Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

to order. Um, we will first call the role. Mr. Hman here. Miss Lazeras here. Mr. Grady here. Mr. Waters here. Miss Heim Street, Dr. Mason here, and Miss Silva previously informed staff that she would be unavailable for this evening's meeting.

All right. Thank you. Next on the agenda is correction and approval of minutes from our last meeting on May 27th, 2025. Are there any objections to the minutes as written? Any objections? I'll move approval. Mason. Mr. Hman seconds.

All right. It's been moved by Mr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Hman. Um, you know, seeing no objections, corrections, right? It's I'm just going to go ahead and declare the minutes approved. Sounds good. Okay. Um, next on the agenda is number four. Um, questions and public comment. Individuals who have registered to speak are invited to address the planning commission at this time. Um, please state your name and address and when you're when you're called to make the comments. Um, no action will be taken for items not listed on the agenda. Um, each speaker is limited to three minutes. Um, please note that if your comments pertain to one of the three public hearings coming later um to hold your comments until that time. So, this would be just for the for the for the items that um wouldn't be um called upon later on. Is there anyone that has a public comment? Does that make sense? I see people looking around.

Okay, seeing no public comment, we will move to the next item on the agenda. Not for the things that are coming up. So, not for the items that are coming up. We will hold space for those at that time. Sound good?

All right. So, see no public comment. Um Drake, do I need to close public comment for that particular? No. Okay. Um we will move on to the next item of the agenda um which is number five um which is the first of three public hearings set for tonight regarding a conditional use permit request from St. Vincent to Paul Society. Um, and the purpose of this public hearing involves approving multiple principal structures located on parcel number 246 07131213005 and located at 716, 720 and 736 East Lake Street. Um, consolidated with parcel number 2467131313 021 on 203 South CP Avenue. Okay. Um, so what we'll do is we're going to first start um with a staff presentation um from our zoning administrator uh Troy Evansson. Hello back there.

Hey, good evening guys. Um so yeah, exactly what you were just saying. What what uh St. Vincent has done is they had acquired the old Culligan building along South CP Avenue and uh they had tried to uh a different couple attempts to uh modify that building for a different use or for this use but to to use it differently than what they uh are going to intend to use it for now. But it just didn't work out. Uh the building was too close to the uh setbacks of cell CP. So, they just weren't able to to modify the building the way they wanted to. So, now um the latest plan is in front of you. They're going to consolidate with the existing Saint Vincent uh parcel and um utilize them uh together but as as separate buildings obviously. So, that's where we're coming from with two principal structures on uh one parcel once they would be uh allowed to join as one parcel through a CSM. So you're really you're kind of tasked with are you okay with having two principal structures on one parcel? Our ordinance doesn't really allow it except through this avenue of a conditional use.

Cool. So um would the architect care to make a presentation today? Yes. And if you can state your name and your address. Yes, sir. Uh, Logan Ferry with Keller Incorporated, W204 N11509 Goldenale Road, German Town. Thank you.

Um, I'm actually not the architect. I'm the representative from Keller, um, on the build side. But, uh, really just what we're looking to do is use that building as storage. um it it didn't make sense to move the food pantry into that building with how the lot laid out, the storm water that would have had to been added. Um with the impervious land, we would have impacted. Um so really we're just looking to be able to connect the two so they can move product from one building to the next and expand the footprint of the food pantry within the building it's in currently.

Got it. Great. Um I think what we might do is ask some questions later on if that's okay. Yeah, it's fine.

Great. You can go ahead and have a seat if you're done. Um we will now hear for public comments. Is there any public comments any that would like to talk about this particular issue today about St. Vincent to Paul and the renovation and the I guess the uh two primary two principal structures. Any comments online? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public comment for this agenda item 706. And we are now on item seven of our agenda um where our commission can enter into some discussion and ask questions of our staff or our applicant here um uh and discuss concerns or support of the amendment um or suggest um conditions if applicable. Planning Commission, are there any thoughts or anything that you have questions about this particular item? [Music] No questions. Everything seems straightforward. Yeah. Okay. I want to make sure we give time. Sounds like it's pretty straightforward here, folks. Um, seeing no input from our commission, um, I'm willing to make a motion regarding the conditional use permit um, before us submitted by St. Vincent to Paul Society. Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve city council resolution 25- I guess whatever we will make it here. Uh conditional use permit declaring and finding petitioner St. Vincent Depal Society conditional use to allow multiple principal structure on one parcel 720 East Lake Street Lake Wisconsin. Mason second. Okay. So it's been moved by Mr. Waters and it's been seconded by Mr. Mason um regarding this conditional for the approval of this conditional use permit. Um, I will ask for a roll call vote. Miss Lazerus,

I. Mr. Grady, I. Mr. Waters, I. Dr. Mason, I. Mr. Homeman, I. Motion passes 5-0. All right. Thank you. Appreciate you. Um, so what I'm going to do for this next two items, Mr. Grady. Yes. Yes. If I can offer one. Yes, please give me some advice here. For a for a procedural reasons, I'm actually going to have to ask the commission to do number nine and number 10 before before doing seven and eight.

Perfect. We're on the same page there. So, what we're going to do is because of order of operations, um we are going to move around items number seven and eight and tuck those behind items number nine and 10 in the agenda. Um okay, so that being said, um this is kind of a two-part operation um before us today. And so for the first of the two parts um we um will um this this particular part of the agenda is about moving um from a single family residential to a multifamily residential um for um the Northern Management Company um parcel that they own 254571473425 which is located off of East Tyrannina Park Road. Um and so for the first amendment, we will basically have to amend um the comprehensive plan future land use map um for this parcel that is on the agenda before us. Um the the proposed change will convert the existing designation from single family residential to planned neighborhood. Um and so what we're going to do is um we're going to first get a quick um kind of run over by special guest Dustin Wolf. Um if you could go ahead and provide us some insights today um regarding this matter.

Uh thank you. Uh again, I'm the uh city's consulting planner. Um, so we're having a little bit of a technical difficulty in sharing things on the screen and we'll see if we can get if we can get that resolved. Um, so this um site has been before us um over the last kind of five or six years. Um, this is the vacant piece um south of the um Rock Lake Luxury Apartments. Um it is zoned uh R1 which is single family and our future land use map shows it for the same for single family uses. Um the request is to do a kind of mixed residential development which is a subsequent agenda item. Um that would include uh two family units and then a variety of multif family unit sizes. Um and to accommodate that, we would need to um approve a land use amendment, future land use amendment um for that to happen. The single family district just does not allow for duplexes or um for uh multifamily development of of various sizes. Um so with that the um uh options available to us are uh are either our u multif family district which just had multif family or our planned neighborhood district. Planned neighborhood is a is a district that we have um mapped elsewhere in the community um for future growth areas. The planned neighborhood is just that. It's intended to be an organized planned neighborhood uh development of a variety of housing types and um the uh not any one specific type. Like like as I said, this the planned neighborhood could include some single family, could include duplexes, triplexes, fours and sixes and eights and and and then what this what we would think of as a standard multifamily um units of of 10,

12s or 14s. Um so again it does allow a variety of um development type and that's the request being made here. Um the surrounding land uses uh to this um site are um to the south and immediately to the uh to the west um is within the town of Aspelen. It is not in in the city limits. So, um it is a rural residential if you will um from the town. Um but within the city to the north is our R3 or our mult uh um multifamily uh planned uh district there. Um to the east of them is also again in the town, it's the county's grounds where they have um the uh sheriff as their uh range and uh other county kind of outdoor operations. um uh yard waste type things etc happening happening over there. Um so this is really the edge of of the city. Um the uh to the north of the multif family existing multif family out there is also the interstate which is why that initial multifamily district went in up there was as a buffer to the uh um to the interstate. So in evaluating whether or not we should change the land use, it really comes back to is it trying is the land proposed land use change aligning with some of the key recommendations um uh or goals out of our comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan is relatively new. Um that doesn't mean that amendments uh don't happen. Um and so we have to look at consistency with the comprehensive plan. um from a staff perspective and our opinions um you know does it check does it check those boxes and um one of them is the city will disperse multif family housing throughout the community that's that's a a a first priority here

um and this is the only area on this end of town that has multif family nearly a kind of mile away to the uh to the west is some multif family off of Cherokee uh path to the south not quite a mile probably 3/4 of a mile is um the Tamarak uh apartment complexes and then really the only other larger development is off of um 89 uh down by kind of St. Paul's in that area. There's a couple of new projects down there. So, uh argument can certainly be made that it is dispersing multifamily. Also like to point out that the go the proposal does have duplexes so it's not entirely entirely multifamily. um larger multif family structures should be considered in our plan development district that is being proposed. It's a later item um that the city continue to enforce its multi-residential site and building design guidelines. Again, that will come out through part of the um plan development process. Um addressing the missing middle is an important priority of our comprehensive plan. Um again, this area is slated for single family and should the plan commission ultimately the council decide to to change to a different land use um this is an important box uh from the staff's perspective to check and um we do want to have diversity of housing types out there. That was uh a high priority with the comprehensive plan. I'll say that this is providing some housing products we don't have. We do not have a lot of duplexes or townhouse uh development side by sides within the community. I think that's an important one to have. We do not have smaller um multifamily uh developments. It's usually they're kind of 12 and 14 unit buildings and these are proposing a series of 8-unit buildings which is really important. Um it's a smaller footprint. Um and then again transitioning from the existing would be some uh some 14-unit multifamily

buildings. But um this certainly does provide uh to a certain degree um for some of our missing middle housing that we are trying uh to achieve within the community. We are also very concerned about ultimately we'll talk in more detail the transition from existing single family whether it's in the town or not to to the multif family which is located on the uh north end along the interstate. Um but we do feel that this does provide for some of the missing middle housing that we are trying to achieve and we've had many meetings um with this developer over the years uh about this specific issue. Um, ultimately staff is suggesting if the plan commission is is willing to to move away from single family out here, this would be the right land use category to provide for a mix of housing types and for the city to retain control over the ultimate development through the plan development district process. Cool.

