Commission Final Plat Recommendation 10/1/2026 This meeting Common Council Final Plat Approval for Phase 1 TBD TBD Page 23 of 59 09/08/26 City of Plymouth C/O Jack Johnston 123 Smith Street Plymouth, WI 53073 Dear Jack, In conjunction with the submission of the Final Plat for the 43-lot Phase 1, please find this narrative of the project. Heritage Grove subdivision, at full build out, will be a 119-lot single family residential subdivision located north of the State HWY 67 and CTH “E” intersection; just south of the Greystone Settlement subdivision. Phase 1 of the project consist of 43 single family lots and connects on the southern side to State HWY 67 . As part of the plat for this phase, the park lands located on the east of the subdivision will be dedicated to the City of Plymouth. Neumann Development’s building partner, Harbor Homes will be constructing the future residential homes by consisting of both ranch and two- story homes with an anticipated market cost to be mid $400k. Although not part of this Final Plat, Premier Real Estate (PRE/3) plans to develop a 60-unit multifamily complex consisting of five, two-story buildings within a privately owned and maintained space, appealing to both young families and empty nesters. The location of this apartment complex will be in Lot of the parent parcel; south of the subdivision and north of HWY 67. As such, we are requesting the Final Plat for Phase 1 of He ritage Grove subdivision to be approved. Thank you for your consideration; let me know if you have any questions on this request. Sincerely, Kevin Anderson Neumann Developments, Inc Page 24 of 59 Department of Administration Certified __________________, 20_____ Wis Stats. as provided by s. 236.12, Wis. Stats. Secs. 236.15, 236.16, 236.20 and 236.21(1) and (2), There are no objections to this plat with respect to Phone: (262) 790-1480 Fax: (262) 790-1481 19035 W. Capitol Drive Brookfield, WI 53045 TRIO DESIGN L AND SURVEYING CIV INGIL ENG I NEE R Suite 200 25-034-953-01 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY JAMES A. TRANDEL, JR., P.L.S. (S-4069) SCALE: 1" = 120' 60 120 2400 HERITAGE GROVE BEING A REDIVISION OF LOT 2 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 32, PAGES 233-238 INCLUSIVE, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2188519, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWN 15 NORTH, RANGE 21 EAST, IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. OVERALL DETAIL SHEET SHEET 1 OF 3DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 GENERAL NOTES: · INDICATES SET 1.270" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 18" LONG REINFORCING BAR WEIGHING 4.303 LBS. PER LINEAL FOOT. ALL OTHER LOT AND OUTLOT CORNERS ARE STAKED WITH 0.750" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 18" LONG REINFORCING BAR WEIGHING 1.502 LBS. PER LINEAL FOOT. · INDICATES "FOUND" 0.750" O.D. REINFORCING BAR WEIGHING 1.502 LBS. PER LINEAL FOOT. · INDICATES "FOUND" 1" IRON PIPE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED). · ALL LINEAR MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE NEAREST ONE-HUNDREDTH OF A FOOT. · ALL ANGULAR MEASUREMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE NEAREST SECOND AND COMPUTED TO THE NEAREST HALF-SECOND. · ALL BEARINGS ARE REFERENCED TO GRID NORTH OF THE WISCONSIN COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, SHEBOYGAN COUNTY (NAD-83/1991), IN WHICH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE N.E. 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWN 15 NORTH, RANGE 21 EAST, BEARS N89°59'03"W. · THE EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC STORM SEWER, WATERMAIN, UTILITY AND ACCESS ARE HEREIN GRANTED TO THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH. · OUTLOT 1 CONTAINS LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE. INDICATES EXISTING WETLAND LINE R-5 SINGLE FAMILY ZONING: Heritage Grove Development Criteria - Minimum Lot Area = 8,700 sf - Minimum Lot Width = 70' - Minimum Building Setbacks: - Front Setback ................. 25' - Front Side Corner ........... 15' - Side Yard ........................7.5' - Rear Yard ....................... 25' WETLAND AREA THE LOTS OF THIS LAND DIVISION MAY EXPERIENCE NOISE AT LEVELS EXCEEDING THE LEVELS IN S. TRANS 405.04, TABLE I. THESE LEVELS ARE BASED ON FEDERAL STANDARDS. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ABATING NOISE FROM EXISTING STATE TRUNK HIGHWAYS OR CONNECTING HIGHWAYS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCREASE BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE HIGHWAY'S THROUGH-LANE CAPACITY. THERE SHALL BE NO IMPROVEMENTS OR STRUCTURES PLACED BETWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND THE HIGHWAY SETBACK LINE. NO STRUCTURE OR IMPROVEMENT OF ANY KIND IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE VISION CORNER. NO VEGETATION WITHIN THE VISION CORNER MAY EXCEED 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT. WETLAND AREA WETLAND AREA (OWNED BY SUBDIVIDER) (DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PARK PURPOSES) GENERAL NOTES (CONT.): · OUTLOT 2 SHALL BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES. · OUTLOT 4 TO BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. · STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES ARE LOCATED ON OUTLOT 3 OF THIS SUBDIVISION. THE OWNERS OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AND ANY FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL EACH BE LIABLE FOR AN EQUAL UNDIVIDED FRACTIONAL SHARE OF THE COST TO REPAIR, MAINTAIN OR RESTORE SAID STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. SAID REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE OWNERS OF ALL LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION. · THE OWNERS OF ALL LOTS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION AND ANY FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL EACH OWN AN EQUAL UNDIVIDED FRACTIONAL INTEREST IN OUTLOTS 1 & 3 OF THIS SUBDIVISION. SHEBOYGAN COUNTY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR FEES OR SPECIAL CHARGES IN THE EVENT THEY BECOME THE OWNER OF ANY LOT OR OUTLOT IN THE SUBDIVISION BY REASON OF TAX DELINQUENCY. · WETLAND BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREIN ARE BASED ON A FIELD DELINEATION COMPLETED BY HEARTLAND ECOLOGICAL GROUP, INC. IN OCTOBER 2025. NO HIGH-WATER ELEVATION OR WATER ELEVATION OF THE WETLAND AREAS COULD BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. S89°58'48"E 2586.57 S0°06'50"W 219.79 N89°53'10"W 294.37 N89°59'03"W 150.00 N89°59'03"W 233.34 N17°42'46"E 336.34 N75°28'59"W 487.19 N89°29'06"W 276.58 N64°00'42"W 130.00 S0°31'01"W 131.81 N89°59'03"W 277.39 N0°08'55"E 230.40 N0°08'55"E 1029.68 S0°01'15"E 881.21 S71°57'32"W 323.22 S30°47'03"W136.60 A=29.77 A=96.83 A=500.78A=23.69 Page 25 of 59 N36°48'57"W 73.36 N89°13'58"W 64.41 N89°13'58"W 67.19 43.90 21.12 23 4 7 5 6 89 11 10 13 12 14 15 16 17 N17°46'20"E 73.87 N04°46'48"E 50.10 N17°46'20"E 76.15 N04°46'48"E 54.04 2.26 30.00N00°01'12"E 10.00 N89°58'48"W 10.44 N84°57'39"E 108.27 N36°48'57"W 84.10 N00°46'02"E 20.00 N89°59'03"W 150.00 N75°28'59"W 487.19 N89°29'06"W 276.58 N64°00'42"W 130.00 S0°31'01"W 131.81 N89°59'03"W 277.39 N0°08'55"E 230.40 N0°08'55"E 1029.68 S71°57'32"W 323.22 S30°47'03"W136.60 A=29.77 A=96.83 A=23.69 BEING A REDIVISION OF LOT 2 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 32, PAGES 233-238 INCLUSIVE, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2188519, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWN 15 NORTH, RANGE 21 EAST, IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. (OWNED BY SUBDIVIDER) Department of Administration Certified __________________, 20_____ Wis Stats. as provided by s. 236.12, Wis. Stats. Secs. 236.15, 236.16, 236.20 and 236.21(1) and (2), There are no objections to this plat with respect to SCALE: 1" = 60' 30 60 1200 25-034-953-01 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY JAMES A. TRANDEL, JR., P.L.S. (S-4069) HERITAGE GROVE SHEET 2 OF 3DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 Page 26 of 59 N36°48'57"W 73.36 N89°13'58"W 64.41 N89°13'58"W 67.19 43.90 21.12 1 17 18 N36°48'57"W 84.10 N00°46'02"E 20.00 N38°01'07"E 147.13 87.49 N38°01'07"E124.96 16.3621.81 49.07 47.17 N30°06'20"W 26.42 N38°01'07"E 192.14 N06°39'27"W 162.10 N89°59'03"W 233.34 N17°42'46"E 336.34 N75°28'59"W 487.19 N89°29'06"W 276.58 S0°01'15"E 881.21 S71°57'32"W 323.22 A=500.78 BEING A REDIVISION OF LOT 2 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 32, PAGES 233-238 INCLUSIVE, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2188519, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWN 15 NORTH, RANGE 21 EAST, IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. WETLAND AREA WETLAND AREA WETLAND AREA INDICATES EXISTING WETLAND LINE INDICATES EXISTING WETLAND LINE (OWNED BY SUBDIVIDER) (DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC FOR PARK PURPOSES) Department of Administration Certified __________________, 20_____ Wis Stats. as provided by s. 236.12, Wis. Stats. Secs. 236.15, 236.16, 236.20 and 236.21(1) and (2), There are no objections to this plat with respect to SCALE: 1" = 60' 30 60 1200 25-034-953-01 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY JAMES A. TRANDEL, JR., P.L.S. (S-4069) HERITAGE GROVE SHEET 3 OF 3DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 Page 27 of 59 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) SS COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE ) I, James A. Trandel, Jr., Professional Land Surveyor, do hereby certify: That I have surveyed, divided, and mapped a redivision of Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Sheboygan County on December 30, 2025 in Volume 32, Pages 233-238 inclusive, as Document No. 2188519, being a part of the Southwest 1/4 and Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, Town 15 North, Range 21 East, in the City of Plymouth, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. Said Parcel contains 2,430,840 Square Feet (or 55.8044 Acres) of land, more or less. That I have made such survey, land division and map by the direction of HG PLYMOUTH, LLC, owner of said lands. That such map is a correct representation of all the exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the land division thereof made. That I have fully complied with the provisions of