Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Afternoon and welcome to the village of Mount Pleasant plan commission meeting for April 20 no for May 21st 2025. Roll call please. Basil here. Riser here. Washburn here. Baznowski here. Batia here. Driver here. Next on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes from April 23rd, 2025. Any uh motion there? Move to approve. Second motion and a second. I will not be voting as I was not here. I will not be voting. I wasn't here. So we've got still have a quorum. So we'll do that. So all in favor? I opposed. Okay, passes. Next on the agenda is under new business 5901 Durand Avenue certified survey map CSM2-3. Looks like Robin. Yep. Uh I got the first two. So um this is 5901 Durand Avenue. This um the applicant applied to merge and rearrange the existing four lots into three conventional lots. Um the CSM follows uh the zoning map amendment 25-003 that was approved last month which approve which reszoned the properties C3 and C2. The applicant wishes to construct a new bank on the property via application SP25006 also up for review and then redivide the exist the remaining parcels for sale. Um we the village staff recommended this with the uh listed conditions and I will um some of those have been updated since uh the executive summary was was drafted and sent out. Um so this is basically a v visualization of the CSM

um and the zoning that goes along with it. the the red is the C3 parcel, which is going to be where the new bank is going to be located. Um, and the the pink is the C2 parcels, which was the zoning beforehand. Um, and those uh I guess I should have included what it looked like now, but those parcels were kind of a mess. Um, they're just jumbled up with bad lot lines and whatnot. And so this basically aortions them out to 1 acre lots which um as I'll go over in our fiscal analysis um our assessor valued these at much higher because of the lot arrangement um and position on Durand Avenue and zoning. So um um so this this does um you know comply with the comp plan which is basically commercial along our Durand Avenue and state highways. Um so there were certain aspects that the CSM didn't meet um that we are um kind of working with them on. one is a sort of a 50-foot setback from Durand Avenue for parking. Um that came to us as a surprise and would require a pretty probably a pretty big rework of what the site plan looks like. So we'll hold off on on that aspect. They can talk to that as well as um a requiring a sidewalk along Elwood Drive. Um the applicant has has indicated that they wish to pursue alternative compliance with that which would mean that they would pay an inlua fee to go that would

go into a sidewalk fund. However, this does connect into it because when Durand was reconstructed a few years ago, sidewalks were placed along it along it. So this would connect into that sidewalk. So connecting into a a network usually doesn't allow for uh exception because it's not off in the middle of nowhere or anything like that. Um so everything else is is a okay. There's a couple of um conditions at the end. Um there's access control and then uh they they need to show the size and existing sanitary and storm sewers all of that sort of stuff. So and easements. Um and that is it. Um any questions from me? Nancy. Um Robin, so that 50 foot setback that we're going to talk about, is that a DOT requirement? Is it their requirement or ours off of a Department of Transportation highway? Sam, just talk really loud. Sam, there access. Okay. But their parking lot was was the

thing that was inside that setback. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, that's my that's my mistake. I thought it was a DOT setback. Usually those are like that. Any other questions for Robin? Is the DOT giving them two driveways into Durand or they got to share? What do they got to do? Because I don't see any access restrictions on the CSM. I I don't know. I think they'll have to apply for those separately. Sam again, you know this one. Yeah. that access is already permitted. Okay. Yeah. Was it used to be um a residential empty residential lot with an access there? So, and there's going to be two access points on Elwood Drive, I believe. So, yeah. Well, one for the the pink parcel and one for the the parcel to the south of it. because there's one now. There's going to be a new one. Any other questions? Um, go ahead. U, also I noticed on the certified survey map there's a gap uh a gap in legals to for the property to the east. How do we handle those? You know, I hate those gaps because somebody is losing land and it's just really a surveying thing and and maybe your

surveyor want your engineer wants to speak to that, but um what's left there? Just take the gap, you know, it's really ariv So often times they get cleaned up these processes but not always. Sometimes there's persist. Yeah. We'll wait until we have a opportunity to speak to the developer. I'm I'm just like on it. Yeah. To that it might be more um uh I can do the site plan as well and then you can have the developer speak to both unless you want to have them up twice. No, let's let's follow that path. Okay. All right. So, I'll just go I'll just move straight into the site plan as well. Okay. Oh, one more thing. Yep. Sam, you Robin, you got my email regarding the signature page. Okay. Yeah. And um we in our ordinances, we only require the the village clerk to sign off just because of the limited availability of of Dave on random day of the week, you know, and stuff like that. And we also thought because CSMS were approved by the village board, that's pretty much the signature, you know, their approval. Well, they just had all the names wrong. It was it was chairman of the board as opposed to president of the village and so forth. You'll have to look harder at that. Oh, well, that is a different

story. So, yeah, we'll we'll we'll check that out. Got to keep them in line. So, yeah, you'll check on that. Jill's been scratching out like, you know, wrong names or titles for that signature block for quite a while now. So, I'm sure she'll be on top of it. Well, we don't want to scratch it. Um, so the the this one is the site plan for 5901 Durand Avenue. Um, which is the the new Johnson Bank. It's been there. The existing bank was built in um 1982 somewhere around there. So, it's quite a uh I hate to say that that's really old because I was born in 81. So, you know, whatever. So, the Anyway, so this is um that site plan. So, they have the the drive-thru. They wanted to apply for the C3 zoning specifically for the multi-lane drive-thru. Um, one of, however, it relates to a later item that um, our current C3 zoning requires a two-story minimum. Um, and we're bringing that up as far as to allow allow for some forms of alternative compliance to that, especially in situations like this where it's basically u a renovation of an older building that's outlived its useful life, stuff like that. So we'll talk to you about that in the next item. Um one of the uh the points that I had risen was that um in my site plan review um I also at the end I put the actual checklist. I don't know if you guys looked at that or have appreciated that but that was kind of a new thing as we're shortening the executive summary. We're extending the appendix just in case you want to double check our work. Um, one of the things was about the

parking and that is an error on my part. Um, so in the our parking guide it says that the minimum parking requirement for financial services is the same as office and then I then applied the maximum parking requirement. However, financial services does not have that maximum. So um they do not require to readjust for the maximum parking spaces. Um they are also uh have the drive aisles and parking spots are um they have 9 by18 uh parking stalls and a 24 ft wide drive aisle. We actually have an a variance application uh later on today for that exact same thing. um and whether or not we come back with an amendment to allow some flexibility in parking space requirements um just because there probably should be there is flexibility on other things with parking and drive layouts. It's just tradeoffs. So, I'm noting that there the caveat that they might seek a variance on it or we might update the code. Any questions about that? That seems to be really wishy-washy, but that's kind of how it is right now. With the size of a lot of the pickup trucks and larger vehicles now, I can see where larger parking space is desirable. Yeah, I I we do too. Um I think it's the for us it's a trade-off between that and impervious surface. The more asphalt you put down, the more of a burden that places on our storm water system. and and we are bordering Lake Michigan. So that's, you know, kind of keeping track of where our storm water is and how much we kick out is very important. So any kind of um it's going to be a balance test and and a a new ordinance would probably allow some exceptions with additional storm water requirements or something

