All right.

602.

Okay, we'll call the Plan Commission meeting of Wednesday, February 11th.

This is a special meeting to order.

We're going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

And Ray, right down here is going to help us.

He's going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

So whenever you're ready, you can start.

And to the Republic for which we'll do the justice for all.

I think Ray will go on attend every meeting now.

Okay.

Next item is roll call.

President of the plan from the Planning Commission is Wells, Walner, Frank Core, Riley, Keller, and Molton.

Den Edge there.

Also, we do have members of the Common Council.

Am I missing anyone?

Okay.

So we do have a quorum.

I did say Piper.

Yeah.

The next item is public comment.

We if anyone, if you want to make comments at this point, please come up to the microphone and provide your comments.

We will allow comments during the meeting also.

But if you need to get out of here, now would be the time to make your comment.

Okay.

Zoning code update.

Review drafts of the entire proposed zoning code.

Who's starting that?

Sure.

Okay, Charlie.

So at this point, I think all of you know our consultants from House Hill Vien and Birch Line Planning.

They're here to present mostly changes that have been made to the zoning code in responses to in response to comments from the plan commission, from council members, and from both planning and planning department staff and from city attorney's office.

As you know, the we've the whole code has been presented in parts so far over the last year.

And now we have the whole the entire thing.

So they'll they'll be presenting that.

It'll mostly again just be changes that have been made, but you will also have the opportunity to make comments on any part of the code.

So ahead.

All right.

So since you all um know this is our last uh joint meeting uh to review all the major changes we have done so far uh since last couple of weeks um throughout the chapters.

So the purpose of tonight's meeting is just go through all the all those um chapter revisions and uh that reflects the revision we have received from the city staff, um the city attorney, and all the feedbacks you uh from you since um last year.

Um just quickly to go through what uh we have done so far.

So we have gone through all the chapter um comments and also we are on a draft final um draft and a zoning code.

Um at this point, we are almost about to end the code, but generally we include the subdivision standards as a part of the all the chapters, but um this is like a unique situation at this moment, so we are gonna include the subdivision standards later at the phase and just adopt the code.

First, the the chapter one is general provisions.

Uh we have not done any major changes to the chapters, so I'm just gonna skip over and move on to the next chapter.

So the next chapter is zoning districts.

So one of the major changes we have done is uh revising the names for base districts.

Um re uh revise the name for residential neighborhood districts to make sure they kind of like more aligned towards their purpose uh from RN1, RN2, RN3, and RN4s.

The RN1 is more towards um large lords and low density development.

Uh R and two is more towards um the missing middle housing, RN3 is including like the smaller scale multi-unit and uh missing middle development.

And RN4 is more about like those large scale multi unit developments.

Uh so the intent is to make sure that uh whatever we are saying in the purpose statements in the chapter, the names are aligned with those intentions that we are saying.

Uh we also clarified the manufacturing district to make sure it's easier for reader to understand what each of these means and also like matches the goal of the intent.

Because we want to make sure every um all the environmental sensitive lands is included into one single overlay district, so it's easier to review and understand for the reader.

We also included the planned unit development overlay language.

This was already a part of the chapter, but the text was in development.

So we included the text to make sure it's flexible for the developer to create the development, but also kind of like the objectives are more clarified and it aligns with the comprehensive plan and it's more easier for review to the city.

And we also included the community node overlay district sections according to the uh comments we receive from staff.

Um that has like three uh sub-overlaid district, that is neighborhood node overlay, suburban mixed use node overlay, and you know regional commercial node overlay.

So this neighborhood node or node overlays uh is more around like creating the pedestal pedestrian oriented development.

Uh suburban mixed use is around like uh making sure we are redeveloping around those uh large scale older commercial and uh with like uh huge parking lots and vacant lands, just to make sure that we take that into consideration for this uh specific area.

And for regional commercial is um taking um everything within the uh arterial roads to make sure we are connecting all the development around that area and like using that to create the development for future.

So uh for the district uh bulk and dimensional standards um in specific cottage court um use in the RN1 district.

This was previously um allowed as minimum 24,000 as an allowed lot area.

So 24,000 is like around half acre.

So we revised that to keep it to one acre, and also uh the lot width has been increased from 80 feet to 100 feet.

The the reason behind is to make sure uh we are more like aligned with the intent of having a large lot development.

Something to consider consider here is that um cottage home court is are like like multiple units.

So once we have it there in the RN1 district, it's gonna look like more similar to the neighborhood around it because it's gonna look like it's a large lot and also make like a couple of um homes in it.

Uh so it's gonna look kind of like similar to the one and two unit um dwelling lot area we have here.

So in RN3 district, uh we revise the building height from 60 feet to 40 feet because in RN3 district, we are allowing missing middle as well as multi-unit development.

It makes sense to have a 60 feet minimum in RN4 because we have like larger multi-unit development there, but it all like but it really makes sense to minimize the height to 40 feet because we are gonna allow a diverse range of missing middle home here in RN3.

So in chapter three, use standards.

Um we made a couple of cleanups here.

Uh so we removed the word family from all of this missing middle housing types to make sure that our code is more aligned with federal uh fair housing act.

Uh we also removed the child daycare as a standalone use and added that in an accessory commercial use.

Uh we are now allowing community living uh use as conditional use in RN3 and RN4 district just to make sure that we are div we are allowing diversified um living environment in RN3 and RN4 district.

Um and we are also including some of those missing middle homes, uh, foster family care, nursing home, and parks uh in RN4 district, again to make sure we are diversifying the mixed use plus density uses in this area.

Um we are also including to allow commercial college, university, place of workship and schools uh as a conditional use in RN4 district because it really makes makes sense to have it there.

Um it may um uh aligns with the purpose of the RN4 district to have a mixed use and corridor-oriented um uh institutional uses in there.

We also changed according to the attorney's direction that um allow um changed uh took off the elementary missing uh middle school and high school uses uh throughout the use standards and only kept the K12 school as a use in here, and also allowing that as a conditional use in RN4 district.

So we are also allowing some of the residential uses in non-residential district.

Um sorry, hang on a second.

What what do you have, Joe?

I guess Sean, do you want questions now, or do you want to wait till they're all the way through, or how would you like to do that?

Um if you have a question on this on like chapter three.

I I do, I just real quick.

When you when you talk about a nursing home, going back one slide, is that is the definition of a nursing home, is that gonna be nine plus residents?

Because I see that as community living, but then I see nursing home as well.

So is that a nursing home?

Is that gonna be defined as nine plus residents?

So the community living arrangement is really kind of following the same kind of language that's in statute, and a nursing home would have a higher level of um medical care that's been offered usually 24 7.

Um or it can be offered 24-7.

There's going to be a definition that uh distinguishes between those two uses.

Because I I I know there's probably instances where there's maybe a handful of folks that are living in a house.

Joe, is your microphone on?

Yeah, maybe I'll just talk closer to it.

How about that?

So if there's an instance where there's a home where we have maybe three or four individuals living that are receiving a level of medical care, is that considered a nursing home, or is that not even allowed in the code currently?

Depending on the situation that might qualify for a community living arrangement of eight or fewer.

Okay.

And that would be allowed in the that would be allowed in the residential districts for all of them.

All four of them?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Do you know if the code has a nursing home definition or no?

I have not gotten that deep into it.

Which one the community living?

Nursing, yeah, we do have the definitions.

Okay.

As long as there's a definition of it.

Yeah, we have included definitions for all uses that you see in the use chapter here to make sure yeah that uh we have like defined term in the zoning code for all of these.

Yeah.

Any other questions?

Where?

Okay, she's raised her hand, but I think she's just saying that there is a definition of this.

Okay.

She's with the all right, go ahead.

I'm not connected to that.

All right.

So we are also allowing some residential uses in non-residential district.

Previously, we were not including some of this um uh some of this mixed type of uses in the multi-unit commercial district.

So we are now allowing uh live work unit as a permitted use and also duplexes types and single family detached dwellings in mixed use uh commercial district.

Um we are also allowing the community living arrangement as a permitted use in institutional district, just to make sure that we are diversifying some of these residential uses in this non-residential districts.

The next one uh is commercial uses allowance in non-residential district.

Uh the veteran clinic is a new use with that we included in the uh in the code later.

Uh and we are also allowing some of these uses like food truck code um as a conditional use in uh mixed use commercial district.

Uh we are doing this to make sure we are allowing this diversified uh business-oriented uses in the commercial um and some of these other districts.

Any questions on these two tables?

Go ahead.

Um this might be more of a question for the two of you.

Um, but in terms of the food truck court concept, how would that jive with our food truck ordinance?

Is this because it would be like on private property or yeah, that's the that's the intention is that those would be on private property and it would be kind of a permanent establishment.

Um I think is that like Zocalo in in Milwaukee?

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, exactly.

I just wanted to make sure I was understanding it.

Thank you.

All right.

So the next is uh allowing additional industrial and automotive type of uses in non-residential district.

Um we are including some of the uses like self-storage facility and financial and professional services and vehicle service uh type of uses within the non-residential district to make sure we are diversifying those economic activated uh uses and to uh add the growth to some of these districts.

So the next one is uh we added revise a supplemental standard uh for the adult-oriented establishment.

