River Falls council approves annexation of roughly 55 acres amid resident concerns over roads and timing

The River Falls Common Council voted June 9 to approve Ordinance 202612, annexing approximately 55 acres at the southeast corner of County Highways U and M and applying temporary zoning of B3 (highway commercial) and R2 (multiple-family medium density).

Harley Melhorn, senior planner, presented the annexation petition on behalf of the applicants, Delbert F. Johnson and Elaine H. Johnson Revocable Trusts, and described the request as an annexation only: "The city council is not reviewing any specific development proposals for the area at this time, but rather the annexation itself." Melhorn said the petition is unanimous and that the parcel is contiguous with the city boundary and could be efficiently served by city infrastructure. He told the council the capital cost and budget study included in the packet found "no adverse fiscal impact" under the current plan for development.

Residents who live adjacent to the property urged caution. Christine Wit, who said she lives next to the parcel, asked about local roads that serve the site: "Who will take care of and who is going to pay for any upkeep, any renovation of those roads?" She said township roads such as 880th and 1060th are not built for heavier traffic and expressed concern about assessments and maintenance costs for local residents.

Other speakers echoed compatibility concerns. Chris Clary, a longtime River Falls resident, said residents want to be involved in how the community grows and expressed skepticism that local input will change outcomes: "This isn't what we want. This isn't how we want our community developed." John Whit, who lives on 88th Avenue, encouraged council members to drive the local roads and judge compatibility for themselves.

Council members asked staff about the implications of applying temporary zoning on an annexed parcel. Scott Simpson and Harley Melhorn explained that under Wisconsin law agricultural uses can continue after annexation and that the city's ordinance requires further action tied to submittal of a plat or development plan. Melhorn noted the city's annexation ordinance mandates a subsequent zoning step "within 90 days," adding that state statute does not strictly revert temporary zoning but the city's process will bring the site forward with a plat should development be proposed.

A council member raised a packet exhibit labeling issue, noting an exhibit labeled highway commercial as "B2." Melhorn acknowledged the exhibit mislabeling and confirmed that the corner parcel is intended for B3; he explained that B3 can include nested allowances for R3-style residential on the corner while the remainder of the site would be guided to R2 under the comprehensive plan.

After public comment and discussion, the council voted on the ordinance; the motion carried by voice vote. Melhorn said the city will proceed with the plat and any further zoning steps if and when a development application is submitted.

What happens next: the annexation and temporary zoning take effect as approved. Staff said further steps — a plat, development applications, and a subsequent permanent rezoning — are expected to follow if developers submit plans, and the city’s ordinance anticipates further action within roughly 90 days of relevant submittals.