like that. So, um, for example, if the additional parking was done with pvious pavers or something like that to allow the storm water to filter through, that would be like a win-win. So, I know Nancy got that look on her face. She's just like, "It's all clay, Robin. It's all clay." Well, it's winter. It impousvious pavers don't work in the winter. And that's just a fact. And that's the problem we have here in Wisconsin where people have brought us that idea for the last 20 years. But then you put them in and then it freezes and now your storm water's going nowhere but your parking lot. So I think that Johnson has a very good sense of native plantings. Look at what they do with the headquarters with their prairies. I would think there's more of a reasonable tradeoff in the plantings around the bank as opposed to trying to make them do something fancy with the asphalt. It's never going to work. We um it was it's a suggestion like it's not something that has to be demanded. It's one of possible options. I understand. It is always an option. Yeah. So uh speaking of landscape plans, reviewing the landscape plan um uh we reviewed that they had more than 50% of ornamental trees. That's a limit as 50% need can be ornamental and as opposed to actual um deciduous coverage screen. Gosh, what is that word? I don't know. Canopy. Canopy trees. Boom. See, you know, getting old. The 1981 thing. Anyway, um so they they will adjust that and submit a revised landscape plan. I'm I'm also gave them the comment to to save the money is that they submitted both uh a lot of low shrubs and ornamental grasses and that's an ore in the requirement. So they don't have to do both of those. And we always

have been recommending that they just do a native uh prairie mix no mo in order to co to basically meet both requirements and potentially save uh quite a bit of bucks on landscape inst installation. Um the fiscal analysis for the project is um is as follows that the um that the estimated taxable value per acre is at 2.8 million um and the the gain of loss would be 1.2 million. So, the improvement value for the property currently is at 1.1 million with the land value at four $466,000. Build it staff that a new bank of 5,000 square feet which is smaller than the old bank would have improvement value of 1.7 million. Um, despite this being a tear down and replace, the new development on the property increases the financial per performance of the property by quite a bit. Um, so all rosy from there that it doesn't even really go into the additional value of them reconfiguring the additional lots and zoning them for commercial use. So whatever shows up there is just basically um gravy or icing, whichever you prefer. Uh, with that uh I am I'm done. If you have any questions of me, further questions of Robin or staff? I don't have a question. I I do have a comment. I really like your checklist where you put the past fail on there. That makes it so easy to read and look at what your comments are. So, I like that addition to your review. Well, I'll give Sam all the credit for the checklist and um I will take credit for the fact that my brain needs that in order to keep track of all these things.

It's not your age, it's your it's your children. It's your child now. You're well, I've always had the attention span of of a very very excited squirrel in the spring. So, like, you know, that's uh it's what it is. But thanks for that. That's that's good feedback. All right. If not uh anything out of me then uh we can have the developer come on up and answer any questions you have from that get your name and address and then Eric Ols with the Redmond Company 13350 West Graham Street New Berlin Wisconsin. You want to start with a presentation? Would you like questions and answers? Uh I could start with a small presentation just to run you through the design. Perfect. So I guess um you know with Johnson uh financial group being in the area for 50 years uh that we wanted to show a building that that showed that they were serious about maintaining the relationship with the community and staying in the area. Uh the previous bank uh on the site was roughly 57,000 square feet. That'll be torn down for a new 5,000 square foot bank. Uh this bank um is slightly larger than other ones that they've been building in in re recent years. It's based off of a prototype that we've uh incorporated at about five other locations currently and um we're looking to use this similar design style at at all their future locations. Um, we've used a lot of like timeless materials, a lot of stone, brick, the the metal panel that looks like wood, uh, so that it's maintenance-free. Uh, we have some aluminum composite panels at the main entrance. We have a tall clear story lobby area at the front and back of the

building. Um, kind of represents the the entrance and focus of the building. Uh, on this specific uh location. We have three drive-thru lanes and one ATM one with one of the drive-through lanes possibly being a future ATM. So so possibly two ATMs in the future. Um parking, we have 43 stalls. The that number is to accommodate uh community functions that would take place in the building after hours. So financial literacy um home lending um seminars that they would offer to the to their customers and uh employee parking is kind of towards the back customer parking along the front. Uh a presence along Durand A was very important so uh we tried to keep it close to the the front of the road. Um I wasn't aware of the the 50-foot comment on the site. Um but um I believe otherwise there was a 10-ft setback requirement, but we're we're beyond 50 ft with the building. Um storm water uh we've incorporated that into the site. We have uh plenty of landscaping around the building. Uh, our entrance would be one off of Elwood, Elwood Drive, and that would be a shared access drive that would access the other two C2 parcels. And then along Durand A would be uh one exit entrance. So with that, I guess if you have any questions and willing to address them. Nancy, I I guess I did bring up uh in regards to and I don't know if you're the survey you're not the surveying side necessarily. I am not but are you the surveying side? We don't have the

surveyor here. Okay. Um then that would be my question. And and I recently ran into a property like this for a client of mine um actually for Habitat and there's a strip of land that's kind of out there next to one of ours and it's in the city of Rine and one of the city people said well why don't you just you know go ahead and include it in your legal because it's in nowhere land and it's just going to sit there as a gap. So, they were perfectly willing for my client to do that. So, I guess I'm just wondering how do we answer the gap, I'd really rather not leave one there. If you can talk to your surveyor and, you know, see what he has to say if it's unclaimed or if it belongs to the other parcel and we can prove it through title work or whatever. But I I just hate leaving a gap there, Davis. I think that needs to be figured out if we can if we can. Yeah, I would agree with that. anytime you can clean up a legal descriptions in along a block, it's it's benefit for everybody. Too often they end up in spite strips and that's what we want to avoid. You know, you don't want somebody not being able to interconnect their properties that should if there's a that little piece there that you can't identify or no one will cooperate with. So, I guess that would be something that I would like for y'all to the best you can to look into. Nancy, that's more like a title issue and it's a It's a long task. You got to go back a long ways in order and then try to track the deeds is where the overlap became and it's a long process in order to do that. But it's a title issue as to it belongs to somebody. It's just a matter of somewhere along the way somebody used the wrong marker when we're surveying the property and it created a gap. So do you think it can be solved through title? It can be solved. It's just that it's it's a long process but it's a title company that actually has to go back and research it. go back

as far back as they can and then bring it forward through the deeds and see where it was created. A lot of, you know, surveyors, not every surveyor uses the same point of of entrance to the property in order to survey it. They use different markers. So then that kind of throws things off. It happens. We had a surveyor in this county u who didn't think the particular section corner was where the county map said it was and he used a spot 20 ft away and it made interesting you know I think it was in do made some interesting gaps and overlaps because of that issue and it's just the surveyors got to and the title companies got to work it out that's I mean do you and don't you agree though that Frank that we should try at least ask them to try. I mean, it's not like the the end of the If you can get rid of it, that's fine. But it doesn't really affect what they want to build, you know? No, it does not. If it's there forever, you just, you know, kind of ignore it and plant shrubs in it and go on about your business. Yeah. I say let the let them deal with that after they figure out what they're doing here because it shouldn't hold up anything. Yeah. No, absolutely. That's not my intention at all. I just if we can solve it, let's do it. If not, you know, I get it. But I'm just pointing it out. Okay. Well, maybe your surveyor can look into it and and come back with some thoughts about how he would approach it. Sure. Surveyor will do the same thing. They would go off a title company's research. They're going to want all the old documents, you know, and then bring the deeds together and then outline it. Okay. Anything? Any else? Yes. I'd like to add to that conversation because I tend to agree with my colleague here, Trusty Washburn, that as much as I agree and and I understand what you're saying is that it can be done. But whose ownership it would be to initiate that process? Is that the village? Is that the bank or is that the adjoining

property or or everyone may be looking at somebody else? Well, can can I wait in here? Yes. I don't think any of this is material to either of the applications that are in front of us. So, could we wait, it's a private property owner dispute and while we would like it cleaned up, I think let's just leave the private property owners to to clean it up. It doesn't affect any village property nor any of the applications in front of us. Yeah, it's been duly noted and discuss dy note it and see what we could Perfect. Exactly. That was my point conversation. There you go. All right. Right. So, anything further for and I got a personal question for you. Are you guys going to be working around this building or are you going to completely raise it and then go from do from start from scratch raising the building completely and then start? I think I got I got things in there. Go ahead. I don't have anything else. I just had one more Sure. comment in regards to the parapet roof. This building is so beautiful and it's so typical of Johnson's philosophy of architecture and the Franklidd Wright sort of, you know, spin-off. And I think again, this is a conversation we've had with some of our other buildings regarding the paraphits and the fact that architecturally it makes zero sense on this building and would would ruin it. So, I guess my question is, are we looking at that from a code standpoint so that they don't have to go in for ZBA and do a whole variance? Is there a way we can approve it with that relief for the B at the board level or No, you can't uh like just overrule the zoning code at the board level. Um, but it's in the queue for us to take a look at a zoning text amendment and how to change it. Sorry, I tried to get you out of ZBA, but I'm trying. Okay. Thank you, Sam. All right.