Uh we took this from the existing code that if it's located in um near the school or place of workship, it should have a distance of thousand feet.

And if it's located in uh close to any residential zone, public park or other adult oriented use, it should have a distance of 500 feet.

For the short term rental, we are still in we are in process of creating a language for this one, but I believe staff is desiring to combine that this with a bed and breakfast.

But we are we are working on this one.

Any comments on use standards so far.

Is bed and breakfast in then subdivision?

Or I know that's or was it already do we already have a section for bed and breakfast?

We do, but we'd still want to make uh some changes to it.

There were a lot of changes that or a lot of uh requirements that are in the current code that we basically did not want to include.

And the plan is to limit it, limit the standards to mostly just parking standards.

Um so there are other sections of code that could apply to particularly short-term rentals if they became a nuisance that would be covered by you know the city has nuisance ordinances and noise ordinances, but we didn't think those were appropriate in the zoning code.

So ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

I do in district one.

Um I understand we're still in uh you know part way through this, but uh but one of the more larger ones is Stein's Gardens and GIFs um garden center, and it said, you know, three slides ago, it said remove from garden center, uh, whether it's from the definition, I'm assuming this isn't going to change anything with uh businesses already existing.

I'm assuming or that is, or if there's someone wanted to expand or open up another one uh specific right there, garden garden center, remove use so we received a direction from staff to remove it from the proposed code, but if there are already any existing garden centers, I believe under the proposed code they can remain as it is if they make any changes to their uh development, it needs to go through new code, but they can be a legal non-confirming use as it is, they can stay.

Thank you.

And I think the intention with that was that it would just be that a garden center would just be covered.

There's a general retail retail category.

So we thought that it would just fall under that category and wouldn't need a separate.

Okay, that is clarification because there's other businesses.

I'll just say like Kmart used to have one.

I don't care.

I didn't want to say any more modern businesses, but thank you for that definition change.

Thank you.

Yeah, just so we're clear.

So a garden center, we're just removing that defin basically that use from the code, but our garden center is also retail, so it's would fit under just general retail.

Okay.

Yeah, and just to clarify that um since we are going to have it but not a separate standalone use and as a part of a general general retail, we're gonna revise the definition to make sure that this use is included in that general retail use.

All right.

So the next chapter is general development standards.

Uh so the first one is uh we took off the screening requirements section for the loading and truck area.

This was an error.

We do not have a separate loading section in this chapter.

So we definitely would not need a screening section for a loading area in the zoning code.

Uh we also took off some of these um administrative.

Real quick though, is there still screening in other parts of the code for that type of stuff not for loading, but yes, for other type of stuff like waste receptacles, uh ground and uh roof mounted.

Okay, because I know that in, I mean, we usually try to we have I I'm thinking when we get a new development, a lot of times there certain amount of vegetation and all that.

Sure, and then the landscape section, we still would have landscaping buffers and screening around parking lots if that's what you're getting at.

All right, there we go.

So it's not in zoning, but it's in the landscape.

Landscape, yes.

All right.

So then the next one is we removed um administrative adjustments um from like these are the deviations that we were allowing previously, and they were uh located throughout the code just for the information.

Uh we are not going to have administrative adjustment uh to be allowed, like approved through community development director or their designee that we had previously written in the throughout the course.

So in this specific chapter, it was located in all these four separate sections, and we took them off completely, and they would no longer be right.

The staff community development no longer has a ability to grant exemptions, but it can still come to the plan commission.

Yep.

Okay.

Um in addition to that, uh, we uh for this chapter, we included some of the operational impact standards from the existing code to make sure that uh the performance standards from the existing code have been carried over.

In addition to that, we uh for this chapter, we included some of the operational impact standards from the existing code to make sure that uh the performance standards from the existing code have been carried over.

If some of these um manufacturing districts are uses located near the residential zone, they need to have a specific decibel control.

Okay, go ahead.

And I'm not able to always see, so if if I don't see you, just start talking about it.

Thank you.

So I'm I'm in, I'm on page as it relates to Mike.

One of my questions is around fencing, and maybe you're gonna get to this.

And if I'm jumping ahead, I'm jumping ahead.

Uh so page four of 14 into 5 of 14.

So there's a table at the top of page five that talks about the different type of materials that are allowed in for fences in residential neighborhoods.

And I see that you can a neighbor or one of my residents can have a chain link fence that's allowed in RN1 and RN2, but it's prohibited in most other districts.

Why that's definitely not a desired type of material, and I believe it might be an error if it's not allowed in any other districts and just RN1 and RN2.

What are we is it allowed today?

Would this be a pretty substantial change?

Currently it is it is allowed in the current code in residential districts.

Okay.

At least in in Yeah, actually, in street yards and also in in rear yards.

So then we're gonna because I mean chain link is it's a it's an economical fence, it's I think a lot of people use it.

I think it might be a little bit of a surprise for the people that we work with and work for that they're not they're if you're an RN3 or an RN4 or any of the other districts, you can't put a chain link fence up anymore.

And then the other question I have is around deer and other temporary fence material.

So if someone wants to put like chicken wire around a garden, is that now prohibited?

What this is intending to do is capture the fences that are used for kind of your your security or your privacy fences.

These are not intended to be um a catch-all for any type of fencing that you might put up on a property, and these are intended for permanent fences as well.

So if you have a temporary kind of you know, keep the deer and the bunnies out of your garden uh type of fence up, that's not what's what this is intending to regulate.

Okay, and then what's the definition of waste materials in that chart that's also prohibited in all the districts?

That's below right below the deer and other temporary fence material.

Is that like a composting bin?

I mean, what what is that?

No, waste materials would be like using pallets and is it that type of thing?

It's it's getting at your kind of construction materials that are not intended to be used as permanent fencing.

Okay.

Yeah.

It might be helpful to maybe build that definition out a little bit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So the next uh chapter is building design standards.

Um in this chapter, we made a couple of changes uh to multi-unit mixed use and non-residential building design section.

Uh we remove the existing cladding color requirements uh because the intent of this chapter is to um have the objective standards that kind of like regulates the form and um applicability of the session, but not like um have something that's subjective.

So we removed that section and we also removed any administrative adjustments that was a part of this section, which was previously included in the glazing uh section.

Uh we also removed the exceptions uh language from the commercial entry by design.

Uh it means if they if anyone wants to have a commercial design standard, they need to go through this uh specific section that's allowed in the code and not they cannot get any exceptions from that.

Same in the row home building design, we removed the exterior cladding color requirements because it was a subjective uh language, and we also removed the administrative adjustment for the roofline articulation.

Any comments on building design standards.

Quick question.

Um, assuming the proponent meets all requirements of this.

But it's still ugly.

How is that taken care of?

Is it taken care of here?

Is it taken care of on a staff level?

Because you can meet all the requirements and still have an ugly building.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

I understand that, but it's debatable.

So if you want to protect the aesthetics of the community, need to have some oversight into those requirements.

Okay, and I guess I I'm gonna look to everyone up here too.

But my understanding is that if they meet all the requirements, they don't it it isn't reviewed other than by staff.

That's a terrible idea.

My opinion.

For for those specific, uh, there are the exceptions for anything that's uh adjacent to uh residential um which does not have the same uh the which doesn't allow the same use, uh those would come to the planning commission.

Those are what we've found in the past are are the uh types of uses that that uh you know get the most feedback.

Um those would always come to the planning commission to review.

So if it's something that's like in a commercial district uh that doesn't have any any residential use in the in the area, it could be approved by staff if it meets all of the requirements.

So I think what Commissioner Keller is concerned about if someone has a otherwise objectively appropriate building and decides to do the entire thing in fuchsia and chartreuse.

There's no there's no language that would prevent someone from doing that to create a otherwise uh conforming building that is harsh looking.

Yeah, we we actually did have initially there were some uh notes about colors, and uh the city attorney told us to remove those because he said any any k anything color related uh is suspect as far as what the city can uh can regulate.

So is it possible to put in a standard that says this can't be objectively obtuse?

I mean, I I guess you can't you can't say what colors you have to use or can't use, but you know, is there is there a standard that you could say the reasonable person would say this is doesn't have artistic I guess artistics wrong word, but is aggressively jarring is interpolate jarring or can we not really do that because then that becomes ultimately a judgment call or a subject.

Yeah, we we can't have staff making judgment calls that yeah, so right, and all those colors statements like you were saying would all be subjective and currently the way our codes are set up, once the building's constructed, we have no say into someone going in the next day and painting it whatever color they want.

Um could the plane within the PUD that's a little different, sure.

We can have a little more deep, you know, constraints on that, uh but just in general buildings that meet the code that are out in the community now.

If anyone could go, the owner could go and paint it any color they want any given day.

So looking at what we currently have, if someone came before the plank in our current process, they came before a plank commission and had a design that was otherwise normal, but they want to paint it pink and green.

Would we be able to deny or force them to put something different in, or would or would they be able to say no, it's you know it's it's a subjective.

I think you would you could you know request that of them.

I don't know that you could force them to if you tried to deny it.

Um it's probably something that could end up in court if they really felt strongly about their colors or because I mean I understand what Commissioner Keller's saying, but it might be one of those things that we're concerned about, but we couldn't actually do anything about it currently anyway.

