Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

meeting. Um, first on the agenda is call to order and then roll call, please. Basil here. Data here. Roser here. Bazinowski here. Meer here. Okay. Next is the meeting minutes from the June 18th, 2025 meeting. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairperson, I move to approve June 18, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. Second. Okay. Motion to approve and seconded. All in favor? I

opposed. Okay, we're good to go. No, there's no old business. New business. Recommendation of Spring Street Certified Survey Maps CSM2-04. Sam.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant applied to divide the property into three lots. They intend lot one for the first phase of the approved seasons at Spring Street multi-unit building development. They intend lot two for the second phase of that development and lot three for the related storm water detention facility required for the development. The map also dedicates 40 feet to the public for Carrington Boulevard north of Spring Street. That's County Trunk Highway C as shown on the village's comprehensive plan. The village board approved a development agreement with Fred Springstreet HC LLC and Fred Springstreet 2HC LLC that contemplated this map in the approved development phasing. The property is currently zoned AG2. However, the village board approved the RM zoning for that property with ordinance 262022. That zoning shall automatically take effect when the applicant purchases the property per the approval ordinance. The village staff recommends that the plan commission move to recommend approval of CSM2504 to the village board subject to conditions within the endnotes which I'll give a highlight for in a second. The packet you can see the site location, the comprehensive plan, the zoning for the area. Um there's been a few applications subject to this property all related to this season's at Spring Street development including the original zoning, the site plan, and now the CSM. The application follows the land use element of the multi-jurisdictional comprehensive plan for scene county 2035 and neither the village of Mount Pleasant master bicycle plan 2030 nor a park and open space plan for the village of Mount Pleasant 2050 contain any recommendations for the subject property. The application has a a couple updates that we need to see uh that we called out. Um I'll go through those and notes in a second. Um, for the fiscal analysis, as you can see, the estimated taxable value per acre is just

about $3.3 million. Um, it meets a TID open revenue to cost ratio of 1:1, TID closed revenue to cost ratio of 3:1, and a total revenue to cost ratio of 1:1, private to public ratio of 119 to1, which is pretty high. Uh, it is estimated to repay its public liability under standard conditions in three years. The current value for the property is currently just $8,500 because it has an agricultural assessment uh which is 100% of the property. The development agreement estimated both phases of the project would have an improvement value about $85 million. When TID 7 is open, the development is entitled to a municipal revenue obligation of uh about 12.5 uh million at 6% interest. This revenue obligation is primarily intended to reimburse the developer further upfront cost of installing the public improvements for the property including the northwards extension of Carrington Boulevard and the future extension of Rosewood Lane in phase two upon TID closure and normalized tax collections. The project is expected to generate net revenue of approximately $350,000 a year taking public infrastructure and service costs into account. The uh updates that we have in the endnotes as conditions or recommended conditions for approval include a couple minor updates just map uh things that the village requires um for its certified survey maps including uh showing the updated zoning district um that RM district some minimum lot area requirements. Um number three is showing a future road reservation um on the east property line and uh or sorry no the number three is restricting direct access to Spring Street um and uh between the Carrington Boulevard rightway and the future Rosewood Lane

right ofway. um they will have to access the site per their approved site plan off of those more local streets heading north from Spring Street. Um the applicant shall also update the CSM to show some cross access easements between lots one and two. Um because they are subdividing, you know, the full development, they'll have to grant themselves access legally across those properties. uh a couple utility things um that we'd like to see updated now that the village and shown on the map now that the village has uh finished its installation of the sewer and water out there. Um then finally uh changing the lot three uh and just label it as outlot one. The only difference being outlots are not intended for development um for future buildings. And so relabeling that as an outlot instead of a lot. And then finally condition seven which is updating the CSM to show a roadway reservation for Rosewood Lane along the 33 ft uh eastern 33 feet of lot 2. Um and that is per the village board's development agreement with the applicant. if they move forward with phase two, subject to certain conditions, they would be required to dedicate that land. So, we just want it denoted as a future reservation. And we have that uh dedication agreement already signed and sealed. So, uh I can answer any technical questions about the map. Uh the applicant is here if you have any questions uh from fiduciary. Otherwise, uh pretty simple one, just kind of tying up loose ends so they can get started on this development. Anybody?

Sam, just quick question. So, this is going to be right across from where right now on the south side of Spring Street, we have construction going on just right on the other side. Correct. Yep. Just wanted to make sure location and on the uh southwest corner of the lot one on Spring Street, that's the Carrington Boulevard. M and I'm trying to understand when you say leave about 30 ft west of the property east of the Carrington Boulevard. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that please?

Yeah. So if you go to sheet three of the CSM it's the one that shows lots one, two, and three. It says sheet three of six in the bottom corner. Sheet two two and three of six. Ours ours are we're separate. They're good. It's all one the one which shows lot one, two, and three. Yeah. So on sheet three of six on the CSM, um you'll see kind of a 33.01 ft denoted along that east property line. That's where we'd like that road reservation to be. Um so really just their half of the roadway along the entire east all the way to the Spring Street.