Anything further? Anything else you'd like to present or anyone else on this? Anything I want to offer? If if we could just get your name and address, just being recorded and streamed. So, Brent H 707 Riveridge Drive, Waterford, Wisconsin. Just the one thing I wanted to make you aware of when we were talking about the parapit, there will be no mechanicals on the roof. So, you know, I know someone's you want a parapit so you can kind of shield that, but all that stuff's not going to be visible from the roof. So, you can see that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Nice point, Brett. Thank you. All right. If there's no other questions, I'd look for a a motion on the first on the zoning map amendment. I'm sorry, the CSM. The CSM. So, I'll make a motion. chairman to um move uh forward to the village board for approval uh the 5901 Durand Avenue certified survey map um as presented with the comments and corrections by staff. Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comment hearing? None. I'll call a question. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. Then we'll move to the site plan review. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the uh site uh site plan SP-25-006 for 5901 Duran Avenue as presented. I'll second. Another motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Hearing none, I'll call a question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Good

luck. This will go to the board on No, June. Yeah, we don't have a Monday meeting. The site plan is ours. Yeah, the CSM will go to the board. Correct. All right. Next on the agenda then will be ordinance 06 20225703 720 7222 Braraw Road zoning map amendment ZMA 2550. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant applied to amend the zoning map for the property from AG2, which is general agricultural to RH1, which is highdensity residential. The applicant wishes to construct a 618 unit market rate residential development with sites for detached uh houses, two-unit houses, and multi-unit buildings. Uh the concept plan that we put in the packet is just a concept plan. So we've worked with the applicant to you know um dial that in but obviously they would need to come back with formal application submitt. So you're not approving that concept plan. It's purely there for illustrative purposes uh in relation to the zoning. Uh in 2024 the village board signed a development agreement with the property owner uh which contemplated a residential development with approximately 600 units. So, this is in followup to that development agreement uh that they approved last year and the village staff recommends that the plan commission move to approve uh or recommend approval of 25-005 to the village board. Any questions you have regarding the property uh or anything else? And the applicant and their architect is here if you have any questions directly for them. All right. Questions for Sam or Steph? Um, I don't think at this time because this is the zoning application, we will have a public hearing where we'll be notifying all the few abuing property owners at this point. There's like five, six. Yeah, somewhere in there. Yeah. Not not too many. But because that's June

9th, those notices haven't gone out yet, but they'll go out later this week. Um, just because they're class two, so two weeks before would be two weeks is what? Yeah. So, um, the notices haven't gone out yet, but they will. And, uh, yeah, I'm glad to see this moving forward. This is a first step that we've been waiting for for a while. The other comment I ever I would have is that as much as you said there only maybe a handful of property owners who have to be legally notified but looking at the map you would expect some other homeowners you know because every time that you have a multi-density property people do come to talk about that. So just kind of want to throw that as a heads up. Yep. We will follow the ordinances as they require us to do so. Good. Any further questions? Would the applicant like to speak? Okay, then I'd be looking for a motion. Um, chairman, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 062025 uh for 7003 and 7222 Brown Road zoning map amendment ZMA-25-00005. Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? None. Call question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. I abstain. Abstain. Very good. Thank you. All right. Motion carries. Next then will

be ordinance 072025 amendment amending the code of ordinances chapter 90 division 9130 commercial districts. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, in previous updates to the commercial zoning districts, the village added the requirement for a minimum of two building stories in the C3 and C4 districts. The village determined at that time that it wished to encourage more valuable and intense development within those zoning districts, mainly located along the village arterial roads. However, multiple businesses have since applied for zoning variances from the requirement, arguing that two-story buildings, while valuable, are not always wanted. Therefore, to acknowledge market conditions, the village staff proposed allowing singlestory buildings within those zoning districts so long as they apply for alternative compliance within the architectural regulations. These alternative compliance procedures ensure valuable and attractive buildings, therefore keeping the intent of the two-story minimum, but allowing for greater height flexibility. Um the updates don't conflict with any of the multi-jurisdictional comp plan and uh the village staff recommends that the plan commission move to approve. Now uh you know this is something that we've uh seen a couple times um obviously we just talked about it in relation to Johnson Bank. So a good example uh on the same agenda and uh so there's one of two ways. either one, we could just remove the height requirement entirely um if the plan commission wanted to do that. But we thought referring to those alternative compliance sections which require that the building meets certain financial um guidelines or provide things identified in the comprehensive plan or um are designed to a specific level. um accomplish some of some of the same like value goals that the twotory height uh allowance or the twotory height minimum uh we're trying to accomplish. So that's why we went with that route. But you

know if the plan commission is purely like just chop it off and don't have a height minimum at all, we can certainly revise the ordinance in that way. Or if you have any other recommendations uh on how to approach it, we can certainly modify the ordinance. But we thought this was the nice ability to use some of our existing uh ordinances with just via cross reference to provide some of that flexibility that we tried to build into the code normally. So that's why we went with this route. I I will only add and say that that this architectural standard came in uh a little bit later, but it would have it would have prevented some of the uses that the plan commission and village board have um denied along uh Durand Avenue and some other places. So um that they've viewed as undesirable or something like that, say like you know car washes or something like that. So that's that is a sort of pushpull kind of thing. Yeah, it's a it's an important point. Um the C3 exactly why Johnson Bank applied for it was for that multi-lane drive-thru allowance which only C3 allows. Um but in the same breath then you know that puts them into a two-story height minimum. So you can see where an applicant might find themselves in a rock and hard place, but you can also see the intent of the village trying to put more intense and more valuable uses along these corridors. So how we try to balance that is uh part of why we're back in front of you today. Ron Sam, I'm trying to understand what you are what you're proposing. On the one side what you're proposing is a alternative compliance but on the other side you want to keep the language minimum of two building. Maybe the word minimum is kind kind of confusing me because if it wasn't there that I agree with you know what what you're proposing