So I guess I'll quickly comment, which is well, I I go back to when I was a teenager and I was painting houses, and uh three neighbors offered to pay me more money if I painted the house that I was painting a different color than what it was.

Um but uh the owner of the house wanted that color and it was horrible.

Um, but you see a lot of houses in Walkshaw and other places that are you don't agree with the colors.

Um my opinion is a plan commission shouldn't have authority over every color that's painted on every single building or every color that's uh on a building.

Um the goal of this code is to have buildings.

We do have some pretty stringent materials.

Um we haven't I don't believe um correct me if I'm wrong that we have anything that says what color palettes have to be used.

Um, but the materials on most buildings are is a step up from what we were able to um impose previous to this.

Now we have um uh a formula that says what what the building has to be consists of um and also what the formula for landscaping.

So I think we actually are a step up.

Will there be someone who wants to make their building look really ridiculous because of the colors that they chose?

Yeah.

Um but I go back to we wouldn't be able to tell them what colors um to use anyways.

Um a good example is like McDonald's, the their yellow is horrible.

Um, we're not gonna prohibit them from using their yellow.

Um the quick trip did the black cat sign, which I asked them six different ways if they would not have the yellow and black sign, but that's the color they're signed, so they didn't change it.

So those are my comments, Joel.

Thank you.

Doug, you touched on this for a hot minutes around the PUD.

So if if something comes in as a PUD or if the staff thinks that it should go PUD, a lot of the the ability to make these design choices are still gonna rest with the common council.

Is that fair to say um yeah, I think that means the plan commission has a little more of the control with the site plan architectural review, and the council has the final say on the zoning of the property and the overall uses that would go within it.

So I think from because I'm I'm what I hear what RG's talking about in terms of just the design of it.

If my my question is, if if something is going down the path of being a PUD, the plan commission and the council will still have some semblance of say in some in how it's gonna what the end product is gonna look like.

Is that correct?

We would be following the same PUD process essentially that we're using now.

All right, thank you.

Go ahead.

The Edsel was a lovely car, but it was ugly.

Everybody thought it worked great, but it was ugly.

So what do we do with ugly?

That's an aesthetic opinion.

There are three kinds of projects that come in the plan commission.

The ones that are great, you try to get them out the door as fast as possible so they don't change anything.

The ones that are lousy that you don't even want to come in the door, and the one in the middle, you try to move it around so it's acceptable.

That's what we deal with.

Who deals with the aesthetic component of that if it's not dealt with here?

If it's not dealt with here, then I guess you have to deal with it on your level.

And then I don't know what I'm doing here.

So it's objectively, somebody has to look at the projects aesthetically to see if it matches the requirement that it meets the needs that looks reasonable when it's built and that kind of understands it'll fit in with its environment.

Uh if we don't do that, I don't know where we do that.

Maria, I'm assuming you want to talk.

Yeah.

Um I know you were addressing Doug, but I just um since I was in the peanut gallery, just wanted to make one comment about that.

When we had brought the different chapters before the commission previously, we took made did some examples, and I'm not sure if you were at that meeting, RG, but we took some examples of what recent projects that would have come to the plan commission or wouldn't have come to the plan commission.

And in looking at those, many of the projects that you did um add value to um, I would say were projects that would have come regardless um if they met the standards because it was a PUD or because it was an extra residential.

Um so we tried to build that into the code as well as the standards that the commission has had the guide the design guidelines that you all have had for a number of years, but were never codified.

Um so I just wanted to point that out again.

And if we could summarize those projects that would come to you anyway, and then some of them that you did approve that we looked at and we looked at the landscape standards would actually have had increased under this uh the proposed code, would have had increased landscaping and in some increased masonry and so forth on the building.

Just wanted to point that out.

Go ahead.

Yeah, so so typically um most communities have two processes by which to review aesthetics.

One is a design review board made up of landscape architects and architects and planners and so forth.

Um Madison has that.

Very difficult to get through, but they're proud of their control.

Um other communities have plan commissions with one design professional and some other similar people on the commission, which is the way Walkshaw has it.

That's the only check and balance you get here to get those projects approved before they're built.

If that's not done and it gets built and everybody looks at it and go, what happens?

Then to some degree the plan commission has failed.

So it either has to be done at a staff level and someone has to be responsible for it or the final re approval has to be here, and someone has to move it along aesthetically in the right direction to make it work.

So I don't see how that's going to be done if everything is being done by staff.

And I'm not to take away from the staff's responsibility.

I'm just saying in general.

So I think this is really the tension which will probably be the main discussion in front of the whether the common council approves the zone the new zoning code, but it's been being work it's been worked on for the last year, plus to say let's have a whole set of standards, and if people meet the standards, then they can build it except for the exceptions of plain unit development.

Is is this code in play in any other community in Wisconsin?

Or close it.

Not closed, but I would say frankly.

I'm sorry, very clear.

So every community has their own individual code.

There may be similarities to them with regard to building design standards.

It really is about making them objective.

So that there is some fair certainty when a developer or a landowner comes before whatever approval authority, be it staff, be it the plan commission, be it a design review board, be a council, they have some fair certainty about if they meet the standards in the code, they are able to build what it is they're proposing.

Um completely understand your point of view, I am and I sympathize with that.

We are limited in a few ways of what we can present that would be defensible in in court.

Um we've presented these to the city attorney for their opinion, and as was mentioned before, some of the things that we actually had recommended to be included in here were flagged for removal.

So I I totally understand where you're coming from.

Um we are kind of limited in what we can include in here in terms of making them objective.

Um, but those the one thing that you could do is say that everything has to go to the plan commission, which is what your process is pretty much now.

Um that would be the level of review that you'd be seeking if you were trying to have some less than objective uh standard applied.

Well, again, the the good projects don't need a lot of our input.

We typically deal with the call it the mediocre projects that want to be better.

And the intent is not to wind up in a lawsuit, the intent is to try to make it better without affecting their budget or their opinion of the end result.

And that's a manipulation of a hundred different things to try to make them feel good about getting approved and making it a little bit better.

And so again, if it's not done here, then it has to be done on a staff level because I'm not sure that every developer, every contractor, and every architect has those items in mind.

There's a range of uh scenarios out there by which we see once a month.

Is there a particular section of the code that you feel might lead more toward those scenarios where you wouldn't get a quality product presented?

Is it materials or the types of materials?

Is it the height?

Is it the facade articulation?

Is there something in there specifically that we might be able to improve upon?

There probably is.

Um how can you make the Mona Lisa better?

How can you make you know an outstanding project even better?

Um to some degree it's the behalf of the people, either the design professional that's working with a developer that's working with a contract that's come in front of us, or the design professional.

It depends on um how they see things, how they solve problems.

Um it's a hundred different things that make a good project.

And so all I would suggest that we do here is to try to take some of those hundred things and improve on them in the event that the proponent hasn't gone all the way.

And that's a difficult thing to define.

It's not speed limit, it's perception.

And so what I try to do here is try to take all the knowns and unknowns, put them in a package that makes sense so that the developer of the contract or the architect can walk out feeling good about what they did.

And the city gets a good project when it's done.

And each one of those scenarios is different.

So you can put it in the words all day long.

I'm not sure it's going to define what's necessary.

So just my perception.

Okay.

And that will be probably what will be discussed further.

Um from my viewpoint.

Um I would like the certainty.

It's like here's a building, here's what you have to put into the um the building and uh materials is really the big thing in the vegetation.

It's there's pretty pretty stringent standards, which are more than what we have actually been requiring most often.

Yeah, I think that the the good test would be to find a project that's met all these requirements.

One that's good and one that's terrible.

And compare the two and wonder why.

And and that result would be you can't necessarily control where you put materials and percentage of materials and what the colors are to make a good project.

You can make a terrible project and a good project out of the same materials.

And so that's someone needs to um review that to make sure the city gets as good of uh three-dimensional uh landscape as possible.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Okay.

All right.

Moving on to the next chapter, parking and access standards.

All right, Joe.

I thought we were still on five, my bad.

So I'm looking at page three of 15 under the design standards.

And I'm just vinyl sighting, and I know probably not everybody's favorite, but is this saying that vinyl sighting is going to be prohibited on pretty much any commercial property in the city of Waukesha if this passes?

What's the stand on vinyl sighting these days?

Is it is that the way our code is today?

Generally, the planning commission uh would not approve vinyl sighting on that that's uh um it's the design policies uh call for masonry with other other studying types as uh uh an accent, and I can't think of a uh development where the planning commission has approved vinyl siding.

Okay.

I don't come to every plan commission meeting, so I just when I see something that says it's just completely prohibited, I'm gonna ask about it.

So that's been something that the planning commission has seemed to be rooting out, so to speak, is the use of vinyl sighting.

Is that fair?

Yeah, I can't say we've seen a ton of vinyl sighting proposed for see Hardy Board signing, which is siding, which is different.

Yeah, yeah.

And I think we've had a number of concerns when applicants have brought forward like EFIS or materials that don't have a whole lot of you know structural strength that they get I mean we've we've had a couple discussions where we really want the masonry because commercial buildings just take more abuse than a residential building, and certain materials like vinyl siding don't hold up.