Yep. Correct. Um so starting from there moving west we would like uh until you get to Carrington Boulevard um we would like them to note just an access restriction. So um cars won't be able to directly access Spring Street. That's a note from the county. Um they've already gone through their traffic impact analysis and everything. So that's it's more of just a a legal cleanup. But the applicant has agreed to that access restriction. county actually mandated it as part of their review of the traffic for the development. Thank you.

Is there any history of of how this land was subdivided and why? It's kind of an unusual split. Uh it is old enough that there is no other certified survey map on file. So my assumption is it goes back to the original like deed for the property itself which this is like over 50 years. So yeah, most of these old properties were divided via legal description pre 1970s more often than not where farmers could just go into the register of deeds and be like I'm selling this chunk to my son and then the register of deeds would denote the the property split. But there's nothing more recent on file um that we have. Interesting.

I don't know if you found anything else on title, Paul. Yeah. Yeah. Just an old farm property. You're talking about the overall property, but now we're talking about subdividing it now. Correct. So, and I got a couple couple of questions um in regards to this because it sounds like you're going to start the development on lot one that's going to be and then finish up on lot two at a f future date. Is that the plan?

Okay, quick question. Why is the south side of lot two you because you guys delineated that. Why is that got such a break breakup and not a straight line? that due to the site plan um they need to hit certain setbacks from the buildings. So, we worked with the applicant. I'll let Paul to speak to it more if he wants, but um at least from the villages perspective, we reviewed their uh draft plans to make sure that the rear yard setbacks and everything were in compliance. Um when you look at the site plan, there are some green spaces in there and stuff. So, it's not kind of an even property line as it's laid out. some of the buildings are slightly staggered. So to meet those setbacks and then follow some of those green space lines, that's just kind of how it ends up looking without any building context in the map.

Okay? Because because obviously there's any future buildings on that lot too, you're going to have to deal with those irregularities again. That's kind of there's really only one building where it kind of jogs north there. There's one building up there and then some of the other buildings in lot two are that one that building is um oriented kind of east west long ways. So it's that's where it's skinnier and then some of the other buildings on lot two are oriented north south and that's where the property's been wider.

Okay. And just to continue that thought here in regards to lot two um because you're going to be using lot three is well an out lot now uh as the storm water drainage two things um lot two obviously you're going to have to do the development of that I mean at least at least the grading and do something with it because it's going to be adjacent to the the outlot now or the storm water drainage. My second question is is where is that out the drainage going? I'll let Paul speak to their individual site grading plans and stuff. Do you have any other questions for me while I'm up here? No. Okay.

Your name and address, please. Paul.

Paul with Fidiciary Real Estate Development, uh 789 North Water Street, Milwaukee. Um with regard to some of these questions, it it is a little confusing seeing these outlines without the buildings on them. So we worked with Sam to um just kind of figure out how we could break this up in order to accommodate two phases of the development similar to kind of how Brown the our project down at Brown Road ended up. So, you know, with that, um, we kind of know that the first phase is just rough numbers about twothirds of the project and that's how we kind of left the, uh, the last I think it's five where's six buildings um, I've managed to confuse myself now. Um, to the second phase. So, that that's how this is really looking at and it's it's just kind of a conservative approach on our part. The plan would be to roll into the second phase as we are still, you know, hopefully on site and working towards um, you know, the completion of phase one. So, and again, my second part of my question was in regards to finishing lot two, at least grading it to the the finished grade so that you're going to because that's going to be the part that's going to be flowing into the storm water drainage. And then where's that drainage going?

Um, I believe it flows to um, and I apologize, my civil engineer is on vacation, so I couldn't bring him. Um, I believe it there's a there's a ditch and a wetland behind it. I think it finds its way into that, but only in like backto back 100year flows or something like that. I think that's about how it works. Well, I'm assuming that Tony and his group look at this, right? Okay. Yeah. In fact, it's we just got our approval letter from Tony yesterday. Oh, okay. Okay. That's good. Yeah.

I just wanted kind of curious because you're kind of landlocked there. like it's in the back of the lot. A lot of times the storm water is up front so that you can you know we we can move it down, you know, through the storm water system or the ditches, but so I didn't know where Yeah, that that site actually does flow all the way back towards that. So it's um it's really kind of letting gravity help us out with Okay. collecting the water in that area. Paul, uh a couple of question. And uh is it going to be uh a similar kind of condos and apartment that you have at the seasons as a brown road? Yeah, they'll be identical almost identical with a clubhouse and everything.

The clubhouse. Yep. And I think the colors are different and some of the brick things like that. But yeah, this is what we call our season's product. So they're 20 unit buildings. So they're virtually identical to the Bron Road units. Approximately how many units are we The first phase is 220 units and in lot one. Yes. Okay. And um again I think it's five additional um in phase two.