So, we can come back and ask some questions later.

Absolutely. Um, and I just want to make note too that um, Mr. Manin and Northern Management Company came to us previously on January 28th where they provided um, a concept review for this pro property. Um, and so what I would like to do is just see if if anyone from Northern Management Company would like to share a proposal on the matter. Thank you. If you can say your name and your address, please. Chris Carr, uh, 1300 West Canal, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53233. Um, I'm with Sigma. I've been working with Bob on the redevelopment and thanks for having us here again. Um, I only want to just repeat um, we have been in forward um, and working really hard with the staff on on this plan. And we really think here we've we've gotten a lot of what's been asking with the transitions and the different housing types and and really trying to meet the comp plan. So, um we've been here before and we think um what what's what's in front of you tonight is really a good plan for both the developer and really for the city. It provides the missing middle. Um and we've worked really hard um with staff to get to this point. So, uh we're here for any questions as required. Great.

The only thing I'll add is the um the feedback at the January meeting from the plan commission is what drove the changes between what you saw at the concept plan on Janu in January to the to what you see before you tonight. And so, um that's the goal of the concept plan is to hear the plan commission's initial reaction and then staff attempts to incorporate them with the developer and and come up with something that the plan commission said they were um looking for. And so, um, if you notice ch discrepancies between what you saw in January and what you see tonight, it was that was the goal, um, that resulted in this site plan that's before you right now.

Thank you, Mr. Dailyy. Appreciate that. Um, you can have a seat. We can ask some questions later. That's all right. Um, so now we will, um, open up for public comment um, on this particular item. and we will there are two parts but if you have something you'd like to say it now please feel free to do that um and uh if you can just say your name and your address as well. So, I saw some people writing um earlier. So, if you can go up in order.

My name is Jay Ludman. Uh W7176 Tyrannina Park Road. Um just south land adjoining this uh own two parcels of land there. Um I'm obviously in opposition to this resoning. Um, this is our third, if not fourth time that we have been here because this development company continually is trying to change their agreement, the original agreement that allowed them to build that apartment complex down there. Um we have been fighting them uh ever since they began uh be and they have continually uh delayed the process. They have continually fought the process. Um they have had no intention of honoring their agreement with the community uh since they since they being since they built that very large apartment complex. Uh had they intended to honor their agreement, this would have already been done. Uh I don't know exactly how many years they've owned it, but we've certainly been here on an average of every two to five years, and this is our third or fourth time of being here. Um one of the things this delay has done, uh it has led to the displacement of the wildlife, uh down there by that massive complex, and they have moved into this parcel. uh sandill cranes, Canadian geese, both of which are protected species by the migratory laws, use that land, nest on that land and and raise their young on that land. Uh in addition, wild turkey, deer, and famously even the black bear that visit our community came through that parcel

of land. Um, we are I I just obviously am here to oppose any reszoning of that parcel from R1 uh to anything greater. Um, in fact, since you've brought it up, reszoning, why don't we reszone it for a farmland preservation and wildlife protection area and stop all development of that of that farm field to protect the wildlife that that has already been displaced by the very large complex to the to the north. Um, that's all I really had to say until uh the gentleman who just gave his pres not not you, but um I'm sorry, fell in the blue shirt,

Mr. Wolf. Yeah.

Yeah. You uh forgot to mention the duplexes uh immediately to the south of Tyrannina Park Road along the creek and along Tyrronina Park Road in the uh at the entrance on the road coming in. That subdivision has quite a bit of duplexes in it. Um the entire area from the uh from Tyrannina Park Road to along the creek is duplexes and the whole area along um Tyrannina Park Road is also duplexes. So there's plenty of multi multifamily housing in that area without having to go to R12 or greater. And given this development company's uh past history, I guarantee you they're going to come back and want to change this again because they've already ch come come to this council at least that that we have been invited to at least three or four times. Not to mention what you've already done here in Janu in January. So the best way to to to make people honor their commitment is to hit them with a stick and that is to take away any development of that property and make it into a wildlife farm preservation area. Thank you.

Thank you.

Believe there was some other folks that had entered their name. If you have to if you can state your name and your address as well. Uh Jean Burl W7162 County V Lake Mill Mills. My concern is just leave it as uh as uh our one single family residents in that area. I kind of agree a little bit what Jay was saying too also. So, and they've been been bringing this up for I don't know three four times or whatever. Uh trying to get it to multi- you know family or whatever. Uh but I my opinion is leave it as R1 and be be done with it in that respect. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you sir. Thank you for your service. Anyone else? Okay. Uh, good evening members of the council. Um, my name is Kim G and I represent my husband Corey G as well. We reside at W7144 County Road V. Um, it is right here. Um, so we're adjacent to this parcel that we're discussing. I do have a prepared statement, but after hearing what this gentleman was talking about, I just wanted to add Corey and I are about we really like the plan for multi-use um neighborhoods. Um my kids graduated from school here. They couldn't afford housing here. We're about it, but there's already a footprint in this parcel where the new where all the apartments have been built. That's multi-use. the rest was supposed to be single and that's how we want it to

stay. Okay. So, um I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight regarding this proposed comprehensive plan and future land use map. I'm here to express my strong concern and opposition to the proposed change from single family residential to plan neighborhood which would enable multifamily housing to be built on this parcel. This area was originally designated for single family use and over the past few years, Northern Management Company has already been granted approval for a large apartment development in this vicinity far beyond the original uh scope. As a 22-year resident, I am seeing firsthand the impacts of this decision. increased traffic congestion, particularly at the intersection of Tyrannita Road and Malbury Street, where visibility and delays have become a daily safety concern. On my commute home from work, I may find myself behind 13 to 20 cars crossing Malbury Street since the apartments have been built. um a growing imbalance of housing mix creating a pocket of dense multifamily housing in what was planned to be a more balanced lowdensity residential area. Smart growth means respecting the long-term vision and intent of our comprehensive plan. Changing land use designations parcel by parcel, especially when they repeatedly favor a single developer, undermines that plan and erodess public trust. It's also worth noting that the developer in this case does not have a meaningful tie to Lake Mills beyond the business opportunity this project presents. In 2020, the developer, Mr. Mangan once told Cory and I that he fills these apartments as fast as he can build them. While increasing the number of multifamily units increases profit and it's good news for Mr. Mangan, it is

even more important for us as a community to be thoughtful about how this development aligns with our values and serves the people who actually live here. Please consider the original planning intent, the character of the neighborhood, and the voices of those who call this area home. I respectfully ask that you vote against this proposed amendment and help preserve a balanced and livable community. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? If you can write your name and state it. um with your address too.

Yes, my name is Daniel Beich and my address is W7148 County Road V. Uh so I am newer here in the neighborhood. We purchased the home two years ago with the knowledge that this region behind the farm field was going to be single family residency and that was a major selling factor for why we moved to this instance, this land. We have three children, six, three, and 10 months, and I want to grow them up in a more smaller community, I would say. And moving from single family to multif family is less appealing in that instance. But going back to the discussions that my neighbors have had and uh which I think are more concerning in that instance is the wildlife. So, I have photos of the turkeys, the cranes on my property in the farm field and I believe possibly single family might they might remain, they might stay, they might but multif family and really reszoning this land would put detriment impact towards those animals. But the biggest concern is traffic. So there they're County Road V from the highway from 94 is it's essentially the frontage road and where this parcel of land exists is between County Road A and County Road B. Anybody that gets off the highway that needs to get to County Road B has to go through County Road V and through this area. Since I've moved in sometime between 6 am to 9 a.m. and evening time, dinner time, it's nearly impossible to get across the stop sign between County Road A and to get across that uh portion of road. And with the increase of population of making this multif family would only make that worse. So that I am obviously opposed to reszoning this land and really hope that you guys keep it as residential. Thank you. Thank you.

I got just a quick question. Yes. Is county A Malbury Street? Yes. County. It is Malbury Street. Okay. A up until you get to what the the hospital. Okay. Thank you. Just trying to get it clear in my head.

Yeah. Anyone online? Any comments online? No comments online. Any more comments from the audience today? No more comments. So, seeing no more comments, I will close the public comment. 7:31. We are now on item eight of our agenda um where our commission can enter into some discussion and ask questions of our staff or our applicant and discuss concerns or support for the amendment um or suggestions um for possible conditions if applicable. So planning commission any any thoughts, concerns, questions that you'd like to state? Go ahead.

All right, just a couple questions. Can you review for us one more time what the original proposal was and then um he said that they've done a lot of work with you guys. So can you reiterate what that work is or was?

Yeah. Um I guess on a broad overview the the original plan for that area is for R14 single family residential. um when the when the approvals were first granted for the uh Rock Creek Apartments, that piece of it was reszoned under a PDD plan development district overlay for multifamily and then this remaining parcel remains zoned R14 uh single family residential. Um, as far as, you know, what's gone on since January, um, the plan commission indicated an openness to um, a change to multifamily in the area, but requested uh, reduced density as well as, uh, or reduced unit size, more a greater variety of unit sizes. Um, the original proposal was twelves and 14s, I believe. Um this proposal is now contains um up on the screen there uh a number of duplexes most of the buildings being eight units and then as you get closer to the uh current multifamily development uh you have some 14 uh 14 unit buildings. Um, and so most of the work that went on from January to tonight was conversations with the developer trying to meet those statements from the plan commission to have more transition of housing um from less dense to more dense as you moved back through it. Uh, reconfiguring the um the site in order to have um the greater variety of um building sizes uh throughout the development. Um, and so that has been what majority of the conversations have been um Dustin if you have anything to add.