So this so just so I understand it.

So this section 2205, this applies to really multiple.

I'm looking at kind of the multi-unit residential, mixed use, non-residential design standards.

So this isn't gonna permit this isn't gonna prevent somebody like myself from putting a little bit of vinyl sighting on my house.

That's is that fair?

Right.

There's with there aren't design standards for the for uh one and two family.

Also, any of these standards, the intention is that you know it if if a project meets these standards, it could be approved by staff without having to come to the planning commission if it doesn't meet the standards and the applicant still wants to go ahead with it, they could say I want to go to the plan commission for an exception, and then the the plan commission would have some standards for deciding how whether an exception is approved.

Okay, so thanks, Charlie.

Yeah, I think the existing draft does not mention what just Chatley mentioned to us that we need to include the exception section to all of this to make it clarified there.

Okay.

And Joan, go ahead.

I guess I would like to reply that uh this is something we would not want to approve in the first place.

And so we've gone through these discussions many times.

So it's easier to have it um codified so the developer knows or the proposer knows that that is not going to be approved.

Rather, going through all the effort, the staff goes through the effort, then we go through the effort, and we come out with the same result.

So it's not so much uh total changing of the standard, it's more of being clear in what the plan commission and the city is asking from developers.

All right, moving on to next chapter, parking and access standards.

So, firstly, on this chapter, uh we revised um the um minimum and maximum driveway width regulation table.

Previously we had included uh we were regulating this table district-wise.

And we also took off the one-way and two-way um driveway requirements to make sure it's more um easier and consistent to understand.

Um so the next one is um in this table, we had R1 uh listed R1 and R2, R3 uh RN3 and RN4 in two uh different rows.

We combined that to make sure we are um regulating all the residential neighborhood district in one single category.

So the next one is we uh took off all the temporary uses from the minimum parking requirements because I believe the desire is that to not allow like not have a permanent parking requirement for the temporary uses.

The next one is that uh parking requirement um deviation.

So we had this table um included previously with the clear clear criteria and adjustments.

So we are going to keep that as it is.

We just revise the name of it from administrative adjustments to allowable deviation.

Uh, this is the unique one, and we are only going to apply this for the parking uh section and anywhere um other places in the code, the this kind of deviation adjustments have not been allowed uh through administrative leak.

The next one go ahead.

Yes, go ahead.

So if they buy insurance, yeah.

Sorry, are are they able to stack these um I guess deviations?

So if they have transit and shared use, are they able to reduce by 80%?

Or can they only take the maximum category?

Since we are regulating this through an like um objective criteria, they would need to meet this requirement to need to get approved as an allowable deviation.

Right, but if if they have a certain if they have say the standard is based on their use is 20 parking spaces.

If they are near transit, they can reduce their number of parking spaces by 20%.

Yeah.

Can they reduce that number again because they're using they have a shared use parking?

Oh I guess can you can you continue to stack those together to reduce your parking, or do you just get more?

It's not it's not actually within this version.

Um what you can do in order to kind of prevent that from adding up to you can have a hundred percent reduction, I think is you know the extreme scenario.

Um there's usually a limitation of how much you can reduce the um the parking by when you receive a deviation and approved deviation.

I guess I'm not necessarily opposed.

I just I'm not necessarily opposed to not being able to stack them, but obviously we don't want to send parking to zero.

Right.

So then there would be a maximum limit.

Even if you did stack it, you wouldn't be able to reduce it by a certain threshold.

We can certainly include that.

More than 95% have to have some parking.

Yeah, well.

Otherwise, that's not a minimum requirement, right?

Um, yeah.

So I think that uh I think we've had in other codes um no more than about 75%.

You can't reduce it by more than 75%.

And it I'd like to staff to go through that because it just off the top of my head, if you if you do the 60 and the 20%, I mean that would if you're supposed to have a hundred spots, all of a sudden you have 20 spots.

Um maybe the 60% is a good number, but that's something that staff should see what the maximum reduction in percentage of parking.

Jack, is that gonna handle it?

Yeah, I we we should take a close look at it.

I guess I I like the idea that you can buy off your parking minimum by allowing for other ways for people to get to your building or your but obviously we don't want to create a situation where it's gonna cause problems as well.

Right, and the transit one's gonna apply to many many properties because we do have a bus system and it goes throughout the entire city.

Um being with a thousand feet of uh um public transit stop is um encompasses a lot of the city.

So it'd be the shared use parking um, if you have both of them, that'd be 80%.

So basically directing this staff to say come up with something that makes sense in there.

That's anyone have a different opinion.

Okay.

Uh any questions on parking chapter?

Go ahead, Mike.

Most of the car dealerships, at least new car dealerships are in district one, and many of the dealerships speak out to me when they're doing remodeling, and there's a lot of them that come before you, the planning commission.

Uh they're always talking about the number of handicapped disabled vehicle spots in front.

They always feel that is excessive.

So I'm just reporting back what local businesses.

I think some of the larger dealerships, I believe there's like four or five uh in front.

Um, when I visit them, I have them take their used car or excuse me, new car inventory out of those spots.

Uh, then they complain to me about that.

Um something has that been addressed at all, or it's gonna maintain the standard state law.

I mean it's yeah, we can't or a federal law enforced by the state, I think, too.

That's what I tell them, but that's the feedback.

We're not our code can't change that requirement.

I'm just wondering, I can't go to every meeting, and I'm just addressing what the business owners of my district mentioned to me.

Thank you.

I'd just like them to be able to have visitor parking.

Yeah.

And staff parking.

All right.

The next chapter is landscape and natural resources.

I would call GB to address that one.

Yeah, you can go.

Good to stand.

Hi, everybody.

Thanks.

Great to be with you all again.

Um, we don't have a whole lot of changes to the draft of the natural resource standards.

Um, the big one, as we've been discussing, is that in this draft, plan commission would review any request for a deviation from the standards rather than staff.

So anything that goes um if you needed a variation from the required plant points or the width of one of the required planting areas, etc., that would come back to plan commission instead of being a staff level um discussion.

We did uh work to clarify the street tree requirements, basically codifying what the city has been doing.

Um of the required sort of planting zones, if you have frontage on a public street, you'll plant one tree, street tree per 50 linear feet.

That is um that counts towards your plant points.

Preservation of trees counts towards your points.

And we did though discuss the large industrial properties.

You have quite a few where one tree per 50 linear feet would be a lot.

So on those lots of five acres or larger, car dealerships are another example that would be that big.

It's one per 100 linear feet, um, which is very, very consistent with good practice in other other communities.

Um we do want to continue our discussion, and I'm gonna my show and tell for tonight.

Um rather than specifying particular species of trees in the actual zoning, which of course requires the public hearing process.

We would recommend that either plan commission or your city forester adopt a recommended tree list.

I was with um folks from Wisconsin DNR yesterday at a conference, and there is a fabulous new set of recommended trees that will get you for parks, streets, parking lots, small and large.

So we've got great resources to guide that.

Your city forester who also gets very high marks from Wisconsin DNR can put that list together.

But we would recommend getting that done so that when you adopt uh the zoning, there's a list ready to go of recommended species.

So great that can be modified as in year in probably each year or two.

Exactly.

Yes.

Also important because if you get a particular species that goes under a disease threat, or if there's a shortage at the nursery, it's it's more flexible and you don't have to go through that process.

Um we did have some some discussion with city attorney about wetland and surface water buffers.

The draft that we reviewed last time included a required a fairly modest requirement to keep or maintain a vegetative buffer along streams, rivers, ponds, and wetlands.

Um we're gonna recommend changing the language on what wetlands are jurisdictional to whatever DNR regulates would be regulatory wetlands.

Um but we would recommend considering keeping that buffer standard, which is a perennially vegetated strip, basically.

That's where you get the benefits, pollution capture, trash capture, keeps the temperature down.

That's what prevents algae blooms.

Um and if we could go to the next slide on this.

Yeah.

Like if you're going to a different thing, uh Joel had a comment.

You may be getting to what I have a question on, so I'll just continue.

Great.

Lo and behold, there's our um tree stuff.

Uh I think it's very good.

The one per 50, very consistent with what you have today.

I think it's attractive.

I might have just been in a city that starts with a B where they've gone to one per 30, and it really is crowded.

Um, so I think this is a really good standard aesthetically and and for the trees.

What do you do when the electrical lines are there?

Um great question.

Mayor, one of the one of the things that that DNR has on here is a whole list of street trees that are shorter and don't interfere with electrical overhead lines.

Um that's probably a good we in Madison we actually went through and were specific about shorter trees um that wouldn't interfere with power lines.

That again, that that can and probably should be handled by your forester rather than trying to code for it because sites get so wonky.

But you definitely have a whole bunch of good species that are far less likely to interfere with power lines.

All right.

Mayor I'm gonna address that as far as I know.

Uh the last uh forester, I think it was Mike who was here 30 plus years.

Uh there are six homes in the city of Waukeshilla does not have trees.

I do not have I don't have any city trees in my yard.

He said I cannot put them.

So our forestry department is on top of that because I have a major electrical hub.

Can have a city tree on my yard or the terrace or my front yard.

So that has been addressed.