Okay. Okay, I was just curious and although the last question is again just curiosity uh I know that there's a lot of process you know the uh the site plan and everything has to be approved by but based on right now what you know and what Sam knows uh what do you think is is your schedule to start the construction uh September this year. Yes. That's pretty fast. Yeah. Well, we've been working on this for three years. It's good. You know, I I I thought you might say like next year or something like that.

No, I I believe we close on the property tomorrow if that hasn't been rescheduled. Um we got our approval letter from Tony yesterday. Um we're scheduled for both reine uh water and sanitary for their August meeting, which puts us I think the first week of September for common council. Um I'll be working with Sam for erosion control permits. So it's it's gearing up um for sec first or second week in September that we'll be starting. Okay. And my last comment is a comment I think as I talked to you. Uh FYI, I have a friend who was looking to move into uh to downsize to rent and they looked at many uh condos and apartments in Mount Pleasant and uh they like your your seasons at Brown the best.

Oh, good. So my compliments to you because you know they were highly impressed and and they're going to be living over there. So, you know, so that's what I was saying. If this is going to be same as you as that one, it's going to be pretty high class. Yeah. Y. Yep. That's the plan. Y. So, thank you for that.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? There's there's actually a rather large drain tile underneath that that wet land and that ditch that does um you know our our pond will what's called infiltrate. So, it's really our pond infiltrates into the soil and I'm guessing that at at some point it finds its way down over to that that drain tile or it's more like a culvert at this point. I think that's how that's working. But

I I believe so. It's I know it's designed to meet all the standards. Um and and I know we had talked to Tony about this starting probably last November. So um that's it's been um it's been reviewed and uh it's had quite a bit of um conversation about how all of that has worked and Tony is comfortable with it.

I yes and no. I mean, it's the way that our the the DNR looks at this and everybody enforces it is, you know, we're not allowed to have any more water runoff leave the site pre-development versus post-development. So, it has to be the same. So what we do is build these large ponds and they infilt the so the water really just soaks back into the ground for the most part unless there's any sort of a huge backtoback like 100year flood something like that then there's overflows built in but that's a rarity.

Hey Taj use your microphone too. They they pick they can't pick it up. So that it anybody else? Anybody else? Thank you, Paul. Appreciate it. Okay, I'm looking for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to recommend the approval of the Spring Street uh CSM-25-04 as presented. Certified survey map. I should set that too. I second. Got a motion in a second. All in favor? I opposed. Passes unanimous. Okay, good luck and peeps.

Finally see something going up out there. That'll be nice. Okay, the next item on the agenda is the recommendation of ordinance 112025 at 2702 and 2706 Chry Road zoning map amendments ZMA25-07.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant applied to amend the zoning map for the properties from C4, which is general industrial to C3, which is highintensity commercial. The applicant wishes to open a daycare center for more than 30 enroles. The city of Versine generally surrounds the parcel on the north side of Chory Road and this parcel formerly held the Humane Society um before it moved out uh adjacent to 90th Street there. The village staff recommends that the plan commission move to recommend approval of ordinance 11-2025, 2702, and 2706 Chory Road zoning map amendment ZMA 257 to the village board. On the second page of this packet, you can see the site location and how this one is uh kind of really uh surrounded by uh it uh there's industrial to the south of Chory Road. Um there's some of the new utility storage that was built there as part of some sanitary projects. Um and then to the east there's some industrial in the city of Versine and then to the north and west there's some residential um within the city of Versine. So uh an interesting mix of land uses there. Uh the comprehensive plan shows this as industrial uh and it's currently zoned C4. Um the uh site history, the Humane Society was there for a long time until they built that new one. So recent site history is just some zoning compliance permits on file. And then this map application, the application aligns with the land use element of the comp plan. The C3 zoning district allows for both commercial and industrial uses. So when it says industrial out there, um that's how uh the village staff viewed it as C3 still allows um industrial uses. So this zoning uh application is permitted. The bike plan recommends a bicycle trail

along Chory Road. However, the application does not need trigger the need for the applicant to install that improvement and a park and open space plan for the village of Mount Pleasant does not recommend anything for the subject property. the village staff for a fiscal analysis uh do not anticipate a significant change in the assessed value uh for the property. Uh any future improvements for the subject property may result in changes to the property's assessments. The current property value for the collective properties is about $580,000 which generates just under $10,000 in annual tax revenue. the zoning map amendments uh procedures in the ordinance which are listed in their control the application procedures. Uh the applicant posted the notice signs and everything required by ordinance and for neighbor communications. They also mailed out a uh mailer notice to surrounding properties and provided us the list of people who they mailed that out to. As of uh so far, we haven't received any public feedback from those mailers and the applicant hasn't uh you know sent us anything as well. Um we'll check in again with the applicant before the public hearing on Monday regarding those. Um other than that, we don't have any conditions and recommend approval. Any thoughts of what they're planning to do with the halfacre vacant parcel to the east? roughly

current is they'll likely keep it open as part of you know child care centers per state law as supposed to have a certain amount of um open space per student. So I think they're going to use it for that in the short term. Um we'll likely work with the applicant to merge the two properties together if that's what they're going to use it for in the long run. Um, and we'll work through that with them when they submit their zoning compliance permits for the actual use if the zoning is approved. Get one more tax key number off the rolls. Right.

