Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

the November 19th, 2025 plan commission meeting. Um, could we have a call to order and a roll call, please? Washburn here. Basinoski here. Fatia here. Basil here. [clears throat] And Meyer here. Okay. Uh, old business, the meeting minutes from October 22nd, 2025. Can I get a motion? And it's got to be either Nancy. Move to approve. I'll second that. Yep. Okay. Motion to approve and seconded. All in favor? I.

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here, so I should be marked as excused. Same with Larry, right? No. Was Larry, you were here, Tasha. not have been very impressive. No, no, no, no, no. Tosh was not here. That's right. Okay. First on the agenda is recommend recommendation of Carrington Boulevard Kilborn Garden certified survey map CSM2-11. Sam,

Mr. Chair, uh, commissioners, the applicant applied to modify CSM 3524 to realign a small stretch of Kilborn Drive and dedicate 89 square feet to Carrington Boulevard. Both changes are minor cleanup issues and do not reconfigure the existing lots. Otherwise, the applicant plans to request the village discontinue. The change in right ofway on Kilbourne Drive to match the new layout. The subject properties lie within tax incremental district number seven and the applicant currently markets them for sale. We don't recommend any conditions for approval and we recommend approval. We also don't believe this will have any fiscal impact due to the minor changes. So, the first change is on the left. uh document where you can see um towards the where it says kind of C3 at the very top. Um that's where Carrington Boulevard bends a little bit to match. Um and then on the right hand side sheet you can see where um it is kind of swooping evenly. Right now it does a little almost like camel hump kind of thing. So, they're just making the road continuous um in that more hockey stick shape. So, pretty minor changes.

Pretty simple. Um Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to approve the Carrington Boulevard Kilborn Drive certified survey map CSM 2511 and recommend to the board for approval. Second. Okay. Got a motion and a second. Any comments, further comments at all? Nothing. Okay. on a make motion. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Discussion on proposed updates to sidewalk ordinances.

All right. Since we had a little bit of a light agenda, we wanted to add couple of items. You know, every about six months, we come to you with a package of zoning code updates. So these are things that the commission has brought up before and directed us to look at or have kind of come up through staff reviews or other things. So this first one is regarding sidewalk ordinances. The previous two plan commission meetings, the commission directed the village staff to investigate updates to the sidewalk requirements. Additionally, the public works committee discussed them last week at its November 13th meeting. The primary issue discussed by both committees uh was the villages requirement for sidewalks on new development when those sidewalks are not adjacent to existing sidewalks. These ordinances created situations where the village required sidewalks and circumstances where developers installed those sidewalks, but abrupt ends to those sidewalks created secondary safety and travel concerns. Previous conversations had both at both the plan commission and village board when adopting the current ordinances sent around the need to start somewhere um regarding sidewalks and that if the village did not require sidewalks for most larger new developments moving forward, then it would likely never build out a sidewalk system. The village is largely dealing with this conversion or a conversation now due to the relatively recent incorporation of the village in 2003 compared to comparable uh older cities and villages throughout southeastern Wisconsin. Urban planning practice has recommended separating pedestrian travel from vehicular travel in suburban contexts since the post-war suburbanization accelerated in the 1950s. And [snorts] I actually did a little bit of background research and found an APA, American Planning Association article from 1957 talking about when sidewalks are appropriate in the suburbs. So, this is not a new conversation, but just kind of one that we're getting around to since we're late bloomers, as it were, uh, in the incorporation process. To moderate the concerns of the CA committees, uh, we recommend a couple following updates to

the ordinance. Um, and these are not set in stone. They're just for discussion purposes today. Um, if you're all generally amendable to these topics, we would bring them back in actual ordinance format in December for you to look at specific language. So, I don't want to get too bogged down in exactly what this means. Just trying to get at intent um, and direction from you all so we can go back to the public works committee and you all next month with, you know, detailed ordinances that reflect what you want to do. So, the first would be expanding the inla fee ordinance. Um right now, uh applicants on a rural roadway cross-section are allowed to pay in in lie of fee if there's not a connecting sidewalk, but we do not allow that for urban cross-section streets. And so that's why a lot of these, you know, kind of one-off CSMs that we've talked about in the last couple months are required to have sidewalks because they're on urban cross-section. They don't they can't just pay the fee instead. Um so we'd like to expand that to apply to urban street cross-sections. um and allow those property owners otherwise required to construct a sidewalk to pay into the program if they lie further than 1,200 feet away from a connecting sidewalk. We chose that number because that's the maximum block length identified in the subdivision ordinance. So essentially if you're more than a block away from a sidewalk then you could pay an inl fee instead of connecting in. Number two would be disqualifying any sidewalks identified within a tax incremental district project plan or the vill's bike and pedestrian plan from the inlu fee program. So where we're lightening up some regs, we also want to acknowledge there might be dedicated areas that show up in a plan that you know the plan commission, the CDA or the village board has adopted where you're specifically saying we definitely want them in these areas. So in those areas, we would

prioritize the installation over the inla fee program. Number three would be requiring that developers install sidewalk at the beginning of platting along with other required improvements listed within chapter 74 article 8 of the subdivision ordinance. And then this one would be a pretty big change for those developers. So you should all consider whether this higher upfront cost balances their wish for a more connected network sooner. Essentially, right now when someone's building out a subdivision, we allow the developers to not install the sidewalks along the private property frontages. We do make the developers install the sidewalks along storm water ponds or other kind of shared features. Um so those get installed on the front end, but the the logic is a it's an kind of a higher cost that may make or break um something on the front end. And then B, if someone is installing a sidewalk on the front end, but then coming in with construction equipment later, it's likely that they would kind of break up or have to replace some of the sidewalk uh stones there. So, but alternatively, if we're not requiring sidewalk installation on the front end, if someone buys a lot and doesn't build on it for five years, even if the entire rest of the subdivision has sidewalks, that lot could always be a gap in it that we would have to deal with. And so, I'm pretty neutral on this one. This is like kind of the top one where I'm looking for your feedback because we could go either way. Either existing policy or be a little bit more strict about it. Alternatively, we could um you know take it on a case-byase basis depending on how important you thought the sidewalks were in that individual subdivision at which point we wouldn't really change our policy right now. Um but we would um pay special attention to