I just thought I'd I must be one of the other seven.

Okay.

I mean, there's I could be off, but that's what uh Mike told me.

So that has been addressed, but I'm interested in those trees.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

And if we can link.

There we go.

Okay.

So on the buffer, as a fairly well built-out city.

I think it's very unlikely you're gonna have a lot of cases where a significant new surface water or wetland buffer needs to be reserved.

Maybe some subdivision towards the edge.

Um, but the idea is to try to keep or create a strip along those surface waters and wetlands because that again, that perennially vegetated strip that you mark it off and you don't drive in it, is what we find really protects water quality, does reduce the pollutant load, does prevent the algae blooms.

So this is an example in the city of 28 feet of really well buffered stream.

Um this the actual setback, including that lawn, is another 110 feet.

If you talk to folks ecologically, they'd really prefer to keep that if you had to trade one off, they'd rather that vegetated strip, that narrower vegetated strip than the long horizontal lawn.

That's not really protective of the surface water in the same way that that vegetation is.

So that's the reason that we'd we'd recommend um keeping that, and I think there's a table that we need to put back in the draft if that is the direction of the city.

I guess I'll start, which is yeah, I I would much rather have the buffer perennial um vegetated area in undisturbed condition.

Um it does it also provides some stormwater control too, I believe.

So that's my opinion.

I agree with that that opinion.

Anyone else?

Go ahead, Steve, if you thanks, Mayor.

Um I was talking to Wisconsin DNR out in Madison uh last week.

And uh I've got a couple new residential uh properties that are or residential apartment properties are going up in District 5.

We've got a lot of wetlands over there.

My uh I like the the setbacks and and all that stuff.

Uh my main concern is salt.

And uh we use a lot of it, and we're polluting terribly in in the northern states with the salt.

Uh my constituents are frogs and turtles and stuff like that.

They don't do well with salt.

And some of this is vaulted, and I was I was told uh I talked with John uh and Alvix uh this week, early this week.

And um or late last week, I guess it was.

But um some of the storm water goes into vaults and then it eventually goes to the root river uh here and uh back in the Lake Michigan.

Um my concern is that uh when you get uh contractors that stack the snow just off the the curbing of parking lots, that doesn't get vaulted at all.

And what that does is eventually migrates down into the wetlands.

And uh I'm very concerned about that extremely so and I think we do need to come up with uh some sort of standard that would address that going forward.

So I don't know how we do that, but I'm a new alternate, by the way, so I I really don't have a clue there.

But it it seems to me that there should be something in place that would address that.

Thank you.

I don't know if that's a zoning code issue or a other code.

Um it's it is a hot topic here in Minnesota.

Um it is very important, and the we had there's a lot of uncertainty about the absolute best ways to deal with it.

Couple things though that we did do have drafted one snow storage.

Let's find it.

Snow storage is in fact um has to be specified.

This is page I think 18 of 33 in chapter 7.

Um snow storage areas do have to be clearly indicated, and the use of vegetated areas is limited to areas designated, planned, and planted for that purpose.

Um storage and stormwater management measures is strictly prohibited except where approved as part of a stormwater management plan.

There are some types of things like the geo grids and grass pavers that are used for stormwater control that are fine for snow storage.

Um dumping it over the bank is not.

So your zoning, this draft does require the identification of snow storage areas, but we all know we got a lot of sites where people are super limited.

So that's gonna be a process.

But keeping that vegetative buffer or requiring people to, you know, if we're coming in for a site plan amendment, we're gonna have to plant a little bit more along these waterways.

It may not solve the problem, but it sure does help.

So that's um definitely some steps in this draft of the code that would be helpful for that purpose.

Is that just so I'm clear?

Um snow storage, is it only applicable next to surface water and wetland buffers, or it's throughout the code?

Everywhere.

Okay.

Right.

So anyone coming in for site plan is going to need to identify a snow storage area or identify that they're gonna have it trucked.

Right.

And right now we have thousands of places that don't have that in their plan, and they would still they wouldn't have to redo a plan, they wouldn't have to prepare a plan.

Don't have to prepare it.

They would need to, if they came in for site plan, then they need to designate that.

Okay.

Joe.

So I I want to ask my question before I forget it.

So when I was at one of the other meetings, we I know the idea of cutting down trees came up.

And one of the questions that I had was to make sure that I have a right in my yard in a single family home to cut down a tree if I want to.

And I want to make sure that that right is maintained.

If I'm a single, if I own my house and I got a tree in my backyard that I want to cut down, I can cut it down.

Correct.

Okay, because I'm looking at page nine of 33, and it says um, I believe it says notwithstanding the first two zoning codes or the first two zoning sections, right?

Single family detached and duplex dwellings.

Yep.

That's pop top of page 10.

Yes.

Okay.

So C says on all properties other than those occupied by single family and duplex.

Just want to make sure I can cut a tree down.

That's good.

And my other question um has to do with this clear cutting restriction that's the bottom of page nine.

Yep.

So I I see some language in here that it says mowing, trimming, pruning, or removal of vegetation to maintain it in a healthy viable condition is not considered clear cutting.

Okay.

I have a row in my yard and I've got a row of lilacs that's probably 60 feet long.

I'm gonna cut all those down this year because they're old and they need to be they need to be regrown.

Am I allowed to do that?

So I would say yes.

This is you are clearing for a bona fide garden use in a district permitting it.

Um are you planning to replant it?

Something under there.

To me, that goes under the gardening.

Okay.

So then one would be allowed to do that.

So when I first bought my house 22 years ago, and my wife hates me for this, but there was a a row of like vines and everything that kind of separated me from the neighbor, and it looked terrible.

And I cleared it all out because I didn't like it, and I'm a farmer and I like clear fence lines, right?

Could I could I do that work today?

Would that project be allowed in this current code if I came in and took all the vines down and rooted all the vines out and cleared out the property line?

Yes, I I believe so.

I think we could certainly I I think removable removal of vegetation to maintain it.

Maybe we could add a couple words.

But was the intent to remove the vegetation and then plant something?

Did you leave all the ground bare forever?

In parts of it.

I planted some height, I put some trees up.

You put you you planted trees.

Okay.

That to me is not clear cutting.

Or even grew grass.

Or grew grass.

Okay.

Right.

Again, I mean, I I know it's down a rabbit hole, but these are the questions.

These are the questions that we're gonna get from residents if this thing passes.

I'm gonna get a call saying, Joe, what do you mean I can't tear down lilacs anymore?

And I just want to make sure that that's gonna be allowed with for the people that I represent.

I think they affect my hay fever the most, so that would be all right.

See, and I like lilacs.

So I think we this was drafted, and I've administered something very much like it.

Um when we were working with the city of Eau Claire with House Seal Levine, they had had a number of cases where people literally cleared and grubbed single family sites, took everything out in a continuous patch, and then left it there, and it eroded into the storm drain in the neighbor's properties.

Um you want to be having something that says we can't just have sites cleared, grubbed, and left in an aesthetically and environmentally bad condition.

That's the intent here.

I suppose I think mowing, trimming, pruning, a removal of veget vegetation for normal property maintenance where the property is maintained in a healthy viable condition is not.

We could maybe adjust that, but to me, if I'm administering it, you are taking out that the lilacs are going because they're old and janky, and you're gonna re-vegetate the area.

That's fine.

That's gardening.

That's regular maintenance.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So under C of the same section, plan com C number two, Plant Commission may approve removal of trees subject to the above, where the commission determines that the proposed plan will result in the removal of the minimum number and size of trees necessary for the development.

So that would have to come before the planning commission.

That can't be a Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

I think that's all I got.

Oh, okay.

So that this is just our recommendation on the on the buffer.

We had some back and forth with the city attorney.

Um would recommend putting back 220705, which is basically to say if you come in for development, you're going to identify a snow storage area and create a minimum buffer along your if you have a pond river, lake, or waterway.

You're going to create a minimum vegetative buffer.

Perennial.

Perennially vegetated buffer.

Yep.

And just to clarify, we we did discuss this recommendation with the city attorney's office, and they they said this is fine as long as it's clear the difference between a buffer and a setback.

So I think that's all I got.

Okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Just to double back for the parking for a minute.

Um the comments you brought up about handicapped parking at car dealerships.

I guess my perception is it shouldn't be based on a number of cars on site.

It should be based on the population of the visitors and the staff.

So for some reason, that parking count is based on 500 cars out in front of the store.

Those cars aren't going anywhere.

It's not like it's a shopping center that people are going back and forth.

That's a fixed sale item.

So I think the parking count may be arbitrarily wrong based on how it was calculated.

So it might make sense if you run into this again to have the owner look at the staff and the visitor count and see how many cars are generated there, and then the percentage of those people would define the amount of the amount of handicapped stalls as opposed to adding the 500 cars out in front of the store.

Thank you.

I mean it I think a lot of it is what's visually appeasing, appealing.

Some like the older days, like Joe Carini, they recently knocked that down.

It was a small building with a lot of cars.

A lot of them, it's all show and shine, and they showcase their beautiful glass, and they'll have let's say 10 parking spots out there, and six of them will be have some type of restriction.

So they like putting their new models out there so people see them when they come into the door.

That's what they're doing, but they they can't do it.