Yeah, the um some of the previous iterations I would say were more on the lines of yield plans really how much could we get in there and uh didn't align with what um staff uh felt or the uh plan commission had felt through feedback given at multiple meetings of what would be uh appropriate or acceptable out there. One of the issues that was raised most often was making it feel like they are their own neighborhood that they had kind of unifying features. Um so you can see they have a large kind of central plaza area. Um there are sidewalks throughout. Obviously it will connect across training to get to um Favville Park. But again providing their own kind of unifying central feature to make it feel like people can stay in their space uh once they arrive from home and interact with one another. The goal here was not to have traditional, I'll say, suburban multifamily development types where people pull into their garage, go into their house, go into their unit, and then never interact with each other. The goal here is that um people will interact with one another and feel part of the neighborhood. There were meetings many I don't say many four or five years ago the developer when again some of the early uh iterations came through um we suggested uh that the developer sit down with the neighborhood um with with those residents and they did uh they were working with Mound Associates at the times predates um the the current uh consultant that they have uh to get feedback and I can just say anecdotally that it was we don't want to have multif family backing up to our homes. We want to see more transition. Again, that dovetales with what the plan commission has been saying all along and and the staff um staff did provide some detailed markups to them about what we felt were unifying unifying features and to create a sense of place uh within the development. Um and uh they um I'll say accepted uh some of those suggestions from us and came back with um a

development plan that provides a transition. I do remember specific plan commissioners saying there were too many 14-unit buildings um on previous iterations. It needs to transition faster to smaller building types. Um that the duplexes they were showing duplexes and or triplexes in early iterations um on the back side of the the town residents um that you see there to the south um to provide transition. You can see that there's uh burming and landscaping. Again, those details come later, but those were important elements that came out of conversations between the plan commission and the developer um at at previous meetings. And so, um from uh a staff perspective, we feel this is kind of the the best iteration yet when it talks about building layouts, circulation, connectivity, um um obviously storm water management, uh making sure that is that is addressed out there. So, um, you know, that's kind of how we've gotten to to where we at. We tried to provide a very detailed kind of summary within the memo itself of kind of, uh, all the times that it's been to us.

Okay. Anyone else? Anyone else have any questions? I have a lot. Yeah, go ahead. I have a lot.

So, anyway, um, let's just start with, uh, the sheer the sheer number of years that we've been talking about this. Um what the audience has said is is for the most part factual. Um I've been a personal property rights advocate since I've been on the plan commission. So I for the better part of the this project I always had the uh the existing property owners in the back of my mind um based on the development. However, Mr. Mangan has property rights also because he purchased this property and he agreed to put single family houses in there. So all the factual information is out there when Drake when Drake said that you know the plan commission's um feeling back in in January was to uh relook at this decrease the density. That was accurate. However, it was it was I I I'm sure it was to give some direction to have a single family buffer backing up these houses. Now, if you stand at the property, it even though it looks like a postage stamp here, it is a very large piece of property. Uh it's it's very very deep. And what I got out of the property owners the last time was it might be okay to have a few more multif family in there because of the sheer depth of the property but in the in the localized zone by the by the existing R1. I still think there needs to be some R1. And just looking at that map, if you can visualize the lower triangle where the where the uh low

density houses are, the the small ones and the two long buildings, that's the area that I envisioned to be the buffer zone to the existing R1. However, the property is very deep. So, I mean, I back in all those meetings, I think the property owners would agree that I said this. Um I I don't think it would be a tremendous hardship to the property owners to have some more multif family there uh to address the the uh number of vehicles the um the the uh traffic stuff. If you put that entire area in single family, there's going to be a probably very similar to the same amount of traffic um within a few. Uh, so I don't think that we've already agreed that this is going to be a development of some sort. So I'm sure staff has already addressed that that road coming out to V is going to be developed and and uh there'll be some there'll be some uh broadness there based on the little cattle pass it is now. Uh addressing addressing the wildlife, excuse me. Um, this property is backed up to the old conservation land, a a quite vast property. Um, to be frank frank, um, the DNR is significantly mismanaging their wildlife. I this week I talked to six different DNR and uh um federal guys about uh wildlife conservation and uh that that issue in my opinion um is irrelevant on this particular parcel cuz if it was houses the deer have the the ability to free range through the neighborhood if they want and and even the even the turkeys um the residents would be more disappointed with them if

they're in their backyard than they will be seeing them. Um, and and the the vast area that the conservation area has will more than accommodate them and it won't hinder their life or their or their development. Um, what what I'm troubled with is with the developer is the sheer number of times that everybody has made the same exact comments. Now, in land values alone, we can't we we're we're short of houses in Lake Mills. So, it it's not my property, but if the if the if the idea is to not build single family, sell that portion of the property off to somebody that will cuz there are people that would develop it. I understand that probably the the return on investment is better with these multifamilies. However, it's kind of like beating a dead horse here. We we we've for years we've been talking about this. So, I I personally am not willing to support multif family backed up to these residential lots. I I I think it's a simple solution to have a couple streets worth of of single family there, whoever develops it. And that's just my opinion. Thank you, Mr.

I just want I just want to be clear on one on one point.

In January when feedback was provided by the plan commission, there was not direction to incorporate a single family component into what would come back to you. I if that had been the direction of the plan commission, we you'd either be seeing it on here tonight or um we would have told the developer to not make an application. Um, so I just I just want to be clear that the the question was asked in January, is the plan commission open to a conversation on multi- this becoming a multifamily development? And the answer at that point was yes. Now, the approval is still your prerogative. You don't ha you don't have to do anything that you don't want to do. But I just I just want to be clear that had this plan commission told us it is a non-negotiable to include single family development in this parcel, it would be it would either be here before you tonight or the developer wouldn't be here tonight. So I just want to be clear, we take seriously the feedback from the plan commission and we seek to meet the goals that you've laid out for us. If if I can just add on a on a second component to this, right, this first item is about potentially changing the future land use map to a different category. Right? Right now that C it is the future land use category is single family which will only allow single family. The other end of that spectrum is multifamily which would allow only multif family but not duplexes or single family. The recommend the request is to go to planned neighborhood which allows for single family duplexes, triplexes, various larger footprint multifamily. Okay. Should the commission choose to hypothetically approve or recommend approval of the future land use amendment to plan neighborhood, that

does not in and of itself approve the resoning, which is the second item tonight. So, I'll say you can absolutely deny the future land use request within your prerogative or you could approve it. I just want to make to go to plan neighborhood. I just want to make it clear that does not necessarily mean even this what is being proposed in this layout that you're seeing here is approved. You could approve the future land use amendment to to plan neighborhood and still say we want XYZ changes to the plan development district layout as being proposed. So one does not necessarily mean the other is an automatic approval

and that's why we changed the agenda. Thank you. Can I just have a followup? It it's unfortunate that my comments were were taken in in that context. Drake, I I I'm not saying that you weren't listening. What what I what I was saying is that there was so much dialogue about single family buffering the houses. And I'm sure I did say that I would support more additional multif family. I just wasn't clear enough to say that it had to be a single family buffer against the existing houses. So, I'd like to clarify that my comments didn't mean to be offensive to staff because we need we need this staff to to get this right and and I apologize for that comment.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Yes, sir. Mr. waters. Is there a parkland dedicated here? There isn't a

No, sorry. There is not parkland specifically dedicated to the public here. They are um providing parkland per our code um for their development, meaning um recreational space. The next piece really part of the the precise implementation plan really gets into the details of that. So, the next item would be the general development plan. So, um they would still be required to um pay your parkland dedication or your um park improvement fee um and uh uh fee in lie of dedication as a part of any building permit process that would come in the future. But this is not proposed as public parkland that would be dedicated to the city.

Okay. Just which is standard for multif family projects. Okay.

Great. And to uh and to speak about the about the zoning. I guess uh R1, it sounds like what I'm hearing here is that was how this land was designated when it was when the original complex was built. Was there some type of agreement that that's what would happen here in the future? What what was the thought there at the time? Um Dan, if there was it was zoned as R14 um or it remained zoned as R14 when the um north half or north portion was reszoned to R312 to allow for the dense multif family development that has occurred. Um it it has been zoned R14. At that point it was put in the future land use map as R14. Single family has always been considered at the the parcel. Um and that's why the developer is in front of you um attempting to amend the the future land use map and then subsequently reszone to allow for a more dense development. So it is it has been it it remains R14 at this point.

Okay. My hesitation was that there's not you're not going to find a written agreement that states that this will be you know guaranteed something right. you exert the the city exerted its control through

the zoning classification and the classification in the future land use map and so the agreement per se was at time of approvals right the city did not grant approvals for multifamily across the entire development and maintained single family zoning and future land use designation uh at that time on this parcel um for single family um and so you won't find like there is there's no contract I guess if that's what you were

referencing. All right. And then speaking as a whole for the whole I guess as the city we're we're trying to balance the whole single family with multi- use and um we we've had a lot of multi-use additions over in the last I don't know eight years anyway. Um, single family is something that that we have a shortage of. We're fortunate that we can feel about anything that we build, if it's single or multi. Um, but we do seem to have a shortage of uh of housing sites for single at this point just because almost everything inside the city limits of Lake Mills has already been built on. There's very few very few land opportunities. Uh, we have to bounce outside the city to to grab additional land. So, here's an opportunity where we have land in the city uh that's already zoned R14. So, that's it.

Any question, Miss Lazarus?

Well, Mr. chairman. Um, as to uh the topic at hand, the u future land use map, I would favor a change from single family residential to planned neighborhood for the land use for that parcel. I go back a long time and I do recall when Mr. Megan first um approached the city with concepts, this is going back almost 20 years now. People are going to say, "Well, but the apartments aren't 20 years old." No, they're not. But we look back into where we can see um a process where it did take a long time to arrive at the point where the northern multifamily buildings could be built. There was a a lot that took place. The original concept was for uh the um multif family to the north and single family at the south end. That is that was original concept and that goes back almost 20 years. We have seen changes in 20 years as to um uh housing demand and as to housing affordability and as to um the um how easily or or how easy or difficult it is to first develop single family homes and second to then afford single family homes. and we've had the uh the regional study for Jefferson County and we've all reviewed that and we have discussed um uh the missing middle as it were and as you know I certainly don't want that as as a designated but that's

uh beside the point you can always call a planned neighborhood as we do uh but I would um I would not object to a change of um land uh designation from single family to plan neighborhood.