it when we're going through those development agreements. Then finally, um, installing and specially assessing for sidewalk installation to the nearest roadway intersection. Um, I think as a couple of trustees have brought up and some other people, um, sometimes when there's a phased subdivision, you might have, and this happened at Settlement Hoods Creek, um, a sidewalk on the newer phases, but that kind of dead ends as it butts into the older phase. So sometimes you have that kind of abrupt end to a sidewalk um, just at a property line. Um, and this would kind of set generally village practice or kind of an automatic trigger for us to look at extending that sidewalk to the nearest intersection. So, at least that whole block would be complete and there's a logical end to that as it reaches the next street intersection. That could be, you know, only a couple hundred feet away in most circumstances because our maximum block length is 1,200 ft. Um, and most of the time in a phased subdivision, you're not ending the phase right at a block end. So, in likelihood, you're talking somewhere between 600 and 1,200 ft at the most of uh sidewalk installation, be 10 or 12 properties. Um, if it they're smaller lots, it could be upwards of 20 lots, but the village would go in and install the rest of that sidewalk at that time. Then it would really be a village board conversation of how you'd like to pay for it um if that is a priority for the village. So we could install it and specially assess it back to the property owners as who are adjacent to it. If it's a shorter stretch, we could dip into the inla fee program. Um or the village could pay for it out of you know other budgetary funds as it chose. So that's not really a plan commission conversation of how it gets

paid for. It's more of a village board conversation, but we do bring it up because that would be the logical end point um of kind of completing that very local network to a logical endpoint. Then Tony doesn't have to think about midblock crossings or other situations that, you know, DPW has to care about in terms of long-term maintenance. And, you know, it it kind of makes more sense from the general resident. They're not just like, why did that start there? at least it's at a street intersection. So those are our four main ideas. Wanted to get feedback on them um and see what you all think and then we can go from there. Commissioners Rob.

Well, thanks Cam. Uh I'm glad that uh public works and and you are uh addressing the issue. I have a lot of comment. Number one, so let me start from the reverse. you know the last one that you said that uh I like the idea of ex extending it to the uh uh end of the block but depending upon but of course it'll go to the v board if I look at my house and after five 10 15 years after I build the house and if the village comes to me saying is we are going to extend that we are going to put this sidewalk number one you're taking away from my front yard.

Well, it's not your front yard. Don't forget that. It's the village's front yard. It's in the regardless. [laughter] Okay. Okay. So, it depends. That is what the average citizen would think though.

Well, I'm glad that you clarify that. And number two, depending upon how much would be do I have to pay and so that would be my concern, but again, like you said, that would come to the VA board. But what about the idea that couple of residents had talked to me and I brought to your attention and brought to Tony's attention that uh uh where you end this sidewalk just bring it to a a nice stop to the road grind to the road. We don't have to extend all the way because I think the that works. The concern from the residents were if you're walking with a stroller for example with a baby and then you go and then you have to okay there's no sidewalks and now you have to either go back or go down the down the curb and everything. So the simple solution looks to me that was you know uh that many of us including me when we build our driveway so we have grinded that you know I paid for that so I mean so why don't we just do that and then then that issue goes away that's just my comment now to the rest of your comments I'm not too sure like this in lie of this and that 1 1200 because or we have the sidewalks requirement recommend the urban but not the rural because

you don't have any room on the rural you have an open ditch you don't have a what I'm concerned is by having all these option the development could look like sidewalk no sidewalk sidewalk no sidewalk so I can see we are losing the consistency at least now all the old development no sidewalk all the new one have sidewalk but I'm concerned that I I don't want to you know like drive down a road and one street has a sidewalk or few houses have a sidewalk and the other they don't have because they took in lie of that. So that's my main concern.

Yeah, I think so. I'll start backwards and work forwards to try to address some of those concerns. Um I think and we can certainly make this more clear if we're writing the ordinance, but um and I I probably should have put this in the summary, but I don't think we should exempt new subdivisions from sidewalk requirements at all. I think it's just kind of like you said, Trusty Batia, like new ones get sidewalks as part of the new road conversation, particularly as it relates to subdivision plats where by definition you're putting in more than four lots. I think where we're having the issues or complaints are those one or two lot CSMS where they're really small. So we could easily set a cap on if it's if you're a land division for a one or two family home that's via CSM that would qualify for inliv because those by definition are almost always random lots in the middle and then you end up with that sidewalk concern whereas a new subdivision more than four lots wouldn't qualify uh for the inl fe [snorts] and we can make this more graphic ically clear for conversation next month. But um if you're all okay with that idea, almost like a decision tree essentially. It's like, do you live on a rural cross-section? Okay, you might qualify. If you do not, are you on an urban cross-section that's further than,200 ft away? Yes or no? You may or may not qualify. Is your land division that's triggering the sidewalk requirement um more than four lots? Yes. Then you, you know, have to install sidewalks. So we can make it pretty clear where we as staff are not arbitrarily choosing like who does or does not. It's just like here's the clear decision tree matrix of when you have to install a sidewalk and when you'd have to pay for the inl fee program.

And the idea of that is it should be about the same cost. So it's not it's not that anyone gets away from it. It's that when it makes sense to go in versus when it makes sense to invest that money elsewhere.