Chapter 236 of the Wisconsin Statutes and the Subdivision Regulations of the City of Plymouth, Sheboygan County, Wisconsin in surveying, dividing and mapping the same. Dated this Day of , 20 . James A. Trandel, Jr., P.L.S. Professional Land Surveyor, S-4069 TRIO ENGINEERING, LLC 19035 W. Capitol Drive, Suite 200 Brookfield, WI 53045 Phone: (262) 790-1480 Fax: (262) 790-1481 CORPORATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF DEDICATION: HG PLYMOUTH, LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin, as owner, certifies that said Corporation has caused the land described on this plat to be surveyed, divided, mapped and dedicated as represented on this plat. I also certify that this plat is required by S.236.10 or S.236.12 to be submitted to the following for approval or objection. APPROVING AGENCIES: AGENCIES WHO MAY OBJECT: 1. City of Plymouth 1. State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration 2. State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation 3. Sheboygan County, Planning and Resources Department Witness the hand and seal of said Owner this day of , 20 . HG Plymouth, LLC By: Neumann Developments, Inc. its Sole Member Bryan Lindgren, President STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) SS COUNTY OF WAUKESHA ) Personally came before me this day of , 20 , the above named Bryan Lindgren, President of the above named Limited Liability Company, to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and to me known to be such President of said Limited Liability Company, and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument as such officer as the deed of said Corporation, by its authority. Print Name: Public, County, WI My Commission Expires: CERTIFICATE OF CITY TREASURER: STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) SS COUNTY OF SHEBOYGAN ) I, Anna Voigt, being duly appointed, qualified and acting Treasurer of the City of Plymouth, do hereby certify that in accordance with the records in my office, there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments as of this Day of , 20 on any of the land included in the Plat of "HERITAGE GROVE". Dated this Day of , 20 . Anna Voigt, City Treasurer CITY COMMON COUNCIL APPROVAL CERTIFICATE: Resolved that the Plat of "HERITAGE GROVE", in the City of Plymouth, is hereby approved by the Common Council of the City of Plymouth. All conditions have been met as of this Day of , 20 . Approved: Don Pohlman, Mayor Anna Voigt, City Clerk CONSENT OF CORPORATE MORTGAGEE: PORT WASHINGTON STATE BANK, a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Wisconsin, Mortgagee of the above described land, does hereby consent to the surveying, dividing, dedicating and mapping of the land described on this Plat, and does hereby consent to the above certificate of HG PLYMOUTH, LLC, owner, this day of , 20 . STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) SS COUNTY OF ) Personally came before me this day of , 20 , the above named , of the above named Corporation, to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and to me known to be such of said corporation, and acknowledged that he executed the foregoing instrument as such officer as the deed of said Corporation, by its authority. Print Name: Public, County, WI My Commission Expires: CITY PLAN COMMISSION APPROVAL CERTIFICATE: Approved by the Plan Commission of the City of Plymouth on this Day of , 20 . Don Pohlman, Chairperson Jack Johnston, Secretary 25-034-953-01 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY JAMES A. TRANDEL, JR., P.L.S. (S-4069) HERITAGE GROVE SHEET 1 OF 3 BEING A REDIVISION OF LOT 2 OF CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP RECORDED IN VOLUME 32, PAGES 233-238 INCLUSIVE, AS DOCUMENT NO. 2188519, BEING A PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWN 15 NORTH, RANGE 21 EAST, IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY TREASURER: STATE OF WISCONSIN ) ) SS COUNTY OF SHEBOYGAN ) I, Laura Henning-Lorenz, being duly elected, qualified and acting Treasurer of the County of Sheboygan, do hereby certify that the records in my office show no unredeemed tax sales and no unpaid taxes or special assessments as of this Day of , 20 on any of the land included in the Plat of "HERITAGE GROVE". Dated this Day of , 20 . Laura Henning-Lorenz, County Treasurer Department of Administration Certified __________________, 20_____ Wis Stats. as provided by s. 236.12, Wis. Stats. Secs. 236.15, 236.16, 236.20 and 236.21(1) and (2), There are no objections to this plat with respect to Phone: (262) 790-1480 Fax: (262) 790-1481 19035 W. Capitol Drive Brookfield, WI 53045 TRIO DESIGN L AND SURVEYING CIV INGIL EN G I NE E R Suite 200 UTILITY EASEMENT PROVISIONS: An easement for electric, natural gas, and communications service is hereby granted by HG PLYMOUTH, LLC, Grantor, to WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin Corporation, Grantee and PLYMOUTH UTILITIES, a Wisconsin Corporation, Grantee and WISCONSIN BELL, INC. doing business as AT&T Wisconsin, a Wisconsin Corporation, Grantee and SPECTRUM MID-AMERICA, LLC, Grantee, AND their respective successors and assigns, to construct, install, operate, repair, maintain and replace from time to time, facilities used in connection with overhead and underground transmission and distribution of electricity and electric energy, natural gas, telephone and cable TV facilities for such purposes as the same is now or may hereafter be used, all in, over, under, across, along and upon the property shown within those areas on the plat designated as "Utility Easement Areas" and the property designated on the plat for streets and alleys, whether public or private, together with the right to install service connections upon, across within and beneath the surface of each lot to serve improvements, theron, or on adjacent lots; also the right to trim or cut down trees, brush and roots as may be reasonably required incident to the rights herein given, and the right to enter upon the subdivided property for all such purposes. The Grantees agree to restore or cause to have restored, the property, as nearly as is reasonably possible, to the condition existing prior to such entry by the Grantees or their agents. This restoration, however, does not apply to the initial installation of said underground and/or above ground electric facilities, natural gas facilities, or telephone and cable TV facilities or to any trees, brush or roots which may be removed at any time pursuant to the rights herein granted. Buildings shall not be placed over Grantees' facilities or in, upon or over the property within the lines marked "Utility Easement Areas" without the prior written consent of Grantees. After installation of any such facilities, the grade of the subdivided property shall not be altered by more than four inches without written consent of grantees. The grant of easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of all parties hereto. DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 Page 28 of 59 Jack Johnston September 18, 2026 Plan Commission Secretary – Zoning Administrator City of Plymouth 128 Smith Street Plymouth, WI 53073 RE: Heritage Grove Final Plat Review, City of Plymouth Jack, We have reviewed the above noted final plat, per Title 14 – Subdivision Regulations, Article E. – Technical Requirements for Plats and Certified Survey Maps, of the City of Plymouth Municipal Code, and have compiled the following comments: Sec. 14-1-41 – Technical requirements for final plats. 1. Indicate the length and bearing of the center line of Pioneer Place. [14-1-41(b)(1) 2. Add drainage flow arrows per City of Plymouth ordinance. [14-1-41(b)(8) 3. Corr ect the sheet numbers at the bottom right of the sheets. The plat includes (4) sheets, ho wever the sheets are labeled Sheets 1-3. [14-1-41(e)(1)] 4. The re is a 20’ wide public storm sewer easement label shown along the north side of Lot 13, ho wever the easement shown does not appear to be 20’ wide. [14-1-41(e)(1)] Note: Kapur did not review the final plat per State statutes since the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Plat Review will review for those requirements.. If you have any questions or concerns, please call or reply. Regards, KAPUR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Erik A. Gusta fson, P.L.S. Project Surveyor Page 29 of 59 September 24, 2026 Cathy Austin Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Plymouth 900 CTH PP P.O. Box 277 Plymouth, WI RE: Heritage Grove Subdivision Phase 1 Engineering Plan Review Dear Ms. Austin, Kapur has reviewed the submitted documents from Trio Civil Engineering for the proposed Heritage Grove subdivision project. The documents received were reviewed for conformance with the City of Plymouth ordinances, generally accepted engineering standards, construction feasibility, and ease of maintenance. Although the material has been reviewed, the applicant is ultimately responsible for the thoroughness and accuracy of the plans and supplemental data and for compliance with state, county, and other local ordinance and procedures. Documents Submitted: 1. Stormwater Drainage Facilities Maintenance Agreement (16 Pages) 2. Storm Water Management Plan (553 Pages) dated August 19, 2026. 3. Heritage Grove Phase 1 Single Family Subdivision Site Development Plans (39 Pages) dated August 19, 2026. All comments from the previous review dated July 10, 2026 have been addressed, and no further action is necessary. Please call (414) 751 -7200 or email me at efox@kapurinc.com if you have any questions or comments regarding this review. Sincerely, Kapur Elizabeth Fox, P.E. Page 30 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3739 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: September 24, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Tim Blakeslee, City Administrator/Utilities Manager RE: Final Plat Recommendation; Consideration of final plat for Scholar’s Ridge residential subdivision. Sheboygan County Economic Development Corporation (enclosure) Background: Sheboygan County Economic Development Corporation (SCEDC) is requesting final plat approval for the Scholar’s Ridge residential subdivision, which will consist 102 single family lots. The subdivision’s lot size ranges from 7,216 to 22,947 square feet. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Plan Commission at the April 9, 2026 meeting. Preliminary construction began this past summer and initial home occupancies are expected in 2027. Approvals Leading Up to Now: SCEDC first presented this project to the Plan Commission in early 2025 with a 94 lot residential subdivision. At the time, the southern portion of the project site was going to be undertaken by a separate developer seeking a multi -family project. The Plan Commission approved the preliminary plat at the time. As you may recall, SCEDC came back to the Plan Commission with a revised preliminary plat earlier this spring after the multi -family developer was no longer considering the project. The updated plans added 8 homes to the project site and allowed better design elements including the following: 1. Increased lot count: Adds 8 additional home sites, bringing the total from 94 to 102. 2. Reduced exposed basements: Significantly decreases the number of exposed basements, though lots 76–82 will remain exposed due to existing terrain. 3. Enhanced pond views: Reroutes the eastern road away from the retention pond, allowing lots to back directly onto the pond for improved aesthetics and value. 4. Improved lot appeal: Introduces cul-de-sacs that enhance visual interest and create more desirable home sites. 5. Better grading and lot depth: Shifting the roads and incorporating the southern parcel improves lot sizes and grading balance, particularly for the northern and western lots with steeper slopes. Comprehensive Plan/Zoning/Setbacks: The City’s future land use map within the 2022 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area to be residential. As such, no comprehensive plan amendment would be required for this project. The developer obtained City zoning approvals for the R- 5 Traditional Neighborhood District for the subdivision. This district encourages smaller lot sizes (6000 square feet up to 0.75 acres) with Page 31 of 59 greater flexibility in terms of building setbacks. Once completed, the development will be similar in feel to the Vintage neighborhood directly to the southeast of the property across Pleasant View Road. Traffic/Access: Intersections between the new road in the subdivision and Pleasant View Road will be controlled by a one-way stop sign, allowing traffic on Pleasant View to continue uninterrupted. Through project increment generation, estimated at $26 million, this project will contribute to traffic improvements outlined in the TID #7 project plan. These include signal upgrades at Pleasant View/Eastern (signal timing study, control upgrades), Highland/Eastern (signal timing study, cabinet and traffic loop replacements, lighting, and electrical), and Eastern/Carr (signal installation). Staff will continue to monitor traffic conditions to determine if any intermediate adjustments are necessary before the TID #7 projects are completed. Given the improvements this project will help support and because Pleasant View Road and Eastern Avenue is already a signalized intersection, Staff did not require a full Traffic Impact Analysis as part of this project. Civil Plans/Stormwater/Utilities: As part of their engineering submittal, SCEDC provided full civil plans (including erosion control), stormwater management plans (SWMP), as well as utility connection plans to the City’s consulting engineers at Kapur to review. Kapur has reviewed these plans over the summer and submitted comment letters back to SCEDC to address. The most recent comment letter from July 1, 2026 indicates curb ramps should by ADA compliant. Kapur is working with SCEDC’s engineer on submitting updated grading plan sheets with updated curb ramp grades to satisfy this requirement. The stormwater management pond will be owned by the City of Plymouth so no stormwater maintenance agreement is needed in this case. Engineer Plat Review: Kapur also conducted a technical review of the final plat and has included a review letter dated September 4 , 2026 with minor review comments to be addressed. SCEDC has received the review letter and will make the technical corrections prior to consideration by the full Common Council. Department of Administration Approval: The Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) will also be a reviewing body of the final plat. SCEDC submitted this plat to DOA over the summer and received approval. With the corrections needed for municipal approval, SCEDC will have to work with the DOA to obtain final sign off on the plat. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests the Plan Commission recommend conditional approval of the final plat of the Scholar’s Ridge subdivision with the following conditions. • Addressing comments from Kapur letter dated September 4, 2026 for final plat review • Adjusting City Treasurer name on final plat to “Paul Seymour” to correct scribe error • Addressing comments from Kapur letter dated July 1, 2026 for curb ramps Copies Mailed/Emailed To: I. TJ Crowns: tcrowns@sheboygancountyedc.com II. Dave Biebel: dbiebel5@gmail.com Page 32 of 59 Attachments: I. Final Plat Map, Scholar’s Ridge II. Kapur Review Letter on Scholar’s Ridge Final Plat III. Kapur Review Letter on civil, SWMP, utilities Action Date Status Public Notice for Rezone; property owners within 100’ 2/10/2026 Mailed Public Notice for Rezone; newspaper 2/20/2026, 2/27/2026 Published Plan Commission Meeting; Rezone Request for Lot 2 from R-4 to R-5; 3/5/2026 Rec. Approval Common Council Meeting: Rezone Public Hearing and Ordinance 3/10/2026 Approved Common Council Meeting; first amendment to developer’s agreement 3/31/2026 Approved Plan Commission Preliminary Plat 4/9/2026 Approved Plan Commission Final Plat 10/1/2026 This meeting Common Council Final Plat - Upcoming Page 33 of 59 Page 34 of 59 Page 35 of 59 Page 36 of 59 Jack Johnston September 4, 2026 Plan Commission Secretary – Zoning Administrator City of Plymouth 128 Smith Street Plymouth, WI 53073 RE: Scholars Ridge Final Plat Review, City of Plymouth Jack, We have reviewed the above noted final plat, per Title 14 – Subdivision Regulations, Article E. – Technical Requirements for Plats and Certified Survey Maps, of the City of Plymouth Municipal Code, and have compiled the following comments: Sec. 14-1-41 – Technical requirements for final plats. 1. Indicate the length and bearing of the center line of all streets. [14-1-41(b)(1) 2. The 12’ utility easement is not shown on Lots 54-73. The surveyor should also verify that the 12’ utility easement is not needed along right of way of Lots 37, 38, 48, 52, 53, 74, and 91. [14-1-41(b)(3) 3. Add drainage flow arrows per City of Plymouth ordinance. [14-1-41(b)(8) 4. The c oordinates of the section corners indicated on the plat need to be shown. [14-1-41(e)(4)] Note: Kapur did not review the final plat per State statutes since the plat has already been reviewed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of Administration – Plat Review. If you have any questions or concerns, please call or reply. Regards, KAPUR & ASSOCIATES, INC. Erik A. Gustafson, P.L.S. Project Surveyor Page 37 of 59 July 1, 2026 Cathy Austin Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Plymouth 900 CTH PP P.O. Box 277 Plymouth, WI RE: Scholars Ridge Subdivision Engineering Plan Review Dear Ms. Austin, Kapur has reviewed the submitted documents from Abacus Architects for their proposed Scholars Ridge Subdivision project. The documents received were reviewed for conformance with the City of Plymouth ordinances, generally accepted engineering standards, construction feasibility, and ease of maintenance. Although the material has been reviewed, the applicant is ultimately responsible for the thoroughness and accuracy of the plans and supplemental data and for compliance with state, county, and other local ordinance and procedures. The following is a list of our comments. Documents Submitted: 1. Resp onse Letter (2 Pages), dated June 29, 2026 2. Scholars Ridge Subdivision Plans (23 Pages), dated April 15, 2026 3. Pipe Sizing – 10YR (1 Page) General Plan Comments 1. Please review the attached curb ramp markups to ensure ADA compliance. Pending the above comment being addressed, the engineering comments have been addressed and we recommend the approval of the engineering plans. Please call (414) 751-7200 or email me at rmaas@kapurinc.com if you have any questions or comments regarding this review. Sincerely, Kapur Robert Maas, P.E. Page 38 of 59 Page 39 of 59 City of Plymouth 128 Smith St. - P.O. Box 107 Plymouth, WI 53073-0107 Telephone: (920) 893-3739 Facsimile: (920) 893-0183 Web Site: plymouthgov.com DATE: September 24, 2026 TO: Plan Commission FROM: Jack Johnston, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director RE: Staff Request: Discussion on potential zoning code audit to be incorporated into the 2027 City of Plymouth Budget. Johnston (enclosure) Background: The City's current zoning regulations are contained in Section 13 of the City Code. The most recent comprehensive update of Section 13 occurred in June 2021, when the Common Council adopted Ordinance 2021- 8 addressing the City's zoning regulations and processes. This work began in 2019 under former City administration. Bay Lakes Regional Planning Commission undertook this work for the City at that time. Since the 2021 update, the City has continued to make targeted amendments to individual provisions of the zoning code in response to development issues, operational experience, and changes in state law. A non-comprehensive list of examples include: • 2023: o Small update to accessory structure ordinance requiring any accessory structure equal to or exceeding 160 square feet comply with City’s garage and footing requirements. • 2024: o Introduced the R-6 high density multi-family residential zoning district. R-6 allows larger multi-family development projects than R-4 multi-family residential district. o Amended regulations concerning accessory structures, including provisions governing their size, number, placement, and related requirements. o Created Plan Commission exemptions for parking minimums for office and retail businesses to address downtown businesses. o Amended City's procedures for voting on zoning amendments into conformity with 2023 Wisconsin Act 16 and Wis. Stat. § 66.10015. The amendment removed supermajority requirements that were no longer permitted under state law. • 2025: o Sign code updated removing wall sign height