Thank you, Miss Lazarus. I have a few questions of my own. I suppose um I want to thank everyone for your comments. I felt like they were mostly very respectful. This is going to be very um emotional topic. Um and I felt everyone handled themselves super well. So, thank you. Um I I and I and I have similar concerns. I guess my um couple thoughts um and this and and I don't know where to place some of these questions so I apologize. Um speed limit on Highway V there is 35. Would city consider moving that down to 25? Uh it's not our jurisdiction. It's a county road.

Got it. So we'd have to go through the county in order to make that change. Got it. Um sidewalks on that side of the street I don't believe are there. Um um they are on the other side of the street there on County V. I'm sorry. Sorry. Yeah. The the city just completed the sidewalk that runs along Fyville, etc. And there will be a connection here. Again, it's a county road. The town the city can't city could if it was feeling very altruistic go and put sidewalk in. It generally doesn't do that in town to town properties because you can't assess them for it.

So that's why there wouldn't be sidewalk in front of the town that entire all of the single family that is on the um south end of this and along V is all in the town. It's not in the city.

Oh, see. Okay. Thank you. Um there's, you know, it's it's always difficult to balance about who you're putting out. Um as far as the current homeowners and and what they knew regarding single family and then changing the game on them a little bit, I think is is a is not a light topic. I'm mostly concerned about that house on the I guess the south side of what that driveway is. I think the our friend um spoke. Yep. Um, and I'm, you know, I would imagine they're going to get a lot of headlights, um, as people try to pull into their into their street that way if this, if this were to go through. And I guarantee they did not not um, uh, bargain for that one. I don't know if there's any thoughts um that the architect could speak to or

talking about. I I believe that's a driveway right now, right? A platted road there. So there there is a current platted road that exists there.

It's in gravel, but it is actually deemed a a road. So I I I think the plans was no matter what. I think from the traffic the the um plan commissioner comment is exactly right from a single family to a multifamily although it seems much denser it it's really not much different. So from if this goes to single family, there's going to be a road that goes there and it's generally going to have the same amount of traffic. Um you can see um we really tried there is a a decent amount of landscaping on the north side of that um uh that house there and then we've added some additional landscape to help screen them from the larger buildings. I think if you look at really on the south edge of of how a an existing residential parcel along the county road they are not really going to feel any difference from a side byside onestory one and a half story duplex to a single family home. The density that they are feeling there is no different than a single family home and we're doing that for a specific reason. Bob has never developed those in the past prior. It's really meant to do something here. And we talked about these are predominantly it's a ranch set up for um very well for maybe a senior who doesn't want to do it. Very less. That's what apartments are are primarily. That's why they're popular. Less lawn work. So, we really tried hard to make this feel and I would argue that whether it is a side byside apartment or a single family home, the feeling of those neighbors on those parcel, there's very little difference. A person could build a 2 and 1 half story. We're proposing one-story ranches with a with a pitched roof. Um, we worked very hard

to do that. Um, and to have that feeling. Um it's it's hard to see, but we left off 60 ft on our BR property line to put a burm there with trees on top. If that's a single family lot, they will not be doing that. Um we really tried to get that transition of doing that. We were in in front of this group, single family development is extremely difficult financially right now for anyone to build public roads and public streets and to get it done. Um that's one of the reasons why the lots are empty. it's a very challenging way to do it. Um and and that it's not just because Bob um is holding it there. So um we really tried hard to meet the what we heard from this group of people um to integrate um all the conceptual plans. We looked at the land use plan. We looked at everything that was in the comp plan that supports the comp plan change um for what got us here. And we are coming back, but we're coming back. We're not coming back with the same thing. We have zero 16-unit buildings. We only have two 14-unit buildings. The rest of them are eight and a significant amount of twos. These are a it's a mixeduse neighborhood. That's that isn't feel that different, especially on the southside than than a single family development. I I think I heard there are some duplexes that are are across the street here within that single family home that that's very similar to what we're building.

Thank you. And if and if um one more question if and and maybe Mr. Dailyy could answer this. I I forget I think I asked the same question several months ago. If the um if if Mr. Manion wanted to build single family right now, how many units could they build without ever having to go through? It's not platted. It's not platted. Um, a good estimate, four units an acre, probably probably between 70 and 80 single family homes. If they wanted to, they'd have to go and get them platted.

They'd have to be platted, but in general, it'd be permitted by right. So, there'd be there'd be limited um input or plat approval, but there's limited discretion in approval of those if they meet the bulk requirements of the of the city's code. Thank you, Mr. Dailyaly. Any other is that for the entire area, the single family for the you were talking about the if you took this if you took this location and it was all single family 70 to 80 homes, we would guess what you would get. Okay. And the subject lot currently, this the lot that is being discussed is currently uh zoned as single family. Y.

So if it was platted on this entire um parcel, you could probably fit between 70 and 80 is what Mr. So if they brought you if they brought you a plat that complied with bulk requirements largely we would be obligated to approve such a plat. That make sense with everyone? Yeah. Um any while while the architect's here, is there any other questions? Yeah, I do. I apologize. I got some issues with my electronic device. So, um, on the on the south on the south border there where those trees are, that's a 60 ft buffer. Yeah, I believe so. Yeah, we went up and back down until the buildings start.

That's interesting. Um, and it it was a hill cuz cuz everything kind of drops down there. So you can imagine um when you're sitting up there and you build a hill and you put trees on top um we were expecting that the visuals of of the bottom of the hill it's it's almost a 25 ft drop. I'm not sure you will see any of even the roofs at the bottom side.

I mean that is kind of a perk compared to uh to single family houses built right to the back side of those lot lines. Um, I guess I'd be interested in hearing the uh property owner's opinion on that much buffer. How how steep did you say the roofs were on those ranches? They're steep roofs. Uh, I'd have to look back. There's they're Yeah, I think they're fairly flat. They're these are they're they're they're one story, so they're not a huge pitch. Fairly flat. I see. I said fairly steep. I see Mr. Grady.

Yep. Um there's still plenty of opportunity to talk about the specifics of it, but I think right now if you can steer it to the future land use and correct and and work through this one. It's difficult to kind of very intertwined. We're just we're towing that line a little bit. I see you. Thank you so much. Um so yes, just to draw us back, we're talking specifically about the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan and the future land use map for this parcel. So plan neighborhood, just to reiterate, plan neighborhood allows for a mix of housing types. That's essentially going from single family residential to plan neighborhood for this particular lot. Thank you.

Um I appreciate you keeping us um on point there, Mr. Daly. Um you know, I have no other thoughts. I'm willing to entertain a motion on this matter. Well, I guess one thing I just before I go is just I'm always I really appreciate the comments given. I guess the the the one thing I'm always thinking about in my head is is the these folks don't have any voice in these meetings ever. Um because they don't exist yet. And so I always think that it's it's really difficult because if they did have a voice, they would be speaking right now. They don't have a voice. They don't exist yet. Does that make sense what I'm saying? And so I think sometimes these conversations are geared towards no. um because of that. Um and so um I just wanted to make that point before um I guess asking if there is any more is there any more input from the commission. I want to make sure that anyone who has questions can ask them now on this particular topic about um changing the future land use map from single family residential to plan neighborhood on this particular possible. Yes sir. So if we change change it change the land use do do we have any any say of of what happens?

Uh the zoning hasn't the if you change the land use that's essentially so it's so state statute has a consistency requirement right so that's why the land use is in front of you before the zoning change. So you you actually are barred from making a zoning change to something that um conflicts with your future land use map. So to answer your question is you still exert um a significant amount of control over um the development because they have not yet been granted entitlement rights to build a multi you know to build what they'd like to build. So, if the future land use map goes to planned neighborhood, you would still have the ability to tell them, "Yes, we're okay with some multifamily here." You still have the ability to talk about single family. It gives you the ability to talk about a variety of housing options within within the parcel. Um the zoning change is where um the city retains its its control over what the ultimate end product is. Um, so yes, you still maintain control over what you'd like to see here, ex with the exception of someone could still come in until the zoning is changed and say, I'm going to build all R14 single family zoning fully compliant. Here's the plat. Um, any anytime zoning's you have something permitted by right, you can come in and do that. But, um, the future land use map does not change the zoning until that zoning is changed. The only thing that can be built here is single family zoning is single family housing.

So this is procedural. Yeah, it is. If if you're if if this plan commission's desire is only single family development on this parcel, um then you should leave it as single family zoning. It's procedural in that if you want to do something other than single family, you have to take a step to amend your future land use map. uh because you can't change the zoning of a parcel to something that does not match your future land use map. That's state statute.

Thank you. And just just one step further on that, um we've used the term comprehensive plan uh throughout this discussion, but you should reflect on the fact that the the plan commission did go through that process mere months ago and adopted a future land use map within the comprehensive plan as required by state statute that did isolate and designate this property as single family residential for its future land use in current in in consistency with its zoning designation, which is and remains in single family right now. I see. I see. Okay.

Any other public com or any other I'm sorry, comments, input from the commission, any other inputs, questions on this particular topic about the future land use map. Okay. Um, seeing none, I'm willing to um ask a request if anyone would like to make a motion regarding the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan and future land use map brought to us by the Northern Management Company. I move approval of motion 2572, future land use map.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Anyone like to second that? All right. Mason second. Thank you, Mr. Mason. It's been moved by Miss Lazeras and seconded by Mr. Mason um to um move the comprehensive plan future land use map um from single family residential to plan neighborhood for this particular parcel before us. I ask for a roll call vote. Mr. Grady, I. Mr. Waters, no. Dr. Mr. Mason. Yes.

