Plan commission approves preliminary plat for Legacy Preserve subdivision

The Rhinelander Plan Commission voted unanimously July 7 to approve a preliminary plat for the proposed Legacy Preserve subdivision on the city’s west side, advancing developer Alejandro Jacinto’s 36-lot project after the Common Council approved the associated rezoning on May 26.
The commission’s 7-0 vote came with two of three conditions recommended by staff: that the preliminary plat conform to the general requirements and design standards under RMC Section 5.06.05, and that the developer provide an updated utilities map, prior to submittal of a final map, showing the water main as a looping main with tie-ins at Davenport Street and West Wind Drive, or another connection acceptable to the city’s public works director.
A third proposed condition — that Lot 35 be redrawn to meet the city’s 60-foot minimum lot width — was dropped after Mayor Kris Hanus, who chairs the commission, pointed to language in the city’s zoning code defining minimum lot width as measured at the building setback line rather than at the road frontage. Zoning administrator Malinda Lim agreed the lot meets requirements when measured that way, and the condition was struck.
An amendment offered by commissioner Tom Jerow to require the developer to submit documentation of complete-streets compliance, including sidewalks on both sides of the street, before submitting a final plat failed for lack of a second. City attorney Steve Sorenson noted the requirement already exists under city ordinance regardless of the amendment.
Residents reiterate concerns

Several West Wind Drive-area residents returned to address the commission, echoing concerns raised at the May rezoning hearing.
Mike Hendricks opened public comment reiterating his opposition to extending West Wind Drive to connect to the new development, citing traffic and property value concerns. Cristi Corey-Luse asked the commission to require a formal “preliminary effects analysis” under city code section 5.06.08 before any final plat is approved. She cited concerns that an 8-inch sewer pipe serving West Wind, Balsam and West Hill drives may not support up to 200 units, and suggested that Crescent Elementary School — which would likely serve the development — is already over capacity relative to other schools in the district.
Alderman Gerald Anderson, speaking as a citizen during the public comment portion of the meeting, raised a series of infrastructure questions, including the durability of silt fencing planned for wetland areas, drainage from Jacinto Drive, whether utilities would be installed underground, and the status of a 10-foot-wide strip of outlots along the development’s eastern edge that remains in the Town of Crescent.
Another West Wind Drive resident, Gustavo Gonzalez, spoke on behalf of himself and his wife. He said the couple was not opposed to housing development generally but objected to routing traffic through their dead-end street. Citing sign postings of 152 to 206 units, he estimated the project could add up to 400 vehicle trips per day to the neighborhood.
Legal and technical clarifications
Sorenson fielded several questions from commissioners. He said the strip of outlots along the property’s eastern boundary remains outside city limits because annexing it now would create an illegal “island” or “balloon on a string” configuration under state law, though the city could pursue annexation from the Town of Crescent later if needed. He also confirmed that the 10-foot outlot strip cannot count toward the required building setback for adjacent lots, meaning homes built on the development’s eastern lots would be set back the standard distance in addition to the 10-foot buffer.
Commissioner Terry Williams asked whether the project’s scale would trigger a state stormwater runoff permit (NR 151) requiring silt fencing and wetland mitigation during construction. Sorenson said the state, through the Department of Natural Resources, would likely evaluate the project in its entirety rather than by phase, making that requirement probable.
Sorenson also outlined the approval process going forward, explaining that once the plan commission finds a preliminary plat meets all ordinance requirements, the Common Council cannot reject it on the basis of general disapproval. Under state law, the council may only reject a preliminary plat by providing written reasons tied to specific violations of a statute or city ordinance. He said that framework places the burden on the plan commission to verify at this stage that a proposal meets every applicable requirement. Sorenson added that the preliminary plat now moves to administrative review rather than returning to the commission, and that a final plat — which must meet more detailed state and local specifications than the preliminary version — will be recorded once staff confirms compliance.
Roads, sewer and water infrastructure will be built to city specifications at the developer’s expense and will not be accepted by the city until they pass inspection, he added.
Wetland impacts on individual buildable lots, staff said, would be addressed separately if and when specific parcels are developed, since no structures are being proposed as part of the preliminary plat.
The commission’s approval followed a roll call vote with all seven members present voting in favor.