placement restrictions. o Updates to non- conforming structure ordinance allowing lateral and vertical additions to certain non-conforming structures. o By mail notices to nearby property owners re -added to zoning code after being inadvertently dropped as part of 2021 update. • 2026: o Additional update to the sign code introducing marquee signs and shift variances/special exception requests to the sign code from the Board of Appeals to the Plan Commission as a conditional use permit request. Page 40 of 59 The number of targeted amendments adopted since the 2021 comprehensive update does not, by itself, indicate that the City's zoning code is deficient. Rather, these amendments demonstrate that the City has continued to identify and address specific regulatory, administrative, development, and statutory issues as they have arisen. A periodic review of the code can help determine whether these individual amendments continue to function together as intended and whether additional adjustments are warranted. Zoning Code Audit Request: As part of the 2027 City budget, staff has currently allocated funds to conduct a “zoning code audit” to help further refine the City’s zoning code and update it as needed. A zoning code audit would be a structured review of the City of Plymouth’s existing zoning code ordinances to determine whether the regulations remain clear, internally consistent, legally current, easy to administer, and aligned with the City’s current development goals and Comprehensive Plan. An audit would not necessarily mean another wholesale rewrite. Rather, it would provide the City with an objective assessment of what portions of the 2021 code are working well, what provisions have created recurring questions or required subsequent amendments, and what changes may be appropriate to ensure the code continues to support Plymouth’s current development patterns, Comprehensive Plan, and policy objectives as outlined in the City’s recently adopted strategic plan. Consulting Planner: To that end, staff has coordinated with Amy Barrows and Rebekah Leto of Planning and Zoning, LLC as a potential consultants to assist the City in this work. Ms. Barrows is an experienced land use planner with over 25 years of planning and zoning experience. Her background includes nearly 20 years serving as a land use planner in Waukesha County, as well as various City/Village/Town consulting planning roles over the last 6 years. She currently serves as the municipal planner in both the City of Delafield and Village of Summit in Waukesha County . Additionally, Ms. Barrows is a Plymouth native and is still very well versed and tuned into the area. Staff Requests: Staff requests that the Plan Commission provide direction for including funding for a zoning code audit in the City's 2027 budget. Final approval of the 2027 budget, including funding for the audit, would be considered by the Common Council through the City's normal budget process. Copies Mailed/Emailed To: I. Amy Barrows: abarrows@planningwi.com Attachments: I. Sample Zoning Code Audit Document II. Excerpt from Outagamie County Zoning Code Audit Page 41 of 59 Community Zoning Code Audit City of Plymouth, Wisconsin A comprehensive review of code usability, plan consistency, development standards, approval procedures, statutory compliance, ……… Prepared for City of Plymouth Common Council, Plan Commission, and Staff Prepared by Amy Barrows & Rebekah Leto, AICP, Planning & Zoning LLC Report date TBD Important use note: This audit document is not an adopted ordinance, does not include specific code language, or legal opinion. Page 42 of 59 Executive Summary Add an executive summary of findings here Recommended near-term decisions • This is going to be a short list of the most important decisions that need to be made. These will be decision points, not code amendment recommendations. Our recommendations will have a rating of importance/priority. The verbiage may be different than the below table. Ordinance Ratings: How to read the ratings Rating Meaning Typical response Strong The ordinance is generally clear and supports the stated community objective. Maintain existing language and refine if necessary Needs attention The provision works in some situations but creates recurring ambiguity, cost, or inconsistent outcomes. Medium-priority amendment Priority Gap The code materially conflicts with an adopted goal, lacks usable standards, or creates avoidable risk. High-priority amendment At a glance scorecard (This is just an example of a table that may be prepared, topics will be unique to Plymouth) Audit topic Rating Summary Code organization and usability Needs attention Definitions and procedures are dispersed; key tables should be consolidated. Comprehensive plan consistency Needs attention Most district purposes align, but several plan actions lack implementing standards. Housing choice and neighborhood fit Priority gap Limited options between detached homes and larger apartment projects. Commercial corridors Priority gap Vehicle-oriented uses lack a consistent frontage and screening framework. Parking and access Needs attention One-size minimums do not distinguish walkable centers from highway corridors. Landscaping lighting and site design Needs attention Core standards exist but measurement and maintenance rules need clarity. Page 43 of 59 Audit topic Rating Summary Procedures and decision standards Needs attention Approval criteria should be tied more directly to evidence and code standards. Administration and enforcement Strong Clear staff roles and permit sequence provide a sound base for updates. Audit Purpose and Method Purpose A zoning audit compares what a community says it wants with what its ordinance actually allows, requires, or discourages. It is not a rezoning map and does not by itself change the text of any ordinances. Its purpose is to identify inconsistencies and discrepancies, align with state statutes, clarify and provide new regulatory choices, and give the community a practical sequence for amendments. Questions used in this review • We will address a few priority questions as we review the ordinance. These questions will be developed with assistance from city staff during our kick-off meeting and may be added to the report. Illustrative community profile Describe Plymouth geography and variety of uses and relationship to surrounding communities. Page 44 of 59 Detailed Findings The report findings will look something like the below. We will fill in responses after each item. 1 Code organization and usability What the audit found Why this matters Recommended direction 2 Comprehensive plan consistency What the audit found Why this matters Recommended direction 3 Housing choice and neighborhood fit What the audit found Why this matters Recommended direction 4 Commercial corridors What the audit found Why this matters Recommended direction Continue List, likely section by section (example heading: Article A Purpose and Introduction, Article B General Provisions) or by topic (example heading: Parking, Signage) depending on breadth of comments. Appendix A Zoning Audit Checklist Below is a sample of some of the topics we will look at. Topic Questions to test Local finding Authority and purpose Purpose statements, statutory authority, jurisdiction, consistency language Organization Numbering, article order, cross-references, tables, diagrams, online navigation Districts Purpose, dimensional standards, legacy lots, overlays, map relationship Page 45 of 59 Topic Questions to test Local finding Uses Definitions, permission levels, use table, similar-use interpretation, accessory uses Housing Dwelling types, household definitions, ADUs, group living, lot and building fit Corridors Access, frontage, drive-throughs, automotive uses, outdoor display and storage Parking Minimums, maximums, shared parking, bicycle parking, loading, adjustments Site design Landscaping, screening, lighting, building placement, pedestrian connections Environment Stormwater, resource links, trees, native planting Procedures Application completeness, review bodies, notice, criteria, findings, appeals Nonconformities Continuation, repair, expansion, change of use, proportional upgrades Administration Interpretations, enforcement, permits, records, fees, annual updates Appendix B References and Adaptation Notes Page 46 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 32 Recommendation: The zoning code should address reasonable accommodations, including how requests are made and criteria for evaluation. 29. Financial Guarantees While it is common to include provisions in a land division code addressing financial guaranties for infrastructure, there are instances in the zoning code where the use of financial guarantee may be warranted. For example, if weather inhibits installation of required landscaping or the completion of a site improvement, temporary occupancy may occur if an adequate financial guarantee is in place. Sometimes a financial guarantee is required to ensure a telecommunication tower is removed when it is no longer in service. The zoning code should describe when financial guarantees may be used and most importantly what types of guarantees are acceptable. In this regard, bonds are the least desirable and should not be used. Cash deposits and letters of credit are far more desirable, because the money is easier to access. 30. Reliance on other Regulatory Agencies Land development activities often involve multiple layers of regulatory control. While it made sense to rely on another agency, it is becoming less certain that same level of control will continue. For example, courts have recently limited the reach of federal wetland regulations. Those protections have now been scaled back. State agencies also are subject to changes in legislative priorities. Even when the necessary regulations are in place at the state or federal level, a lack of funding and changes in priorities may short-circuit the basic intent of the regulatory controls. For these reasons, it may be appropriate to establish more local control within the context of the county’s zoning regulations. One way of doing that is to reference a state licensing requirement and require compliance. If the jurisdiction can show a property owner does not have necessary licensing as required in the zoning code, the use can be terminated without having to wait until the state agencies begins and finishes its enforcement action. Sample Code from Another Jurisdiction (e) Registration required. The owner, operator, or tenant shall register the premise where chickens are kept with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection as required by state law and maintain such registration for so long as may be required. 