It was uh I will I will investigate that and yes, maybe there's a there's some flexibility in that number.

Right, because it's it's when I was shopping for a car last summer, I went everywhere, and it's like you know, hey, why are these cars here?

You you can't have them.

And there's and then they tell me why.

And I said, Okay, you know, I didn't identify myself as you can't do that, but I'm saying you really can't.

These these are earmarked for special people.

My mom and my dad, when they're shopping for cars, they're gonna, you know, if they can't park and walk, they're gonna go to another dealership.

So, but I I will uh do some surveying this week and get back to city staff right away.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, moving on to next chapter, uh, which is science standards.

Uh the number of the chapter is nine because the eighth chapter is um subdivision standards.

We're gonna work on it later phase, so that's why the number is nine.

Uh so under science chapters, uh, we made a couple of changes.

Uh we added the marquee sign regulations, uh roof sign regulation, and also billboard sign um as an allowed use type, um allowed sign type and also like added regulations around it.

Uh and we also clarified in the uh regulations that the light pole banner sign would only be allowed in institutional district moving forward.

Um and also we removed all the administrative adjustments rated language throughout this chapter all as well.

And we also revised the applicability section uh to make sure that it is clear to the reader that if you are making any um changes to the existing, if you are like redeveloping or adding a new development or altering uh the existing building, uh, you need to comply with the proposed code.

And um for any city uh signs or traffic signs or address signs, those would not be regulated as a part of this.

Only the private kind of signs would be regulated.

Uh so in Marque Science, uh we added the maximum area projection, uh, ground clearance, all those kind of uh requirements, uh, and also included that the maximum one per property market sign would be allowed.

And also in the roof sign regulation, we added that only one uh roof sign for one story building would be allowed, and we included the uh height regulation and the design regulations around the roof sign.

The next one is uh billboard sign standards.

Uh we included the area and height standard for this one and added a language that only a maximum 10 numbers of billboard signs would be allowed throughout the city.

Uh added a couple of regulations like spacing setbacks, um, electronic um message um timing, and also uh uh the spacing from the residential um uses.

The next one is monument sign standards.

Um we added a language that only one sign would be allowed throughout the development uh site.

This was not included in the previous draft.

So we added this to to clarify to the reader.

The next one is uh electronic display sign standards.

Um we were previously saying that in uh if it's allowed in any district, the electronic display would be minimum of 50%.

So we took the that requirement off and added some of the clarified regulations that um the electronic display sign would not be permitted in any residential neighborhood district, not in any mixed-use commercial or downtown commercial district.

Um it would only be allowed in theater marquees.

Um in any other district where they're allowed, there would be no minimum percentage requirement uh on monument or drive-through sign.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

So you're saying that so if we have if there's a church in a residential neighborhood, you're saying that they can't have an electronic sign?

Probably zoned in institutional.

Is it zoned residential?

Well, I and then again, so just bear with me.

So I think of like St.

William, for example, it's that's institutional zoning, it's a church, but it's in a residential neighborhood.

So they would still be allowed to have an electronic sign because their zoning is institutional.

Okay.

And we do have some churches that have residential zoning.

We've kind of tried to change that as you know, as we've gotten as you know, they've run into issues because of it.

Okay.

Um, but that would be something that you know, in the case of a church, they could they could bring it to the plan commission as they they would now and and that would be uh the planning commission would review it and it's decide whether it was appropriate to to approve it.

So would that come to the planning commission or would that go to Boza?

That in that case it would go to the planning commission.

And it does actually now too.

Okay.

Thanks, Charlie.

Okay.

Any of that questions on sign standards.

What what is meant by the permitted um electronic display sign standards permitted in all other districts?

No percentage limit on monument or drive-thru.

I I guess it's when you say no percentage limit, is that so that's unlimited amount of monument or drive-through sites?

So previously we were saying it could only have the 50% of ADA for electronic display.

And uh staff ask us to take that off so that we cannot so we could take off the control of having that percentage limit.

So if someone wants to have the 60 and 40 to 60 or 70, they can have that bigger display.

Yeah, so that there's a limit on the size of a monument sign, but uh our we had, I think uh previous prior to 2019 there was a limit uh on what percentage of that size could be used for an electronic message center.

Um when we had done the last major update to the sign code, uh we took that limit out uh just based on the uh the technology of the of the um electronic message centers that it didn't make sense anymore, I guess.

So uh we had wanted to maintain consistency with what we have.

Yeah, just just you know, I guess my concern is is that when it says no percentage limit on monument or drive-through signs, obviously there is some type of limit, but not in regards to electronic displays.

Yeah, there's there's a maximum sign area for those.

Yeah.

John, I had one more question.

So at the bottom of page four.

Um page five.

Um nine line, I think this is 220903 section A, Section 8.

Signs on vehicles, boats, or trailers parked for a period of more than 72 hours, 72 consecutive hours has to be visible from the public right-of-way.

Those are prohibited.

So again, bear with me on the rabbit hole.

But if you're you're a small business owner and you've got a van with your business name on it, you go on vacation and you've parked your van in your driveway for more than 72 hours.

Are you now in violation of the zoning code?

Go ahead, Charlie.

Technically, yes.

Um we have we the current code uh prohibits signs on vehicles that are used for purposes uh or that aren't used for purposes other than solely advertising.

Um and it's that's a we've had a few cases where we've you know where there have been vehicles that are obviously out on a parked uh so as to be a sign, and it it's a very difficult difficult language to to enforce, basically.

So this is a little bit more enforceable.

We don't anticipate going around looking for sure people that have so what if you have an individual who puts a sign mounts a sign to a trailer that says save the trees and they park it in their driveway?

So where does where does the where's the first amendment stop and start with something like this?

Um they would be able to uh there's no distinction between uh content.

So you there wouldn't be any distinction of a sign that says save the key trees and a sign that says uh bills plumbing.

Yeah, exactly.

Um they they would be allowed to have plenty of signs, you know, yard signs, um banner signs, things like that, uh, with without really restrictions.

But so I guess my question is what what's the purpose of eight?

What is this trying to prevent I guess the intention is you know the businesses that have that'll just put up a sign on a truck uh that in a way that doesn't, you know, that they're they're basically just trying to get extra sign area that doesn't uh it's they want to save money on it and it doesn't look uh it's not within the standards of the surrounding commercial area.

Okay.

Thanks, Charlie.

Go ahead.

Just uh I think I talked about this the last time we met, but um so let's take a shopping center like Fox Run or Fox River shopping center.

There are probably 30 tenants in the size of the sign as a function of the frontage of the store typically, both vertically and horizontally.

The color is typically written into the sign criteria package that the either the shopping center owner or the leasing person uh gives out to the tenant.

It might make sense to take this sign requirement and test it against the typical sign criteria package and see how much craziness is gonna go on when new tenants show up in some of the shopping centers.

Because most of what you see there is written into the lease.

And it's written into the lease as a function of the frontage of the store and so forth.

And so less the building owner comes back irate about having to change that entire thing for their shopping center or for all the new tenants to come in and then have a different looking center, it might make sense to just test this against that.

And that's probably the biggest center we have here locally and just see how it shakes out.

Actually, that's a good point because they have more than one monument sign.

They have two monument signs at least, I think.

Well, all that, but they've got you think about all the outbuildings and the linear frontage of it's probably two thousand feet of sign band, more or less.

If you add it all up.

So I've been through this before when designing retail centers, and I just think for us to be safe and have this go forward, I would take the largest retail tenant and just see.

Does this still make sense?

Or do we need to tweak it a little bit so that we're not uh coming up against uh issues for any time a tenant comes uh in front of us.

Community development will look into that.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Looks like everyone's done at this moment.

Go ahead.

Well, moving on to next chapter, uh non-conformities.

We made a couple of changes to this chapters uh in some of the sections.

Uh one of that is non-confirming building and structure.

Uh there was a confusing section about how to regulate um historic stu uh buildings.

So we took that requirement off and added a clear sentence that any buildings um and structures must follow this zoning zoning code regardless of the historic status of that specific building.

Uh and in non-confirming signs, we removed the change of use section because the that section was anyway saying that if you make a change of use, you need to comply with this um zoning code anyway.

And we are saying that in the signs applicability section.

So it's working over there.

So the next chapter, any question on non-conformity?

Go ahead.

So we're yeah, come on up here, come on up here.

Yes, talk in the microphone.

Yeah.

Frank, can you just state your name and Frank Palm?

Uh I live on Chicago Avenue.

Um all building instructions, so we're talking about new buildings.

Well, uh non-conforming, so regardless of historic value.

No, and a new building wouldn't be non-conforming because it'd have to meet the code as it's built.

But I think your question is is uh historic building has to meet the zoning code?

Yes.

Is that your question?

I guess basically yes.

Okay.

In the way it's written is yes, it does.

So I I guess most zoning codes have or a lot of zoning codes have uh requirements that uh you can only you can only uh do work that adds up to 50 percent of the value of the building uh of a non-conforming building uh before you then have to make it conforming or or like tear it down.

We removed all those requirements.

So that's why you would have in the code, you would you would say if it's got historic status, well you don't want to tear those buildings down even if they are non-conforming.

So we don't have that requirement.