but can you help me better understand or is that a legal mama jumbo that I'm kind of you know hung on because because even in alternative you're saying is therefore keeping the intent of the twotory minimum. Mhm. So in the C3 district right now, a new building would have to build at least two two stories tall, which typically you peg around 24 feet. We typically average out about 12 ft a story, unless they come in with more specific architectural plans. Sometimes a residential floor can be slightly less than that, but typically it's about 12 feet. So 24t on average. So, everyone, if they just wanted to build a building by right and see uh the C3 zoning district, it would have to be, you know, two stories. Um, but we're adding the caveat in there that they can go through an alternative compliance procedure to bypass that requirement, essentially build one story. Um, but they would have to follow the alternative compliance guidelines, which again require a variety of different things that show value in a building. either they hit some financial targets that we've set or they provide things in our park and open space plan or our comprehensive plan. Those things could be parks or bike lanes or other types of improvements that we've identified for the area. Um it could accomplish it by providing like very good architecture in a way that we thought it was going to um bring some level of tourism to the community. So we identified uh you know five or six different guidelines in the alternative compliance. they'd have to meet a few of them to gain it. Um, but the idea is there's like a you either follow the normal route or you go into the the side route, the alternative compliance procedures or you have to meet a suite of options to get a singlestory building and the side route is staff approved then or is that come back to planning or village board? The side route is currently staff approved um right now and just we are because it's a series of pretty well- definfined

checkboxes. were just saying like, "Yep, they hit this one, this one, and this one." So Sam, so 90-405-40 forens B is that I apologize for not having that is the alternative compliance procedures. So, I'm wondering if it might be helpful if your um item number two says something to the effect of applicants may bypass the minimum principal building stories requirement if approved under the alternative compliance methods mentioned in or under than 90-4 just to Yeah, it's it actually looks better online because it just hyperlinks directly to that. So if you hover over that, it'll just pull up alternative compliance as like a pop-up window. So in effect, when it's on the website, that's exactly what it does. Okay. Just when you see it here, it doesn't say that. But yeah, that's how it how a user would actually interact with it. It it's just a hyperlink directly there. Okay. Does that help Ram though to understand? Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, it help. But I'm still not comfortable with the word minimum because to me uh the very uh uh the alternative compliance procedure ensure valuable and attractive building. Therefore, keeping the intent of the twotory but allowing for the if the word minimum is gone, I would be more comfortable. I'm not going to, you know, kind of be hung up on that. What I'm saying is to me makes more sense to reward that, remove the word minimum. Therefore, keeping the intent of the twotory but allowing for a greater building design flexibility. Well, just the executive summary is just our summary to you guys. The actual zoning tax. I'm not going to be hung up on that, but yeah. Okay. I see you're coming from I get it. Yeah, I understand too.

Okay. Any other questions for Sam or Robin or staff? No, I think this is very helpful because I think the intent of that zoning C3 is higher value, higher density, more units, more square footage. And so I think keeping it at two minimum doesn't bother me from the standpoint that we do have alternative compliance. And Johnson's a perfect example because the value of that building in itself exceed allowed it to exceed that requirement if they were able to work under the new what we're going to change and that I think is really really really the intent of it. Yeah. We've had some beautiful buildings come in that were one story and we're in areas where twotory didn't really even make sense necessarily. Yeah. So this minimum still is there so that we can institute it for the areas that need it and yet it has an alternative that is flexible. I would accept that. Okay. But just not comfortable. Ready for a motion then? Oh, sure. I'll make a motion to um approve ordinance 072025 amending the code of ordinances chapter 90 division 90-130 for commercial districts second motion and a second any further discussion any public comment right hearing none I'll call a question all in favor I I opposed motion carries all All right. Next then we will move to ordinance 0820 2025 amending the code of

ordinances chapter 90 divisions 90 through 425 and 90 through 620 regarding outdoor lighting. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, since adopting the outdoor lighting ordinance in 2021, the village staff and the plan commission have administered those ordinances through the site plan review process. Originally adopted as an updated set of objective standards on which to review outdoor lighting plans, these ordinances were largely necessary due to the advent of cheap LED lighting. The old ordinances often regulated lights via wattage. However, the energy efficiency of LED lights allowed much brighter lights than originally intended. Additionally, many early LED lights were extremely blue uh which caused complaints and studies have shown that they can cause negative health consequences for human and animal circadian rhythms uh which is their sleep cycles. In 2021, outdoor lighting regulations move standards towards measuring lighting by illuminance, which is a more direct measurement route, um or the total luminous flux on any point on a surface by setting standards of foot candles. The ordinance also sets a maximum freestanding fixture lighting levels, limited architectural uplighting, and a maximum correlated color temperature for lights at 3,00 Kelvin. However, they also set a minimum parking lot lighting standards that were needlessly burdensome and often overlit areas with little vehicular or pedestrian night activity when applied specifically to larger parking areas. The proposed ordinance updates not only maintain the maximum correlated color temperature limits, architectural lighting guidelines, and maximum fixture height limits, but also introduce several beneficial changes. These updates provide flexibility for seasonal holiday, emergency, and other government approved lighting. Set further restrictions on the total lumen output per fixture using dark sky approved models. update measurements to SI units, which are lumens, lux, and candelas, um,

which are the most direct measurement route for it. That's not something you'll have to worry about. A lot of new terms in this. Yeah, that's that's mostly for us, and we'll we'll get into what that means in a sec. Uh, further define when the village requires uh, shielded lighting fixtures. They also set clear standards for sports lighting and sign illumination and add updated definitions to support those changes. These updates are designed to enhance the quality of outdoor lighting in our village, promoting safety, visibility, and respect for the natural environment. In a time when it's inexpensive to overlight a property, these updates will further protect the dark natural sky that our village residents uh cherish by allowing contextsensitive lighting for security and visibility in important areas while also clarifying the lighting plan administration for the staff. These updates ensure that development increasingly respects surrounding neighbors from light pollution both in terms of light trespass which is when someone puts light onto another property and atmospheric sky glow which is just everything is generally bright. So with that we uh recommend approval. Um, we also did a fiscal impact note for this and if anything this will make lighting cheaper for most uh developers because we're requiring less of it in specific areas and we're actually prohibiting it in certain areas. So, one of the rare occurrences where us being strict means they have to spend less money on their site. Sweet. So, yeah, we take advantage of that. Now, on the thing in front of you, you have a couple examples. So, you know, we're looking at uh lighting and how it's measured here. Essentially, you can see here the lumens are measuring the light source output. Um, so that's really how we're measuring what type of fixtures are okay. Someone can't put stadium lighting on a a standard bank, for example, and we can directly measure that lighting output. Um, candelas are the number of lumens

within a beam angle. we measure that the least amount. Um, but then lux is the number of lumens on a surface. So that would be like on a parking lot or from any measured area. Typically we measure about 5t in the air um for that lux measurement to be like. What would an average person consider the lighting in this area to be? How bright actually is it on the site at any given point? So whether that's at the property line or next to a building, behind a wall, in front of a wall, etc. And that's about it. So, I can answer any questions you have there. Um, this is kind of a blending of our old ordinances, which we like a lot, but incorporating more of these dark sky things. We just, you know, we get some complaints and particularly in a state where it's dark a lot of the year at like 400 p.m. It's kind of obvious when these sites are overlighting. You know, we understand in instances of outdoor storage where um that might be warranted or for security reasons, but we're really trying to to limit just people slapping like wallpack lights on really tall buildings just because it's cheap and easy and really make them think about let's light in front of a door or a secure area or something that, you know, we actually want to light and try to stop them from just, you know, flood lighting everything because they can uh and the energy costs are pretty I want to chime in just for a second. As the person that does signs and sign code and all that sort of stuff, one of the things that I'm excited about this is that um the if it's after 1000 p.m. and the business is closed and you have an illuminated sign, the sign has to be off. um which is uh something that people have really complained about is with the proliferation of like television LED lighting and signs and all that sort of stuff that if your business is closed that that shuts down. So, um it's not distracting or anything like that. So, you have a couple gas

