Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

He's trying to. Good afternoon and welcome to the Village of Mount Pleasant Plan Commission for August 20th, 2025. Roll call, please. Meer here. Wizler here. Washburn here. Batia here. Basil here. Driver here. Next on the agenda would be the approval of the meeting minutes from July 23rd, 2025. Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the July 23rd, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion? I will be abstaining as I was not here. As will I. I wasn't here either. All right. So, two abstensions. All in favor? I.

Motion passes. Next under new business, approval of SN211 multi-tenant project sign application for 711 Washington Avenue. I guess Robin howdy. All right. Uh this one is about as up up and down as easy easy as they come. Um the applicant applied on behalf of the owner which is this is the Delta Marriott Hotel next to Case High School. Um for a project sign exception of the sign code. Um so I review all the sign permits. This sign is a 11 foot 2 in tall. The limit is 10 ft tall. Um, however, when there's a case of multiple commercial tenants wanting to share signage, they can combine some of their allowances together um to have a larger sign. We have examples of that with many of our shopping centers. Um, and as they have multiple businesses on the same property, they are elig eligible for it. Um, so and it's also just a small increase in height. Um and this goes in front of the comm planning commission and is approved and is done. So um we recommend approval of this because it meets all the conditions for why we have this carve out in the zoning code. Any questions?

Questions? No, I I I like the sign. I think it's a nice looking sign. I think that it has a height. It goes over on the height. So, I know that's what we'll be partially approving as well. But I like the consolidated sign. And I think that within that Delta Hotel complex, there's a number of businesses that I really honestly wasn't even aware of. And I think that it's, you know, going to be a good consolidation along that route and uh a pleasantl looking sign. So, does this impact any signage on the buildings themselves?

No, this is only for um although you can't I guess you could technically use this provision for on building signage, but it's not designed for it. It's mostly designed for a monument, a multi-tenant monument sign out front. Um, so you get additional height and uh potentially square feet. I'm looking to clean up the it because I I think it could be um a little clearer as far as how it's worded. But this is the intent. In other words though, I think maybe Joe, where you coming from? It doesn't require them to take down signs that are on the building. Is that what you were What's that?

Oh, it doesn't need They don't They're not adjusting anything on the on building signage. They already have that approved um and ready to go. So it's not in conjunction with the limit on the sign the size of the sign on the buildings either then. Yeah. Okay. There's no further questions. I move that we approve uh SN25-11 for the multi-pen project sign for 711 Washington Avenue. Second motion to second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries.

Starting off with the exciting stuff. Yes. Next will be recommendation of ordinance 12-2025, parking area layout and design zoning text amendment.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the board of appeals received multiple zoning variance applications for parking area layout and design in 2025. We also discussed this at last month's plan commission. The variances asked for relief from the mandatory parking area layout and design requirements listed within section 90-420.10. The board of appeals approved both variances. When the board of appeals receives multiple similar petitions, the village staff typically bring forward zoning text amendments to reduce the need for variances in the future. The proposed changes expand the alternative dimension allowances for parking area design, which were formerly related only to truck parking. Under the expanded allowances, an applicant may apply for different parking stall dimensions if number one, professional engineer submits plans and a narrative describing the necessity of different dimensions. Two, the approval body determines the alternative plans meet health, safety, and welfare objectives depending on the the type of application that could either be staff or the plan commission. It depends on if it's residential, commercial, the size of the changes, etc. Number three, the alternative dimensions modify the listed standard by 20 10% or less. Number four, the alternative design maintains the allowable ratios of compact spaces. So, they can't use this as a modification to only provide compact spaces as a cost-saving measure. Um, this is really intended for larger parking spaces. Number five, any increase in imperous surfaces and pavement is treated via bios, rain gardens or permeable pavers. So, if they're looking for a lot of large parking, say a a you know, farm supply store comes in and they expect a bunch of people with F250s and they design all their parking stalls to that size. Logically, the parking lot would be bigger than we would otherwise allow. So, that marginal increase in size requires additional storm water detention because it's additional um

pavement. So, we're just asking that they uh detain that um via some green storm water features. Um, and those are also able to be double counted towards their landscaping and screening requirements. So, we try to encourage those as site best example close by is right out the window here where we have a little bio swale and it looks great. So, we're trying to encourage those. It's kind of a a win. You put in a bunch of these bigger things, your site should also kind of look comparatively nicer. And then number six, very large truck parking requires additional landscaping and taxable buildings on the property. So, this was one of our existing requirements and we kind of used this to fold in the rest of it. But if you're coming in with a truck parking lot, um typically those are very low taxable value uh situations. The plan commission has tried to limit just trailer parking lots in the past. So, the one of the ways that we previously pushed back against those was requiring a building that takes up 10% of the total lot coverage. Um so, you can't just do only trailer parking for new lots. you have to add some like taxable value to the parcel. Um what we did is further increase that for if someone's proposing that within an active tax increment district, they actually need to cover 35% of the lot um with a taxable structure, which is pretty similar. We used some of the industrial business park development out near 20 in the interstate to make that um coverage ratio. So it's it's right in line. It's not going to prohibit those or or mess with people who are looking to do warehousing, but particularly in active tax increment districts, we don't want, you know, just trailer parking with nothing else. So, we got even more strict on that. The village staff believe these modified ordinances will permit greater flexibility in parking design while maintaining the high quality landscaping, screening, and taxable value goals previously set by the plan commission and the village board. And with that, we recommend

approval of the attached ordinance. I can answer any other questions you have. Is that is that office of standard 10 10% plus or minus or just plus? It is 10% plus or minus, but we that's why we maintain that kicker of you can't you're allowed to do compact spaces, but you can only have a specific percentage of them as part of the total parking area. Okay. Thanks. In terms of your approval bodies, um I assume you mentioned staff and the plan commission, but I assume you're including the fire department. Typically, I would be more worried that they can get in and out and make the turns they need to. I would assume they would be one of the reviewing

Yeah. Particularly for new buildings. They might not review like an existing modification of an uh of a a standing parking lot depending on how they're modifying it. Um but uh that would be relatively minor change for any major type change where it's a significant reconstruction or something. Both them and public works typically have eyes on those applications as well. Thank you.

And of course any of the storm water features that we've identified in here. That's just our our zoning requirement that those are the features they use. The public works uh department will obviously review any of those for compliance with engineering standards as well. So we're just saying you have to use a bioail or a rain garden. Then they'll have to do all the calcs, provide them to to public works and they'll validate them. Thank you. No question.

No further questions and be looking for a motion. Oh, I'll make a motion then to approve uh recommendation to the board of ordinance 12-2025 uh section 90-420.100 which is the parking area layout and design zoning text amendment. Second. Okay, we've got a motion second. Any further discussion? Any public comment on this? Hearing none. I'll call question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

Next will be recommendation of South Green Bay Road Preliminary Plat PSP25- Z001. I think the way these applications fell it's going to be Sam Robin Sam Robin Sam Robin sorry about that. Um so this is Sanctuary Pike River Preliminary Plat PSP 25001. Um basically this is we've seen this one a couple times now. This one has been sent back to the plan commission from the village board um as it has done a significant change. Um so let me kind of look look over that. So the current uh revision is um a 96 lot subdivision. Um and the developers indicated that those 96 lots will be um for sale single family lots. Um the developers also brought on uh a home builder, Lenar, um in order to basically take take the project from here and complete out those um uh those lots. I'm sure that those of you in the real estate business have have heard of them. They're a large home builder based in the Chicagoland area. Um, so we're getting a lot of those. Uh, first uh with the one at the bear development and now this one. Um, so what is different? Um, the let me move it a little bit over. Um, so the layout generally is a little a little different. Whereas the the former one was more vertically oriented, this one has uh more horizontal blocks.

it doesn't fundamentally change it too much. Um, the lots range in size from 55 to 70 ft. Um, and the connections are are there as had been recommended at the plank commission beforehand. So, we had done a long conversation about not requiring the connection northwards to um Biscane Avenue. Um and and both the village board and plan commission recommended that that could be ignored or moved past. Um, and all of the other aspects of the comp plan, the connectivity to Brown Road, to Old Green Bay Road, and to the hillside and little timber, um, or Little Prairie, it always flips back and forth. We're going to need to work that out. Um, the the those connections are all maintained. Um, so that is the major change. Um, I believe that the developer and the home builder are all here. If you have any questions on that, which I'm sure you do, there was a traffic study um, conducted since the last time you guys have reviewed this as well. Um, that was at the behest of village board. Um, they can speak to that a little bit more. That craft study was initially conducted at the former on the former layout. Um but it it also can apply to this one because it's not fundamentally changed that much. Furthermore, um as the overall subdivision has dropped below 100 lots, um our ordinance wouldn't actually require a traffic study in the first place if they had first proposed this from the get-go. So that kind of gives you an idea of um what is is necessary.