Comment on um the developers number three I'd say that is um I think it is good for the developer to put the sidewalks in up front even though he hasn't built a home there yet. There are many ways to protect that sidewalk during construction and often they'll put in a stone driveway for access. I think if you wait, you're going to get that choppiness of your sidewalk install. I think I'd rather see it there and be done with it. And I I think sidewalks are important to build community. They I think that people um communicate with each other, get get acquainted with one another more when there are sidewalks. I I I don't have any scientific data to support that, but um it just I think promotes community and I I definitely like the idea of putting in sidewalks whenever possible. Um I have a question about the in lie of a fee. Is that a separate account or does that get thrown into the general fund? Is it a separate account?

Yep, it's a separate account. Is there a program um in place where There are so many feet of sidewalk installed every year. There is not because we haven't had that many people pay into it. So, we really haven't crossed the how do we spend this money bridge yet. I think we've only had two or three properties pay into the program. I see.

Um, so, but you know, if we're expanding it the program so more people qualify, I think we'll end up crossing that bridge sooner rather than later just because we'd expect to get more money. I mean, even this year, we've had at least two or three CSMs where they would likely qualify for the expanded inlife fee program and likely would have paid into it. So, um, yeah, I think we could get there pretty quickly. What is the fee?

Um, it changes every year. Uh, I basically go to Tony and say, "How much would this sidewalk cost?" And then he looks at, you know, recent bids and other things and get gets us a number um of, you know, this is how much. So, it's an actual cost of potentially putting it in.

Yeah. And, you know, it might be a little bit less than the actual installation just because we're using publicly bid, slightly older numbers more often than not, like if they're putting it in at the end of the season versus we got, you know, mass bids at the beginning of the year. Obviously, the village is getting probably better deals on sidewalk installation than a private property owner, but it's about the best we have and the most transparent and fair process that we could come up with. What is it this year? Tony, do you have a number? I I don't have a number on the [clears throat] top of my head, but like Sam said, it's almost always going to be developer friendly because we're using much larger projects to come up with a unit cost.

So, so much per foot. Is there is there a way to get that number for this year? I can certainly get it very easy. 30 bucks, 40 bucks, $20 a foot for a five foot sidewalk. Yeah. I mean, I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but it's going to be a a a very fair deal to whoever is doing this in lie of program. And I mean a linear foot, not a square foot. Yeah. Yes. I assume all the sidewalks are five foot. Five foot wide. Yes.

Yep. We do allow um people to install like a eight or 10 foot multi-use pathway um when those are connecting ones, but that's a pretty rare occurrence. I mean, if you had a property owner along, you know, Brawn or a few of the other ones that exist, but um I or the new oats road for example. Sure. Yeah. So somewhere in there we might get someone to do an asphalt path, but it's it's 99 times out of 100 it's a five foot sidewalk. Mr. Chairman. Yes. Go ahead, Nancy.

So I have I have a couple of questions. Um on number two where you're disqualifying them within the tax in incremental districts. So, I'm assuming that because within the TIDS, they typically have their own walking path and connectivity um elements within their districts, right, that are being utilized by the developers. In other words, with Microsoft and TID 5 and Fox Con, those have extensive pathways running through them and sidewalks running through them. So, I I guess I don't understand Um, is it because there already are bike, bicycle, and and pedestrian pathway plans within those TIDs that they're not having to pay the inloo?

It's not that they wouldn't have to pay, it's that they wouldn't be eligible to pay. So, we're essentially saying they have to put in the sidewalk. Okay, that's or pathway. I guess that's what I'm

And that's because if it's in the bike ped plan, it's by nature something that we've all adopted as like this is important here. and we've had public meetings and conversation about it. Um, and if it's in a TID project plan, again, you know, the CDA, the village board have to look at at those TID project plans which include an infrastructure element. It's also an area that we've targeted for intense development, you know, in the next 20 years, if that's the statutory life of the TID. So in those areas, you know, often times the argument, say on the east end where we just had a land division is like, oh, they're putting in sidewalk, but if the neighbors don't develop, it could be another 50 years before you get a connector. But if it's in a TID, we've said that's an area that we're going to develop. And so we didn't we wanted the actual physical sidewalk is more important than the money in that aspect because we're working towards a near-term goal.

All right. Um, and then number three, um, with all due respect to Commissioner Basil, I'm going to disagree a little bit, um, and offer maybe a different solution. So, um, being involved with the active developers today that are having, you know, when we have this conversation, um, the problem is that when you the big, it is a big upfront expense. It's it in a in a 20 or 30 lot subdivision, it could be $100,000. Typically, what the village does is in our developers agreement, it requires the developer to have have the sidewalks put in as soon as building permits are as part of the building permit process that allows again, and there's several things to consider. Number one, the sidewalk is a 5- foot wide 4 inch sidewalk. And when you're looking at driveways, you know, your driveway apron and your driveway sidewalk are a 6 inch profile as opposed to four. So, they're thicker. So, they've got to be ripped out anyway um in order to put the driveways in. Um the other thing is that all of these bigger plans, the plats have an approved grading plan and the sidewalks have their grades marked on there as well. So when the house project gets put back together and they're pouring the sidewalk with the driveway concrete work, um there there's a grade to match so that there's there's connectivity and it's graded evenly and smoothly for walking and so forth. The other side of it is when they're tearing out these driveway areas to put in the driveway and build the house, typically they disrupt more of the sidewalk. So, you know, you're you're you're putting in 100% of a sidewalk and you're ripping out and wasting 50% of it. That's a very hard nut to swallow. What I would

support though in the cases you're mentioning in today's market, at least from what I have seen in the subdivisions that have come to the village in the last four years, you don't have investors buying them to hold them for five years. That's that's not typical. They're buying them and they're building on them. People are building on them. either the builders are building specs, they're selling. We have a very high demand here in a very short short period of time, but that's today. It could change. So, you know what I what I think is a reasonable compromise is to be able to say in a subdivision that is created instead of building them right away that that a it stays where it is in the developers agreement where it goes to the builder or the developer builder and was as soon as you pull your permit that sidewalk now becomes part of that permit package. Number one and and keeping it as it is. But number two, I don't have a problem with putting time limits on it. In other words, if it's a 30 lot subdivision and you want to say, okay, within three years, five years, you know, any lots that are that are not that are sold, even if they're developer owned or sold to a private party within whatever time period is is reasonable that we can determine that then any lots that are not developed would need to have the sidewalks installed in order to ensure that connectivity. Now, that that would be very reasonable. Yeah, I agree.