stations and odds and ends that you know are 24-hour operations. McDonald's out near the interstate, that kind of thing. So understandable why they'd want to advertise in the middle of the night, but like your car dealerships and some are other odds and ends. We think like maybe don't need to flood light Highway 20 at 3:00 a.m. when no one is even able to look for a car on their site. So just trying to balance what's reasonable um versus like the types of complaints that we get when we you know talk to residents on like you know it's really bright and I can see that a mile away from my house that kind of thing which we get not infrequently very creative technical writing and I'm glad to see you two are so excited about that. Yeah. I think it is. Yeah, it's just one of those sneaky things where I think a lot of communities are moving this way. Um, so we're certainly not the only ones. Um, I know a lot of communities that are looking at zoning code rewrites are increasingly getting strict about it because people complain. But also, I think aesthetically it's just one of those things that really makes a community look nice in the long run. It seems really technical, but when administered well, buildings are more attractive when they're well lit. So is this going forward or is this grandfathered or how is this going to So this would be from from the point of adoption new ones would have the standards um uh that are in the code. So existing lights are grandfathered in, but as they update fixtures or anything, our um goal would be for them to update their lighting on the site. And then there are other applicability kickers in there as well, but generally it's like when you're switching out the lights or building a new building or something like that, we review it against the new standards. So So a face change of a sign, does that warrant a change or is that No. No. Unless they were building like a new electronic messaging system, then that would. So there are a little bit of gray areas. There are some like

grandfathering in where we can't just force everyone, you know, next month or whatever to switch all of them. But yeah, the intent is for larger scale changes to your site or fixtures. If you're taking down a pole and putting up a new one, that new pole should, you know, meet the standards and the height limits and all that kind of stuff, but if you're just swapping one bulb for another, honestly, we're probably not going to catch it. Uh, and even if it did, like it's so small scale. So, we're we're focused on the big stuff. Good. I've had some fun legal conversations about this and when you have something that has an adjustable light level at all, um, then there's no sort of like grandfathering in. So, if you can turn something brighter and and lighter, then it's just like a new speed limit. Um, you don't get to do the old 70 mph speed limit if they lower the speed limit down to 55. So, if if it's something like an output of light that can be controlled, then they have to basically turn it down. Um, and this also mentions dimming as well. Dimming and motion detecting, um, security lighting and stuff like that. So, I think it's cool. You guys, it it is a little dry. No, it's very interesting. Go ahead, Ron. M. J I got a couple of comments and uh and maybe some question. Uh Sam, first the easy one. Recently there have been ads on the TV with some new lighting for the holidays that you can control from your app. The whole house comes on. So under the new would that be mean that those would not apply in the village among present? they generally would, although there are limitations on how bright they can be. Um, and if they're during a like common seasonal time, so if they're doing that in December, we're probably not going to write them a ticket unless they're like

flood lighting the outside and those are above those lights are above the limits that we have in here. My guess is only the most egregious ones would be. So, nine times out of 10, if someone's putting up nice holiday lights on their gutters, you're good to go. you're not going to get a ticket. It's really meant for people who are like way above and beyond. You know, people can still get pretty crazy in this and we're not going to write them tickets particularly around the holidays. Right. The reason I'm asking is because I don't know I cannot explain to you those ad but I'm sure that most of you have you seen that the whole house and from your app. So then before people start to buy those they need to be aware of this if this is going to put any kind of restriction otherwise people are going to spend all the money and then the village is going to say nope you need your money back that would be a problem. Are you referring to the ones where they sparkle they make the house sparkle? sparkle and you know so again you know I'm kind of thinking out that if I buy that and then Sam come Robin come saying no has a ticket then I'm in trouble well I think you ought to try it I think you ought to buy one turn them on and let Sam and Robin tell you what they think you can be our guinea pig we'll be the Grinches this we get complaints from your neighbors and see if we get complaints from your neighbors that was my easy comment if you're going to do it now you'll probably have some complaints if If you want to wait till December, I bet it'll be okay. Does it look like this on my face? Okay. Now, my question, my my big question. Uh oh. I like the concept, you know, with the like Robin said that you know with the with the technology so you have a less lighting and everything. What I don't support or I don't like the comment is that like you gave example of maybe a car dealer at the middle of the

night 2:00 3:00 you know to shut that unless it's an isore or somebody gives a complaint if a business wants to spend the money on their energy cost what business government has to tell them that you can't have the lights on right I like to see the business the government out of the business as much Yes, you can. I think my answer to that would be we don't have a problem with that as long as they follow the guidelines. Like there's not light trespass so they're not spilling it over onto their neighbors or they're not uplighting it so like the sky is glowing because it's so bright. So I think these as long as they follow like the design guidelines of this go nuts. Robin was specifically referring to signs which are typically like the worst offenders at night. Um, but this does allow for security lighting. Like car dealers like to light their lots because they're worried about people, you know, breaking windows or anything. Like that is all fine. We just want them to properly light it. You look at a car dealer from 30 or 40 years ago and that is the goal what we're going towards. You know, like what historically would have been a well-lit lot, now it's just so easy to have those really intense blue lights. It's gotten to be the point where everyone can kind of cheaply stadium light their lot. And that's where we get a lot of complaints. And that's where we have to why we're coming in being more strict about things like uplighting or light trespass because it's a way easier to do that now than it used to be. Yeah. You could see Burlington RV from here. Like you could see the lights that they have on the RV place across the interstate from here and it's like four miles away. So that's how much lighting they have. And so money isn't a factor because they're so cheap. Um, and it's it's been just kind of a a regulation about, you know, but I would think most if not all the car dealers in our in Mount Pleasant comply because they've

we've had this regulation of down lighting and and blocking for Yeah, I would say generally they're they're pretty good. Um, the they might some of the older ones might not meet the color temperature ones, but in large part they're all pretty good. Um, it's really some of the old warehousing out near the interstate that wouldn't comply with this. Um, and we'll try to catch as they do over time or other odds and ends, commercial businesses and stuff that are are fairly small scale. Yeah, we're not getting complaints about them, but if they ever do rehab their building, they'll just need to comply with the new rules. So, those are, you know, the ones we catch along the way. And do you have plans of annexing the RV dealership out there so we can control that? in Sturdivan, so we don't control it across the highway in Yorkville. Yorkville. Yorkville. Yeah. Yeah. It's It's just the first example that pops to my head. Like I mean obviously the the Microsoft construction was like extremely well lit, but that's a construction site, but like that is just something that is on 247. Um and I I I don't know. It's just very bright. Yep. Yeah. Okay. So, can anyone put a big light as as long as the light goes to our starter event and not? I would say no. We'll we'll spoke them out. We'll we'll we'll just wait for the municipal comp. We'll have a light we'll have a light war. How about that? I think Sam, what I really like about this also is for the protection of those areas where we have commercial next to residential, number one. But number two, we do get uh from time to time complaints within a neighborhood. Somebody's got a big party yard and they've got thing lights strung all over. and we really never our code wasn't really able to enforce that other than to go knock on their door and hope they'll take some of them down or be

more respectful. So now we have some teeth in it and I'm really that that to me is the biggest advantage as well. Yeah, it's not just on the It's a great point. Not just on the commercial side, but on the residential side it's really easy to light up your backyard because you know we still have a couple of the neighbors in this subdivision that I live in who are still fighting over this. Yeah. So you probably would hear Yeah. And now there we can Yeah. So, okay. I will um if we're done, I will go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval to the village board of ordinance 08-2025 amending the code of ordinances chapter 90 division 90-425 and 90-620 regarding outdoor lighting. Second motion and a second. Any further browsing discussion, questions? If not, any public comment? Hearing none, I call a question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Then last on the agenda is ordinance 09 2025 amending the code of ordinances chapter 90 division 90-10 division 90-330 and 90-420 regarding residential districts. Oh, this is the best one. You don't have to leave yet. Thank you gentlemen. Uh Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm not going to read my executive summary because this is second time this ordinance has been in front of you. But generally um we tried to between last which we saw this in February and now we met with a few of you individually to discuss some of these regulations um we also made some updates. I think the most major one you'll see is based on your feedback last time you wanted kind of a district between RL uh and RM. So kind of that like more urban neighborhood style thing that we had kind of proposed cutting out and then you wanted us to