So uh any questions of me? Mr. Chair, if I could, I just wanted to uh add a little bit of color. Uh Trusty Doxy had some questions before the meeting and I thought I'd address them all with you just uh so everyone has the same information. Um there was some question on the park and open space plan designation for the property. So we included in our packet, but I just don't want to also read it for the record. So if we need to discuss it, the park and open space plan for the village of Mount Pleasant 2050 identifies this area as a priority protection area under the Pike River wershed plan. Prayer page 47 of the park and open space plan. The Pike River wershed plan also includes recommendations for improving water quality and managing storm water through such measures as establishing stream buffers, restoring wetlands, naturalizing detention basins, and managing agricultural practices to reduce soil and pollutant runoff. The park and open space plan does not identify any acreage within the subject parcel for permanent public ownership or protection. Additionally, the transportation we talked about transportation element. Um so what we did with that recommendation then is include and bold in one of the first condition for approval is uh following approval of the preliminary plat and prior to approval of the final plat storm water and sedimentation control plans and specification shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with village storm water management and erosion and sedimentation control ordinance per section 74-46 of the ordinance per the recommend Recommendations in the Pike River wershed plan. These storm water management and erosion and sedimentation controls should include native landscaping restore wetlands where possible and include naturalized storm water detention facilities. So just wanted to call attention to that. Um that's a requirement that we're putting on them further engineering between approval of this preliminary plat and bringing the final plaque back to the

plan commission and village board for approval, you know, sometime this winter if they continue to march forward. But that has been a question that came up at a couple of the public meetings as well. Um so I wanted to highlight that and make sure you're all aware that we did address that include it in a condition.

Yeah. Um I just had thought of a couple of other things. Um, one is I have been contacted recently about um some potential either um encroachments or um a slight dispute over the lot line placements between the lots along the six properties along Brown Road currently and the southernmost edge of this preliminary plat. Um the preliminary plat boundaries go through some of the buildings that are whose footprint is marked on there. Um and uh the surveyor has been made aware that has been notated on a previous survey and that they'll work that out. Um ultimately that is between those two parties as far as working that out. Um if those have been there and they haven't been a part of that lot line, they've been there for over 30 years. So you know that's just something that happens in these kind of things. A couple of other um notes as far as the conditions. Um two of the lots 53 and 54 need to be amended to be at least 55 ft wide. Um these are kind of wedge/pieshaped ones on a on some curvature. So they just come up a little bit short. So they need to be amended or an administrative adjustment needs to be applied for. Um then the the subdivider needs to update the plat to include 20 foot vision triangles as well as public street lamps and street trees. Um and we also when our other recommendation is that we've reviewed some of the the language in the covenants and feel that some of it can be conformed a little bit more toward Mount Pleasant code especially for legal reasons. This is going to come up again later, but defining a lot and an owner

as a single family lot off the bat. If Mount Pleasant isn't has doesn't have regulations about one or two families, you don't want somebody to basically get out of the obligations of the uh home ownership association by building a mother-in-law suite and all of a sudden now they don't have to pay dues or anything like that anymore. So the problem is not that they mention single family units or anything like that. It's that they tie that to the definition of who is in the HOA. So it's it's just we recommend to clean that up and be more clear that it's the lot that is the HOA member and and that is what that is.

Yes. Run. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I had quite a few question but I think uh uh a few of them have already been answered. One was about the traffic analysis. Mhm. and Robin thank you and Sam also addressed the concern by by trustee dxy uh which I'm pleased to hear and I like those condition uh I guess one of my questions is you know as you invite the comment from uh if there's any comment from the uh audience does trusty doxy has anything else in addition to Wayne on that no at this time I don't okay

he needs to go up to the mic no he needs to go up to the mic. Okay. After uh after discussing this with Sam and actually talking to Ann, I have what I'm seeing right now, what I'm hearing, I feel like we're on the right path with this. Yeah. If it's going to be developed, then this sounds like it's going to be the right path.

Yeah. I I And again, you know, I I appreciate uh that Sam took the lead to, you know, clarify, but I wanted to make sure that I don't have any doubt because that has been the number one issue at least in my mind that how does it uh uh fit into our comprehensive plan. Uh so I'm okay with that and my I guess next question is and to the builder. I am very pleased to see that you're moving in the right direction with you have reduced the number of lots by 10 or so and looking at this map which we have on the screen uh it looks like that we only have now a single family homes correct. Yep. Yeah. Just one confirm. Yep.

Thank you. Very good. Any other questions for the staff?

Oh, for staff. Um I guess this is I I guess I I have a not a question potentially and maybe it's more of a comment for staff. Um I don't have a problem with them putting single family in their restrictive covenants. And I understand though the concern over further definition though within that document in regards to what if somebody builds u an in-law suite or a second home on their property which is allowable under our code and I I think it's when we define define it as one lot then with two houses on it two residences on it then I think the developer needs to think about how you want to actually craft that paragraph because I and again I haven't read the whole document again but I would assume you're now giving 196 or whatever the percentage is interest of the ponds back to each lot owner. So then is that is that correct or you're not deeding it to the HOA the outlots you're not deeding them to the HOA are you?

Well excuse me for a moment if you could come up to the microphone identify yourself. I I just want to because this is to staff. Yeah. More more importantly and and I will be happy to talk to the developer. Um but I I don't have a problem with that and I think that's something the neighborhood wanted to see. Um was that these would be restricted to single family homes. So I don't have a problem with it at all. It's a matter of the rest of the document being proper.

So I just want to clarify this is an extremely legal ease tightroppe that I'm I'm trying to spin out here. It's not the fact that they have an architectural control standard le limiting each lot to one unit that is perfectly inbounds and appropriate and all over the place. Um and also enforceable through that those standards. Um the uh the issue is that when you tie that definition also into who is a member of the HOA that leaves an avenue that somebody could be remove themselves from the HOA by building an additional unit.

Agreed. And I think that's why they need to look harder at the at the language uh in order to make sure that if somebody adds a second resident the problem well and again it goes back to they think they're going to dedicate the ponds to the HOA but that is not acceptable to the village board. The village board will want to see that the 196 or whatever the lot count is percent of each lot interest goes to each lot owner. And therefore, we are not going to let these HOAs take over ponds and own them when we know that HOAs in perpetuity have issues. And we're not going to get this back in AD REM. We're not going to as a village get it back to maintain it. So, that's something I mentioned in your last round. And if you didn't change that, I will be looking for it again. And I will I will not support the final approval until I see that document written the way I think it should be. For another clarification, the covenants are completely different from what they were before. I believe that this was written by the legal team from LAR and it was very lawyerly. I had actually trouble uh churning through some of it because uh not a lawyer. So, um but

that's right. Illinois attorneys are pretty good. Yeah, they're I mean it was good. That was the only thing I I could kind of discern. So, yep. I think uh I can yield the floor to um the any questions you have of the developer and um architecture team, engineering team. Thank you. Thank you, Robin. Mr. Chairman, yes, if I may, uh if I may, I like to add to Trusty Washburn's comments and I I echo them. Uh uh I guess uh where Robin says yes, the covenants have been have been revised. I think

we haven't seen them yet. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying is that before it come back to you know us for as a val board for the approval if not all the covenants I like to see you know the the reference these relevant covenants brought to the val board put that on the screen so that like the old saying say trust but verify I like to verify that and again I will be happy to keep everyone in mind that this is the preliminary plat

and typically we are Not we are not required to force the developer to provide the restrictive covenants to us under preliminary plat. Um you you had submitted a final before where you did provide those. So we obviously will be looking for those at any final plat approval but under preliminary it's not a total requirement.