Exactly. Yeah. Particularly a vacant tax key number um that is uh there. It's also an old platted property as you can see on the survey. The property line still goes out to the mi middle of Chory Road. So, we'll work with the applicant if they actually want to dedicate the right of way and, you know, stop paying some marginal land taxes on, you know, 40 ft of Chory Road, the village would accept that dedication and, you know, they can more clearly square off where their property lines are versus the right of way. Okay.

I move to recommend approval of ordinance 11-2025 2702 and 2706 Chory Road zoning map amendment ZMA-25-07 to the village board. I'll second. Got a motion and a second for approval. All in favor? Opposed? Passes unanimous. And Mr. Chair, if I could, while I'm still standing up here. Yes.

I know we don't have any staff reports. Um, but I just wanted to interject before Robin comes up to talk about the zoning uh text amendment that, um, Chair Driver, uh, informed me last month that he is actually moving out of state later this fall. Um, and so he will be stepping down from the plan commission when he's no longer a village resident. I believe he'll be back next month in August, but after that, um, you know, he will likely step down as long as his home construction in in the Carolinas goes according to plan. So, I thought I would let the commission know that Chair Driver, if you'd like to reach out to him, he'll be here next month as well. But also, if you have any ideas for anyone else who might be a good commissioner uh to to replace him, uh, please reach out to President Degrroot, who makes those appointments to the village board. And if any of you are interested in chairing the commission, um, also please discuss that with pleasant degrroot or administrator Simons. Typically, we like to onboard the permanent chairs a little bit too. So,

I thought I would just interject that for you all to to stew on for the next month and then we can wish Davis well next month when he's back. Sounds good. I can see Joe Meyer looking at you and uh and making plan how he's going to spend all that extra money he's going to make.

All right, on that note, let's see here. You're all set. Um last item is I got it buried someplace here is discussion of 90-420.10 parking area layout and design zoning text amendment. And it's only for discussion today. That is correct. I get I get the uh real exciting stuff. If by exciting I mean dry. I'd never when I was went to school I didn't know I would be able to write this much about uh one foot uh parking lane exceptions but you know dreams dreams. Okay. So this discussion is um to source opinions from you guys on how to go about amending the code for 90-420 uh 100 parking area layout and design which requires a 90° perpendicular parking when a 90° perpendicular parking lot. The parking stalls have 9 feet width and 17 bit feet length and the drive aisles must be 22 feet wide. This is according to table 90 uh-240-2 which is here. Um and so uh we have approved the board of zoning appeals has approved two variances to this in short order within the past few months. Um and we've also kind of identified one additional development um the Johnson Bank building uh that it just doesn't get amended. They'll have to apply for variance as well. Um generally as you know staff we kind of view variance requests and non-controversial approvals of those

requests as the canary in the coal mine. uh as far as maybe this isn't working as intended. Um and when doing some analysis um and it kind of I break it down in the parking adjustments available. Um all of that section is talks about how you can get leeway when it comes to parking lots. Um, so the just generally these apply to parking lots over a certain number of spaces. They don't apply to work spaces. So if it's like for ambulances or it's the truck parking behind a loading dock or something like that, that doesn't apply there. Um so the actual statement um at the top it says parking areas must be designed in accordance with 90-420-2. So that must is kind of takes priority of anything else. So we haven't been allowing deviations from this. Um and that's kind of unlike other parts of the or ordinance. So, um the community development director can approve exceptions to parking minimums uh with 420.40G and maximums um via 420.50 parking increases. However, parking minimums or maximums don't affect the size of stalls or the drive aisles. The director can also um per this table can interpolate um or extrapolate what however you want to word that requirements for layouts that are not shown on this table. So if it's not one of these angles then the community development director has the authority to basically come up with requirements. Um however if it's on this table then it

needs to conform to those requirements. Uh the director can um the plan commission, you guys can approve conditional use via um the alternative plans and layouts for large vehicles and semi-tractor truck and trailer parking. We've had a couple of those before. Um but this these parking lots that have been applying for this are not for heavy vehicles or tractor trailer trucks. So that doesn't apply. Um so additionally parking style sizes and widths um they're not addressed in the alternative compliance via the architectural regulations and they're not under authorized administrative adjustments which is in section 565. Um, however, administrative adjustments usually give kind of 10 to 15% leeways on a lot of different things about a property, including maximum number of parking spaces and minimum number of parking spaces are both something that can be under there. So, there's a lot of exceptions that can be made that are around this general topic, but doesn't hit this exact one. And because of our phrasing at the top here as far as must conform, we've been kind of forced to stick to it. Um, so, uh, as there is no power to modify the parking layouts given in the ordinance, staff can only offer relief to the applicants via application for variance, which two have done and two have been approved. There have also been some other developments where we missed this because it's a very minor thing. I'm not always checking every single parking space, you know. Um, both applications have been approved without much discussion. Staff is is committed to correcting flaws in the zoning code. Um, so we are basically sourcing your guys's opinion. So,