add it back in. So we did that. We've tentatively titled it RN which is residential neighborhood. Uh because you know low density and moderate density were already taken. So we had to find something in the middle there that kind of So Robin put together some good examples of what we're talking about as we go through this. But just as a reminder um what this accomplishes, I'll go through those nine points. One, detailed uh updated detailed descriptions of the districts to explain where applying those districts is appropriate. Hopefully that helps, you know, um with some of those zoning map amendment discussions that you all and the village board have. Uh two, uh updated organizational structure that consolidates repeated sections. Three, updated regulations on when more than one principal building is allowed per lot. Four, consolidated lot and building regulations table. Five, switch from a maximum building coverage to a maximum imperous surface coverage. Six, switching from measuring building height by feet to stories to both align with the commercial regulations that we just talked about and have consistent neighborhood character. Um, we've thought that, you know, height is it sounds more precise, but in fact, like people look at a building more on the stories that it provides than the height. And it helps us blend some of those architectural styles between buildings. Um, uh, where was I? Seven, move the gardening regulations to the accessory uses and structures section to where similar regulations regarding things like amateur radio service antennas, home occupations, and solar energy systems lie within the actual code. So, a little bit of just reorganization there without changing the underlying regulations. Eight, moving the garage regulations to the parking and access section to consolidate vehicle and parking related regulations altogether. And then nine, we added that RN neighborhood residential district between the RL and RM district per the

plan commission request and made other minor updates based on commission feedback, caught some, you know, typos, that kind of thing. So with that, um, you know, we are recommending from this one, if you want to move it forward to the plan commission, you think this is good to go, you can. Otherwise, you know, we'll take your feedback and bring it back next month. This is a pretty big set of changes. So, we want to be, you know, flexible in how comfortable you all are with it. Um, just to walk you through some things to help you visualize density. The other major point of feedback we got from the plan commission last month was like, show us some pictures of what you guys are talking about because we need some visuals here. So, Robin put this together. Um, here's how we as planners kind of like to think about density. Rob and I always joke like, you know, look at that missing middle diagram. It appears in at least one presentation perk planning conference uh there, but it's pretty popular one. But this is kind of what we're talking about from large lot uh single family all the way to high-rise. And we're trying to accomplish Mount Pleasant is mostly on that um small to middle. We don't have a lot of mid-rise development other than maybe a couple senior centers here. So, we're just trying to provide more flexibility within those uh low to medium areas for the most part. Uh a typical lot size. So, here you have an an acre would be 150 by 290 or you know a football field slightly bigger, two acres, so slightly wider and slightly bigger. So, you can start to see how these things start to split up. looking at one dwelling unit per acre. That's kind of what this uh lot size is going to look like. Visually, this would fall generally into our RE or estate residential guidelines. So, more or less our our big house, big lot

rules. One dwelling unit per two acres. These are even bigger. Uh so, same type of thing. Um RE guidelines, big house, big lot. We don't see a lot of this platted anymore. So most of this is either small, very small CSM where someone's cutting up just, you know, a family plot into four sites. Um, but generally the market, this is too expensive to do nowadays because the utility costs and the road costs are are generally too much to do lots this big anymore. Unless you're somewhere in a a specialized area like along the lake maybe or in an area that is like rural but still has access to like a really above average school district. So some areas in like western Wakaua County maybe are still platting subdivisions like this, but generally from Ozaki County to Washington County to everywhere like you don't see a lot of these things platted like this anymore. And then this is the super rural at that one dwelling unit per five acres. This starts to get into like almost um farm style thing in Mount Pleasant. We'd consider this AG1 or like our our small lot egg um type district. Now moving up the scale. So three dwelling units per acre. You start to get into what you think of more as a standard sub like suburban subdivision. And here you can start to look at, you know, some uh blocks and their their densities. So this is I was just going to say this one I I didn't this is just explaining the difference in the terms net density and gross density. And that's the same block, but one is measured by net, which is just the buildings, and the another one is gross, which is the buildings and the roads and stuff. And that's important to note because in the code, we set some minimum density requirements

um for the the more dense districts. So someone couldn't get like a moderate density or a high density zone and then just plop one single family home in the middle of something that the board intends for higher density development. So we are setting some minimum density limits and we define that by net acre. So that is the actual lot size. we excise um the public rights of way because in the long run that's easier for us to measure um than the pre-development gross acre is it it's good until it's developed and then it's very hard to measure because you're like where did we draw those boundaries before so we just do it by net acre so they might look a bit high in the ordinance but keep in mind we're not taking into account any streets or you know things like that are we in that net it's really is it net acres or net it's net density based on developable acres. It's that No, it's it's the net post construction acreage. Post construction acreage. So, you have a raw piece of land and wetland. Yep. Any outlots that are non-developable if they were like restricted as non-developable and would not count towards it. So, when I look using this as as an example, if these are private roads, now are you taking those out as well? I understand the public rightway you have a definitive line. We would not take out private roads. We kind of make a hard delineation in our code. There's no real thing as a private road. It's like a driveway with a parking lot. That one, it might look like a road, but it's privately owned. Um those sometimes appear in condominium. That would count towards their net acreage. Whereas if it's public right of way and everyone has access to it, then it would not. Yeah. And that's purely for a measurement thing. like drawing the boundaries on a private roadway is nebulous at best unless there are really clear underlying easements and things. So, it's just easier for us to just do at the property lines. Understood and agreed.

This is eight dwelling units per acre. So, this is where you start to see like, you know, the higher end of a a standard suburban subdivision maybe with like a 50 or 60 foot lot uh depending on the size of the homes into that more urban style uh subdivision. Um and as you know Robin noted below this is the minimum density support regular bus service. So these are often the neighborhoods that we like to locate towards our arterials. Maybe not fronting directly in an arterial be closer to some of the major roads and collector streets. 12 dwelling units per acre. This is kind of your standard urban subdivision style. And then this is an example of mixed housing types which we do see in some areas of the village. Um, and in eastern Rine County where you have things like single family homes mixed in with duplexes or small apartment buildings, those types of things. Here, uh, Robin put together, uh, some examples of how Mount Pleasant neighborhoods fit into those models. So, you see on the left, that's just south of Giddings Road. That's an estate lot, right? You have large lots around kind of a natural area. Then you have a standard subdivision to the left, then a more urban style subdivision in the middle. Then on the right hand side you have uh Tivoli Green just near Village Hall here where when you get into that moderate density you start to see things like 20 unit apartment buildings. Um still you know not generally not more than two to three stories um but are in uh a little bit more of a multi-unit building configuration. Uh, and then finally, the RH, which we don't have a lot of in Mount Pleasant. That's a mid-rise building. Like we said, I think Fountain Hills, maybe a couple other examples. We don't have a lot of multi-story residential. It's not to say we couldn't in the future. The code intends for it, but um, you know, that's