We we do require them now. That's a recent change just so that we can review them and get these issues out of the way upfront rather than at the end so that they have time to work on it. It's just a kind of a precautionary measure. Um and we've found that that's been uh okay. We also have them available and you got we can provide it to the village board. It's just like with storm water management plans. I mean your packet was already 337 pages long. Each one of these is another 25 pages. Uh or so.

Yeah. Well, I read all 316 pages, Robin. So, you know, I I guess that you know what? You throw pages at us, we're going to read it. I'm going to read it. So, I can assure you. Okay. Well, I I can also probably do something about um in the packet have other documents that are available on request or or give a link or something like that so that you can still have access to them. Um, it's just I don't know. I I I I need to save a tree here and there. So, well, I I don't get mine printed. Okay. Thank you, Rob. At this time, would the applicant like to address the commission?

Hello. Uh, my name is Reed Buchcci. I'm a land acquisition manager at LAR. Um, so yeah, I mean we're looking to do the 96 uh single family homes here. Um, just a kind of, you know, brief overview of LAR. Uh, we're operating currently, uh, the Chicago division about in 50 communities right now between, you know, Wisconsin, Illinois, and the Northwest Indiana area. Um, you know, our goal here really is to sell the homes and get them moving. Um, we have our own mortgage company that we use. Um, so you know, the interest rates being high as they are right now, we're able to buy those down for people to get people in the homes and make that payment affordable. So that's kind of one thing here that I wanted to stress is that, you know, the development won't be going on for years and years where sometimes you see it's, you know, sitting and vacant. It it will be completed. Um, you know, I feel in a fairly timely manner. You know, our goal is to sell the homes and to get them moving. So just wanted to get that across. Um, and yeah, I mean, just keeping the uh same character as the neighborhood kind of around it and uh we're excited about this development. So, it's really all for me.

Any questions? Sure. Um, thank you for coming. I guess what we not being that familiar with your company? Do you for the for the board anyway, would you be able to bring us any illustrations of your current developments? And again, in those restrictive covenants, I'd be looking for home sizes and architectural control, what kind of materials you're going to require on the outside. Um, we don't necessarily regulate those, but it would be nice to see what you're going to be providing to your customers. Um, are you a spec builder? Is it custom homes or We're we're a spec builder. Yes. So So you're going to come in and build it out.

Yes. And yeah, we can provide what we've done in other communities as well. just I think the board when you're coming in from out of state, we we like to know what what are you doing in other areas and and I think that's fair. Okay, D.

Yeah. Thanks. uh you know, we didn't think it was appropriate to bring our product in here today, but uh far as the declarations go, um we uh um we did do have local council uh review uh the declarations and we'll work with staff to make sure uh we work within the codes of the community as well. Um like like Reed said, we are working in uh not just Illinois, Wisconsin, Madison area. We have four communities that we're working on over there. So down to to Indiana uh Indiana, uh we do about 2,000 homes a year in the market. So, um, as far as a product goes, uh, typically four to six home models, ranch, uh, twotory homes, I think ranging in the square footage range of about 1,400 to 2,600 square ft, twocar garages, um, three to four bedrooms. So, the, um, the products, uh, we'll make sure they conform with the, uh, building requirements. And I think you've read the the draft covenants. It does address um architectural control committee so forth like that.

Yeah. I don't we don't we didn't get the draft covenants, did we, Sam? No. That that's why you're assuming we've seen something we haven't. We saw the old ones. The old ones from the original. I'm not sure what happened then. I'm sorry. Yeah. We just we just didn't include them in the packet, but we'll make sure that you can all see them. Yeah. They they all looked good except for that one clarification. So, we had no other issues with them. Okay. Section. That's why I was a little surprised of the comments because I think uh we had local council review it. And I'm I wasn't sure about the whole ownership and and HOA ownership. We we'll we'll investigate and work with

I think you'll find that every other subdivision we've approved in the village, the the covenants are set up that way so that each lot owner retains a percentage interest. And for the older subdivisions that don't have those covenants set up that way, the ponds have gone to hell. Nobody's managing them. The HOAs are gone and we've had to come in and step in. So that that's that's the old way of doing it that we're not that's been gone for years, Mr. Chairman. Am I not correct in that? You are correct. Yes. Anyway, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We could just get your name and address for the record.

I'm sorry. Rick Murphy, um 1700 East Golf Road. Um, sweet 1100 uh, Shamberg, Illinois 60173. Very good. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

I just have a question for the developers engineer. Sorry, Mark. You only thought you were going to get away with it. And I think that you'll find this is pertinent also to Mr. is concerned and uh it's it's it's not a difficult question. I'm not you know I think they've done a great job with revising the plan. Very happy to see it's going to be a single family development and I think in in regards to Mr. Doxy's uh trustee DXY is bringing forward again the uh the the comments from the root pike wind uh study that was done. Again, a reminder to people in the audience that that study was advisory and it was not adopted by the village and so it's advisory and I know Mark, you're very well aware of it. Um, one of the things that was on their title for this property was a an easement for drain tiles and drain tile connectivity. And I think because of the root pike wind study, because of the soils I see on the soil maps for this, and I see you've now enlarged that whole wetland and storm water complex to almost nine acres, that's got to be significant. Can you tell me if the developer or you have done any research into those tiles? And you know again there could be a lot of them a big system running through there and the developer you know if there's no map of that then has the developer thought of mapping it because there are companies that will come up and find those tiles and map them. So drain tiles is you know what's the status with knowledge on them.

Yeah. So um um a drain tile um delineation has not been done to date. We also need to do soil borings and geotechnical engineering on the project which has not been done to date here. Uh developers well aware that those are the next steps here and um we are well aware that there are tiles on the property here. So uh again getting through this step and the next step here with board approval will really set us in motion to start investigating those. Yeah. Okay. I I think that's going to be really important to your storm water management plan, but I'm looking forward to seeing the results of that. So, thank you. That was my question. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Any other questions or comments, concerns?

No, I don't have a question. But again, I want to reiterate. I think the key here is all the discussion is that we maintain the uh the uh uh uh the the neighborhood the preservation of the land on the north and so forth that so that that's you know I want to again emphasize that it's not only for the neighboring uh the subdivision but also for the uh the nature of the uh the uh the protection that we need for the preservation of the land and like my colleague said here we will be looking for that when these plats come to us for view and at the village board. I want to again emphasize that to me would be the number one thing that I will be looking for.

Okay, good. I think staff has acknowledged that. All right, there's no further questions.

So, Mr. President or not, Mr. President, Chairman Davis Driver, I would like to make a motion. Um, I'm going to make a motion to recommend approval of the South Green Bay Road Preliminary Plat PSP-25-00001 and subject to uh all of the conditions that are outlined in uh the summary by staff meaning uh the approval of the PLA following the approval of the plat the recommendations in the Pike River wershed. the managed storm water management and erosion and sediment controls. She'll include native landscaping, restore wetlands where possible, and include naturalized storm water detention facilities. The updating of the plat to show lots 53 and 54 to be at least 50 ft wide or apply for the administrative adjustment. That that adjustment is probably easier. Um the and then uh the vision triangle updates the um uh update the on-site civil engineering to show the installation of uh public street lamps at the corners per uh section 74-8.13 of the code. Updating the civil engineering infrastructure plans to show the planted trees and the definition that follows in our summary based on uh section 74-8.15 Pen A. And I would also add to that that I don't have a problem and would approve the subdivider varying from the comprehensive uh the comprehensive plan for the roadways because we agreed based on the neighborhood and so forth that Biscane did not need to go through and it would be better protection for the wetlands and the watershed. Is that appropriate for the uh motion?