31. Specific Revisions to Existing Code 1. In § 54-4, revise the definition for dwelling unit to remove the reference to “one family” and insert “one household unit”. Revise the definition for “family” to be “household unit”. 2. In § 54-4, there is a definition for “airport, public” which is fine. However, another definition is needed for “airport, private”. However, if the zoning code doesn’t regulate airports differently (private v. public), then remove the distinction for public and private and simply refer to airports. 3. Add “Conditional use See special exception” to § 54-4. 4. Amend the definition for lot area in § 54-4 to exclude bodies of water, defined wetlands, and other undevelopable lands. Below is a sample. All of the numbers are illustrative. Page 47 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 33 Sample Definition for Lot Area Lot area means the total horizontal area within the lot lines of the lot, but excludes the following: • 100 percent of any waterbodies • 50 percent of any slopes exceeding 18 percent • 100 percent of any wetlands • 85 percent of any floodfringe areas • 100 percent of any floodways • Etc. 5. Add a note to the definition for special exception to indicate this term is also known as “conditional use”. 6. The term “church” is used a number of times in the zoning code. While not entirely inappropriate, the more appropriate term is “place of worship” or “worship facility”. 7. Remove “alley” from the list of definitions in § 54-4, because it is not referenced in the zoning code in any meaningful way. 8. Section 54-157 describes the dimensional standards in the RSF single-family residential district. A distinction is made between a lot that is within and not within an approved and recorded subdivision plat.” While that type of distinction is fine, how is a homeowner or developer supposed to easily know what standards apply to their lot? One option is to create two types of RSF lots and denote them on the zoning map. For example, RSF-A are lots within a subdivision and RSF-B are lots not within a subdivision. 9. Section 54-178 allows two-family dwellings by right in the RTF district but only when connected to a public wastewater system. If connected to a private septic system, a two-family is reviewed as a special exception. Given the way special exceptions are now reviewed, it would be hard to deny a two-family on a septic. Two-family dwellings should be allowed by right, regardless of how wastewater is handled. 10. Section 54-207 allows multi-family dwelling exceeding 3 stories in height with a special exception. Given how special exceptions are now considered, it seems unlikely that a building more than 3 stories could be denied. Aside from that consideration, there should be a maximum standard which cannot be exceeded (e.g., 3 stories by right, 4 stories with a special exception). 11. Section 54-236 includes standards for dimensional standard. The narrative refers to minimum dimensions although maximum standards are also listed. This issue applies to a number of the other districts. To avoid confusion, one way is to list dimensional standards. The numbers in the example below are illustrative. • Lot area, minimum: 0.5 acres • Lot width, minimum: 90 feet • Front yard setback, minimum: 35 feet • Side yard setback, minimum: 20 feet • Rear yard setback, minimum: 20 feet • Lot coverage, maximum: 20 percent • Building height, maximum: 35 feet 12. Section 54-259 describes uses in the CR zoning district and includes a reference to “decorative masonry or other materials of suitable aesthetic, safety, and durability value.” If the County retains the CR district and is concerned about exterior building materials, that part needs to be rewritten to be more definitive so that developer and the reviewing authority knows what materials are acceptable. 13. Section 54-278 describes the Planned Commercial Office (CP) district and where the district should be located (i.e., direct access to a major arterial streets and highway). The reference to major arterial streets and highways is undefined. How does anyone know whether a street has that classification. The phrase should be defined. Alternatively, a reference could be used to a major street as depicted on the zoning map. Such roads can be identified with a line pattern (dashed or dotted) within the right-of-way. Page 48 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 34 14. Sections 54-279 and 281 lists land uses that are allowed in the Planned Commercial Office (CP) district by right and with a special exception, respectively. The code draws a distinction between private and public auditoriums/convention centers. As such, these uses are treated differently based on who is doing the project. That type of distinction is likely suspect in terms of equal protections considerations. 15. Section 54-279 indicates that art galleries, museums, libraries, community centers and publicly owned and operated recreational facilities are allowed by right in the Planned Commercial Office (CP) district. While most recreational facilities are indeed operated by a public entity, it is becoming more common place for the private sector to step in to provide a recreational facility, such as indoor soccer fields, tennis courts, pickleball and the like. Again, the distinction between a private and public facility is suspect in terms of equal protection considerations. 16. Section 54-860 lists those who should receive a copy of a public hearing notice. Aside from the others listed, copies would be mailed to “parties in interest” as determined by the AEEZLC committee. Rather than using this vague language, it may be appropriate to specify a distance from the subject property (e.g., 300 feet is a common distance). The code can also give the zoning administrator the latitude to send out notices beyond that distance if he or she believes additional notice is needed. 17. Section 54-861 creates two classes of public hearings. A Class A public hearing is conducted by the AEEZLC committee and a hearing examiner conducts Class B public hearings. It is our understanding Class B public hearing are rarely conducted. Based on this, the zoning code should be revised to remove the option of Class B hearings. If the decision is made to retain the two classes, additional details need to be added to the zoning code including who is qualified to serve in that capacity. 18. Section 54-864 should be revised to exclude appeals of AEEZLC committee decisions. Decisions of the AEEZLC committee should be appealed to circuit court. 19. Section 54-911 describes the procedures to amend the zoning code by simply referencing the requirements in state statute. While that may be legally sufficient, it is not at all helpful to the resident wanting to understand how the code can be amended. A step-by-step description should be used to identify the major steps in the process and who does what and when. 20. Mobile homes and manufactured homes are distinctly different housing types based on their construction specifications. It appears the code uses these terms somewhat interchangeably. The code should clarify where these different housing types are allowed. 21. Change HWY 41 references to Interstate 41, in particular Article XI – “Highway 41 Overlay District”. 22. Modify the definition for home occupation by removing the reference that it is “…an occupation in a residential district…” Home occupations are allowed in the AED/AGD districts which are not considered residential districts. 23. When rezoning from Exclusive Agriculture to General Agriculture, current policy limits the area rezoned to a maximum of 2 acres. That should be included in § 54-105. In addition, the code should address when the property owner wants to rezone to a different district (other than AGD) or for a different use (other than residence). 24. Section 54-130(2)) incorrectly refers to AED dimensional standards. There should be dimensional standards for two-family dwellings in AGD under § 54-131. 25. The code has an increased front-yard setback of 55 feet for lots fronting county and state highways. That dimensional standard should be included in all district requirements so it is not overlooked. 26. The current code defines lot coverage as “the percentage of the lot area covered by the principal structure”. That term is more commonly referred to as building coverage, and often includes all buildings on a lot. Lot coverage more commonly includes all hard surfaces, some of which may be permeable. Finally, impervious surface standards include all hard surfaces, but excludes permeable pavement. • The definition for lot coverage should be revised or excluded from the code because it doesn’t really clarify the term. • The County may want to establish lot coverage and/or impervious surface standards in one or more of the zoning districts 27. Provisions should be added for temporary uses/special events, to include a definition, general standards, and procedural requirements for administrative reviews. Page 49 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 35 32. Key Legislative Changes 2023 Wisconsin ACT 16 Act 16 was enacted in June of 2023 and addresses the procedure for amending zoning ordinances and appeal rights, approval of “permits” for residential housing developments, judicial review of local residential development decisions, and planned development district zoning. Recommendation: The applicability of this new legislation is still being interpreted by communities. Please reach out to your attorney to determine if any changes are required to your ordinance. In accordance with § 59.69 (5e)(e), the County may want to revise the zoning ordinance so that appeals from committee go to circuit court instead of the Board of Adjustment. Related Resources Wisconsin Legislature: 2023 Wisconsin Act 16 2017 Wisconsin Act 67 and 2011 Wisconsin Act 170 Act 67 was enacted in November of 2017. The Act limits the authority of local governments to regulate the development on substandard lots and