generally where it is now. Um, where you have more than more than 30 units a building, it's it's typically in those types of senior living facilities right now. So, that's how it plays out. Um when you look at the lot requirements that we've built around re is half an acre to 10 acres uh a minimum lot width of 100 ft and the uh units per acre are somewhere between generally 0.1 and two units an acre. So that's the the very low density stuff that we started out with. And building height is two stories. RL, standard subdivision. That's uh those rules are pretty much unchanged from our our current residential guidelines. So between 55 and 120 ft. Um and the units per acre are somewhere between one and about seven. And then the building height limitation is also two stories. moving into that new neighborhood uh dense, you we start allowing things like um town homes or uh to appear in these neighborhoods or small lot single family. Um so you have a 35 to 240 ft wide and the density ends up being somewhere between six units an acre and about 30 units an acre on the very high end. Um, and the maximum building height would be three stories in RM. Uh, I'll pause there. The RN is really meant to be the catchall, right? Where you could see anything from a single family home to like a six-unit apartment building. We limit the number of attached units to six. So, you're not going to see more than like six town homes in a row in that neighborhood. Um but that's that's our kind of like you might see a little bit of everything zone. Um I like that though. Then moderate density of a PUB kind of a Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Um and trying to allow, you know, some of our

neighborhoods on the east side, you know, we've had a couple CSMs of for lot splits and other odds and ends over there in 2025. So trying to encourage in our more urban, older neighborhoods on the east side of the village to allow for more building flexibility and allow those people to if they want to put a six-unit apartment building in, they can under some specific rules and regulations. And you find those types of buildings over there anyways. So we kind of limited them out for a while and now we're saying like, well, they already exist in those areas. Let's allow them back in. And if people want to invest in those neighborhoods, who are we to say you can't build what's already there? um moderate density residential. This has been our kind of most popular apartment style that largely remains unchanged. So lots between 35 ft wide and 360 ft wide. Um units per acre are somewhere between 9 and 50. I would say they average out on a net typically in the 15ish range of what we have now. That's what like ti tivoli would be. And then the building height again threetory maximum. And then finally, the RH that's somewhere between 35 feet wide and a,000 feet wide. Uh upwards of 85 units an acre. Um that because that's where we allow up to a six-story building. So that's where you'd see like a denser multif family. And uh the last point here, oh here's a a zoomed in version of that. I think that's it. Um so I'll leave it on here. The last major point that I wanted to make uh for you all is this as a reminder really re-emphasizes um us going to land division as the most land division and zoning changes are the two most important things because that's what the state gives you power to control, right? Like as we've talked about with the old Green Bay Road property, they've had three subdivision plats in front of you until it made it to the board, right? and then even the

board tabled it to ask for more information. Um, and so that's kind of the process working as intended. That's where you have the most control is over those land divisions. So us refocusing on that, trying to write the rules to be like, let's give you power where you have the power and let's like like take away the regulations where we're setting ourselves up to lose. So really refocusing on the importance of good land division. And then paired with that, these zones are tried to be written in a place where there is some overlap. But I think by this presentation, you can see we're trying to prescribe almost like a vibe to each individual zone, right? When you're looking at it, you know, if someone's applying for RM, you some apartment buildings might pop up in that, but they're only they're going to be smaller apartment buildings. But if they apply for RH, some larger apartment buildings might pop up into that. how that gets applied across the site then is a a conversation on land division. So, you know, it's trying to just give you guys the tools to make well-informed decisions when someone submits a a zoning map application to be like, I want to do X on this property, you know, generally how that neighborhood is going to look if you approve that type of thing. So that is uh a long way to say this mostly keeps a lot of the same codes and regulations that we have the flexibilities that we built in and just kind of consolidates it and reemphasizes those two important things. I can answer any questions. Obviously Robin put a lot of this together as well. So he can answer any questions and you know what you all want to do with it. We're open to feedback or if you want to move it to village board we can do that as well. Pleasure. It's good. Do you have wallet size cards of these things we can carry? Uh, that's actually a really good point, Davis. Between this and the outdoor lighting um I think are both large enough changes that we'll work with Shawn and our communications department

to put out some explainers and do some highlights over the summer um and uh fall just to, you know, tell people, hey, we made some of these changes. Here's how the village approached this. Here's what you can do with your property. That kind of thing. here are the holiday lights that you should be concerned about, etc. But we are thinking about postad adoption communications already. Yeah, I think this is great. I know um I know I in these discussions that we had with Sam, I was looking for one more little change, but Sam successfully talked me out of that. And and that concern of mine was where in the uh in the RL where we have single family versus a new development that an infill site or something and it was hard for us to regulate what was happening next to the existing. But it turns out we do have certain authorities in that area that we can mandate lot sizes and so forth to protect the existing neighborhoods was my concern. But I think this is great that we've added the RH is very interesting actually. Um, and now we're not going to have this in time for um well, never mind. Um, for for the Jarlo property, the Brown Road property, the So, if you approve the RH uh zoning designation, if the board approves it on June 9th, then it depends on how quickly you move this forward. Um, you know, if you decide to punt it another month, then they might get their zoning beforehand. But for all intents and purposes, unless you guys really delay this out like six months, most of these new rules would apply to that development because they would need to

come in with land division and zone or not zoning, but the new zoning districts would apply to this. So land division, the individual site development on that would all have to comply with this. So, because based on this and my interpretation, wouldn't that brown road piece want to be reszoned RH because they have those big buildings and so forth? Yeah, generally uh that is um what we are that's what they asked for. Yeah, that's what they asked for and that's what we would recommend. Um it's kind of the the most flexible that includes the ability to do some of those bigger buildings. So, that's why we we pointed them towards that direction and that's why they did it. Um, however, this does remove some of the limits for um, uh, some of the building types. So, I I wanted to point you towards section 90- 110.20 um, where we have uh, the allowed building types. That should be on page two of the ordinance. The one change that we would like to recommend is reallowing detached houses and two-unit houses and twin houses in all of the zoning districts. So, you could still build a single family. This was actually I forgot to go back and modify this table, but one of the last things we added to this entire process this month was that minimum uh the minimum density requirement. Um and so I think that already solves for our concern of someone just we're trying to solve for not someone not putting a single house on an RH property, but I think by setting minimum density requirements, we can solve for that. So, so the twin house now be a P use in the RH. So, correct. Yep. And the TW unit as

well, the Yeah. So, those four essentially at the top right would all become P's. So, people would just have more options. It's just that to meet those minimum density requirements, you're not going to be able to do a lot of large lot single family in those zones. You'd have to do probably smaller lot single family to meet those requirements. So, Rob, sorry. No. On the brown road piece, um I know we talked about a phasing plan on on the other one off of uh off there too. Do you do you see that coming down the pike eventually with that as well? Because 600 units are going to take some time to absorb. Yeah, I think that's exactly it. And why by using those minimum density requirements but reallowing some of these unit types in there, it actually provides more flexibility for them in a phasing plan. So if they ever, you know, did want to get a subdivision plat approved, for instance, here are our our first phase, they have a preliminary plat for their second phase, but they want to reconfigure it to add in more single family, for instance, they could do that. So that's why I'd kind of like to add it back in if that makes sense. Market conditions change over the years. Exactly. I'll chime in and say that because Pike River Crossing is doing very well. um and they're looking to they've told us that they're looking forward to to continuing that type of development. I sense that the RN district would be very popular because that is basically tailor made for that product that they're liking to sell. Um the other thing that I like want to reinforce is what Sam's talking about is basically um making property division happen for these sort of large multi-building multi-unit apartment complexes which we have seen and we've struggled because they kind of seem they end up being like a a kind of a mess of