Yeah, that's fine. All right, that's all I've got. Okay. Second. Second to that motion. All right. Motion a second. Any further discussion? Any public comment on this? Hearing none, I'll call the question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

Thank you, gentlemen. Next on the agenda, recommendation of Gates Drive Final Plat SFP25-00001. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, uh, the applicant applied to divide the property uh into 103 lots. Is that correct, Tan? Sorry, I I put 123. That's just a typo. It's 103 lots as part of this phase, which is the second phase of the Pike River Crossing development. The plat includes opportunities for small lot detached housing and fe simple twin houses. The village board approved a development agreement with Bragg Pike River LLC that contemplated this development in the approved phasing. Homes in the first phase of the development are actively under construction. The village staff have received multiple reports from new owners happy with the additional housing choice provided by this subdivision layout. Specifically in the small lot single family, we hear that twin homes are going pretty well. People like just owning their side. So, you know, we were we wanted to highlight that because Mount Pleasant was out ahead in adopting some of these zoning ordinances and the the feedback on one of the first subdivisions to utilize those flexibilities has been largely positive. So, it's been nice to see people be able to to either downsize or find the unit that's right for them and their family at this time. So, um I know some uh Robin took a look out at they have a model unit out there, too. So, if you're curious, you can just go walk through the model unit and they look pretty nice inside. So, I' I'd encourage it if you haven't. For this second phase, the village staff recommends that the plan commission move to recommend approval of the subdivision plat. Um, the application follows the land use element of the multi-jurisdictional comp plan, and neither the bike plan nor the park and open space plan contain any recommendations for this chunk of the subject property. Uh, we have a couple uh conditions on there that I'll get into in a sec, and they're mostly cleanup items on the civil plans. From a

fiscal impact standpoint, you can see our estimates in there. The estimate uh estimated net value per acre is about $1.5 million per acre. The total revenue to cost ratio is 3:1 and the private to public ratio is 29 to1. The current value for the property is uh egg assessed, so it's $19,400. The development agreement estimated all phases of the project would have an improvement value of about $85 million. While TID 7 is open, the development is entitled to a municipal revenue obligation of 22,931233 which includes interest. This revenue obligation is primarily intended to reimburse the developer for their upfront cost of installing the public improvements for the property including the southwards extension of Yates Drive and uh primarily the westward extension of Oaks Road which is a large village collector street. Um the developer as part of their first phase had to install that the improvements to 31 um and all the intersection improvements that you use when you drive into the development. Now um upon TID closure and normalized tax collections, the phase is expected to generate net revenue of approximately $180,000 per year accounting for both public infrastructure and service cost projections. Uh the few conditions that we have are one, the applicant shall update the plat to name road six. Um so it just has an official name. The subdivider shall install public street lamps at the corners and uh update the plat to show some street trees. That's it. Pretty clear-cut second phase on this one.

Yep. Happy to answer any questions you have. Other than that, the developer here and Dan can answer any questions you have for him. Any questions for you? Uh, in regards to adding the 103 lots, um, is there any provisions in there for any more ingress or egress because Yates Yates is not going through yet down to KR? Correct. Or 195, excuse me.

There's not, but there are two points of ingress and egress. So, there's the Oaks Road one at the north. Um, and then there is the right in, right out um, for what is that? Village something drive or something like that. Pike River Drive, I think. Um so there are there are two points of ingress and egress. Um right now if you drive in that that southern right in right out is a little underutilized because most of the homes are north um closer to Oaks. Um but as part of the first phase they did install that. The last phase will be probably the smallest in terms of land area. So they'll they'll connect through Yates as part of the third and final phase. Okay. But it looks like they're platting that as part of this.

They actually platted it as part of the first phase. DOT would only grant them approval for the Oaks Road connection if they platted the connection down to the south. So, it is there. Um, it's just phased in its construction.

Just a comment if I might, Chairman. Um, one of the things about this that you mentioned, Sam, in terms of this is really the first time that we've seen successfully or we've seen a developer use our code to its ultimate. But in going back to my previous conversation with the previous developer on restrictive covenants, I've read all of the Pike River Crossing restrictive covenants. And my concern all along with our twounit individual lots zoning code, that portion of it was the long-term maintenance of the buildings because you each owner was only going to own half. And so that's where Bear Development has done a phenomenal job of creating a complicated and complex set of restrictive covenants. I don't know if you've had a chance to read them, but they integrate all of those concerns. There's homeowner associations for just the pods and then there's overall, you know, contribution to storm water management ponds and so forth. And then the town homes have their own unique set that covers long-term maintenance for the buildings and so forth. So that there's reserves being set up and its chances long term of of remaining a a stellar community are set in stone by those restrictions. So that's really why we typically sit back and say we don't care about restrictive covenants. That's not our genre, but it is under this code and under this type of a project. they really are important and that's why it's going to be so successful.

Yeah, thank you. It was it was a fun learning experience working through those with them and you know making sure we accounted for those different unit types. So Bear's been a good partner and willing to you know we appreciate any developer that's willing to kind of read and and take advantage of some of the things that we've been talking about for seven years now. So this is great. I have a question. Is have there been u multiple units being purchased by a single entity for rental? I'm not aware of any of that happening, but we don't monitor each individual sale. So, that's probably more of a question for the developer. Um,

I I'm interested in that. What what the character of the neighborhood will be as renters versus as homeowners. Ultimately, the village can't really regulate that per state statute. So, we we tend to back away from uh those, but uh you know, the you know, builder can answer that question or if you'd like us to investigate it, we can certainly ask. I was just if the builder could answer that question, I'd appreciate it. I should say developer, not the home builder themsel. But yeah, any other questions for me?

Good to go. Uh Dan Shop, Bear Development, 4011 80th Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin. Um I'd like to answer that for you, but I'm I'm unaware as as we've transferred lots to a builder and the builder has transferred lots to individual buyers. I'm not sure if any sales have occurred where there's multiple, you know, if there's one buyer for multiple properties. I I doubt it. That's not the business that uh the builder's in. But if I can look into it for if if that would help

if it's not regul it's not it's not anything we can regulate. But I I'm I'm always concerned about the the complexion of new developments and and how they end up five years from now, 10 years from now. Yeah. And and the development is fairly new. So I don't think the the point the builders are at a point of like uh really worrying about sales yet. You know, they're doing quite well out there. velocity is is is good. So, um I'm I'm guessing here, but I don't think that's happening. Okay. Thank you. As a backup to that, Dan, do you know what the price ranges are for the town homes? I I haven't kept track of it. Aren't they over are they over four?

I believe they are. So, it it's highly unlikely over 400,000 is my point that you're going to see anybody swoop in and buy four or five of them as a rental property. I think that's pretty I think those are I think those are pretty well set for home ownership, Larry, if that's helpful to you. Yeah. Yeah. So, that would be helpful. I was not aware of what the price points. All right. Any question further questions for Dan? Thank you, Dan. Thank you. Any further questions for anyone here? No, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a recommendation of approval of the Yates Drive Final Plat SFP25-00001. Second.