So that that works for me as a developer myself and as you know I think for the village that works to help create the connectivity. Um if you have um but as the homes are being built out and and maybe that's you know you look at Pike Creek Crossing that's a big subdivision they have a number of lots. What's a reasonable time? What are what are their um you know what's their um absorption rate like right now? And it'll be different for the single family versus the town houses. Town houses are, you know, a little different. So, but I I would certainly support with some kind of a timeline on it. Okay, that seems reasonable. We can work on that proposal. Can I add that? Can I Can I add an issue?

Can I add to that real quickly? Not I won't give a time. I would do a percentage. In other words, when a subdivision gets built out to a certain percentage, then it needs to be completed because that way there if you have 75% completion, whatever that number might be, then you you have a large number of people there that you say, "Hey, we want to be able to do that connectivity because otherwise you could end up where that they do that a lot with paving too for final lift." In other words, it'll be, you know, you can't put final lift down until you're 80% approved. In our village, we allow you to do final lift right away, which I think is great, but um but I think that percentage is a is not a bad idea either. Probably more probably more common, actually.

We can uh work on that. I'll talk to both Tony um as well as finance and legal to make sure that that development agreement that likely wouldn't come back as an ordinance, but just an exhibit to show what the kind of updated standard development agreement for the village looks like.

Well, I think this is a pretty good start after the conversation I had with the public works committee and uh I think you guys need to start doing text stuff. So, we got the details and public works has the details so you know you can change it from 80% completed to 77% completed or whatever uh and move it ahead because uh you know this is a subject that both committees could talk about forever [laughter] and I think we need the end of it pretty quick. You got a hand waving in the back back there. I just wanted to add

Hey Robbie, do you have a mic available? Thank you.

It's one of the first times somebody says I need a mic. But uh one of the things about the tax increment districts is that that's sort of what tax increment districts are for is to do public improvements like this. So like the whole purpose of them is to use that. So, we didn't want someone to to basically get a ask for incentives and then get out of a public sidewalk infrastructure requirement while, you know, in incentives are are there because that could be part of the negotiations or whatever. But, yeah, TIDS are for the the kind of public infrastructure improvements. They even allow them to be constructed a half a mile outside of the tax increment district specifically. So, um, that's why we wanted to make sure that that was called out as something that it wasn't applicable in tax increment districts. So,

and I had one more and Frank, I'd be curious to know what the committee thought about number four. There are times when I would have real issues with that as a trustee um, and and as a land owner. And I and I think Rahm's comment, although mis misplaced in terms of the fact that he doesn't have any control over the rightway area in his yard that he's been mowing and fertilizing and maintaining forever. I get that. When my burm got ripped out, I get that. Yeah.

Um but I think it's really hard. Sidewalks are a different animal. you know, when you have when you when you built a home in a in a subdivision that has no sidewalks and the village changes their code, you know, after the fact and now you have a a home with a sidewalk in front of it, whereas people have been walking past your house when they're walking their dogs or whatever. Um, it's it's different because now those people are walking their dogs in my mind as a homeowner on my yard. They better be picking up after them. They better be good be be good be be they better be being good pet owners because that's my property, you know, and also the special assessment. Um, if you're on a corner lot, I mean, I don't know, you know. So in my mind um I think it would have to be a really interesting situation where I as a trustee would say sure village we need to go ahead and install this additional sidewalk along lots and and people's properties that have never had one and they've been there for 25 years and they're objecting to it. We're going to get the calls.

Yeah, I think so. I'm not sure. I'd like to hear what the committee thought of that I guess as well.

We didn't present that there. So this this conversation is coming after public works. We had a higher level conversation at public works. So these are more we're trying to drill down um after that conversation last week. So these have all come you know in the last week of us internally discussing and um they're by no means perfect. I wanted to address two things. Um first is I I think perhaps this is something that we could just you know write in with some more general language. So, it's a decision point that the plan commission and village board want to make at the time of any individual plat. And even within a plat, you could choose like we want X, Y, or Z roads, maybe the collector streets. We're going to prioritize to finishing off those to the next block. But internal streets or if it's a culde-sac or something, you could say, ah, that's not really our concern right now. So maybe it's just like we're writing ourselves a note to have that discussion, but it it's not a set policy that you're automatically going to special assess them. That kind of helps moderate the discussion or at least take into account the the discussion or the development at hand. I also didn't answer Trusty Batia's original um question about the the midblock solution. I think the issue we have with that, Tony, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going to install a midblock kind of on-ramp, um there there's a few issues. Firstly, the cost. So, the village would have to take up that cost um most likely or put it onto the developer, which is a conversation we should have. Um the second though is um some concern that you just be leading someone um into the intersection where there's nothing across or you're not even leading them into a street intersection. You're leading them into the middle of the road without any specific crossing or or

place to go. So if someone is blind and there's a detectable warning field there, they would get warning that they're going into the street, but there would be nothing on the other side of the street for them to go up on. So, we'd have to consider what does the other side of the street look like and those types of conversations, too. Um, it also creates a midblock crossing where you're by nature, you know, having people exit there. Finally, um, there are two more things. One, you'd also have to cut the curb most likely, um, or plan for it on the front end. So, there are curb implications. Then, if the sidewalk does extend, are you pulling that out and then reppouring that section of curb? So, I think there's engineering things that we'd have to think through there. Um and then the final point I think is um if we are spending money for a solution uh my preference and recommendation of staff would be to put that effort towards extending it to the through the next block and and that might be a slightly larger cost or a slightly harder conversation but I think the solution to me is like extending that short network not kind of implicitly saying here's where the network starts and stops. Um, so I I totally understand what Trusty Bati is going at, but I think to me, if we're going to spend a thousand dollars, I'd rather take it and finish that section than and put that money towards that project instead. M