um, in general, the, uh, parking lot standards are designed to do a few things. Um they're they're designed to preserve aesthetics, safety, and reduce the amount of unnecessary imperous surface in the village to mitigate storm water runoff. Um and we do acknowledge that flexibility um in other parts of the code is not here. So we want to do that. So, the options are as as forward and I outlined these in the packet. And I also didn't really spell out how we feel about these options because I wanted you guys to come into this for with an open mind. So, I'm going to go over these. We're going to I'll open the floor and then I can tell you basically how staff opinion of these options are and proceed from there. But the options are um one basically the exception process for parking minimums and maximums. So that requires a possibly a parking study as well as storm water mitigation um subject to approval from the community development director. Uh two is the interpolation allowance in the chart itself. uh we can basically rephrase that to um kind of apply to lots of different things so that's if it's not unreasonable and it's approved by our village engineer and by a professional engineer that it's can be approved. Um the architectural exception process um which we have talked about a couple times this year. Generally that process um uh requires that a property go above and beyond uh requirements in other areas and present a truly exceptional uh result in order to be for certain requirements to be waved. Um, we can add a provision to the authorized administrative adjustments that's already the statute

um, organized for that sort of thing, which basically notifies adjacent property owners, waits for any potential objections, um, and generally has a set percentage limit. Uh we can amend the conditional use permit process and the alternative plans and layout for large vehicle and semi-tractor truck and trailer parking to be approved by the village board and plan commission. Um basically that is the existing thing to approve an alternative parking lot layout. So that could that could apply. Six um rewrite the parking dimensions the actual overall of it to provide a blanket flexibility. Um so plus or minus 10% or something like that and uh number seven is continue as is and require v variances for the exceptions. Um so a lot of those things that's a lot to throw at you I know but we need we like to be thorough and we don't want to necessarily kind of push that's why we were talking about this. Um and so you guys can figure if you guys have any questions of me we can stop at this point and I can answer some questions. You can also mix and match if you like a particular requirements because all of these have different criteria in order to meet these kind of things. Um, so you can mix and match that. So I know this is something that's pretty small, but there are other aspects that this could apply to. Um, so while I'm saying that it's by the 9 by8 stall and 24 foot drive aisle, it also would be any variation to any of these parking lot arrangement or layouts. A lot of times we just get kind kind of complaints about Dodge Rams or something of similar size. Now, personally, I'm I don't think we should design every parking space

around a Dodge Ram because not everybody drives a Dodge Ram and you know that's that those are big. So, but you know, if a private property owner wants to come in and accommodate that, say it's for the Garden Center or Lowe's or whatever, that makes sense to accommodate larger trucks. So, we want to be able to have that flexibility. Now, go. Okay. I got a real quick question because when you have seven and a half foot widths, the property owner in obviously if somebody came in and said, "I'm doing all mine in seven and a half foot widths." What would you what would you say to them? I mean,

because I mean obviously somebody pulls in with a big old truck. Um, you've now eliminated either they have to identify it as a compact car space or something because otherwise you're just going to have a a mess out there. Yeah, we have some allowances for some compact car spaces which um have to be only a certain percentage of spaces um and would uh you know that's there's a call out for that in the code as well as far as compact car stuff. Do do they need to be marked? Yeah. So as such

identified. Okay. So going like and and we we try to just kind of blanket say that it can go either way. Um but we've only gotten it a request to go up and not down so far. Um, you know, and and if somebody's going down and if they're saying, "Hey, well, we here at the uh ethically sourced vegan produce stand, well, we only get do Priuses in here and they're small cars, so and I drive a small car, so maybe that's their clientele." And if they want to stick with that, that they can, but um, for the most part, they still have to meet other parts of the regulation. That's why we're sourcing it. Sorry. But you don't want them to be putting smaller spaces in to meet the minimum requirement for parking spots for their business because then you're it's jamming a whole lot into one small space.

Honestly, we've only been coming into problems with maximums. Like the minimums are pretty low right now. Um and that's for good reason. Um we parking lots don't typically pay tax bills. Um, and parking lots also add to tax bills via storm water. You know, it's all going to run off somewhere. So, we want the property owners to basically pick the minimum amount they think's necessary.

One thing that I would have a question of with the seven and a half space foot spaces is that as these buildings mature and occupancies change, parking requirements would sometimes change as well and vehicle sizes change. Um, so perhaps there's uh definitely a need to limit the number of what I'll call substandard spaces at 7 and a half foot because someday um it might be a different use that would cater more to a larger clientele or clients with larger vehicles.

Yeah. Um, and that's I guess that's a I didn't necessarily think about, you know, whether or not somebody could come in and get a blanket approval for 7 and 1/2 ft spaces all over. Um, you technically could park a car in that a space that small. Um, but it is it is tight. There's uh there's a article just the other day about parking lots size as in Milwaukee city hall and how it wasn't big enough for a particular alderman. So, that was pretty funny when I laughed. M Mr. Chair, do you mind if I weigh in a second? Yeah, absolutely.