0001. 0001. Second. Motion second. Any further discussion? Subject to the conditions as listed by staff. Okay. Any public comment on this? Hearing none. I'll call a question. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Next will be recommendation of 702 South Newman Road certified survey map CSM 255. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm going to talk about the next two items uh kind of concurrently because they're both related to the same project. So, just stop me if you have any questions about either. I'll just roll through both. We can make separate motions, but they're kind of interrelated as a lot of the CSM resonings are. The applicant applied to reortion this lot uh with 712 Newman Road. They intend lot two to give 1.167 acres to lot one uh with some of the extra balance being allocated to public right ofway. The this process allows um them to have a zoning map amendment with 702 Newman Road from RE to RL so the property owner can construct a new detached house. The property is currently zoned RE and the other parcel for is petitioning for that reszone to RL via ordinance 13-2025. So essentially there's two evenly sized lots. They're giving one to the other to downsize one of them um and increase the size of the other one, family relationships. And I'll let the applicant speak to that if you have questions about, you know, underlying reasons why. But from a technical perspective, that brings them below the 1 acre minimum for an RE lot. So that's why they have to, you know, upzone from RE to RL for the the now smaller lot on the south face. Um the application follows the land use element of the comm plan. Neither the Mount Pleasant bike plan nor the park and open space plan recommend anything specific for the subject properties. Uh for the fiscal impact, Robin included a kind of current analysis to show because um we are doing some redevelopment here. So the proposed

new development uh does um marginally better on its um time for like public to private ratio, total revenue to cost ratio and public liability repayment schedule. Uh the conditions we have for the CSM include one, updating it to show some utility information. Two, updating the CSM to show some easements uh which they provide us some us some draft easements that we'll look through, but we want to keep that condition on there just to make sure it's it's listed. Uh, three, the applicant shall update the CSM to show the location of public sidewalks provided the plan commission does not wave this requirement. And I'll get that to in a sec. And then number four, the applicant shall update the CSM to show some required street trees per the ordinance. The applicant require requested that the plan commission for the land division um or the red division wave the requirement to install public sidewalks. There are not out there at this time. Um, however, uh, the code requires with any land division that that's a triggering event to put in sidewalks. Um, that would really trigger the north properties requirement for sidewalks. Um, that you'd be able to wave the south property in addition to having a land division requirement for sidewalks, also has a zoning um, one for sidewalks as a triggering event, too. So, you all don't have the ability to wave the zoning one. That's a board of appeals, but you can wave the north lot sidewalk requirement because it's a land division one that your authority is subject to. So, um they requested that. Um really the village staff, we we like sidewalks, but in terms of getting a redeveloped parcel here, we certainly don't like to set standards and um we would of course be the recommended denial at the board of appeals, but

reasonleness also states that this is not the hill that we particularly want to die on. We think it's more important for new subdivisions, largecale development, or in areas that are particularly walkable. There is a a section, you know, once you get closer to uh the south, obviously providing walkability to the shopping center would be a nice benefit in the long run, but it's up to you whether you want to have this as the triggering event or kind of kick that can down the road. So, you have the ability to wave the requirement for the sidewalk. We just wanted to lay it kind of eyes wide open that if you don't require it now, at some point we're going to have to solve that in the future, which is, you know, a problem we'll deal with then. So, I can answer any other technical questions you have about that. Um, I can go through the zoning if you want. It's really the same staff report. Um, they're down or up zoning from RE to RL for the now smaller lot on the south end. Um, and that's the long and short of it. So, if you have any questions for either of those applications, I can answer them now.

Any questions for Sam? I'm just curious. Sorry, I seems like I can't quite stop. Um, this parcel that I see that the property boundary bounding it to the west is the big pond that we own, the big detention pond. Yeah. At one time there was a project that was slated for somewhere in this area. I thought Corn Dorfer had talked about it and it was going to be an extension of Kinsey Avenue

to the east, I guess you would say, from where it currently hits um the road coming down from 20 behind the mall. Is does this property was this property involved in that roadway at all? No, it was not. That is a little bit south of them. There's probably at least one or two. There's the the small narrow access to the pond. Um and then there's a couple other properties between them and where Kinsey would hit. Okay. So, we're still keeping Okay. Yeah. Maybe 500ish feet north of where that projected road is showed to go. Okay. All right. There's no further questions.

I'll I'll let Mr. mayor decide on what he wants to do about the sidewalks? Well, you know, the the interesting thing is is obviously it only pertains to the south lot, which is now north. I mean, the north Yeah. Oh, you I think you said south lot. South lot because they're rebuilding the home. That would be a triggering event for sidewalks, right? Um and so, while you all could wave the requirement for both, effectively for the south lot, there's a zoning requirement on top of it that you can't wave. So you can decide on sidewalks however you want for both parcels, but there's a a different one that you can't wave. So the south lot in effect has a double triggering event.

Is there we have an in lie of of putting sidewalks in. Would that trigger that too? Could we do it that way or not? It does not in this case the inl it's it's a good note and something that we're probably going to update the ordinance to address but we really triggered the inla fee towards fully rural crosssections out in the west or northern portions of the village so currently Newman doesn't really uh comply um as it is not a fully rural cross-section so they can't just pay us and move on otherwise we would have just given you that as an option Well, and and I know the I know the area obviously, so and it it's like I said, sidewalks to nowhere doesn't make sense either at times. You know, I new new developments obviously we want to make sure that we've got,

you know, good sidewalks and walkability, but there's no place to walk here at this point. Yeah. And there's, you know, I think the difference for subdivision plats when we come in, we also get the argument for like it's a sidewalk to nowhere, which we have some level of empathy for, but at least in the interior part of the new subdivision, you are providing some level of a network, right? It may not be as extensive as people want it, but you're able to walk around and do a mile loop or something in a lot of these newer subdivisions, right? Um whereas here it's truly just a couple hundred feet a sidewalk. So,

you don't have to, but it's it's your call. Yeah. Well, I guess you know there's no other comments. I'd like to make a recommendation approval of CSM25-05 to the village board subject to the conditions contained within the endotes and then to wave the requirement for the sidewalk on the north lot. Yeah. You can just say like where allowed under the land division ordinances would be fine. And I know that they'll go after the variance for the south one. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion. Second. and a second. Any further discussion? Ram.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify because I don't think I I I got that. So, why are we waving only the sidewalk on the north side but not on the south side or the other houses on the south side? Because one is a a reszone and that's the one that requires further triggering. We can't approve or disapprove that. Yeah. No, no. I mean, no. I like the exception on the north side. Mhm. But why not on the south side? That's what he's saying. Because they're going to have to go to zone. They're going we we don't have we don't have the right to do that. The first one is certified survey map. We have a right to do that. The next one zoning. We don't that's another authority. Yep. So we're giving them what we can give them.

Understand? But you know I am okay. You know I I guess procedural under that under the Yeah. Yeah. So the uh Yeah. Only the zoning board of appeals can fully wave it for the south lot. I hope they do that. Okay. Yeah. And that's their prerogative. Yeah. Another one of those things. We'll have to look at our ordinance one more time, Sam, if we have, you know, you know, we're always bringing updates. Discrepancies over sidewalks. Well, there's always those infill projects. There are, right?

There are it's it's a tough balance, but we're thinking about it. We've discussed it internally. This project is a good trigger for some internal discussion. So, at some point, we'll bring you a fix. Good. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comment? Hearing none, we'll call the question. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. Next. Okay, guys. That's on this part. We still have one more thing. We've got your zoning to deal with yet. So, uh, next, if we have a motion on the zoning.

Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of ordinance, uh, 13-2025712 Newman Road, zoning map amendments, ZMA-2525-08 as presented by the staff. Second motion, a second there. Any further discussion? Any public comment? All right. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. All right. Next on the agenda then will be the recommendation of Krishna Grove final plat SFP25-2 0000002. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant proposes a 78 lot subdivision plat on the west side of Lyrop Avenue. Plaque contains internal local streets, extends Pennington and Farmington Lane along existing dedicated rightway to provide secondary access connections to the checkenoff subdivision. Plan commission and village board approved a preliminary and final plat for this parcel as the Savannah Grove subdivision in 2020 and 2021. the plat is unchanged from that approval, but they have to resubmit the final plat due to the lapse in approval time uh because it's uh older than a year from when they first submitted it. The applicant must adjust minor parts of the plat due to ordinance changes made since 2021, but the staff felt those were so minor we felt comfortable with them coming back with just a final plat. Um really the street connections and everything stayed the same. It's it's just some updated things regarding street trees as we'll get into. So the application follows the land use elements of the multi-jurisdictional comp plan. Neither the bike plan nor the park and open space plan contain any recommendations for the subject property. Some provisions of the document run contrary to the zoning ordinances. Um and so same as our um discussion before uh just we'd like to call out making sure to work through those HOA docs with the potential applicant to ensure that lot regulations and stuff are are noted accordingly. So um we called it out there um and everyone is paying their fair share in the homeowners association. the fiscal impact statement. Um staff

estimated the total project value at about $27 million, which is a conservative estimate uh at each lot being assessed at $350,000 on full buildout. It's likely higher than that as we've seen for some other home prices. This includes off-site extensions of Pennington and Farmington Lanes as well as village collector Lyrip Avenue which is currently built out as a rural road. The property does not lie within any tax incremental district and the developer has not asked for any public assistance. Um the estimated taxable value net value per acre is $1.7 million. Total revenue to cost ratios 2:1 and private to public ratios 18 to1. We have a couple conditions uh I think six total. Subdivider shall update the plat to note the zoning as RL instead of RL1. Subdivider shall update the plat to include 20 foot vision triangles. Subdivider shall update the plat to show the construction of Pennington and Farmington Lane northwards. Um it was they're platted, but we just want to make sure the civil plans show that. Um the that has been important for secondary fire access so that the whole 78 lots don't just have a single access point from Leup without any other um access there. So, we discussed that a few years ago, but we wanted to bring that up to your attention again. Uh, all that right ofway is dedicated. So, it's just, you know, using the existing right ofway. Number four, the subdivider shall update the plat to include concrete sidewalk or asphalt path on one side of all frontage streets and on one or both sides of all other streets within the land division or condo per section 74-8.8 sidewalks and pedestrian/recreational paths. Five, uh, update the on-site civil engineering plans to show the installation of public street lamps at the corner of intersections and update the civil engineering plans to show street trees. Pretty standard cleanup items except for the Farmington and Pennington extensions, which we just wanted, you

know, to include because we thought they were important for traffic circulation and secondary emergency access. Any questions for Sam? I do have a question um regarding the preliminary plat. It was approved in 2020 and I thought the statute read that after three years if it wasn't acted on it would have to come back. I guess I'm wondering why we're not I I recognize it's the same plat but

yeah our ordinances allow you to consider the final plat if you want. So you could just say no, we we want to start at the beginning, submit a preliminary plat. You're that's complete with within your authority. Um we were okay with them going to final plat because they didn't modify a thing and it had gone through the full approval process um back in 2021. Like the board had approved the final plat. They just didn't record it. So it was past the finish line. They were just tying up loose ends and they just it fell through right before recording. So only for those reasons were we comfortable with that. Had they made larger changes to the plat or had it kind of died earlier in the process beforehand, we we will likely would have kicked them back to preliminary plat. So it's you or the board. You can say no, start at the beginning, but we felt in this case it was worthy of your consideration to not do that, which we have done in the past for other odds and ends like we're bringing back something that hasn't changed. So,

right, the other thing you mentioned in just now is you said they are not asking for public assistance. They haven't yet. Although although your page seven says it they are.

Yeah, I I noticed that typo as I was reading it. Um yes. Uh in the past they the village board has been open to a conversation for assisting with those northern connections because they are off-site connections. It's only like two 300 feet of roadway. Um, so it's it's a marginal cost, but obviously everything's tight. That's really a a CDA and village board conversation. So there's nothing prohibiting them from coming back and asking it. I think your purview here at the plan commission is whether those roads should connect through or not. And if it's a money thing later on, then you know, CDA and village board can consider if they want to help with that or not.

That's my fault. I wrote this one. So, if I got a typo there, I'm sorry, but it might have been because of the confusion because there was sort of a tentative agreement for the previous one for at least one of the connections, but we wanted to go back to the fact that we recommend that both connections just get done because otherwise they're never they have to be done. Yes.

Yeah, that that's a mandate. Uh the other the other questions I have really are in regard to the restrictive covenants and I I guess those are more questions for the developer per se. In other words, in reading through Sam's comments um on the restrictive covenants, I agreed completely that they're way too strict, that there is things that they're excluding here or mandating here that I'm very, you know, I I'm I don't necessarily we as a board don't necessarily have control over what they put in those documents, but it's kind of a note to self thing. You know, if you're going to People today have a lot of stuff and these are small lots and it's tight. I get that. But I would be very very careful about how restrictive those are. Number one. Number two, I believe in this case they also said that they were deeding everything over to the HOA, all the ponds over to the HOA. Uh, and that's not going to be acceptable to me as a trustee. they're going to have to deed out the undivided interest of each lot to the owners of those lots. Um, and that's where my question is, if I approve the final plat today and recommend it on to the board with these with these declaration in a draft form, how am I going to be sure that those things are taken care of? Um, as I remember, I don't know that we're a signature on the restrictive covenants. The village isn't a signature. So, you could take my advice and you know, they could not adhere to it and they could record these restrictive covenants without us seeing them and seeing the

changes and then they are going to record restrictive covenants that say the ponds are going to be owned by the HOA. There's a specific ordinance that you can cite in a condition um that uh could help you there. Um that is the members of the association shall share equally the cost of maintaining, ensuring and operating common areas and facilities. So I think it's perfectly in line to say your, you know, condition of approval is that it's an undivided interest instead of deed purely to the homeowners association as a condition of approval. I think the other ones where they're being overly strict, we don't have a backing ordinance to require it. So, it's just kind of friendly advice. It's easier to sell a lot when people can put a a shed in the their backyard. But, um that's that's ultimately for them to decide. But, if the uh

especially with a 63 foot lot, you're going to have a tougher time getting a threecar garage on it or, you know, some of those things. Ex. Exactly. And in in our you know, we look at all the shed permits and people like a garden shed, right? you can do other things to limit size or or design of those in HOA docs. So, exactly

to me that's more friendly advice, but you do have the backing ordinance um when we're looking in the subdivision regulations at homeowners associations to say here's the way that we're comfortable that the the common areas are maintained. So, if you want to include that as an additional condition, I think it's within your purview. Yeah, we have up and down approval on um homeowners the documents there, but it's basically like a dove released to the wild after it goes through. So, you could require they be a certain way and filed a certain way at the time it's approved. However, later on that homeowners associate decides to amend through their operations and add it, can't do anything about that. But that's also significantly harder. Well, then I'll also be looking in their documents for the amount of uh the percentage that it takes to amend the covenants because that's typically 100%.

To to take a homeowner association and divest itself of a responsibility or create a responsibility takes 100% plus all the mortgages, the mortgage signatures have to sign off. So, it's very complicated to do that. Robin, I wouldn't s think that that would be something that would happen in perpetuity, but you're right. You never know. But it's very complicated to do that. Oh, I I know. I That's why I'm comfortable sometimes uh suggesting that they be a certain way here because it is a a PITA in order to change it later on. It is. It's very difficult. Yes.

So, I think that condition is fully appropriate for you. here at the village board. We can certainly add it before the village board packet goes out. Um just to ensure that the uh legal back end is caught in a way that the board is comfortable. We're going to sign off on it and we're not going to be signing off on that document. So that you know some villages do require that the village board president sign the restrictive covenants. You know that's one way to ensure that we've seen it and that we agree with it. Um but in our case we don't. So that's something that's a little can be a slippy slippery slope for other reasons. She has a position of being liable for that thing. Yeah, exactly. So

also I'm very curious to know this has a big offsite component on Mr. Kger's property. I don't know, Mark, if you guys have do you have all your agreements in place with him or I personally do not know the current developer has had discussions with across the street. Is that you guys? If if we could have you just come up to the mic, name and address. Not a big long speech, just a couple quick questions for you.