Basically, if a building is non-conforming, it's allowed to stay uh and it can continue to be maintained.

Uh it just any any additions onto the building would have to be uh would have to be meet the zoning code.

So you wouldn't be able to do an addition onto the building that adds to the nonconformity, but you could if it if it wasn't non-conforming.

So the old building is it's got its own code.

I mean it's it's a historic building.

So it doesn't.

For what's there already.

Yes.

If you try to add on to it, you have to meet the zoning code.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Lisa, can you come up to uh just because we it won't be recorded from back there.

What number of the code?

That's chapter 10.

I don't know which one.

I was just wondering where that was in here.

Give us a second, we're looking at the section.

And was the one that was on the agenda the most updated one?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

I'll come back with a couple questions about that.

Yeah, I'm looking to where that is here.

It's 22 uh point 1003.

14 is for non-confirming buildings and structures.

10, 14.

22.10.3.

Oh, yeah.

It's the third section in that chapter.

And then what letter?

22.10.03.

Yes, but in regards to this historic one, which number is that within here.

I don't see it in here.

That's what I'm looking for.

I think it was uh 1A that if it was moved uh and it might have been uh if the a nonconformity building and structure shall not be enlarged or expanded in any way that increases uh or adds to the nonconformity probably doesn't say historic because it's saying all buildings have to meet that.

Yeah, previously there was a language about historic status and it wasn't.

That's been removed.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Sean, go ahead.

So Doug, I think I know one of the things that I brought up when I was here the last time, and I think we addressed it is on page two, change of ownership or tenancy.

And I just want to make sure that I understand this completely.

So we're saying now, because one of the issues that I raised is I didn't want it a change of the building being sold to somebody or a new tenant going in, all of a sudden the city gets to go in and make you do all this stuff.

So now we're saying that that's not the case, that a change in tenancy or ownership shall not affect the non-conforming status of a lot, building structure settlement or sign.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, that's that's great.

That's what I'm glad to see that that I'm glad to see that that change was made.

Thank you.

Yeah.

We heard you, Joe.

Well, and I I didn't Doug, a reason I I know Doug and I talked about this across the room when the last time I was here, so that's why that's why I addressed that today.

It's good to point out.

Thank you.

Any other comments on non-conformities before we move on to next chapter?

No.

Okay.

So the next chapter is review and decision-making procedures.

Uh, we made a couple of major revisions to this one.

Uh as we were uh we I mentioned in the couple of previous slides, we removed the administrative adjustment process uh from this chapter, and we also take off the interpretation section.

Uh the newer addition is that we included site plan and architectural review process, and that's gonna have two separate parts.

One would be administrative SPAR, site plan and architecture review, and other would be plan commission SPAR.

The administrative SPR would be reviewed and approved administratively through a community development director or their designee, or anything that would need any kind of exception or something that um community development director thinks to go to be uh needed to go to the plan commission, it would um reviewed and approved through the plan commission SPAR process.

Uh the next one is any temporary use permits, buildings and occupancy permits uh would be uh reviewed and approved under non-SPAR um application process.

This section is still under pro progress.

Uh this was previously previously named as temporary use permit, and it just need to add more regulations around it.

Anyone have any questions?

Go ahead, Joe.

Thank you, Sean.

So who is going to designate or approve the community development director's designee?

So is that is that going to be solely up to the community development director to appoint that designee?

Is there any limitations on that?

Because one of the things that I had a little bit of a concern about is making sure that that individual actually knew what they were doing as it relates to development and this kind of thing, and it wasn't designated to a mayor or a city administrator.

And I was just curious if there was some conversation around the case.

That's a very good question.

That's a great question, actually.

The intention here is a designee within the community development department.

Is that spelled out in here?

It's not, but we can.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Wow.

And we should add it could also be a designee of the engineering department or some other city department that we're looking for their expertise and input on.

As we do now with all of our plan commission reviews, we give reviews out to all of our city departments to give comment back with.

All right, thanks.

It's not the person, Sean, it's the role.

It's the position.

Yeah, in many of our codes, we clarifying the definition that what that role actually means.

So since this is like a unique requirement, uh, we're gonna we can include a definition for what community community development director at their designee really means in the definition.

So it's like more clarified for that.

I do like that just because you could have someone, an elected official say, no, I'm gonna make that decision, and you don't want that.

Yep.

All right.

Moving on to next slide.

Um under the public notice requirement by procedures table, uh, we included a class um uh in publication and also included uh the radius requirement for a specific procedure, so it's more easier for the reviewer uh and applicant to uh see um exactly what radius would be uplet for a specific um procedure of the code.

Sean?

Yep.

Could we go back to that?

Could because that that's been something that that I've thought about bringing up and I probably will at some point is the radius.

Is there can you call out where that is where the radius is spelled out in this document?

Like 300 feet, 900 feet, whatever that is.

Yes, say that again from the edge of the I believe it's uh counter from the edge of the all the all around the property 300 feet from where that the property is being conditional use permit variance, et cetera.

Is it 300 feet and remind me is it 300 feet for pretty much any type of action or is there 100 feet, everything else is 300.

And I'm sorry, where is that?

Where is that in this document?

Where is that chart in this document?

Uh so it's in chapter 11.

Um the table is called as public notice requirement by procedure.

I believe it's like one of the uh first uh the column.

It's it's under I'm sorry, I didn't know if the question is.

Yeah, it's on the screen, but uh actually Joel's asking where is it in the document?

So I'm I've got the 26 page, so there's 26 pages in this section, so where is it in the document?

Page eight?

Thanks, Lisa.

And just for the clarification, under the notes, we have included from where the distance need to be calculated, it would be from the boundary of the subject property uh within which the mail notice is required.

So we have added that information.

So would would if I wanted to broad broaden that range, is that something that could be done as part of this action, or would that be would that require an ordinance change?

Well, you could change in the zoning code, we could we could um change the uh mail notice to instead of 300, 500 or something like that.

Okay that would in order to change it, you had to change the zoning code because that's what's we I believe that's what we have now.

We probably just refer to state statutes.

Um before, I mean, if you if that's something that you want to do, you should also look at the cost of it.

Sure.

But so if that's something that I want to talk to the council about to see if there's consensus to do that, I could do that when this when this whole document comes to council for our consideration.

Is that fair?

Yes.

You can increase it, I believe the statute is a minimum.

Go ahead.

You can also build in uh an option that for a specific application at the request of the alderman, the boundary, the notice boundary can be expanded.

You can include that language just as part of code.

I like that.

Um the other and the other question I have then.

So if that is the case, is there a way for the applicant to help cover some of the cost of the notice?

Is that allowed under statute?

I don't know.

I think you have to do that.

We have that um, essentially built into our application fees.

We've taken that into account when we do that.

And so we've based that basically on the average for a 300-foot notice.

So if the council decided to make that 500 feet, Doug, we could adjust the fee accordingly rather easily.

Yeah, well.

We could do it.

It's it it's not easy because now you're when you go out 500 feet, you're exponentially going out around the whole property.

So it's but I'm just saying it wouldn't, it's not gonna require an act of Congress to raise the.

No, it it we could figure it out.

Okay.

Um but I should just preface that within the past we've found that the 300-foot notice um gets out quite a ways from the property.

And we've found that neighborhoods talk a lot, especially now with social media.

Um so we'll have people coming from a thousand feet away because their neighbors or they saw it on their neighborhood feed.

But if you do have strong concerns on that, I think what Carrie mentioned as a caveat to put in that an alderman could request more for a specific project would be the way to go versus a blanket 500 feet, because that would get um very expensive for okay.

I would I would like that provision to be considered because I think there are occasions where, especially if you have a neighborhood like mine where there's not a lot of there's not a lot of economic development because it's a pr it's a residential neighborhood, it's a pretty established neighborhood, and then X entity wants to do something, and I want to make sure that people are notified because I also have to we all have to remember the kind of the fact that we still have a lot of residents that aren't on the internet.

I mean, I have a ton of residents that are not on Facebook and maybe don't talk to a lot of their neighbors, and the mail is still a way that they get communicated with.

So I've got to always kind of go down to the to that to that lowest common denominator and make sure people are notified.

So but I'll talk to I'll talk to to staff a little bit more about that.

But I would if we can consider putting that provision in there at the alderman's request, I think that would cover a lot of my concerns.

Because I'm not gonna I don't want to do it for everything, but I do think that there's unique circumstances where we gotta go further than 300 feet.

Um I'm gonna just comment, which is my concern with um extending the mailing and or asking the alder person whether they want additional notice.

Um, especially for asking the alder person, I'm worried about when it doesn't happen and the alder person isn't asked, and then we don't have you know, and there's still a public hearing, it it will create a lot of problems.

What I have seen work that works really well.

Um New Berlin does this, they put a sign on the property asking for that's getting the variance or the amendment to the comprehensive plan.

Um that actually tells more people what's happening than even the mailing.

So and I Sean, I I like that idea, and I've I've mentioned that to staff over the years too, because I've seen that in my travels about doing that.

And I guess the other thing is is that I always look at it this way that if an alderman, if you're not staying current with what's going on in your district and you miss an opportunity to do something, then that's your fault.