repair, rebuilding, and maintenance of nonconforming structures, requires the issuance of conditional use permits under certain circumstances, and provides standards for the granting of variances. Act 170 was enacted in April of 2012. The Act limits the regulation of nonconforming structures based on cost and does not allow the enforcement of a zoning ordinance that is more restrictive than the WDNR regulations related to the location, maintenance, expansion, replacement, repair or relocation of a nonconforming structure in a shoreland zone. The regulation of construction on substandard lots cannot be more restrictive than DNR’s shoreland zoning standards for substandard lots. Recommendations: • Chapter 54 refers to Special Exceptions similarly to how Chapter 44 defines Conditional Uses. Chapter 44 describes the use as being granted by the Board of Adjustment, Committee, or Board. Typically, the Board of Adjustment does not hear use matters unless the code allows for “use variances”, which is defined differently than a conditional use. Chapters 54 and 44 should use consistent terminology (Conditional Use/Special Exception) and the purpose and intent of these processes should be distinct from the purpose and intent of a Variance. The Code should be updated to comply with the statutory provisions of Act 67, including definitions and criteria. • Since the statutes now require that any condition imposed as part of a conditional use be related to the purpose of the ordinance and be based on substantial evidence, communities are reviewing their provisions related to conditional uses/special exceptions carefully to ensure that measurable conditions are in place to the greatest extent possible. By statutory definition, conditional uses include special exceptions. • Act 170 limits the regulation of nonconforming structures and lots, prohibiting regulation based on cost. Section 54-42 will need to be modified accordingly. Counties have addressed this regulation differently, including unlimited repair, remodeling, and reconstruction within the existing building envelope. Some Counties allow additional improvements based on degree of nonconformity and/or area of structure to be improved. • Act 67 further limits the regulation of nonconforming structures by allowing the reconstruction of a nonconforming structure. Section 54-42 will need to be modified accordingly. These provisions should align with your shoreland ordinance. Examples: o Waukesha County (improvements allowed based on degree of nonconformity): SECTION 1 (waukeshacounty.gov) See § 3(o). o Calumet County (improvements allowed based on degree of nonconformity): INTERNET-CODE- OF-ORDINANCES---May-2023 (calumet.wi.us) See §§ 82-86 and 82-87. Page 50 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 36 o Winnebago County (additions approved if the area of the addition complies with all applicable dimensional standards) 17 (winnebago.wi.us) See § 23.13-4. • Section 54-44 will need to be modified to address the substandard lot regulations of Act 67. See § 66.10015 (1)(e) and (2)(e) regarding substandard lots. These provisions should align with your shoreland ordinance. • Review Division 7 Board of Adjustment for consistency with the statutes that were updated as part of Act 67. For example, the statutes redefined variances and distinguish “area” from “use” variances. Some codes will prohibit “use” variances, but still define the term. The statutes also require that the property owner bear the burden of proving “unnecessary hardship.” The statutes provide the criteria for proving the burden. These definitions and criteria should be referenced in the County’s code. • Per the statutes, the Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to interpret the zoning regulations and boundaries of the districts as stated in § 54-887(c) of the County’s Code. If an aggrieved party disagrees with the interpretation of staff, an appeal could be made in accordance with § 54-887(a). Consultation with the County Attorney is recommended. • Consideration should be given to specifying an expiration date for the utilization of a variance and prohibiting multiple requests of the same application. • The County’s code does not state whether neighbors require notification of special exception, Board of Adjustment, or Zoning Amendment public hearing notices. It is typical for a code to require that written notification be sent to properties within a certain distance of the subject property boundaries. It is recommended that the County consider a distance that provides notification to at least the adjacent lot owners, if not further. • The County should ensure consistency between Chapters 54 and 44 regarding provisions related to nonconforming structures and uses, special exceptions, Board of Adjustment, and zoning amendments. Related Resources 2017 Wisconsin ACT 67: Wisconsin Legislature: 2017 Wisconsin Act 67 2011 Wisconsin ACT 170: Wisconsin Legislature: 2011 Wisconsin Act 170 UW-Extension resource related to conditional uses and special exceptions: Conditional Uses and Special Exceptions – Land Use Training & Resources (wisc.edu) UW-Extension Zoning Board Handbook Variance Chapter: BOA2006.indb (wisc.edu) Floodplain Ordinance The County’s floodplain regulations currently do not conform to the model ordinance developed by the Department of Natural Resources. To ensure compliance, the County should undertake a code amendment as a priority. Recommendations: 1. Update the floodplain ordinance to be consistent with the current floodplain model ordinance published by the Department of Natural Resources. 2. Review definitions in § 24-5 for duplicative definitions for manufactured home parks or subdivisions. 3. Review the list of official maps in § 24-8 to determine if listed studies are already incorporated into current FEMA maps. Add any flood studies that have been approved, but are not listed in the ordinance (if applicable). 4. Update ordinance to comply with statutory changes adopted in 2019 Act 175, in § 87.30 (1d)(d), Wis. Stats., regarding regulation of nonconforming structures. Page 51 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 37 Shoreland Ordinance The County’s shoreland ordinance currently does not conform to the model ordinance developed by the Department of Natural Resources. To ensure compliance, the County should undertake a code amendment as a priority. Recommendations: 1. Update § 44-25 by removing sub (4). The DNR is currently working on a new model ordinance to remove this subsection because it is vague and may be in conflict with § 59.692, Wis. Stats. 2. Revise § 44-132 to comply with the statutory standards for fences in § 59.692 (1n)(d)7, Wis. Stats. that was adopted in 2021 WI Act 105. 3. Revise § 44-242 to comply with §§ 59.692 (1k) and 59.692 (1t), Wis. Stats., to allow for the maintenance, repair, replacement, restoration, rebuilding, and remodeling of structures that were constructed in violation of the ordinance but have been in place more than 10 years. 4. Eliminate any terms in ARTICLE XV. DEFINITIONS that are not specifically mentioned in the shoreland zoning ordinance. For example, there are a number of terms that are specific to the floodplain ordinance, such as “mobile home” or “dry-land access”, that cannot be found anywhere in the shoreland ordinance. This is recommended because there is the potential for conflicting definitions if the term is modified in one ordinance but not the other. Subdivision and Platting 1. Code Organization & Structure Recommendations: 1. It appears there is some inconsistency in the numbering and lettering of the Subdivision and Platting Code. For example, see § 52-37 (1) vs § 52-38 (a). Both subsections should either be (1) or (a). 2. Staff should review references to all agencies/entities and ensure they are accurately referenced. For example, The Department of Commerce has been replaced with the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS). Furthermore, Department of Administration reviews land divisions, not DSPS. 3. Staff should review definitions of terms and ensure they are consistent with other County ordinances. 4. Staff should review all cross references to other sections and ordinance and ensure accuracy. 2. Authority, Purpose and Jurisdiction The County should carefully review Article I of the Subdivisions and Platting Ordinance to ensure that the County’s authority, purpose and intent and jurisdictional area are clearly defined and meet the goals and objectives of the County. These sections are often ignored in code rewrites but can be the most effective when justifying a decision. Recommendations: 1. 52-1 Authority: Reference § 703.115, Wis. Stats., if condominium plats are regulated. Page 52 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 38 2. 52-3 Purpose & Intent: The County has a comprehensive list in the purpose section. Below is a list of considerations: o Include a reference to any other ordinances, codes, maps, and guiding documents in subsection (9). o Include a reference to floodplains in subsection (11). o Add a subsection that restricts buildings in areas of unsuitable soils or other areas poorly suited for development. o Add a subsection that provides for the administration and enforcement of the ordinance. 3. 52-6 Jurisdiction: The County may want to consider expanding the area of jurisdictional authority as follows: o Administratively review the exchange/transfer of lands to ensure compliance with the requirements of all county ordinances, including zoning. For example, it would be undesirable for a land transfer to create a lot that doesn’t meet minimum lot size or width or has structures too close to the new lot line. This review could be completed by staff. Subsection (1)(c) is confusing. It implies that exchanges/transfers are exempt only if the lots do not meet the minimum area requirements and that additional lots are being created. o Specify that all land divisions are applicable, except under the circumstances provided. Condominiums should also be referenced in this section if regulated. o Consider including the following exempt uses allowed by ch. 236, Wis. Stats.: 1. Cemetery plats made under § 157.07, Wis. Stats. 2. Assessors’ plats made under § 70.27, Wis. Stats.; however, assessors’ plats shall comply with §§ 236.15 (1)(a) through (g) and 236.20 (1) and (2)(a) through (e), Wis. Stats., unless waived under § 236.20 (2)(L). 