parking lot oceans and our firefighters and stuff like that have trouble navigating in them because all the addresses are really weird and they don't just they just don't feel necessarily as much like a neighborhood as our older development. So, by kind of making a one building, one lot uh standard that both gives the board and stuff like that more options to weigh in on and we think that it will lead to more um neighborhood like feels for these kind of developments. So, we're looking forward to that. I also will expect them to um maybe try to appeal some of them. Um but we'll see. Yeah, it's kind kind of us drawing a line in the sand and being like we think some level of land division organization can actually be helpful in the long run. Some developers have backed us up on that and other ones are a little bit skeptical and it kind of depends on their style. But I think that is where you know we've liked working with our partners at fiduciary or continental or those types of groups. But on the site planning it is less flexible because in the long run because they want to keep it one big parcel. And so how they split that up in the future then becomes a future village problem, right? Um and we'll cross our bridge when we come to it. But at least for newer developments that come in, we can kind of tell them like, hey, you're at least going to have to think about how these buildings are going to have to be able to stand alone in the future. If you want to divide off one, great. If you want to split the property in half, great. that organization from a site planning perspective is there through these regulations that help us reinforce that type of thing. Yep. When there's HOAs involved, if I'm in a in a condo building and I'm next to a single family home, as a single family homeowner, I don't really want to pay the same amount toward the upkeep of an elevator building, for example. So, there'll be a

different need master associations or or sub associations at some point. I would think if there's any it could be and we'll we'll see how that that shakes out. But this does provide that flexibility or tries to push people towards having that flexibility of you can solve that for a variety of different ways. that. But, you know, with all these developments around Brown Road, can that can Brown Road handle that traffic or is that in the future be Well, that's a good question. I'll talk to you about that after the meeting. I think that's probably outside the scope of this, but we're we're thinking about it. Not necessarily. All right. Any more questions? Go ahead. One more question, Sam. Uh, as much as I say, you know, great job. Uh, and but my question is, is this something that have you got any kind of a feedback? Have you run that by major developers or is it where do you stand on that? Yeah, I mean I just, you know, talked to a developer last week um who has some property under contract who's specifically looking forward to these types of flexibilities because there are a lot of communities if you're looking at something like a forale townhouse, right? Many communities just prohibit a developer from even trying to do that. And so, uh, you know, it's a pretty major developer that I was talking to last week that has some property under contract in the village and they said they'd like to do this. And the reason why is they can build a product and then they're flexible on whether they rent it out, whether they own it, whether they sell off portions of it, they sell it off now or in the future. We're kind of giving them the ultimate flexibility that they used to have, but a lot of communities have like tried to be a little bit more prescriptive in how s certain types of buildings are built. And our whole standpoint is we're going to set some base rules and you're going to have to follow the building code, but in the middle there, we're not going to tell you how to do your site development.

You're going to bring us a cool project and we'll evaluate it. But it puts it back on them to like let the developers be creative and bring us. And so just as recent as last Wednesday, I talked to a developer who wanted to utilize exactly that. And it took them a while to kind of absorb and understand that because they're so used to going into a village and the or a city and that that community tells them here's exactly how you're going to develop this site. And so when we say I don't know, like bring us a cool project and we'll we'll take a look at it. it's more of a partnership on our end to allow them to do that. Once they got their arms around that, they were very excited about the opportunity. So, um I think in general our feedback has been the hardest part has been getting developers to understand how much flexibility we're giving them while still having some base levels of rules. They're just not used to it. And so that has been the toughest part. But they're they're I've not talked to a developer who doesn't like having more flexibility in the long run. It just takes them a bit to absorb. Y for what it's worth, they all like working with you guys. Well, we we try hard and we always are improving, but um it's it's nice to see efforts like this. I mean, this is the I don't know, second or third time that we've talked about, you know, decent updates to our residential guidelines as the market has changed. Obviously, housing is a huge issue and still has been and there aren't a lot of other communities who are having this level of continued conversation about, you know, trying to to improve their processes. So, you know, credit where credit is due. You guys being open to this is just as important as us administering it on the back end. I also think Sam that this is all part of what we've been hearing you know from rine economic development and everyone in terms of the housing crisis and you

know we we sometimes want to liken that way to make more affordable housing to make the houses smaller, make you know the uh use the architecture to make them less expensive to build. And I think the reality is people still want quality housing. And so to have the code be what drives that and allows them to drive the right amount of density to make their project profitable is really critical because we'll find better housing within it. Yeah, I completely agree. Yeah. And I think so I think that and I think I know uh Kenosha is meeting with Cababa right now and doing some things and they were calling me and asking me some questions and and and I based on the questions they were asking me I didn't really think about it until just now they were going the wrong direction. you know, they really were they they weren't going towards why, you know, they wanted to know what made certain projects uh successful in our community. And based on those questions they were asking, I think they were looking in the wrong direction. I think, you know, the zoning flexibility is really what gives the developer, they can figure out their proforma. They know what it's going to take to build the public improvements and so forth. So, yeah, I completely agree on the incentive side. a lot of communities are setting such strict regulations about what goes where that they're backing themselves into a corner saying like we mandate really large lots and then the developers are like great I'm going to need even more money to make that happen and so they're like you know if they're willing to fund that that's great and that community is doing what it wants to do but here in Mount Pleasant where we're kind of this you know we're a big community we have all these different neighborhoods and styles of development we have to think of this like kind of catch-all broad rule situation. We didn't want to be so overly specific that we're backing

ourselves into every development needs an incentive because our rules are the ones that are forcing that on. Developments still might need incentives. It's expensive out there, but at least we know that we can partner with developers to try to get towards a flexible site and remove as much of that ask as possible. Ex right exactly. I agree. So I don't chairman I I don't have a problem if if uh at this point we've looked at this a lot and several times. I think that again we continue to talk about this code as always being a living document and do we think as a commission that we're ready to move this o over to the board for approval so we can start implementing it to see where you know where it's weak spots are or you know but once again to continue to look at any areas that need improvement but this really solves a lot of problems. What would the commission like to do? You want to move forward with this with a formal approval or do you want to I think we should push it down. I agree with that because you know uh any project like that we never will reach where you cannot make any more improvement. There isn't anything that okay we are done. So let's move forward with what we have and and in the future like Sam and Robin they got their hands on you know on the p. So, so, so they will keep on you know looking for an enhancement. We cannot wait for a perfect like solution. So, I would say yes, watch it be implemented, see how it implements and then we you know that's what that's what it's been really since we worked on it many years ago. So, so based on that, I would be willing to make a motion to approve ordinance 092025 amending the code of ordinances chapter 90 divisions 90- 110, 90 through

330, and 90-420 regarding residential districts. Second motion and a second. Any further discussion? No, I think this is great. We really appreciate the effort that Robin and Sam have made, especially giving us the the extra visuals that, you know, unfortunately that is very helpful for us. So, uh, we don't live and breathe this all day long like you guys do, although we certainly are thinking of you most of the day, but um, we appreciate what you've done to help guide us through this process. That's the way I feel about it. Hey, he's taking it up another notch. It's really great. Yeah, I was like always thinking that this one might be confusing, but I had to put small lot single family and like a forplex for our end to show that both were possible. Like, you know, it's it is what it is. But being able to count the number of residential districts on on one hand is uh that's nice. It's nice. I know. It makes Sam really happy. Efficiency. That's our job. All right, then. We had a I have We have a motion. Second. And a second. And a second. Uh call question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Excellent. No staff reports this month. Uh we'll be back next month with our uh kind of quarterly update for the spring. Okay. Can I have one more motion then? Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you, commissioners.