Mr. Homeman. I Miss Lazerus. Hi. Motion passes.

Okay. Thank you. Um so now we are in part two of this um matter where we will be moving. Sorry, trying to I was all organized and then we could throw off my So, we're now in what was I guess item um seven now it's item 10 or number nine. Um so, it is regarding Okay. So, it's the zoning amendment um request um moving the zoning of this parcel of land identified as part parcel 24507140734025 um and moving it um from single family residential R14 to multifamily residential R312 um with a planned development district overlay. Um I guess if um Mr. Wolf, our consultant, can go ahead and and provide any other thoughts. We've talked about this pretty exhaustively, but do you have any other thoughts that you'd like to share regarding this particular I

I would like to talk just a little procedurally here on this. So, um the request is to change the base district from the R14 single family to R312 and then as modified by a plan development district. The um process associated with that was initially a concept plan. They brought many concepts to us. Uh tonight is a um the amendment would also be to approve the general development plan. So that is general layout themes um you know unit types uh kind of location of uh of buildings um uh circulation sidewalks etc. Um this is I'll call it a sort of intermediary step to what we call the precise implementation plan. That would be them bringing it back if if the general development plans we like the unit types that they're proposing. We like the we like the general layout of what they're proposing. Right? Then they would come back with the details on building architecture materials. Right? We get into uh details of landscaping, lighting, um we get into the the details of stormwater management, um utility services and such. This level, think of it as the 500 to,000 foot level, right? You are saying we are giving you approval big picture of what you're bringing to us, right? So that's going to that that layout. This is the place where if you want to be specific about transitions, unit types, single family, amount of single family versus two family versus other unit types up to, you know, whatever unit maximum you would like to impose. If you want changes to circulation roads, you want um certain improvements that you want to see with this is all going to the precise implementation plan. But if you

were if this gets approved at this level to reszone to PDD and this general development plan, right, I'm I'm just going to go to the uh to the layout they gave us. Right? If you were to approve it, this is what they would come back with a lot of detail on. Right? This is the place and your decision here would be to um again either approve, deny, approve with conditions uh table for al alternative iteration. this is the place to be very specific on what your expectations are for the development of this site. So what I'm hearing you say is is that that this particular um I guess this well first off moving it from single family to multif family residential there still would be a next step where they would come to the planning commission or they would go to city staff they come back to the planning commission okay with that but this is really the how is this going to look and feel right this isn't final grading this isn't um you know 4T or 5ft sidewalks This is we have a general understanding of parking. We have a general understanding of of spatial relationships of buildings um and of this development to adjacent developments, right? But if you were to approve something tonight, um you would need to be very specific on what your expectations are. If you want to see something different that's been than what's been brought forward and you give them specific direction, you would then provide that direction, probably table it for it to come back to meet your expectations. This is a very important step, okay? Because this is the I know what it's going to look out look like when it gets developed in the sense of I know how the roads are going to generally lay out. I know we're building footprints are going to be. I know what our density is going to be on this site. I know what exceptions to any code that they are requesting um as a part of this development proposal. I'll make it very

clear. The only exceptions that they are asking for is to include two family in their in the R312 base district. We don't allow that by by right in the R312, but we but we can approve it as an exception as a part of the plan development district. Um and then the other is I don't have an a very accurate count of um of parking. By my estimations, they're about five parking stalls shy. um overall um which is not a significant amount. Um they provide much more um covered or enclosed parking um above and beyond the minimum required but they are below the minimum uh requirement for um uh open parking right surface parking. So that is something that we spell out in this. Again, these are areas where you want to be very specific on um uh unit types, unit counts, overall density, parking expectations, etc.

Ryan, Ryan. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm just if we can just hold on one second. Um well, I guess go ahead if you have a question. Just a quick question. um by changing the zoning do we have any any um issues of obligation to so that they can build by right all multif family I mean like they have they have right now to the they have the right to build single family the whole thing if if we change the zoning does that automatically tie our hands because you have the PDD overlay as part of the zoning change no they won't be able to if you were just I overlooked that

yeah if you were just a straight zoning to R312 You're absolutely correct. You would you would be providing an entitlement to build to the bulk regulations of that, but because you're adding that PDD overlay, that's where the city exerts its control. This is so complicated because I'm I'm actually in favor of developing this land, but I just fear relinquishing my ability to lose control of the outcome. they are asking for something beyond just single family which is what's permitted by right because of that you have control through the plan development district process

to determine the specific layouts um of of the development pattern itself right and then even if hypothetically you were to prove what they brought here that doesn't approve they brought some general understanding of what they're thinking for building architecture and materials they still would need to come back to you for approval for the duplex units. Okay? And and we've outlined in the staff memo. We don't feel we're on the same page yet for architecture and materials yet. Okay? The focus for us here is the layout, the spatial relationships, the um the key items, making sure that there are sidewalks throughout, that there is a unified kind of public space uh for for the development. um you know a a unifying recreational space that defines kind of a neighborhood here. But this is where you should provide very specific direction on what you expect to see for for the layout of the site and and and maybe I could just when it's appropriate just go over kind of how we ended up here so we can give a layout because we have done a few on it. For example, the Burm. just want to make sure the plan commission is aware of um some reasons why staff did some things recommended and why we thought it made sense. So um but I can whenever you guys seem appropriate, I'll just do a quick overview of how what we did and

I I apologize for interrupting Mr. Grady before the developer gets to that point, I would encourage you to call for public comment under the public hearing. I I was going to do that following. Is that not appropriate? Um I I believe that the public hearing comments should come um before the we would typically have them after the staff presentation so that the public can make a comment and then you could ask questions of the developer. Um I suppose if you really want to have the developer presentation first you could do so but we are in the public hearing. Fair enough portion.

Fair enough. Fair enough. That sounds great. Um, appreciate your wisdom there. Um, so what we'll do is we'll now hear um more public comments. If you all would like to address the planning commission, please come to the podium on this specific um item of the agenda that is moving from single family residential R14 to multifamily residential R312. Um, yes, if you can say your name again and your address. Thanks.

Um, my name is Kim G. I live at W7144 County Road V. Um, I'm in that corner right there where all the traffic is funneling to my house. This is the first time I've seen this plan, unfortunately. But I am seeing lights coming into my living room, lights coming into my bedroom. I mean, this is it right here. This is this is my house right here. Um, I see this. I see this. I'm I'm sorry. I I can't hear without the microphone. Yeah.

Um, I don't think I like this. Um, and then I don't know the building that's to the north of us is how many units is that is my question. I'm not sure if we can we do a back and forth. Is that okay? or eight. Okay.

U Well, I guess I don't understand how what the density is of this. How what's the population that could possibly live in this area on top of the apartments that are already have been approved um for this developer. I don't know what the population is that's about to come into my neighborhood. Well, we can bring that question. I I'll ask that question later on. Yes, ma'am. One of my other concerns is about lighting. Um, and and in my spot specifically doesn't look ideal in this plan, but I understand that the this is just a plan, but I do have concerns about it.

Thank you, Miss G. We'll ask the We'll get to those questions. Thank you. Yes, you can say your name and your address, please. Jay Ludman, uh W7176. I guess I we're using County Highway V instead of Dyronina Park Road. Same address. Um your current, um road map does not show uh a road going all the way through to the back apartments. Um that right there. Okay. that's currently not the road that exists. The road that currently exists goes straight through without any turns. Um, you're by caving into this developer from R1 to multif family, you have given him the opportunity to eliminate all single family homes. Your comments, ma'am, I'm sorry I don't know your name, of not being able to afford single family homes. You certainly can't afford them if you don't build them. You have allowed this developer to convince you all to to come back again and again as his mo has appreciated to pretty soon these are going to be our 16s or our 20s. You've opened yourself up. This guy has proven himself to not be honest and not be straightforward with both the planning commission or or the city council by his repeated attempts to do what you have allowed him to do tonight. Um, I would certainly encourage you to reconsider putting R1 ones in as a buffer zone into this property and if

you still maintain any kind of control over this property that you make sure that you do that because this was supposed to be R1 and you're and you have eliminated R1 from the statement here. You're begging permission to build R2s. Thank you, sir. Any other comments from the public?

Daniel Beich, W7148, County Road V. So, I a few things I guess the comment on the uh 25- ft drop. It's not immediately behind the property line and like the tree line with the 25 foot drop. I don't think that would remove any visualization. Currently, the light pollution that I see at night from the multif family home that exists is all that I see. I don't even see the highway or the field prior. So, that already is an instance. And with more multif family buildings built, I only expect that to worsen. Um, so and then I guess the 60 to 70 single family units. I I'm a novice here, so I that when I look at that piece of land, I I can't fathom that many single family homes unless each one is yet on like a tenth of an acre of land. But then I also question how the so obviously the multif family homes down has the sewer but we have uh the wellwater septic and I wonder what uh I guess the design for that is do we have to drill through our land to get the septic built to get to them or is it going to be hijacked and go uphill from the multif family homes already whereas single family homes could be built with existing wellwater septic systems and not have to worry about that.

Make sure we ask that question as well. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments online in the audience?

No more public comments. I want to make sure everyone voice is respected here. Okay, I'm seeing no more public comments. Um, I will close a public comment at 8:23. Um, is it okay if we bring and and I guess before we do bring the architect up, there were some questions that I would like to ask if that's okay. Number one, density um for this area, the density uh on this plan. So, the density proposed here overall is a little over nine units an acre. Um the single family if it was just pure single family about 4.3 units an acre. So so it is certainly double that because you do have some larger units. Um that is still a discussion item for you as a commission to decide on on appropriateness, right? Um if you change the composition of the the units, right? That's going to change the density. So, um, we, um, have expressed to to Mr. Mangan in the past that the concern is about good site design, right? Good building design, um, and making it seem like we're not putting 10 pounds of stuff in a 5B bag. But, um, and it's taken many iterations to to get to this level based on the feedback that we've gotten to date. But, we've heard some different things from you tonight. So, again, I I leave that to you to to provide clear direction to the applicant. Okay. Um, lighting um was asked if you could give us some specifics around that.