Mr. Chairman, let me just add my more thoughts to that. I'm glad we are having conversation because, you know, this needs to be discussed. Couple of things I agree and others I don't agree. Number one, when he said if it has to be uh the cost to uh I said, you know, here's a sidewalk and you extend that to the curb and and grind it, that's probably you're looking at about maybe about 3 4 feet. So that's not a big cost. Okay, it's not that we are extending it about 10 15 ft. Okay, so that's not a big cost. grinding. Yes. Many of the driveways they grind that they pay for that. So again, so you're talking about the width of the sidewalk or 3 ft. So grinding of 3 ft is not of 5T 5T. So grinding of 5T is not a big deal. as opposed to now if you are extending to the next intersection not only the assessment there could be other issues like if I take my house and there are many you know the subdivision I have a sprinkler system I have a landscaping

your sprinkler system's not supposed to be in the right away it's not in the right way it's not in the right way but it could be it could be yeah but it's not supposed to be it goes up to the it goes up to the end of my my yard where I have the grass. I know. And you're you have extended your sprinkler into the rightway which is against village code and you're receiving which was which was approved other than which was approved and I I'm not hiding anything because you know it was all approved. Okay. The landscaping so where the gutter where the curb is your grass goes up to that curb right? Yeah.

Yeah. So if your grass goes up to the curb, why was this sprinkler system and I'm not saying it's right up there. I'm saying is it if here's a curve and a sprinkler system goes up, you know, like I don't know where it is. Okay, so your lot we'll talk about this later. Yeah, we talked about that. I'll show you where your Maybe I brought something up, but I'm not hiding anything because it was all approved. It's

sort of a special case. Unfortunately, your your resident will lose that point because there are by code and in the restrictive covenants to follow up the code. It's clear that you can't put sprinklers, trees, bushes, or anything other than a mailbox in that 15 foot behind the curb rightway. 15t from the edge of the back of curb to your gr into your grass is where you don't own it, but you take care of it and you can't put your sprinkler there. Yeah. But okay, but 15 ft. Everyone has a grass, right? We're going to talk about it later.

I I I think this is good direction. I don't want to close off, but we also have two more code items to talk about. So, um we will take this into consideration. Um I think to kind of sum it up where we struggle is oftentimes I think on that resident point that we've discussed multiple times is sidewalks are tough because if it's an existing lot people are used to the way it is but like municipal water or municipal sewer or anything else the the first the time when it gets installed those are the first people to use it right so it's like we don't want it until it's there and then we use it. So I think it is important to keep in in context the network connectivity aspect of it and really prioritize there. I think uh you know Tammy has really made uh some strong points in internal staff discussions of like where we should be spending money and effort and regulatory pressure is on you know the networks that are getting people from A to B are the most important. And so we will focus on that in the ordinances because public works happens before you all. What the next month would look like is we're going to draft some stuff. We'd bring it to public works, get their feedback. We'll refine it again, bring it to you all for your conversation, and ideally come up with, you know, something that is at least a a better refinement of our sidewalk policy from where we're at now.

Okay, sounds fair.

Okay, let's move on. Okay, the next discussion on proposed updates to article 200 overlay districts. Okay, this one should be a lot quicker because this is mostly u organizational change. So, over the past year, we've administered multiple situations at the staff level regarding shoreland setbacks along Lake Michigan that were pretty confusing to residents um because those are some more technical uh ordinances that we administer. Um because of that those situations, we've started having conversations regarding all of the organization of our environmentally related zoning regulations which are kind of spread throughout the zoning code in different areas. Um to simplify the organization of those regulations, we propose moving the following different regulations all under CH article 200 overlay districts, which isn't really used right now in our code. Those would be conserency districts which are related to wetlands and woodlands that we want to protect. Bluff and ravine setbacks um which are relation to exactly those types of issues. Uh flood protection which are the FEMA mandated and WDNR mandated flood ordinances that we need to have on file um if for residents to qualify for national flood insurance program. So that's really just taking the text that they say we have to have and moving it to a different area. And then finally, shoreland protection, which is also pretty much set by the state in terms of how we're able to administer shorland zoning through the statutes. But we would consolidate all of those um under the overlay districts. Those environmental features that we're controlling or regulating through zoning don't often follow even parcel lines. um which is why we think they make more sense as overlay districts than other types of regulations. Um flood protection regulations for example already function this way. You pull up a FEMA map and you can see the different

colors and how they all affect and then we read it that way. So that's kind of how the rest of these things would function. We're also going to look at consolidating some of them. So for example, Bluff Ravine and Shoreland regulations, we can, you know, keep separate detailed regulations but have as a single kind of triggering district. So when we or a resident or a developer are looking at a map, they only have to look at one overlay and it's essentially going to appear as this area might be environmentally sensitive. C Regulation X to know how that might affect your property. So we're just trying to be a little bit more transparent. As of now, if you had a a property on a lake um that also potentially had wetlands or other things that we wanted to conserve an environmental corridor, you'd likely have to go in a couple different areas of the code to understand that when that's hard for us to track as staff, we know it's extra hard for developers and residents. So, just trying to consolidate all of that. That's about it. We don't have any specific regulations. We're not going to change much because most of it's mandated regulations anyways. It's just going to be kind of a cleanup and consolidation effort.