I think this is Hello, my name is Paxton Friedick. I'm a realtor representing the buyer. Uh these two over here, the realtor representing the seller. So, um as far as Mr. Creger. I know that previously, and I think they can speak to it, that there was an agreement. Um, so the buyer is hoping to use that same agreement moving forward. That'll be important to being able to actually build it. And my other question was, who's building these? Are the is this a subdivision that's going to be open to any builder coming in? And so, which is really a great feature. This is,

you know, the one we just approved is going to be all LAR. Bear is going to be all Bear and Horton. So, this is really a great opportunity for the community now for some of our smaller builders to come in and and buy lots. And I would think they'd come in and probably want to buy more than one. Again, the reason why you need to be very careful about the name of the subdivision as well as the restrictive covenants. Don't don't scare away the builders out there because they're like, "Oh, you know, just there's too many restrictions." My buyers are not going to go for that. So, yeah, I would agree. In conversations with my buyer, he uh definitely wants to use several buyers or builders because of the fact that it's easier to sell it, build it out faster, to build it out.

It it will go very quickly, I would think, actually. So, all right. Any other questions? I don't believe so. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have question for uh for the staff for Sam and Robin. Uh Sam said these pls were previously approved in 2021 uh the final plot. So then uh I see that in the package that you provided not only we have the restricted covenant but we also have the developer agreement. So my question is uh what's the reason to have that? Has anything been updated, changed, or is it the old one or just for reference?

That's just the boilerplate development agreement that we have um for uh the standard subdivision agreements that we put through. Essentially, the developers have to put up a letter of credit agreeing to install the public infrastructure and two public specs and all that. So, they just had it in their application, so we included it, but it's a standard. My question was because it has been previously approved. So then it was never fully executed. So because there's a new okay owner we we gave it to you again. Okay. That answer question. We use a different format today for developer. This is the updated version 21. But

I was just curious because you know unless I was looking for some are we approving the editing and I I didn't see anything. So are we approving the developers agreement as part of this? Uh you can if you want or you can say um that you'd like to see it separately. It's up to you. No, I would not want to approve that because we haven't had a chance to discuss that to read that there. It is just the standard village boilerplate. There is nothing special about it. There's no incentives or anything else included with it. So um it is just the one that we have most like settlement at hoods like Jeff Badkey signs this one. So well a little different but So

any further questions, comments for a motion? So Mr. Pre chairman, I will chairman Mr. President, chairman, whatever

Davis driver. Uh, I'm going to make a recommendation that we approve the final plat uh recommend to the village board approval of the Krishna Grove final plat SFP25-00002 um with the conditions as noted on page eight of the summary and nine of the summary. Um as well as adding that the restriction restrictive covenants need to be amended to minimally require a equal an undivided interest in the common areas be deed over with each property sale to the lot owners uh so that we ensure that those ponds will be managed by the homeowners visa v their HOA. I would also like to add that I would like to see the revised restrictive covenants as soon as possible for review and approval of just that item

prior to prior to if we could well it's going to go to the board Monday night. So that's probably a stretch, but I think we'd like to see them again. I'm not sure how we can regulate that. And also the developers agreement. Maybe I can tie it into the developers agreement because we still would like to see the final developers agreement. I I don't think we as the plan commission need to see the developers agreement. Okay. So that's a different issue. Okay. So that's a board issue. Yeah. Yeah. And again, the developers agreement is just the boiler plate. So if you'd like any specific changes, you know, I would certainly want to know that before the village board meeting on Monday. Um but other than that, it's kind of Yeah.

is what it is. I guess I just want to see how it's going to fill in, but that's okay. Again, my my main concern is the restrictive covenants and making sure that those changes are made uh regarding the undivided interest in the common areas being dedicated deed to the property each lot owner with its sale. And then again, I advise them to take a look at the restrictive covenants and think about those. I will put together a draft um obviously for the village board um to include that condition um and if we need to modify the language at village board on Monday we can do it further. All right. Okay. So that's a motion and second a second.

Any other questions or comments? Any public comment? Hearing none. I'll call a question. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. And as you said, this goes Monday. Monday, Monday to the village board for the final stamp. All right. Next, staff reports planner Robin. Oh, we got one more. One more. I'm sorry. Recommendation of Independence Road certified survey maps CSM 256.

Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, the applicant uh applied to divide the property into two lots. They intend lots one and two to hold the villas at Coach Hills Condominiums, which the village board approved in October 2024. The map also dedicates 66 ft to the public for an extension of Independence Road westwards from its current terminus to the west property line. The village staff recommend approval. Um we've seen the condo plat um before. So this is really just the CSM to get the roadway dedicated and and you know finish up its buildability. I guess the estimated net value per acre is $1.348 million. Um and the project is expected to generate net revenue of approximately $27,000 per year accounting for public infrastructure and service costs for the public right ofway and the proposed 21 residential units. Uh with that we only have one condition and that is one the applicant shall update the the CSM to show the minimum lot area required by the zoning district in which the land division is located and revise the district name to RL which is just an update because we updated the name of the zones between last year and this year. Everything else it's condo platted um and it's all good to go. So it's just kind of a final cleanup item.

Okay, we good with it. Nancy, any any questions? Well, I I'm just confused as to why this wasn't done before they did all the development of, you know, how why is it coming to be with the lots now? We had a we had a draft one done um and it just never got recorded and then some deadlines passed. So, they just resubmitted uh to get it done um in a timely manner. Oh, okay. Because they're busy out there. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, it is u Yep. I would say it's a it's as much of a cleanup as something can be.

Okay. The development agreement is signed and everything else. We just wanted to make sure that we're approving the CSM within the ordinance time limits. So, this one kind of required a secondary review. All right. If there's no further questions or comments, Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend Independence Road CSM uh approval of the Independence Road certified map CSM-25-06 as presented. Second motion a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I I opposed.

Chairman, I'll be recusing myself from that vote. Understand? Motion carries. All right. Next, Robin. He's trying to mess me up. You want to talk to talk about yourself? He was messing with my head. I was sitting here about to explode. Why? It doesn't make sense. Because I can't speak to it. I know. I know. And the reason it's the market and

Okay. So, I'm just going to do a little explainer. And this is something that I proposed to to Sam that I do. And uh this is new, but I think it's good. I'm giving you guys homework. Um so uh I kind of drew up some thoughts about uh master planning and we've talked about this before. Um master planning for local areas 16 and 17. And got got any wild idea on guessing what local area 16 and 17 is? It's Bronn Road. Um so um we need to at some point we will be forced to update the transportation element of the Bron Road area even just to accommodate the exist the proposals that are coming in. I suggest we get ahead of that and this report is a part of that. We won't be discussing this report today because I want you to take it home and digest it and then um any questions offer it to me or Sam. Uh I'm going to be out of the country for the next 10 days starting tomorrow. So Sam for the next 10 days, but then after that um and I also give a disclaimer that 99% of this is derivative from our ordinance as they exist now. So it may be shocking giving what you're like, okay, yeah, it's a bunch of farm fields, but it's just basically extending out, okay, road networks that sort of had the block length and structure of the existing subdivision, um, and reasons thereof. Um, and finally, the reason why I would suggest that we do this is that if we want anything extra, like if we want traffic calming, um, to make the neighbors happier, um, if we want additional storm water infrastructure because all the recent flooding and stuff like that, um,

putting it in the comp plan will allow us to enforce that even when the engineering aspect of what we what we all do doesn't what they call a warrant, meaning that this warrants that improvement or this has enough traffic to get it. And well, if we put in the comp plan, it says, well, we don't really necessarily care if it warrants that or not. It we want it for these reasons that aren't necessarily related. So, um that is why we are going to the comp plan. So other than that, um it's mostly just a road network deleting stuff that's on the comp plan road network from long long ago. Um like such as the funny one is basically a bridge across the Pike River. Um and train tracks in the middle of Highway 11 and Bronn Road, which I just looked at and I laughed because that absolutely impossible. like you know you're going to I don't know hundreds of millions of dollars to go over those uh for absolutely like nothing there. So um so we deleted some of those. Obviously not everything is final. I really want you guys to contact us um with any questions, thoughts, concerns and then then we can start the process of the official process which is we come back to you with an official comp plan update. Then you guy guys go looks good. We set it up for a public hearing. Then in 30 days after that the public gets to digest it and then come before the board and talks about it. And that's before you or the village board discuss it substantially. Substantively. You know what I meant? So I've talked too much for something that I said that there was going to be no discussion on, but I will be handing this out. And then I do this at the meeting because this is

a public document and you know if anybody wants access to it you can certainly get the report but it's a very preliminary thing. Sam approved the general maps and ideas of everything but he had not to this point gone through um for time reasons and edited out all my uses of passive voice or um you know misplaced code code references or so on and so forth. So if you see an email from Sam to be like disregard line three on page 8 um that could be coming on uh sometime soon but uh generally because it is for you guys to think on and a discussion point um there's it's not as strict of a standard as before. So any questions about that general process?