So, we have a we actually have a very um restrictive lighting code that has maxes and mins. Um, it is based on the um Illumination Engineering Society of America's standards. They're the experts who do this um uh across the country. Um but it says we can't have hotspots. Hot spots are generally anything that's approaching 10 uh foot candles. Um usually you only need about two to three foot candles to make sure something is well illuminated and safe. Um his develop these developments don't typically have a lot of standalone like parking lot lighting. They usually have pedestrian scale lighting or sconce lighting um on the units. So um I will say this is the first we've heard of um lighting uh issues on that development. We've also had some other recent multifamily developments. Uh Summer Ridge most notably um just to the south of this. We've not received any lighting complaints on that. Um uh or the uh North Oak development on the south side of town or um Drumland Crossing. So again, these are issues that do get hammered out as part of the precise plan, but there there are very specific lighting requirements and photometrics that have to be met.

That's a um great point. as lighting does come up um repeatedly, but it's good to know that people haven't complained um about all those topics prior um all those um buildings since. I guess um I guess there was one more about the impact on well and septic. Is there any city? It'll connect to the to city water and city sewer. um for those that live as far as exact locations that would be approved likely during the

precise implementation plan approval during when full engineering is done. Um, but there are there are rights of way and um easements that the developer may have to grant exactly where it would come from, whether it comes from the existing infrastructure they've installed at the multifamily development um up top or it what the elevations may look like or if any any portion of it is coming from elsewhere. um it's it's a requirement to be on city sewer and su city water and so um they will have to find a way to comply with that uh regardless of what development um is approved and

and for those that currently live um on well and they're not city residents. Yeah. Will this would this impact the I don't know the amount the the amount of water that would be in those areas or uh developments are required by city code to manage their own storm water internally um without an impact on um surrounding uh property owners. And so that's a requirement a condition of approval as well that storm water is managed on the site in which they're building. I think he's talking about the effect on wells or septics.

Oh the effect on wells and septics. No, there shouldn't be an impact because it's will all be on the city water and sewer system. This this design would constitute an expansion of the city utility of the city water department of the city sewer department. So a new grid of pipe would be installed services and laterals and and mains. Um there are the system is already completed in the the northern property the existing multifamily. What would the city would do is extend the infrastructure through this site and then basically loop around back to Tyrronina Point or Park Road and and connect to an appropriate spot.

Thank you. And then I guess last um is we talked about maintaining of control by the planning commission for this kind of structure. I just I'm sorry this is kind of too complicated is is essentially um because it's PDD um if we say yes to this they will come back. But would it be pretty much more of a um

I guess like a kind of a a foregone conclusion that we would say yes in that situation or there's a a few steps left. If the city c if the plan commission says yes to the zoning change and the general development plan that's presented to you tonight, the city council then has to grapple with the future land use map change. If they deny the future land use map change, the conversation stops there.

And then they have to grapple with the zoning change and the general development plan that came with your recommendation to them. If they say no to that, we start over. We start over again. if they had already approved the future land use map designation. So, there's a few pieces yet. Now, um if there are non-negotiables, if there are things this plan commission wants to see on the plan that you will forward to city council, you should make that clear now and then likely table it until they can bring back a plan that is consistent with what they're telling them to say. I'll give I'll give you an example. If this plan commission, if your non-negotiable is is that there must be an owner occupied component, a whether that's single family or whether you would you would okay an owneroccupied duplex um development piece of this. You should make that clear to the developer and say, you know, we're not recommending approval to the city council without a single family home or owner occupied component to this to to this development. And then you can you I would you would table it. Then as another piece of that this would go more to if that happened right and it came back and there was something and that made it through the city council process. We still have to go through the precise implementation plan right which is the second place that you exert control overment over it. Part of the precise implementation plan is construction schedule. I believe, Dan, please correct me if I'm speaking out of turn, in the developer agreement, as a condition of the PDD,

you could require that the owner occupied piece of it has to be constructed before building permits are granted for the multifamily component.

That is a a contract term that could be put in place. Yes, you can um establish schedules for development and and insist on uh compliance with that agreement. Yes, of course. So this is your this is the plan that they've put in front of you. If there are non-negotiables that you're saying we need to see this before we want to you know make a recommendation on this item now now is the time for you to do it. Great. And then okay, not not as an amendment to this but as a basically a push back saying come back once you

right. This the purpose of PDD is a negotiation. That is the the general purpose of the PDD. They ask for something in return and the city asks for something in return uh in order to do what the developer ultimately wants to do. And so some of this is a back and forth. Um, so you do not you you could choose to approve it with conditions. If there's significant changes to what they presented to you that you're saying we can't get to yes on this, then I would table I would give that feedback and I would table this to the next meeting. Got it. Thank you. Any questions for city questions, but let the architects talk.

Yeah. Would I guess if if that's all right. Would that go ahead. Is there anything?

Um, I'm wrestling with the single valu family versus multiple family. Okay. And I agree with with Mr. Homeman and I don't want to lose control of this thing. But my question is going back way back when the original apartments were approved, wasn't there some kind of I don't know ratio algorithm or something in place that for x number of apartments you had x number of single family homes built. R14 R14

it was zoned R14 which has which has specific limits on density. Um single family must have certain size lots. That's how we kind of use that computation. 4.3 per per acre. R312 allows 12 units per lot or per acre, excuse me. So in the process of reszoning that northern portion and creating 144 units, this area was isolated and identified as the single family component of that. Okay, that's what I thought. Okay. And I'll add that's why the PDD route is being chosen right now. They're negotiating from all single family to something other than all single family.

Yeah, I agree that I I understand that. I also understand or remember very distinctly the last time the developers andor owner came in here. He said they said very flatly that I can't build a single family unit and make any money on it.

Yeah, I guess I can if I can off I'll speak generally of single family home development. What we've seen with single family home development um in Lake Mills and then largely I think you could probably apply this across the state is that um decades ago a developer could build out a subdivision, put in the roads, the sidewalk, the water, the sewer, all of the infrastructure and then they would sell lots to builders and they would the developer at that time would make money on the sale of the lots. Um what we have seen now across the state in Lake Mills, certainly in our region is that you don't make money on the lots anymore. And so what you've seen more is there's a developer wing, right, of a company and then they have a home builder wing of the company. And then the company will lose money on the lot sale and make money on the home sale. And so when Mr. Mangan is saying that he can't make money on the single family home development. Um he's he's indicating that single family homes are not in his portfolio. So he he they are not single family home builders. And so they would be in the business of building out the neighborhood and then trying to sell the lots, which what we've seen is that that's no longer the the the business model that we see for single family housing. So, I'll give you for the for the two large single family developments we've had in Lake Mills, the you know, the Brookstone basically phases five through what will be nine, the city has a unique relationship where the city installs all of the infrastructure and then we get paid back at the sale of the home through a special assessment. So the city plays a role in single family development out there. out out on the south end of town, Tyrannina Point, there was um there was

city involvement through the tiff district out there for extension of utilities out to that site in order to um basically uh defay some of that development costs to make it so that the that could be a profitable development for the um uh the developer. And so I guess to answer your question that if a developer is telling us that they're not intending to build the homes and they're only looking at building the subdivision and putting in the infrastructure and selling the lots and they're telling us that that is not profitable. That does not surprise city staff. Single family homes, selling the single family homes is profitable in the city of Lake Mills. But you have you have to be a home builder. you got to sell the lot and build the home in order to make the numbers typically work. Um, and so that's what I believe where that statement comes from is that since they are not single family home builders, the math doesn't work for them in that regard. Um, so I'm not going to tell you that single family homes on this parcel would not be a profitable venture. If you're not a single family home developer and you were just trying to build out a subdivision and sell lots to somebody else to build homes, that would be um mathematically difficult.

Yeah. Do you want to fill in any See, what I don't understand is when this whole um plan development took place, why you didn't anticipate that single family wouldn't be profitable? And maybe 10 years ago whenever they they started this maybe they knew that or they didn't know that. But I would think you would investigate all avenues for consideration um before you you know said well I can't do this. I I certainly cannot

Is that a question for like the city or is that a question for the developer because I would say that profit isn't isn't the concern of the city of Lake Mills with regard to that developer's actions. Let's let let's let Mr. Dresser go ahead and address

Oh, I I think I've I've addressed it. I I'm I'm questioning where that where that question is intended to go. From a city staff perspective, the profit of a developer isn't isn't necessarily our consideration. um the installation of uh infrastructure, roadways and utility work that is compliant with city standards and then the subsequent development into um safe and affordable housing would be a goal of the city staff or the city council as it's been stated. Um, so I I would just I mean I I guess a clear question there developer, why didn't you consider that when you when the city relied on you and in maintaining this as R14 is an appropriate question. I think the city's goals were established in that action. It was left as R14 with the expectation that it would be built out in R14.

I don't want to speak for Mr. Mangan on this but

been wor worked with him many years from this side of the table um Mr. Mangan was very clear up front he did not want to develop the single family portion until his multif family was done for the very reason he didn't want to have a whole neighborhood of people coming out and now being opposed to his project that he had received previous approvals for. So, um, if he had put in 50 houses after the first phase of of the of his apartment project was done before he started the second phase, he would have had an issue with people coming out and saying, "I don't want this anymore." Never mind that it had always been planned that way. So, um, but as Mr. Daly said, single family is not not this developer's portfolio. So, um, that comes into consideration. The only other thing I want to say about single family versus duplex or there's single family detached. When we say single family, everybody's kind of you thinking single family detached homes. There are single family attached homes,

right? They are duplexes when they're a rental. They are twin homes or zero lot line or town houses when they are owner occupied. So you can have a twounit building that is still single family. It's single family attached. We just give it a different it just get it's just given a different name. I guess if you could step up real quick and just if you have any other remaining comments from what you heard and any um questions from the planning commission. Um we ask I'm I'm sorry public public comment is now over. Apologize.