3. Public transportation project plats made under § 84.095, Wis. Stats. 4. Sale or exchange of parcels of public utilities or railway rights-of-way to adjoining property owners if the local jurisdiction and/or the county planning agency approve such sale or exchange on the basis of applicable local ordinances or the provisions of ch. 236, Wis. Stats. 4. 52-7 Compliance: Require compliance with state and federal agencies but ensure that the developer is responsible for compliance, not the County. 5. 52-8 Definitions: Ensure that definitions are consistent throughout all County ordinances. Review committee and agency names for accuracy. The definitions of all terms should accurately reflect the intended meaning in the ordinance. Definitions are relied upon in the court of law. 6. 52-9 Penalties: Consider relocating to Article VIII. 7. 52-10 Land Suitability: Rather than referencing the USGS maps, the navigability definition of the Wisconsin Statutes should be referenced. Other suitability measures could include high groundwater, lands unsuitable for a septic system, lands with high bedrock, and lands with farm drainage tile or other ditch system. 3. Procedural Matters Statutory procedural requirements were modified in 2009 and 2014. Summary documents are provided in the resources section below. The recommendations below comply with the statutory modifications. The County should be commended for the preliminary consultation process that is currently in place. Developers appreciate the opportunity to understand issues and opportunities from all review entities ahead of the formal review process. Page 53 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 39 Recommendations: 1. 52-37 Preliminary Consultation: In subsection (2), the plan should be sent to the zoning administrator prior to establishing a meeting date. 2. 52-38 CSM Procedures: o 52-38 (a): Refer to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, or the section could be written more broadly referring to other ordinance chapters and plans adopted by the County. o 52-38 (a): Ten days is a very short review period. If CSMs do not go to any committees/boards, the County may want to consider giving staff at least 30 days to review a CSM. Per Wisconsin Statutes, up to 90 days may be provided. o 52-38 (e): Modify the provision so that recording must occur within 12 months after the date of the last approval and within 36 months after the first approval in accordance with § 236.34 (2)(b), Wis. Stats. Section 52-39 should be consistent with this section. 3. 52-39 Recordation of Certified Survey Map: The dates should be consistent with 52-38(e). See comment above. 4. 52-40 to 52-43 Preliminary Plat Approval/Procedures: “State” and “County” plats are not defined. The ordinance is providing a 40-day review period. The statutes allow 90 days for approval agencies. Staff may want to consider whether 40 days is an appropriate review period. Sections 52-41(4) and 52-43 (4) should be modified to comply with § 236.11(1)(b), Wis. Stats. 5. 52-46 Recordation: Consider adding “and any necessary signatures” after “the final plat has been approved…”. Related Resources: 2009 Wisconsin Platting Statute Changes; 2014 Spring Changes to Chap. 236 Wis. Stats. 4. Technical Requirements The County includes several technical requirements that must be met as part of a land division. It is important to clearly identify when a land division document/map is required and what must be shown on the document/map so that all review entities and current and future owners are aware of the requirements, limitations, and site characteristics of the lots. Recommendations: 1. 52-68 Certified Survey Map Requirements o If the County has an ultimate/future right-of-way map, there should be a reference to the map in this section, including dedication requirements. o Consider requiring a CSM or Subdivision if there are a certain number of lots created from a parent parcel within a certain timeframe, such as 5 years. This avoids multiple land divisions created by a CSM without any effort to master planning the site. o Consider whether the remnant parcel shall always be included in a CSM. If not, a process should be available for requesting a waiver. See preliminary plat language for example: 52-70(5). 2. 52-69 Specifications o Subsection (3): Identify the purpose of any public dedications o Subsection (14): Identify water elevations and OHWM. o Subsection (15) Identify floodplain elevation and datum. If a floodplain study has not been completed, a study shall be required as part of the land division in accordance with state and federal requirements. Page 54 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 40 o The following specifications should be included: a title on its face “Certified Survey Map”, the date of the CSM, an inset map, notations and restrictions, the County’s shoreland jurisdictional boundary, and any floodplain or natural resource boundaries with related restrictions. o Consider reviewing soil tests for the purposes of determining subsurface soil conditions, depths to bedrock, and to the groundwater table. Section 52-72 only applies to subdivision plats. o Include the Public Trust statement per § 236.20 (6), Wis. Stats. o Owner and surveyor certificates must be included on all CSMs. Land divisions that are subject to a mortgage must also include a mortgagee certificate. 3. 52-70 Preliminary Plat Requirements o Check with the County surveyor to ensure the scale is appropriate for a subdivision plat. o Review the specification comments for §52-69. Same comments apply. o Review appropriate specifications for length of lines and bearings and address how curved lines are addressed. o Subsection (19) is confusing. Reference the lake access requirements of § 236.16 (3), Wis. Stats. o Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan approval requirements should be referenced as a separate section or subsection to this section. A reference to § 52-102 and appropriate sections of Chapter 48 could be made. 4. 52-75 Final Plat o Review subsection (5)f. with the County attorney. This section may no longer be applicable. 5. Split zoning. In cases where a new lot has split base zoning, the underlying zoning should be changed except where the boundary is predetermined (by the comprehensive plan). 5. Required Improvements Description: Concern was expressed that the County’s Subdivision and Platting Ordinance may be too restrictive related to required improvements. This concern is based on a letter provided to Outagamie County Corporation Counsel on February 22, 2018 from Richard Carlson, Attorney for Silton Seifert Carlson S.C., on behalf of the Town of Greenville. Recommendations: • Section 55-100 is not requiring improvements typically managed through the town. It is simply stating that improvements shall not be installed until certain approvals are granted. It may be appropriate to remove the following statement and let the town regulate when they are notified of improvement installations: “In order that adequate inspections can be made, the subdivider shall notify the town board one week prior to the time each improvement is to be installed and upon completion of the project.” • Section 55-100 refers to storm drainage facilities being constructed in accordance with plans and standard specifications approved by town board (not county). It does not seem that any changes are necessary. • The County should consult with the County’s Corporation Counsel regarding the regulation of size of cul-de- sacs, length of streets, and location of town roads. The design standards specified in Article V may need to be modified. Perhaps, the County could make these provisions recommendations and request feedback from the Town prior to land division approval. • There is a recent case filed with the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II published in April of 2022, Bridget Fassett v. City of Brookfield, where the court concluded that the City’s requirement that Fassett dedicate part of her property for a new public through street and pay to construct it was an unconstitutional taking. Fassett v. City of Brookfield, No. 2021AP269 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2022) • The Town of Greenville letter asserts that the County cannot regulate stormwater management facilities in the Town because they are defined as public improvements. The County’s definition of “improvement, public” does not appear to include all stormwater management facilities, rather just storm sewer and Page 55 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 41 drainage ditches. The County could modify the definition so that these facilities are not included in the definition. • The matter of whether the ordinances comply with ch. 236, Wis. Stats., and Rogers Development v. Rock County Planning and Development Committee requires a significant amount of research that should be completed by the County’s Corporation Counsel. An analysis would need to be completed including a review of the towns’ ordinances, county’s ordinance, and definition of terms. For example, if a town has a stormwater management ordinance that has been approved by the County, the town’s ordinance would prevail and the County would no longer be involved in Stormwater Management for that particular town. • 52-101 Surface Water Drainage Restrictions o These are not required improvements. This section should be relocated, possibly to Article V Design Standards to alleviate any concerns that the regulation is a “public improvement”. • 52-102 Stormwater Detention o County staff should review the technical standards to determine if they are sufficient. The requirements that must be met for the preliminary and final plat may be different. Erosion and sedimentation control standards should be included. o Subsection (2)j.2: Refer to the town/municipality. Per § 66.0627, only towns, cities, and villages have the authority to special charge. The drainage facility shall be in a commonly owned outlot in order to charge all of the property owners of the subdivision. • 52-104 Dedication and reservation of land o Subsection (b) refers to a dedication “as noted below”. This reference should specifically refer to the appropriate section for clarity, presumably § 52-106. • Section 52-106 Ensuring Adequate Land Dedicated and Preserved o Subsection (4): Review § 66.0617, Wis. Stats., to ensure compliance. The County may be limited in their authority. These provisions may be more appropriately administered through a local ordinance unless a town do not have their own ordinance and grants authority to the County. The County may want to consider referencing the County’s Comprehensive Plan and Park and Open Space Plan, if applicable. • Consider adding sections regarding water supply facilities and other utilities. • Consider adding design requirements for mailbox clusters which are becoming a standard USPS requirement. 