I I will say there's one specific one with the Bluff and Res ravine setbacks. That is the one that is not statemandated. It's local and the ordinance that we had adopted for that uh 2020 maybe even before that uh was more more intended for um undeveloped unprotected bluffs and undeveloped areas. And so the setbacks are pretty large. Um so One of the the things was to be to kind of adjust that to what is I guess there and something that's a little bit more reasonable because right now it was basically 160 ft plus an additional 100 ft which is a lot. So we'll we'll address that when we bring that up. That was the only thing.

Just a quick question. Would you then have a map that would have these all overlaid? Yes. So that so they would have if if they had the property had two of these or three of them, you would be able to see it in one location then. Yes, exactly. The um end point would be we would then um update the GIS to show the consolidated um overlay districts that are out there and should be a little bit easier to read. Right now even on our GIS there's kind of a couple different buttons that you have to turn on. So if you missed you turn on flood plane but miss shorlands like you might just completely miss a whole host of regulations about where you can put your house on your property. Yeah. Okay. Good. I think it's a great idea. I like that. I like it for sure.

Okay. And then I think Robin has

the last one is discussion on proposed updates and residential zoning districts. Robin. Okay. Sorry. Before we go, um, and while you're all looking at your, um, stuff, I just want to put, um, a note out that we may need to call a special plan commission meeting within the, um, next few weeks for some utility upgrades um, in the village, working with ATC. So, um, just if you have any no-go dates with the holiday coming up, I'll talk to you after the meeting, but please let me know if there's any like weeks that we should completely block off. Should be a a single item, but we had some internal staff reviews where some uh ATC didn't get on this agenda because they didn't receive some of our comments. So, because it was an issue on our end, we'd like to, you know, kind of make that right. So, I'll talk to you all after the meeting, but just wanted to put it in your head before we're done. Well, are we were we planning on a December meeting anyway?

We are, but they'd like to start We don't have a second plan commission meet I mean board meeting. Correct. Yep. So So it would be Would you be trying to get that meeting in before the first board meeting in December? Ideally. Yeah. All right. So likely the first week, but I'll talk to you after. I just wanted to put the thought in your head before I left the podium. Thank you.

Howdy. Uh, I just wanted to go back and and say that show this map. Um, Sam never likes to advance the slides and and because I make the additional slides, I'm like, but my slide it was so informative. Um, so this is the examples of some of the map the overlay maps that we use and can use. What the shorelands all the red not all of those are actually accurately shoreland zones and so we always have to double check those. The green areas are the conservancy district. Those are the sewer pack identified environmental corridors. And then lastly, you have the the flood plane. What our ideal scenario is is that basically whenever you pull up a parcel that has one of these because of the new organization, it'll just honk at us and be like, "Please review this." Um it's it's uh it's hard and sometimes I have to feel like I'm like oh I'm a expert super sleuth when I catch one of these existing and be like okay we need to address this and I'm I shouldn't have to be a super sleuth. It should be very front and center that this is something that's on the property. That's it. Um and those are the particular districts they live in now. Okay. So um so in June 2025 we updated the residential lot and building regulations since adoption staff um as always is pretty diligent about monitoring pre-development meetings to identify unintended effects. Um two issues warrant discussion. One is lot widths for twin and town home units. Um and two is the overlap between dimensional standards and density requirements. Um, number one is is strictly a an oversight. Um, that's something that we just need to fix because it was fixed before and we broke it. And then the second one is it's not

working as intended. We would like to adjust something. So, uh, first issue the lot width for twin and town home units. Um, so in simplifying the code, we merged and you have the the charts here. We moved we merged the four different charts for different residential units um which is detached one and two family twin homes town homes well I guess it's five multi-unit buildings and then cottage courts so we merged those standards together into one table before you had a different table for each different unit type in each different zone so it got a little comp complex and the nonuniform form standards didn't make sense. Well, we unifor we unified them and doing so there was a couple of regulations that got lost in the shuffle that made that housing type viable. For example, twin and town homes had narrow very narrow lot widths. In an RL district, it was for twin home minimum 30. Um, in a RM or above for a town home, which is three or more units, the minimum was down to 18. Um, so you could, but these are no side setback units. Um, those are not in the current chart. Um, you have a minimum in RL1, a 55, and a minimum of I think is it 30 in the additional districts. And we have a subdivision plat that is coming up that utilizes like byite fe simple town home units that are 22 ft wide. Um and they are alley access alley served and this is perfectly standard town home width. It's just it was legal now it's not. So staff proposes restoring those widths the 30

ft and 18 to accommodate those units. Um, we're tinkering with some ideas as far as to make sure that that doesn't become like the default like single family home width where it's just a pencil. [laughter] Um so we're considering like a minimum building width size or minimum uh the set the side setbacks would be very important there because that is what you remove when you're building a town home and you have added on. Um we think between those that that would probably do the trick. Um, so the the second one, um, and we came across this, um, Jack Price, um, who presented the Aurora CSM from last month, which I like to call the little the wooden horse pony lot. The way it was shaped, it looked like one of those old school Christmas story pony horses, um, with a wooden stick. The dimensional standards versus density standards. Um, so we have overlapping standards for density, lot area, lot dimensions, and units um, per building. They're kind of complicating some projects. So the minimum units in acre rule coupled with the new rule that each lot only contains one primary building enables us to have some flexibility on the actual lot size and standards without compromising those intentions. So what that CSM kind of discovered is that even though they were building a 20 unit building, the lot didn't get any bigger. And so they had a 1acre lot with a set width of I think it was 240. Um and that really hampered their flexibility as far as okay, well, we're going to put the parking, where is this going to happen? Where's that? And then Sam and I are are discussing this and it's like, well, they're hitting the