That's the way this comes. Sorry. I I'll try to answer a couple questions that that did come up. Utilities. I just want to clarify there actually already is water through the development. So the gravel road you see going through there is actually an easement where the city has already brought public water through um this phase of the site. So we will extend sanitary to the north, but the water loop has already been done um and we plan to use that. So that was a question. Uh uh the staff was correct. We will be using sewer and water. it won't have any impact on the town residents, but the water infrastructure is already in um on that. Um and then I I just want to clarify a few items on our site plan why we did things we did. So we do have the burm we talked about. Um 7 to 8 foot burm goes up, flattens out, comes back down with trees on top along the entire edge of the residential neighborhood. Um, one of the key items we did from a neighborhood perspective is we didn't want to see the garages as much. We wanted this to feel like a single family development. So, when you come up the main road, the north south road, we've turned all the garages away from the street. All you'll see is front patios and people's front porches. If you compare that to the other project, you see a lot of garages. All the garages on the east side are facing um the conservation easement and that's where the garages are. So if you can imagine coming into this development from the north, you're going to see um front doors and front patios of people sitting there. Um and we've really moved the garages and the parking off the street. It is going to feel more like a neighborhood. Um something we worked very closely with staff on trying to do that. Um that's kind of our main north south. So I wanted to do that

interconnected sidewalks. We we've connected paths along the road and then we also have a walking path behind um uh the side by sides and around there. So we have more of a urban feel when you're walking around the street. Um and then we also have a path that takes you between the woods along the pond. So we've done that. We've created a central green space again for the people that wanted to congregate, to have a little local park to have um right now we've got a picture of a grilling area with maybe a gazebo, a place where a community can go spend the day or having a party. Um storm water management, we're on the high side. All of our water is going away from the community down the hill and away from the site. Um we really worked hard to kind of get those neighborhood feelings. from a screening perspective on the west side. There's heavy woods along the west side of the development um for any residents facing that any city residents um and and we've provided a lot of screening we can on the outside. So I at least wanted to address why we did what we did um um and do and and going from there. Um and then the only other comment I would say I think of the other two single family I think um both those I believe there was some support from the community uh whether the utilities and roads were put in and then it's paid back or there was some public utility extensions paid by the city to make the single family developments work. We're not asking for anything from the community. We're estimating the development um value in the $30 million range. So this is a significant investment. Um, these apartments don't go up in in in a day. Um, it would typically probably be phased in two phases, maybe even three. A phase takes up to two years to build. Usually build it, make sure it gets used, um, and then you move

on to the next one. The stuff that Bob has developed is fully used there. There's a need for this de type of development. um residents that may used to have a single family might find themselves in the need for this type of development. So, um that's all I do. I I'll kind of add to some of the previous discussions. I I think those were just some of the main questions um that I had heard. Any other questions while he's up here? I I Oh, go ahead. You talked about the infrastructure as far as the water. I'm sorry. Can you turn the microphone on?

Thank you, Misty. I was just saying that we've talked about the infrastructure on the utility side. What about the streets? How would that be addressed? Uh, these are private. Everything within here is private. Um, so the city would not um take on maintenance obligations from the roadways and parking driveways and areas you see within this development.

Okay. So, I did due diligence and drove through the the campus that they they currently have existing and I see huge elevation changes in the street up and down. I see marks on the pavement where cars are bottoming out. Uh, is there a way that we could level that out a little bit more in this in this current project or are we expecting the same type of uh

um asphalt in in this project as well? We'll see grades um at time of if if it proceeded to a precise implementation plan that would be part of the site plan and build out. And so we could certainly look for um those um valleys within there um and require changes. Yes. Okay. And uh as far as the shrubry vegetation, we we can probably request more mature vegetation maybe in phase one.

They certainly have to require comply with our um landscape uh plan as part of the PDD. You could require more um than the minimum of our landscape plan. So yes, you the city could exert um control in that regard and require as part of the negotiation process of the PDD require more than the minimum of the landscaping within the site. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah, just one. Um, I guess I'd like to see in the in the next proposal, which staff was kind of adamant about, this is the time to state state your cause on the on those five those five duplexes touching the the uh south boundary. Um, could you pull one of those out and stretch that that five to four with a a little less density there and then throw that one up in by that lone one above the triangle there. Just adjust the adjust it so there's less density along the property. So try to pull a little bit more of the density away from the the residential, sir.

Yeah. I guess eventually my recommendation is going to be to table for some further review. I'd like to investigate some things um but also bring some kind of idea what these buildings will look like along property lines, right? And there there is some conceptual drawings of of of those, but we can bring the um the ranch elevations in. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Chairman, I can just a quick comment on on the issue and

this this unifying feature in the center. I will say from a from a planning and urban design perspective, not covering up these ends with buildings is really important.

Say that again. not not covering up these um you see the ends of this central um green area where you will have uh events and congregating etc happening um which which is planned by design. We don't like to cover up the ends so it feels hidden. So I understand what Mr. Hman is saying about moving some units away from these things single family but we do the same thing with with public parkland. don't like it to all be hidden behind buildings. So then it doesn't become a central feature that gets a lot of eyes on and a lot of interaction. So from a planning perspective, it's an issue that we feel very strongly about and and again we appreciate the developer working with us on this. There were previous iterations that had some some central features, but it was really ringed by buildings and then only a handful of people really get to enjoy it and see it and experience it. So, so there is a method to the madness of why this is is designed this way. People will see it. They will see people in there. They will engage more. It's just like a public park in that sense.

Maybe if a person saw what the buildings would look like at street level versus thousand foot level would would be advantageous for everyone including neighbors.

I just wanted to make that point. But we could we could certainly remove we can certainly if the count if the commission would like to see a design change um regarding the housing along that southern portion there um you certainly can make that request. it would it just might look we would have to look at where the buildings fall then and and figure out a different way um to to meet the city's goals. So we if that's the direction of the plan commission to try and reduce some of the density along that line there we can attempt to accomplish that. You know, and after saying it and thinking about it, with a 60ft buffer there and and that amount of foliage, I don't think anybody's going to see any of it. If that's a 60ft buffer where those trees are or is it 60t to the back of the building, I just like I say, my my electronics I I was unable to to scale anything.

Yeah, I I believe we have close to 60 to the sidewalk. I don't want to misrepresent. I know we were drawing that. So if you can imagine um usually go up three and a half to one you go up every vertical every three feet so it's almost an 8 foot burm a little flat area on top and then you come back down um so that's what we are imagining uh we can look at a little closer but I know it's at least 60 back to the building um and that was something we really we wanted to give that additional space um and that screening it was important Okay. Any other questions regarding this? Mr. Waters, Mr. Mason, Mr. No more questions. So again, we are on the topic of moving this parcel. 245071473425. You all have um it all in front of you. Moving from single family residential to multifamily residential R312 with a planned development district overlay. Um, with observing no more questions or comments from the planning commission, I'm willing to hear any motions regarding approval or denial or a continuing tableabling the the hearing to a future date. Just a reiteration that if there's changes to this plan that you want to see before it goes to city council, now is the time to make the request of them to do something.

Is is there a minor comment that could be how big of the change would require us to go come back rather than just a condition? I mean, it's going to be up to them. Okay. I guess I'm I'm I I just don't know what to do. I don't I don't I guess I don't know if we move to make a motion to act on it. And then when do we when do we have the opportunity to to table to get more information?

I'll guess I'll try and and and [Music] take you through it as best as I can. Um, based on looking at this proposal, does the PL is the plan commission want to require a single family or or some owner occupied component that you want to see a change in this plan before you? What What if you My problem is I need to visit the site. So, how how how can I make that how can I make that vote? I I personally need to visit the site.

You can always make a motion to table and it would come back at the next meeting. And I'm certainly not doing it to hinder. It's just I procedurally I'm just I just am personally confused because I I don't want to agree to this verbatim for sure. But I'm not against I'm not against the development. I just feel like I don't have the information and I'm just being honest. I'm just looking for guidance is all to for it to be tabled. Do we have to bring it up as a do we have to make a motion to approve?

I think in this matter a motion to postpone to the next meeting would be appropriate if you wanted more time to consider what's before you. I would say that that will also provide time for the city council to grapple with the um future land use map change. If the city council denies the future land use map change, this conversation is moot. So yes, you can postpone to the next meeting, allow that to play out at city council, do whatever information gathering you have, formulate your thoughts, um, and bring it back at the next meeting is certainly appropriate.

Could we ask the petitioners to bring additional information like look the look of the buildings just in casual? You can. It's not necessarily a requirement of this part of their approval process. Y um as far as like specific design features you go ahead I'm sorry not trying to be conturant. Yes, they are required to provide general understanding of expected um um architectural themes and materials and such. So you certainly you're not getting them to provide detailed elevation plans, but you can certainly have them bring back picture book style. Yes,

some of that was included and we get we can give more. I mean, if if a cross-section showing some elevations, it sounds like that's something you're interested in or that the commission as a whole is looking at the transition and what that might look like along the existing residential. we could do some um we had given some studies of what um what our what our the floor plan of our ranch looks like and we can give some additional elevations if you'd like to see those. And I guess like I guess that's the thought I would want to say is if we do table I think it's very important that we're very clear on I guess like what we'd be tableabling for and what else we need to know in order to make a decision. And I'm going to lean on you, Pam, for your wisdom here. But um like I I've heard people say like, "Hey, if if if those duplexes need to be um sold for for for private residents, not rented, if that's important to people, things like that, I think are what I've heard is as important stipulations, if there are any. Or are we just tableabling just a table?" Um yeah, I guess. Yeah,

it it it sounds that the transition component is of particular concern. I would suggest that they um bring um examples of multiple different uh two family um building types that could be implemented. This is an area where I think you're going to want some diversity. As you transition into the eight units, it's probably going to be different combinations of materials and colors versus wholesale changes in architectural styles. But the two family units do give you the ability to have a variety of architectural styles out there. And that would certainly be appropriate rather than coming in and just seeing one floor plan and one building type replicated upon the entry. Um, which is very similar to what you would have in a single family development, right? A variety of housing types. Um, I think it's very um um uh normal to ask to see some of those types of things that could be implemented um because of the the key to the transition and maybe a little more detail on the on the buffer. they could they could detail out that area as you're transitioning from the single family to the two family to give you some more dimensions etc. I I don't think that's a heavy lift. Just to provide a little more um um empirical data for you to look at. So you can say is it 28 feet, is it 50 feet, is it 60 ft, what are the heights, right? And and they can provide uh provide that information to you. Um so you can make a more informed decision to see if you're happy with it.