Well, I'm also I'm thinking the staff not telling the alder person, and then you have the hearing and true.

But there's still there's still a responsibility that we have to make sure that we're staying apprised of what's going on in our state.

Yeah, but also becomes what the timeline is supposed to be for that.

That you would have to know this is coming up, reach out to the alderman, the alderman then makes the decision or advocates for a larger distribution.

Seems like that just the timeline of that seems to be.

The mailing is 30 days in advance.

So go ahead.

At the risk of sticking my nose in where I'm not asked to, but I've got a battle scar that's twitching hearing this conversation.

If it's an allowance for a variable notice distance, you required 500 feet for that guy's auto repair shop.

Another one comes in, you think that's not such a big deal.

You open yourself up to why didn't you require 500 feet on that one, not this one, and there's a defect in the approval.

I would I would exercise extreme caution with making that variable.

Um but the signs are something on the property, those are highly effective and something you can do by policy rather than having to put it in your zoning code.

You could simply have a city policy of we're gonna put a stick in the ground with a laminated sign.

Unless you're going on that person's property and then you need it in the zoning code.

Definitely don't want to do it by but you can actually ask the property owner who has applied to erect the sign and require them to do so.

Otherwise, it's in the terrace, I guess.

You can do that too.

But I would just it just really run that down with your attorney so you don't expose yourself to why didn't you do it for them and you did it for me?

It's a very good point.

I'll I will do that.

Thank you.

How's that?

Go ahead.

All right, moving on to the next slide uh for chapter 11.

As I mentioned, the temporary use permit uh section is still in process, but uh we are going to revise this to make sure this is like a non-SPR SPR kind of process, and that applies to one and two unit residential developments or any change of uses, and we are going to going to refer the building and occupancy permit section.

Um and sign permit, uh, this we are going to remove this standalone section uh and allow the sign to be reviewed and approved under the administrative SPAR.

Um and for the major and minor subdivision, we have not added any language for the procedures yet because it's going to be depend upon how we are we want to regulate uh since we don't have the subdivision chapter drafted yet.

This is coming later.

Any questions on that slide?

Okay.

All right.

So moving on to the last chapter, that's definitions.

Also, we heard a lot of feedback regarding uh additional definitions requirement.

So we have not made any major changes, changes to this, but according to the feedback we received tonight or any additional definitions, we will definitely going to add um include that in into this uh draft before the open house.

So the next step.

Um so ne the next step is we have the open a public open house coming up on the 25th of November.

Um and oh my god, I'm sorry why I said that.

It's 25th of uh February uh in the next two weeks.

Uh and we also gonna have a plan commission meeting to go through all the code one more time to just to make sure that we have included all the additional good feedback we received from you, and then we have a couple of meetings before the adoption.

Okay.

Um real quick, Lisa, if you want to come up to the microphone couple questions, Lisa Sal 434 Medicine Street.

Thank you for all this information.

Um I did have uh a couple definition questions.

You had said earlier grubbing.

I don't know what grubbing is.

It's not in the definition sheet.

It's not looking for grubs, is it?

What is grubbing?

Grubbing is terri basically it's a major machine that will go through there and just take everything off, all vegetation.

Okay.

Okay.

Very good.

And then another word in the documents was collector street.

I don't know what collector street is.

It's a street that collects all the traffic uh from the local.

Is it less than an arterial or is it is it an RTL?

Less than an RTD.

Less than an arterial and bigger than a minor street, which is like you know, that just you draw it's for your own single family homes and stuff like that.

Okay.

All right.

Um a couple questions about the uh 211.

Um we were talking about how uh some of the things are subjective.

And in let's see, it would be uh three D.

Uh for resubmittal of denied applications.

It says if an application is denied, the applicant shall wait one year before resubmitting unless substantial changes are made to the proposal.

I'm wondering who determines what substantial is.

Is it possible to say 50%, 75%?

Some way to it's a pre-standard ordinance for most communities.

Um I understand what you're saying, but uh and it's also even for um uh change it bringing back the same older person bring back the same ordinance too, and it just says substantial.

Um I have a question about that too.

But um that's I mean that's common in most municipalities uh to have something similar to that.

I because you don't want consecutive every single meeting at being brought back.

Go ahead, Charlie.

I think we had actually that was something that we've that we wanted to take out.

Um we may have made a comment or it may have gotten uh uh not gotten through, not gotten communicated, but I think we had wanted that to be taken out because we figured the having the substantial review fee would just uh would kind of take care of you know that's not a problem that we've had.

So from this from requ requiring the fee a second time would somebody's gonna keep applying and keep getting denied, you know, they would have to pay a review fee every time.

So we figured that would stop them from doing it.

Okay, glad not staying on the plan commission, but go ahead.

Okay.

Um then looking at uh this would be under E3, uh page 19 amendments.

All amendments to an approved PUD shall be treated as a new application for PUD approval.

So is that starting all brand new then?

If there's any changes, is that what that means?

Yep.

Doug or everyone's nodding their head, yes, but requires going through all the public hearings.

Does that mean you have to redo all the public hearings because it's considered brand new?

Um yes, let's say in all amendments to an approved PUD shall be treated as a new application for PUD approval.

So that's how we do it now.

Um an amendment to a PUD is treated somewhat similar to a rezoning where we post the public hearing, take the new PUD agreement through the plan commission and then on to the common council for decision.

Is there a mailing for that?

Uh does PU I don't remember.

Well, I don't even know if a PUD requires uh a notice of plan developments, class two notice.

Right, and mailed a three.

So typically we would do an uh a mailing with that and a it have newspaper notice as well.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Class two public hearing.

Is it is any of our old zoning code gonna be grandfathered in no?

I we've taken sections of the old zoning code and incorporated them in some pieces here.

So it would be but as far as saying a whole pages of the zoning code will be kept as no.

Okay.

So this this document will be the new zoning code.

Okay.

Okay, all right, very good.

There may be non-conforming uses that will exist after that based upon the old code.

Okay.

Um so then uh I'm sorry I didn't jump in earlier, but in 2202, uh there were a couple things that were mentioned, and um one would be on page 19, which was the building heights in R and three.

Did you say that it was changed to 60 for RN3 or just R and four?

It was changed in R and three from 60 to 40 feet.

It went down, went down.

Okay, yeah, all right, because we are allowing like diverse type of housing there, so it definitely makes sense to minimize the height of all of those.

Very good.

And then right underneath that it says in the number one footnote, building height may be increased if affordable housing units are included per section to be determined.

Do we have a uh maximum height that that would go to?

Or are we just giving an open blanket to say, hey, if you get some affordable housing in here, you can go as high as you want.

There is no maximum gap, but it feels like it has to be determined by the city staff at that level, if they uh they include the affordability units.

Right, we didn't consider a maximum height at this time.

Yeah.

Okay.

Could that be a concern in the future?

I mean, we're already jumping from 40 to 60 in residential areas.

Um and now we're saying if the developer would add some affordable housing in there, you could go seven stories.

Possibly okay.

Um I would oppose that.

Uh and then my last question would be the zoning map.

Um not the last question.

Uh second to last question is the zoning map.

I know Charlie said that that's not available.

Um we gonna be able to have a good look at that zoning map before it goes to council and has voted on it?

Uh so the zoning map, the proposed zoning map that shows all the new uh like consolidated or any new zoning district, uh that would be included in the open house board if you could come on that one, which is on the 25th of February.

Okay, very very good.

Um, and then the second question, uh dates to be determined.

Are we are we um so we have the open house in February?

We're not planning on having this come to council in March, then are we?

I mean the public's gonna need some time to digest this.

I printed it out that it's this big, they haven't been going through it like we have been piece by piece.

So I just want to make sure that the public gets enough time to go through some of this.

Um, and maybe besides getting the information at the public house, then be able to voice their opinions on that as well.

So please take that into consideration.

There is uh also the for um may there would be not mailing.

I actually for entire zoning code uh redo there there won't be a mailing, but there would be a public notice.

Is that class one or class two?

So there is 30 minimum 30 days.

I know that for certain.

Right.

And it may need to be full rewrite.

I think it's a class one notice of the 30-day notice in the paper.

I'd have to check the state regs on that again to make sure.

I don't know when it's gonna be scheduled, but uh okay.

It's 30 days minimum uh before it can come back to for a hearing.

Yes, it does have to have the hearing.

Does it have the three readings then two before the hearing?

So we're talking about that that would be up to the council to determine.

So if the if that would be we would present it as that standard, but if the council wanted to uh wanted to waive the third reading, they could.

So it and um I'll do respect.

I know that we've been working on this for a year.

You've been working on it for a year.

We've been watching from the sidelines.

But um it's let's get it right.

If something isn't fitting right, like what RG was saying, you know, we can't be passing ugly buildings.

Something would let's keep working on it until it's right.

A lot of work, a lot of time.

It's a good thing.

So let's just thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

Are you guys done?

Just want to say uh thank you for all the feedback we received from you and uh past year.

Uh we are have taken those into consideration.

And uh just call your friends and anyone around you for the public open house, which is on 25th.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Maria, no or dog, no report.

I don't really want one, but no, no.

No report.

So uh if there's no objections, we are adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

What's that?

Do we apply to my commitment?