I just want to reframe the conversation. I I think we can all acknowledge that some of the applicants are finding difficulty with some of the parking stall sizes. We've tried to size them so they're on the smaller end to reduce storm water impact. Um but in acknowledging it, we're not asking you to think too hard about how big the sizes are. I think we've clued in and we're currently working with that. The question in front of you is if someone doesn't want to build those sizes, how should we provide them that relief instead of requiring them to apply for a zoning variance? Okay.

Um, which the board of appeals has now granted twice in 2025. What's the appropriate kind appropriate kind of alternative compliance procedure? So, that's what we'd like to um, you know, kind of get your your feedback on. Typically the way that we've been bending lately is to um give a little and get a little, right? So we have our standard sizes, but if you wanted to come in with all sizes that fit an F-150, you're going to have more storm water. So what do we link to that? I think that's why one of our our preferences for a potential solution is to say you can have flexibility, but you might have to incorporate other storm water features into your site like bio swailes or rain gardens to help offset it. So the um essential like you can build it by right, but then if you want to do more than that, we're we're requiring a little bit of a higher site aesthetic standard for those types of spaces. So I think what we'd really like your feedback on is is that an appropriate one? Do you want us to just kind of instead interpolate sizes as Robin said? Do you want us to go to a different exemption process that perhaps goes through a different route? So you know what what do you think is an appropriate way for uh applicants to kind of find that relief without needing a zoning variance?

Yeah. And the thing is 10% is a spitball figure. Yeah, obviously we'll come back with that if that's not the number or whatever, but we're just trying to figure out what process exception process would you guys like to use if any for this kind of thing. So other questions in number four, authorized administrative adjustments. What is involved in this particular ordinance paragraph? What what does that say exactly? Uh so you want do you reject anything specifically Sam or either one of us to you Robin it's fine if you had the answer that's great

oh I do um it's okay uh so basically that is what we always like to coin the mini variances um where um there is some flexibility on certain um usually measurementbased portions of the code whether it's height setbacks um and uh a couple other parking lot numbers and stuff like that where somebody can apply for an administrative adjustment and get relief of about 10%. So if there's a 25 foot setback, somebody can apply for an administrative adjustment to get 15% off that which is 2.5 plus 75 which is 3.25 off which puts you at 21.75 ft. So it gives you a little bit. It won't be able to get you down to like 15 feet or 10. you would still need to go to the ver the the board of zoning appeals for that, but that generally is a route that requires an exception that needs to be approved by the community development director and does notify neighbors, but it doesn't require a full board of zoning appeals hearing for just a couple feet. So, that is what that is for and it was designed for. Um, it it does require some extra steps. Um, and uh, usually it's about a we do have a two-eek waiting period where after a mailer goes out, we wait to see if somebody wants to raise the issue. Anything you want to add, Sam, on that?

Well, you guys ought to do whatever you got to do to avoid variances because they shouldn't be rubber stamps, which it sounds like these would be. So, you need to probably specify a certain number of parking spaces per development and then maybe adjust accordingly to make sure that they fit and they actually function. You know, like a Lowe's, you're not going to want everything in the 120 lot thing being seven and a half feet wide because all these Yahoos are driving these god-awful big pickup trucks that you know, Wow, that's I just came tell us how

I just I just spent 1,200 miles on the interstate from Colorado to here and it's oh my goodness these people it's a prefer it's a preference of vehicle that's you can't you know you can't pass judgement on that doulies on the back is not going to fit in 7 and 1/2 ft you know I actually I like the idea of of being have you guys have the authority to do that but why not just do it from the standard up going either from compact to standard or universal So, you know, instead of saying 10%. You're saying, "Hey, we should you should be, you know, universal is 8 and a half. Well, we're going to allow you to go to nine, you know, and you guys should be able to make that decision." I was going that way. Yeah. The administration.

So, you can keep you can still keep all of your uh your different uh identities for the universal compact and standard, but you can go up or down based on give you the flexibility to do that on your own. And then if the um applicant doesn't have uh if you can't reach an agreement with the applicant, then would they be able to go to the zoning board of appeals and say, "Well, we couldn't get staff to see it our way, so we're going to go to the that would be an appropriate time to go there." But, you know, as it appears now, it's just automatic.

Yeah. And I mean even then with the compact Saturn universal the sizes that have been required are not specifically delineated. Um it would be bigger than even those spaces. That's why we had the 10% which could go up but not down or you know if it goes down those are classified as compact spaces or something like that. Um we could certainly work that out. We just were kind of thinking what is the best me best method. we can kind of go over what uh our opinion is of how these methods rank. If you want to hear that or if you want to ask me more questions and hash it out for a second, that's cool, too. Yeah.

Yeah. Um the same.