target density. Do we really care if it's 300 feet wide versus 100 or so on so forth? And essential is no. That doesn't compromise the spirit of the code because every lot is different and there should be some built-in flexibility as far as that it's concerned. The most important thing is that the district matches the intensity and the building character and form matches the district. not necessarily that it's exactly 100 feet wide because buildings can look very very different and be on the same size lots. So we've come up with two approaches and I've kind of halfbaked a third one but uh we'll propose those two. So approach A um involve offer a compliance path choice for developers. So applicants can either comply with the lot width, depth, area standards or with density standards. And so that has a caveat of that if they're doing the density standards and their lots are not compliant with what the sets are, then we'll need to actually see building footprints and have plank commission approval of that. So, we know that yes, that density standard is going to be met, but if they just want to make lots and then sell them off and say, "Okay, here you do what what you want to do." That lot needs to make dimensional standards and so that it can accommodate many different types of buildings. You don't want to make a lot where the only thing you can build on it is a 13 unit building because that's just weird. So that's one option. Approach B is sort of generally relax the dimensional limits um by increasing

maximum lot sizes and widths to accommodate the likely building types relying on that density standard and the one primary structure rule as the backdrop or as the back stop. Um, so essentially that a 20 unit building would be able to at a six-unit per acre density that's 2 and a half to three acres. Right now the limit on that on that thing is 1 acre. So if you wanted to do a 28 unit building it would be much higher by right. It would be much higher density than the minimum required for the district. So what is the actual minimum here is the thing that we're trying to solve. Um [cough] [clears throat] so this is also I mentioned in my report that the our village attorney kind of had an interpretation of some of our regulations that we adopted in June are very strong as far as the unintended consequences of you build a lot, you approve a lot and then you have to allow anything they want to build on it. like they can if you split lots off and you break off a piece that's two acres beforehand you would have to allow them to build a single unit house now we don't have to so those are kind of lifted from us that we can kind of rely on that the last thing is an option C is to kind of allow this kind of break down the the kind of variance or allowances processes and for plant emissions so When you're reviewing a plat, we've already had this a couple of times where developers have asked for exceptions to master planning or certain kind of lot or dimension standards while the pro plat process. We would just kind of expand that. [cough]

Sorry, this is very in the weeds. I suppose the last thing is that we would um for variances we would as a practicable me measurement we would make sure that the variances specifically say that you couldn't get a variance for an entire subdivision to scale it up or down. Um and especially you couldn't have a variance do what a reszone should be doing. So if somebody should be going to you and to the village board to request a reszone, they can't instead go to the board of zoning appeals to request an exception that would achieve the same thing. So this is mostly about density standards because if you got an variance from a density standard, you're effectively going into another zone. Get that?

All right. So that is uh that is my description. I'm sure you got some some questions. I don't have any questions right now, but one of the things that we've talked about in the past is this is very difficult for me to visualize. Mhm.

And if we can get some where we are today, what the proposals are and what those buildings would look like on those on those proposed lots, if you would. I said, I always I'm a visual guy and to go through this and you know, 30 feet, 50 feet, whatever it is, and we're going to change the building size, it's like I'm lost. I get lost in it. And it's something you guys work with every day day in and day out and probably Nancy as well, but you know the rest of us it's kind of like show me. I'd like to see what it's going to look like.

Well, okay. And I would be totally happy to if it's something that you guys are interested in the the visual if you guys remember it last month, the Aurora CSM when we commented specifically about how funky those lots looked because they were almost like jigsaw pieces. and that was to meet several different competing dimensional standards and be able to do the the buildings that they wanted to put on there. Um, so Sam and I and our brilliance were like, well, people will just build the buildings to meet the lots because that's how people had done it for hundreds of years. That's not necessarily how it works anymore. So, we wanted to have some sort of flexibility so we're not making a lot that's absolutely insane looking be just because of X or Y arbitrary standard. But I would love I would certainly break that out for you as far as how this lays out on a lot. Well, that's excuse me. [clears throat] That's why I was disappointed last month when we got that layout, but we didn't have any building sites and it was like, wait a minute, this doesn't make sense to me. You know, we got to be able to see something that says, "Okay, what's it going to look like?"

So, and we're working on that, too. So, I felt I felt like I was missing the meat of what we were looking at. Why Why did they do that? Absolutely. And and again, and I know it's the because of the new regulations and everything that we put in place and that's that's part of it.

Yeah. That was superintendent for like and those are pros like they're like they had um you know different people that have been very experienced hands at it including Rinka and designers and stuff like that and for that to come back and for us to be like okay that looks really weird we immediately like went went back to the drawing board and said okay what's breaking here to cause it to look like this and so we we we feel we're on the right right track as much as we've also gotten complaints about just the general one building, we're on the right track with that. We're pretty confident about that, it's just the unintended uh consequences. So, we're keeping the good stuff and we were not we were surprised that some of those regulations were were in fact stronger than we thought they were. So, maybe some of these other dimensional standards are rather redundant. Um, so we we're just kind of opening up the floor for that. Yeah, if I could add, Mr. Chair, I think uh there's and forgive me if you talked about this um already, but the there's some pending state legislation that's looking at requiring municipalities through the comprehensive planning process and then their zoning to set more explicit density limitations in the land use element of the comp plan. Um and so we like a lot when over the summer through our zoning code we started to talk more about density regulations um but which would help you know residents and this potential new state legislation kind of understand the context of the plans surrounding their neighborhood if there's infill or other growth. So, as Robin said, we think we're on really on

the right track there and that that upcoming state legislation kind of reconfirmed that for us above and beyond just our interactions with developers. Um, but you know, we are that has become strong regulation in a way that some of the other lot dimensional regulations have become almost secondary and burdensome, which is why we receive those weird plats. So, um, I think looking at ways where we can work with developers to get the same neighborhood goal without being like, you are one foot above the this lot width on every lot. Therefore, we're going to throw out your entire map. Like, that's just kind of an unreasonable outcome. So, we're trying to be a little bit more flexible. Whenever we tighten something, we try to loosen something else or vice versa. So, this is us trying to rebalance that a little bit. I had a general question and I I don't know why I've never noticed this before, but when I was looking through your regulation exhibits, you know, for like chapter 9110.70, which is your minimum lot areas is what you showed us in this packet, is this the existing code?