Like a like a 360 like what it would look from the back and what it would look from the street side. Yeah, elevations certainly aren't critical. just how the thing's going to look. Period.

Mr. Chairman, a question. Is this not a uh the decision point here for the plan commission? Is it not just to recommend whether or not to recommend approval of the change in zoning without considering the specific design elements that indeed doesn't that not come later? Um my my takeaway on this is there seems to be concern about the transition and more detail is necessary to make an informed decision on the transition. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of um expected change from the plan commission as you move north on the site, but the southern end of the site seems to need a little more a more detail. and you are certainly well within your right and the code spells that out that you can ask for those those types of of detail. I'm not saying you're going to get, you know, engineering plans and and and a full landscaping plan here, but they can certainly provide um a bit more understanding of what some dimensions are, maybe what some sight lines might be. Um uh and again, maybe you know, two or three different alternatives if that's what you want for the two family uh the two family units. I think that you're well before we're getting into the concern that seems like you're raising Mazarus is are they starting to design more than they need to for the general development plan. I think there's a big gap between um a little more detail on a on a key area um versus the detail that would come with a precise implementation plan. And to add to that, I think because the zoning change has the PDD overlay incorporated into it, it there is a a interplay between the proposed development in front of you and the zoning change um that's being requested.

So there is a there is an entitlement to this action after the city council has has grappled with it. because the PDD requires uh or allows for exceptions negotiation um and things of that nature. If this was a straight reszone from single family R14 to multifamily R312, I would say you're you're exactly correct in that um these details would not be appropriate at this time. um and that for something like that. But because of the PDD overlay, because of the detail that goes into that plan, because of the steps that are required, the G the general development plan, the developers agreement, the eventual precise implementation plan because of those components, um there is the opportunity for more discussion on the development specifically than if this was just a reszone to R312. I suppose um if we are considering tableabling this to after the city council could hear um the uh the the the change we just made to the uh

to the plan to future.

Yeah. Thank you for the future map. Um, I suppose if we were, I would I would ask uh petitioners here um to to consider that building in the far um I guess the southeast side um that's basically kind of bordering the um the owner that has been speaking has spoke to us twice today. Um and and converting that into some sort of smaller um uh duplex or whatever. was it is it within your portfolio but not a big building? Um because I feel like that is a little bit more of a a little bit more of an expected um situation than a bigger building than what they anticipated when they bought their house. How many years ago? So I would like to make that change. Okay. Well, I'm I'm ready to hear um a motion to table this if we can um to after the city council hears um the uh future land use.

My recommendation if you're seeking that motion is a motion to postpone to the um August the regularly scheduled August plan commission meeting. Okay. I make I make that motion as Mr. really has spoken it. Mr. Homeman seconds. It's been motioned by Miss Lazarus and um seconded by Mr. Homeman um to table this conversation to the to the already scheduled August meeting um for the planning commission. Um I can do we need a roll call for that? Yeah. Sure. Okay. I'll ask for a roll call vote.

Mr. Mr. Waters. I Dr. Mason. Hi, Mr. Homeman. I Mrs. Zerris. Hi, Mr. Greedy. Hi. Motion passes 5-0. Okay, thank you.

Uh, just for the um benefit of the member of the people in the audience, the future land use map amendment that the plan commission approved tonight will now proceed to city council. Their next meeting is August 5th at 7 o'clock PM. There's not a public hearing, but there at the beginning of the meeting, there is a public comment period in which you you you're able to speak on items on the agenda. So, different from tonight where you waited until the public hearing at the city council meeting. Um, your opportunity to speak will be at the be nearer to the beginning of the meeting when the chair calls for uh public comment. Um, so that is August 5th, 7 o'clock p.m. and the future land use map amendment will be on their um agenda.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dailyy. Moving on to number 11 of our agenda, a zoning administrator code update. So, this is more or less a request from you guys from past months that we were going to kind of continue to maybe massage our uh zoning code. I'm still kind of looking for some direction of what which where we want to go, what we want to attack. Um I do have a few suggestions if if somebody wants to contact me. I have a couple of other code um issues or some some things that we could look at in our ordinance, but other than that, it's probably someone wants to reach out, call me, we do lunch or whatever to kind of think about what we want to do for uh presentations to the plan commission for for for code changes or updates or modifications, whatever you guys want to do.

Okay, noted. Thank you, Troy. Appreciate you. Thank you. move um is that okay we move on to number 12 recommendations for future agenda items. Is there anything we can anticipate in the next month on August? What we just discussed other than what we just discussed. Thank you. I don't believe other than the postponed item that we have any active applications right now or pending notices that are going out. Um, so nothing nothing on our to bring up from us right now. Okay. Thank you. Can I Yeah.

Just ask a point of clarification now that do you need more direction? What what exactly we want um or or not? Would that be helpful? Well, I think that should probably take place at the at, you know, I think you should all think about if there are specific changes you'd like to see and and deliver those to the developer at the at the next meeting. This is the next meeting.

You now have time to kind of formulate your thoughts, think it over. You'll be able to see how the city council reacts to the uh future land use map amendment. All right. And it may be that this is this conversation is over. At that point, if the city council says, "No, we want R14 here. We don't want to change the future land use map."

Then that piece of the conversation is gone. I think that if you're from staff's perspective, I think that those concept plans that we have, I think it would be good for the plan commission to give a lot of thought when those concept plans come forward as to what specifically you need to see from them to make their proposal, their formal proposal to you, um be um be something that you're at least willing um to grapple with that there's a route to getting to approval. Um, if if something comes to you in concept form and it is just contrary to what this commission wants to see and especially when it requires a future land use map amendment, I would encourage the plan commission to tell the developer, we're not interested in this. Here's what you would need to do in order to to okay have a chance of approval. So next time we can

so I think those concept plans I think more robust discussion and interaction with the developer at that point would certainly be very beneficial to staff so that when we bring something uh to you at a formal application nothing's guaranteed but at least there has been um that conversation has been more in-depth and we're we're at a point that the plan commission is starting at that's more comfortable than um if something's just completely out of left field that you don't want to at all. Okay.

So, um I'm assuming that in the future as we have more people looking at different sites wanting to develop and us having to change our code and they come to us with those um concept plans, it's very important that we have our our act together and we know exactly what we're looking for um and what we need to change and asking those questions and being very direct with those. The concept plan is optional. The developer can choose to skip that portion of it. we we try to push them towards having one uh because it gets it on, you know, it gets it being talked about earlier. Some some things can be worked out, hiccup obstacles can be identified early, things of that nature.

Um and so we want to we want to reward developers who take advantage of that concept plan rather than just pushing forward with an application right away with some concrete feedback. Um because for the most part if there's if if the if you had a concept plan it's like dead on arrival especially if it's a future land use map amendment because the the plan commission if you don't approve a future land use map the conversation ends there as well. It doesn't go to city council. Um I think that that's important. Um, so because otherwise we can build there can be some bad will because dollars get spent to develop plans with the city and so if they come to a concept plan and it's all thumbs up and not a lot of comments and then they bring that exact same thing back forward and then we say well we don't know that expect that that creates a a difficult environment for staff to operate in certainly because we thought we were bringing something that the plan commission liked. So I think your comments are accurate that when those concept plans are in front of you, just really take that opportunity to engage as much as you can with the developer at that point and provide as much direction as you can. And if that direction is this is a no-go, that's also important feedback because we can if we know the policy makers aren't interested in something, we can often direct the developers to do something else, seek a different parcel, come up with a different plan um and and not have to go through a process that uh never had there was never interest in in the first place. That Sorry, that was

I hope I hope that they I hope they understand. I mean, if there's a 4 to one vote, I hope that they understand that there's an interest. I think hopefully they just don't hopefully they're a little bit more informed about what it is that that they would need to get to a yes on. I think it's very difficult when you have people in the audience that are all very clearly opposed to this. Um, and I don't think that sometimes we appreciate that when they come back, they're you're going to have people that are very opposed to this um sitting and looking at you. Um, and and and so I think that clarity is really important. I was just trying to speak more generally, not necessarily about

this development, but we I think we are going to see more concept plans in the future. We we do ask developers to take advantage of that um in order to have that back and forth early on in the process so that the city is getting what it wants and the developer knows what the city wants and they can if it's possible they can adjust it. If they choose not to take that feedback and they just move ahead anyway, you know, that's on them. that's a business decision that that make that they that they make. But um those concept plans are a really effective tool to kind of shape what the formal application looks like. Um so when it gets to you, it it has at least incorporated some things that this plan commission has said this is our vision for the community, for this specific parcel, for this specific land use, and then the the conversation can just kind of build from there.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions before we move on? No. Okay. Finally, I'll take a motion for adjournment. So move. Been moved by Mr. Mason. Mr. Holman seconds. Seconded by Mr. Homeman to adjourn today's planning commission. All in favor say I. I. All post say no. All right. This meeting has been adjourned.