Yeah, I I agree. And um and you know, if Costco and Cayman here, these parking spaces might not even fit one of their shopping carts. So, like, you know, uh we we we want that to be flexible and we want um but we don't want necessarily want everybody to go big just because it's the easiest. um that seems like it's a justification like hey this is our clientele this is who's showing up but we don't necessarily want that for every thing that's why we kind of want an exception process I mean don't you guys reserve the right to change according to based on

I I agree we should but I with our reading of the code we can't right now well I would get rid of the word must the first thing maybe should would be an appropriate switch, but something, you know, it's strictly holding those dimensions is going to cause people go to variances all the time. And you don't want variances to show up and be automatic because it loses its authority essentially. You know, the board should say this is not going to fly. You can't, you know, you can't have a half foot setback with a drop forge.

Yeah. So that one that suggestion would be somewhere between two and six on on the board. So let me chime in. Oh, sure. Rob, go ahead.

Well, I'm glad you have a seven option because minus two uh commissioner, we are seven people. And my guess is normally when you ask seven people, you get seven opinions and you have seven options. Anyway uh no I I was okay with you know I'm listening to all the discussion I'm okay with the number five and and other one but the way Sam described the way he articulated very well I think that number I would be more inclined toward number five because for any kind of a variation special requests you know for large vehicles or whatever that it he it gives a staff to review that it should come to the planning commission and then he give you a set of new new eyes you know and and then to the will board I mean I was open to all of these and I'm listening but the way Sam described based on that my input is I think number five should be considered very seriously

okay well please don't get upset when we we we rank what I have like kind of a ranking of what our opinions are as far as I said you gave seven option you asked seven people you're going to get seven opinions

exactly. So I went ahead and kind of ranked them as far as staff we agree as far as like in a tier list of what our most preference is and I will kind of go and and say what uh why on each one of these and then I guess we can kind of fill in that in there. So uh this is done through like what is known as a tier list which is you know S for S S through F S S standing for superb which is on the top. Um so at the bottom we would put the cup process which is number five for the reason that where it's currently having one hearing and one meeting now it would be two and that also one of those is the most important hearing that we have twice a month which is the village board. So we do want to save them time. Um so and with the CUP process being what it is, we actually have to create more specifications um in order to enforce it at all. So you in order to deny a CUP, it has to have certain set of criteria and you just basically go off and check a list and if they meet it, you pass it. So, we don't necessarily think that's the best one, but if there's needs to be some additional oversight or um uh another meeting, that's something that we can consider. So, I'll go through this quickly. I don't want to spend too much time. Um and D would be the variance status quo. What we have right now, you know, if they have an exception, they go to the board. The board is fairly has been generous. I can't remember the last time that they declined a variance request. Um and that is its own topic. Um because uh the the laws and standards of when and when they shouldn't be passed interpretation. Um and C administrative

adjustments. Um uh that's perfectly fine. This is like mid uh the process works. We've had it before. It's relatively unobtrusive. It only costs a developer 10 days. Uh the only negative about this is there's really no give. Um you can get the allowance, but there's nothing else about it to maybe me offset it. I'm sorry. I thought that was part of the administrative adjustment. An adjustment to me is a give and take. So blend of that. An adjustment is like a blanket small exception. There's no um there's no extra requirements for that exception. Um in the code now.

In the code now. Yeah. So, um, sort of a a B tier would be a blanket like sort of a 10% leeway or whatever percent you decide which would basically just adjust the numbers in the table get eliminate the must. Um, and so those are just the ranges. Um, the negative of that is that again there's nothing to offset somebody going larger or anything like that. Um the architectural allowance exceptions is almost the opposite of that. Um we like that but it also the standards and criteria are too strict. Um you know we you don't you don't need to basically have uh an art a worldrenowned architect designing the building in order to get a two feet in your drive aisles which is one of the things. It shouldn't you know don't have to meet financial standards or something like that. Um so and that doesn't seem to ma match well. Um a tier which is great um would be using that interpolation cause. Um I think that's in the exact portion of the code that we're talking about. Um and that would also be with a considering of the language of must gives the authority to the community development director. I would say that almost kind of implicitly follows that it would have to be submitted by a certified engineer and then approved by our village engineer. Um that that works um and then s um would be for us which is superb uh p expanding the exception process for the parking minimums and maximums that's currently in the code for parkings and minimums and maximums. they have a couple of criteria for it, what they have to provide as well as um you know what they what the range is that they

can get um and that is in the parking part of the code. It doesn't take any extra time um and there's no extra costs on behalf of the developer. Um and that's our opinion colorfully presented. If if you played a lot of video games like Sam and I do, this is relatively hilarious. But I'll just let you know that.

Yeah, everybody likes a good uh chart or listicle. So um so now seeing that discussion or questions or thoughts is there a blending of administrative adjustments and the superb is there some way to incorporate some of the best parts of each?