Both. So the one that splits it out with town home, twin home, that is the old code. The the one that's compact and doesn't spe that is the current one. That's the one that has the minimum net units per acre provision on it. Um that is the new ordinance that was approved this summer. Okay. Um, and yeah, a lot of it was just basically when you merge a bunch of districts together, you might lose a couple of the very specific things that made it work, right? Um,

and I and I guess the reason I asked that question is, and again, I've never noticed this before. I thought that when we were talking about zoning districts and density that we were using a 40,000 square foot area as a acre, a builder's acre. Calonia calculates density that way. Um I think Kenosha and Pleasant Prairie do as well. In other words, we're using a 43,600 or 560 square foot a true acre for an acre. Whereas [clears throat] often times where you, you know, some communities dial it down to 40,000.

What you guys don't remember 43,560 off the top of your head all the time. It's a chain times a furlong, which is 66 by 660. Well, you'll get more density out of 40,000 square feet.

Yeah. Um, I'm I'm open I'm open to that, but ultimately I think that um that is fine. I don't think we're having problems with the actual density bands. The the issue is that they're hitting in the density bands of the zone that we like, but then the random we have like a lot width regulation that they're not hitting because well that's where they wanted to put the parking lot or the building is oriented in a different way or ex xyz. Did I answer your question or did I completely miss it? Yeah, I I don't know that I had a question other than a statement and just curious as to why we use that larger number

and you know something to think about it. It allows us to gain more density out of a site.

We'll look at it over the next month. Um I just think if you look at the table that 90-1103 where you have you know minimum units per acre that's one and then maximum lot area and minimum lot width sometimes those are competing and so um that is the issue in the RM district. One of the reasons why that CSM last month looks so weird is because they were trying to hit a minimum units per net acre of nine, but a maximum lot area of an acre. And so they're being pushed up in one way and pushed down in another way. And to solve that, they excluded some drive aisles and parking areas from the lots that were essentially shared. So they weren't counting against that maximum acre lot size. So that's the issues that we're seeing is like we're trying to say if you're in the RM district, we want you to hit a minimum density level because the essentially the kind of vibe of the neighborhood that we've approved is has a moderate level of density to it. You can't just put a single house there. Um but we're also going to cap your lot size in a way that is perhaps a little bit too aggressive. So we're just trying to fine-tune how these are interacting or provide those relief valves. Yeah, it definitely breaks at the edges. So when this that scenario that we were just talking about that it broke between a 20 and 26 unit building when I think we kind of envisioned the regulations as you always want to do lot minimums you assume one unit like a per unit basis and but then when you scale it up it didn't scale up appropriately. So, that was the the issue there. And same thing with um like if you wanted to do 20 town homes in a row or something like that, that it got a little wonky. Um so, you know, it's it's complicated. Codes are always

complicated. It's nerdy stuff. Thankfully, um we're nerds, so this is what we do.

No, it is complicated. I mean, you know, I work with it a lot and I it is complicated. And so um you know I think our goal is to make it easier to you know for for the public to use um and for us to understand even as well. So I think Joe's request for some examples even using Jarlo's project and say okay under the old you know under what we have now here's what we had to have it look like under the new revisions here's what it could look like and and maybe we adopt that and send that back to him you know maybe he's willing you know if if we can find a way through the code to make it look better for him then that's a positive thing he can come back and you know but anyway I I think some some examples are would be very helpful.

Uh would be would be really happy to do that. Like the only final point I I have is that when it's comes to sort of uh layout neighborhood character and a CSM in a property division, like that is definitely the point of our review for those property divisions. So, if they're hitting a a density standard, but the lot or streetscape looks really wonky because say, okay, they do 20 unit building, it's shaped like a pencil, but then there's like 2 acres of empty land next to it. That's obviously bad urban design and form, right?

And that's what we can point out here in our plan commission review of that. So, we're not arbitrarily restricting to 360 feet, but if that were to show up, you guys could be like, "Okay, this just looks bad." Like, this is not efficient code. And that's when you kind of put the the standards of, okay, this is what it's supposed to look like. And so, I'll I'll get some examples for you guys. uh at the and that's also a good way for me to stress test whatever regulation we come up with is that I basically try to put each of these types of buildings on a particular lot and see what what works and what doesn't. I think we would appreciate that. Yeah.

I just don't want to be walking single file between buildings, you know. That's a that's definitely um and when I lived in Richmond, Virginia, that was if you had an access between two row homes, that that's what it was. My my row home was uh 29 ft. The lot was 29 ft wide and it was uh 200 feet long and there's a carriage house and stuff, but there was a sidewalk and just getting to the back is hard. So, not to start from square one, but are there modeled zoning codes to refer to as just as a general reference when you go through these?

I mean, we're the model zoning code. What are you talking about? Uh, yes, there is. And they're behind us like that as far as the the things that they're talking about and whatnot. And we don't want to necessarily go too far. You don't want to be Madison. And they have a very very technical code, but I it gives me a headache because there's too much. So we have to have it strike a good balance. Being simple and modern is something that is kind of new charted territory. But we do look at model codes and suggestions on lean codes, stuff like that all the time. If you want to get some copies of some, we love to provide them for you.

I wouldn't mind it actually. I think interesting. Yeah. Um that's it. Any other questions? Need one more motion. Move to adjourn. Second. Motion and motion and second to adjurnn. All those in favor? I I opposed. Let's go home.