Just I don't have a question more of a statement. I would hope that this is a really important study, hugely important to our community. And I would hope that when we do get to the point where we're going to do the public hearings or public meetings invi that we we really reach out to the people we've been seeing at these last meetings and make sure we're not just 300 feet off a Brown Road. Please, let's make uh a big effort to make sure that we do get public engagement and we don't have people coming in saying we weren't notified or we didn't know. I I just hope that we make a big effort on that. Absolutely. And that's important to start of it, too.

Yeah. And that's that's a part of the reason that we've taken this kind of first time step and kind of giving you guys I applaud that

a month to digest it and be a filter. and if you're like no that's not going to work or that that seems good or interesting or whatn not and so that gives it an additional level of scrutiny so we're not coming to you with a proposal blind um so I think that's uh and the reason why is because it's so important and we have so many proposals coming forth additionally if these start to go forward we would hold those subdivision plats and and other developments ments in the area to the recommendations. Um, and it has the force of how it's not like the force of law law, but if the village board decides, no, we're not approving this until you meet the comp plan, they definitely can do that,

right? Well, I think that's important for those developers, particularly Bear, because I think they're going to move forward very quickly, and we have to know what they're designing to on Brown Road. Mhm. Uh the other one I'm not thinking is going to be as fast, but I I I think this is such an important study.

Yeah. And I I just want to be absolutely clear. This is regarding the transportation element of the comprehensive plan only. This is not reopening any of the land use decisions or anything else. So, we're just talking where are roads going. The base map here is us taking the land division ordinances, reading them, and just applying them to a blank map. And then as Robin said, eliminating some of the roads that go directly through like an environmental corridor or something. So this is pretty not pretty. This is very high level of us just applying the ordinances to the map. That's why we wanted multiple stages of feedback. Um so after you all have had time to digest it, do whatever public outreach that you want to do, we will also do those things as we go through this process to your point, Trusty Washburn. So this is the very start. I love it.

No, no neighbors have missed the boat or anything. This is day one. And and to to go on that, I mean, we don't put the the land use element back up for debate in this, but I do mention it and then defend it and say it complies and also like have a staff opinion that in 2025 this still makes sense. Um cuz that's what you should do. You should be like, does this make sense? we don't blindly go forward until the night. Um, so I think it's brilliant. I'm glad we're doing it. We desperately need it with all the applications at the board level for sure. So, thank you. Thank you for being proactive.

Lastly, the the most recent update to the residential zoning with the RN district and as far as requiring each building to be on their individual lot definitely warrants having something like this on there. So, we're just trying to get rid of the big seas of parking lots and have more of a what everybody would recognize as a traditional neighborhood. So, all right, with that, I'm going to pass these out and um see you guys most of you guys next month.

Just a quick question in regards to is there something that there's anybody done any traffic analysis based on our plans today as far as our zoning? that could be certainly a part of this process. Um, and I especially when I'm considering stock when I'm talking about like there's particular intersections that would warrant signalization or controlled intersections and you'll see why roundabouts and things like that because we've got zoning around it. But what does that mean until somebody comes in with these big projects? You go, well, you wait till that you may be too late, you know. Yeah. So, um, I I do mention that. So,

while Robin is passing that out, um, unless you have any other questions about this,

I a note. There we go. Uh, to thank Chairman Davis Driver for his service to this commission over the last what 27 years, I believe. Um, the village board will be issuing a proclamation on on Monday um, thanking him officially for his service on behalf of the village. But I just wanted to take this time at the staff level um to really thank him. Uh Davis has gone to uh planning conferences with us. He was um one of the dedicated staff members on the zoning code rewrite. Um and he's been really personally uh supportive of both Robin and I since we've been at the village over the last 10 years. So we really appreciate you from a staff level. Um we're going to miss you and uh we thank you for all your service.

Thank you. You're here. Thank you. Good job,

Sam. I'm gonna I'm gonna follow up on that. Um, first of all, 10 years, it's like, wow, really? Oh my god, the kids are growing up. Um, I mentioned this before the meeting and I'm not sure if I'm going to make it to the village board meeting Monday night. I've asked to be excused from that as I have another commitment. But um one of the things that when I learned that uh Davis was actually going to retire and and move to his dream home out of state and enjoy the rest of his life the way we all would like to. It made me think back to when I started working with the I live in the village obviously, but when I started working a lot in the village as a land developer for another private builder and the year that I started was 1998. And that happens to be the year that Davis reminded me was the year he joined the plan commission. and we would meet over in village the town hall over at highway 31 and 11 where the pick and save now is and we met around the table and there were no such things as PDFs or emails and we sat and we had plans out to scale on the ma on the b on the table and um I uh I just remember that time as learning so much and also at that time I'm going to honor Frank Rizzler, our esteemed plan commission member, as Frank at that time was the zoning administrator for the county. And at the time we were a town. So everything that we did at the county at the town level for a development, we had to go through the rine county planning and development office and Frank was the lead on that for us. So between and Frank I know has longer history even than 19 uh 98 but I'm not going to make him I'm not going

to make him confess up to that but um I think that it shows what really tremendous brain trust we have on this plan commission. We're going to miss you tremendously Davis and thank you for all you've done.

Thank you. Uh yeah, I there's not a whole lot more I I can add to that, but I mean in my almost uh you know, eight eight plus years, almost 10 uh that I've been here, I can't imagine uh you know, a better plan commission chair. I really respect how you uh like approach every situation with an even keel and uh you know, use judgment and try to have let everybody have a say. um you can have some leave some big shoes to fill. Um and I'm just really happy for you that you you get to move on to greener pastures. Uh and I'm going to be left here sad, but uh and as far as a career, it was great that I had a year of seeing how a plan commission shouldn't work, not in this state. um and then have almost nine years of seeing your st under your steersip how it should and there's no other plan commissioner I would I would uh I can imagine having a beer with at a conference. So thank you so much for your dedication here in the in the room and then outside. So uh thanks and uh best best travels.

Thank you. Thank you. I I just have want to say that uh I made two pretty good decisions and that was the hiring of Sam and Robin. I was involved in the hiring. I didn't wasn't my final but uh I was totally supportive then as I am now. So well thanks and thank you. Thank you for your support and confidence. Yeah. And I just to say a few words too. We've been together 16 years now on the plan commission and your guidance has always been wonderful. So I appreciate it. Good luck.

Thank you. Well, I'd like to add just a quick I don't have history of like 20 2015 year. I mean, but from the day one I became a trustee. I was appointed to the planning commission and under your leadership like Robin says, I cannot imagine any better planning commission. You have provided the leadership this body needed, this community needed. Thank you. Well, thank you. It's been an honor and pleasure to get to know you, to meet you, and to learn from you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. So with that I have uh one final request for motion. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor. Thank you all.