6. Design Standards Recommendations: 1. 52-124 Street Design Standards o Subsection (b): Review for conflicting language. o Subsection (c) establishes a maximum cul-de-sac length of 600 feet. By way of comparison, other land division codes have a maximum length of 1,200 feet. Establishing any standard like this is a policy decision, that, in this instance, involves input from County and local emergency service providers. As drafted, this subsection allows some leeway to exceed that number (“shall not normally exceed 600 feet in length.”) If that flexibility is deemed desirable, the code should incorporate factors to be considered in allowing longer cul-de-sacs. In addition, the code section could be amended to incorporate a hard stop maximum. 2. 52-125 Street Intersections o Subsection (1): Identify a review process in the event the length standard is not met. 3. 52-127 Lots o Subsection (3): If the County provides exceptions to this requirement, the provisions should be ordained. Page 56 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 42 o Subsection (4): Some counties have incorporated minimum lot area and width provisions in the land division ordinance because counties are not allowed to have shoreland zoning provisions more restrictive than NR 115 Wis. Admin. Code. o Subsection (5): Consider adding a specific depth to width ratio, such as 2.5 to 1 and provide a process for exceptions to the rule. 7. Preservation of Topography Outagamie County currently requires that slopes in excess of 20 percent be shown on subdivision plats when located on riverine lots. Current policy also requires a 35-foot building setback from steep slopes. However, the setback is not codified. After researching the codes, the following provisions exist: • S. 52-10(a)(4) Land suitability: No land shall be developed which is held to be unsuitable for any proposed use if identified as being environmentally sensitive. Areas identified as being environmentally sensitive include all areas having slopes steeper than 20 percent. • S. 52-70 Preliminary plat requirements: This provision requires that contours be shown on the land division document. • S. 44-173(1) requires a permit for filling or grading within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water mark of a navigable waterway and which has surface drainage toward the water if slopes exceed 20 percent, if more than 1,000 square feet of disturbance is proposed on slopes between 12-20 percent, or if more than 2,000 square feet of disturbance is proposed on slopes less than 12 percent. The code does not describe what type of permit is required. Recommendations: • It is common practice to protect steep slopes of greater than 12 percent or 20 percent. The existing language seems reasonable. If the County feels that prohibiting development on areas steeper than 20 percent is too restrictive, an exception could be provided if certain criteria are met, such as proper erosion control, ability to prove the slope can be stabilized without man-made measures, the disturbance is compatible with the surrounding area/neighborhood, the applicant is able to demonstrate there is not an impact to the natural resources within the area, etc. • Contours of 1-2 ft. shall be shown for all land divisions. It is recommended that § 52-70(7) be modified to remove any references to 5 ft. contours. This provision makes it more difficult to identify steep slope characteristics. • The specific permitting process shall be identified in § 44-173. The permitting process should be appropriate for the extent of work proposed (permitted vs special exception). • Regarding slope setback requirements, consultation from your stormwater/erosion control staff is recommended. The purpose and intent of the setback should be established and the setback distance should relate to the purpose and intent. A setback from a slope is not commonplace. • It is recommended that you not allow the creation of steep slopes if said slope didn’t already exist within the same area, such as no steeper than 3:1, at least within a certain distance of a lot line. • Allowing the modification of an artificial slope seems reasonable, provided the finished slope can be stabilized and there are no impacts to adjacent properties, the road, or natural resources. The new slope should not result in the creation of a slope steeper than 3:1, at least within a certain distance of a lot line. Steep Slope Regulation Examples: • Village of Caledonia (Racine County) has a Structural Setback Overlay (SSO) District and Non-Structural Setback Overlay (NSO) District intended to protect people and property from shore erosion damage in Lake Michigan shoreland areas. The districts establish applicability criteria based on slope conditions and distance from the lake. Most structures are prohibited within the districts. Some land disturbance, open space uses, and minor structures are allowed. The SSO includes areas that are recommended to be protected by properly designed, constructed, and maintained shore protection measures. The NSO Non- Page 57 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 43 structural Setback Overlay District includes areas that are not protected by these protection measures. Microsoft Word - Chapter 16-Table of Contents.docx (caledonia-wi.gov) (See § 16-6-20 and § 16-6-21) • City of Sheboygan (Sheboygan County) has a Steep Slope Overlay District, which includes areas with a gradient of 12 percent or greater. These areas are depicted on sheet two of the city’s official zoning map. Steep slopes are required to remain undisturbed except for certain land uses meeting certain criteria. These land uses include recreational uses, golf courses, drainage structures, cultivation, septic installation, utility lines, and other similar uses. Sheboygan: Municipal Code (municipalcodeonline.com) • Town of Genesee (Waukesha Co) has steep slope regulations in their Land Division and Development Ordinance. The regulations require that at least 50 percent of its minimum required lot area or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, not exceed certain slopes. 10,000 square feet contiguous square footage within the envelope must be provided. The minimum building envelope areas are based on the slopes not exceeding the following: o Lots greater than 2 acres: 20 percent o Lots greater than 1 acre but not more than 2 acres: 15 percent o Lots 1 acre or less: 12 percent (All lots, regardless of size, that contain primary environmental corridor must use the 12 percent slope criteria to establish the minimum building envelope area. Town of Genesee, WI General Provisions (ecode360.com) • Calumet County requires a permit for land altering activities within 300 feet of a navigable waterway if the land altering activities exceed 2,000 square feet on slopes less than 12 percent, 1,000 square feet on slopes between 12 and 20 percent, and on slopes more than 20 percent. This provision is similar to Outagamie County’s code language. The County also considers slopes of 20 percent or greater, and slopes between 12 and 20 percent immediately adjacent to other sensitive areas, as an environmental sensitive area. Restrictions may be placed in these areas. • Many ordinances prohibit the creation of slopes in excess of 3:1 within a certain distance of a lot line, such as 20 feet, or prohibit the creation of said slopes on the entire parcel of land. 8. Violations, Penalties, Appeals and Variances 1. 52-208 Appeals o Remove reference to Chapter 62, Wis. Stats., which refers to cities. 9. Condominium Plats Currently, there are no provisions specifically related to condominium plats in Chapter 52 Subdivisions and Platting. If the County pursues implementation of condominium plat ordinance language, the following recommendations should be considered: Recommendations: 1. References shall be made that require compliance with ch. 703, Wis. Stats. 2. Add condominium provisions to the general requirements, applicability, procedural, technical requirements, and specifications sections of the ordinance. 3. Add related terms to the definition section or the ordinance, such as condominium, condominium amendment, condominium addendum, condominium association, condominium declaration, condominium instrument, condominium plat, condominium unit, common element, limited common element and common open space. Page 58 of 59 Outagamie County Code Audit Page | 44 4. All condominiums are required to have an association. The ordinance should include minimum provisions related to the roles and responsibilities of the association and use of common areas. The County may want to consider requiring a land stewardship/maintenance plan for all common areas, including the preservation of natural areas. 5. If public improvements are required, a developer’s agreement, financial assurance, and dedication requirements should all be included in the ordinance. Easements, land divisions/alterations, and land dedications shall be accomplished in advance and separate from the condominium plat. 6. The process for changing a recorded condominium instrument to create, alter, or remove any condominium units, easements, restrictions, or other encumbrances on the land included in a condominium should be specified in the ordinance. Pursuant to § 703.27, Wis. Stats., condominium projects shall be subject to no more restrictive rules than non-condominium projects that are physically equivalent. Related Resources: • Chapter 703 Wisconsin State Statutes: Wisconsin Legislature: Chapter 703 • Wisconsin Platting Manual – Condominiums: Wisconsin Platting Manual, condominium plat checklist provided. • Model Land Division Ordinance inclusive of condominium provisions: https://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPCFiles/Publications/pg/pg-01_land_division_control_gu.pdf Page 59 of 59