Yeah, I think so. um you could basically talk about it um you know reference the administrative adjustment part in that section of the code and put additional criteria on it and still have to re like call like basically ask neighbors and stuff like that. So I think yeah you can any other thoughts? Yeah. Have you guys taken um any of these processes through some of the more recent ones that were approved that through the variance? Did you take go back and say, "Okay, how would these work if we did it each of these different ways?" Did you guys go through that process at all?

I think we did for the um Johnson Bank one that you guys saw recently.

Um because they're one of the ones they didn't actually apply for the variance. No, they did. They were one of the ones. Sorry. They applied for the variance um and then they actually applied for some of the administrative adjustment procedures that you approved for allowing a singlestory building in that more intense commercial district if you remember that change a couple months ago. Um and one of the uh criteria in that is that they actually uh install some green infrastructure methods. So permeable pavers, rain garden, storm water. and they actually have some bioellail rain gardens um in their storm water features. And so when we're thinking about potential options here, we're like we always look for ways that we can encourage those good features by potentially double counting them. Um so if they're if they're doing one good thing that can count for flexibility in other areas. Um, and so in that regard, that's kind of what drove some of our rankings here is, hey, if there if we have a circumstance where someone might be applying for a different type of exception potentially for architecture, in what ways can we cross count those exceptions while still um pushing forward good design and good village goals and objectives?

Because we always think about, well, why are we regulating this? Why is one space worse than the other? And obviously the the a lot of the things is more black top equals more runoff equals more heat island effect. So then the thing that we can actually do that directly correlates and mitigates that is additional landscaping and additional storm water features. So those do correspond to each other.

So they did get a variance. I get that. But what I'm getting at is is there something that which one of these would have worked best for you guys to be able to do that without the variance? That's what I'm saying. If they would have sat down with you and said, "Hey, if we would had have been able to do S or A or B, whichever one, well, you know,

they did D. So, anything above D in our opinion would have been much more applicable. So, they did D and they got approved for a B uh at the same time. And basically they got an exception to having a one-story and where a twotory is required and that was on a staff level but then to go to the board of zoning appeals to get a one foot exception on the on the parking spaces. So they had to go to the higher body to get what we felt was the lesser exception.

Um so any of those would work. Um that's why we're putting them all in front of you. Well, you're saying is it also mean that if they don't like the variances, they're going to go higher up. Uh there was nothing higher than the board of zoning appeals. So I know I know but my point is that the uh the developers when they design if they're not pleased with the decisions of the variance then they're going to go to the higher up. So

uh so oh yeah so if that's the thing if so if our exception process if they're not if we give an exception and it's not if they we say no or it's too much for what we can approve yes they do go to the variance board which has or the board of zoning appeals which has the authority to grant a variance as the guidance says the minimum that is required but really there's nothing written about how much of a variance you can authorize. It's a bit silly in my mind but it is what it is.

Okay. Anyway, because of that I thought that the I think I mean the more I think about that the more I think is the approved come back to the planning commission and the board I would give it a serious consideration. Let me ask you another question. these dimensions of the the width of the parking lot, how do how do they fit for the parking lot when they have two lines? Because I personally like two lines separation because many people have the habit of when there's a one yellow line, they park right 6 in, three inches before the line. So I like the two line where the car not where the doors are not bumping into each other. So my question is these uh the width dimensions in each option you have how do they fit in that design?

Um I mean I don't think they do uh currently that's I mean I but I think that if we want to have that flexibility to prove something like that we we need a different method. I mean um so then you're talking about variance.

Yeah. or varian some one of these types of variances to do it on a staff level like we don't want to bring these in front of the board of zoning appeals all the time or um you know in front of village board and you guys every time because we think you guys could be using your time better even just not being here you could be at home enjoying your family and I mean like it gets to the point like in Milwaukee like if you see their board of zoning appeals like their agendas. It goes all day. It goes from the morning all the way to the night and there's like 50 in a day because so many parts of their code have to require variance to get around and it's something that we don't want to have to resort to because eventually they get so used to it that that's just how they operate. That's how what that's what the official approval pro process is. It's the board of zoning approvals.

Yes. Yeah. County was like that for a while anyway. Seemed like

I think we've heard a good amount of feedback today. I I think if the commission is amendable, we can take a stab at trying to merge a couple of these together based on the feedback of what you've liked and what you haven't. We'll bring that forward to you all next month with a proposed ordinance and then you can make a recommendation to the village board if you like it or you can table it for further discussion. But I think we have enough feedback here today um that I think we have a good amount of direction about what each of you would like to see incorporated into flexibilities but also standards and and you know what you want to see. And I'm sure we'll hear from our missing members on on the subject at some particular point in time.

I still think Davis can chair from South Carolina. Like I think he can just hop on a plane and Yeah. or zoom it in. Yeah. All right. Well, that's that's it for me unless anybody had any last thoughts. I know that was exciting stuff. But we care about process here and uh and results. So, we have no staff reports for this month. Um and next month will be on August 20th, 2025 at 1 p.m. I assure you our agenda for that month will not be as light. Okay, that's all I got to say about that. All right, on that note, I'll take one last motion. Move to adjourn.

Second. All in favor? Let's go home.