To order, this is a meeting of the
Poor Washington Planning Commission on May 21st, 2026.
Happy birthday to Barb Matera and Tom Nitsky.
Roll call, all members are here.
And I'm looking for someone to approve
the previous meeting minutes.
Second.
There's a motion and a second.
Any questions or concerns on the motion?
Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Okay, motion carries.
I'm gonna move up agenda item five,
which was added later to right after
the public comments.
Is there anyone here to make public comments tonight?
Okay, there are no public comments.
So that brings us into agenda item five.
I'm gonna skip over four and end on the Sony Code Rewrite.
Agenda item number five is consideration
and possible action on a proposed public sculpture piece
for Coldock Park at 190 South Wisconsin Street.
The project is being asked to provide a recommendation
of the common council on proposal and install a Coldock Park.
The project is fully funded and ready to go.
And the staff is recommending approval
of the proposed sculpture at Coldock Park.
Mr. Harris.
No, but.
Never been muted before.
So.
Do I have that, do I have that power from here?
So the city has received a donation
in the amount of $100,000.
And that donation is for the creation
and the installation of a sculpture
to be placed at Coldock Park.
And actually that's consistent
with the 2009 Coldock Park master plan.
And this is kind of an initiative
that I know the mayor has been working on
for a few years now.
And along with the friends of the park and rec
and now with this donation,
there's the proposal and that will take the $100,000
both for the creation of the sculpture
and also the remaining funds about $20,000
will be placed in an account for its maintenance.
And so I'm just going to show the commission real quick.
The location and what the sculpture will look like.
So here is the 2009 Coldock Park plan.
And in the highlighted in red is the first,
the idea that there was a sculpture garden
always kind of thought of or envisioned for this property.
Kind of within that teardrop island
that's created by that ring road of parking.
And then this is just kind of the perspective of that teardrop
from looking east where the lighthouse is lined up
and it'll be in this general location.
And then this is the proposed sculpture,
the Isle of Port Washington sculpture.
And so there was kind of this research done
given that this is the Coldock Park land.
This is Lake Bed land.
This is We Energy's land.
And the recommendation from council
is that the formal process should be
that this should have an approval and recommendation
from both planned commission and council.
And that's why we are here tonight.
The recommendation is by part is to recommend
and I'll just hand it over to the mayor and the council.
Yep, you did a nice job covering that Bob.
The sculpture is supposed to begin its manufacturing
if it's a final approve tonight early next week.
And then installation should be here in the middle of June
with anticipation that it's done well
before the 4th of July and fish day.
The heart will be painted red.
The I and PW will be painted
in almost a matching color of the lighthouse.
And then the way it'll be set is
if you are walking along the inner harbor on the sidewalk,
when you get to the last staircase in the teardrop
that Bob was referring to,
it will be just to the south of that.
And then it will be angled in a fashion
so that when you're downtown at Rotary Park,
inventors, brew pub, et cetera,
you'll be able to read and see it.
But then it is also designed so that our hope
and my hope with this particular sculpture
was that this would become kind of the focal point
for homecoming, prom, wedding pictures, reunions,
welcome, production.
But then also draw more people over to Coldock Park.
It's a highly underutilized space
because it's not really easy to get to
if you don't know how to navigate it.
So that's what it is.
It's being donated by Cloverleaf
and then CD Smith gave an additional $10,000
so that we could keep a fund for maintenance.
It will be fully landscaped around the platform
on a concrete platform.
It will be poured into the platform.
And then it will be what is it magnetically painted
so it'll be painted very well.
So it's kind of the background.
That's this.
So any other questions on that or wonderings?
I'm just writing it for you.
Lighting is included in it.
So it will be lit from a distance
and it will be lit throughout the evening.
So yeah, so the money raised was to ensure
that we could light it, landscape it and then maintain it.
So there'll be a fund kept by the Friends of Park and Rec
to be able to offer repairs, et cetera for it.
Yeah, good question.
Sorry, I missed that point.
Is it steel?
Yeah, it's also steel.
Yeah, it's fabricated and it's not tubular
but I think it, what is it?
I think it's a foot wide.
Yeah, it is being manufactured up in the Fond du Lac area.
Okay.
And CD Smith fled out the whole project for us
and donated, like I said, some time and effort
as well as some money.
I'll move approval.
There's a motion to approve.
Roger, did you have a question?
Although I just can't make a second
so we can stay on a little Robert's motion.
Okay, so there's a motion and a second
and did you have something, Roger?
I just say, I'm in favor of public art
so I'm all for this.
Yep, appreciate that.
Okay, any other questions on this?
All right, seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. Aye. Opposed?
All right, motion carries.
Roger, I joined with you.
I mean, my hope is that this installation
will then create a consciousness
around other philanthropists that like,
hey, we can actually realize sculptures not just there
but throughout the city to match our murals
that we put in place.
So another reason to visit for Washington or to stay.
All right, that brings us into agenda item number four,
which is the zoning code rewrite.
This is a staff update and discussion item
only on draft articles 18 and appendix C dimensional standards,
19 engineering and environmental standards
and 20 architectural standards for the proposed zoning rewrite.
Mr. Harris, as we move into this,
the one thing that I wanted to just reserve
for your time is a little bit about
when we get into architectural standards,
some of the height considerations for multi-families
that in this draft that I think before we send it to council,
I'd like to get us to consensus
because I don't think everybody wants to go to 48 feet.
No, you'll see that I have shown.
There's a slide for that.
Slide, all right.
You have the floor, sir.
All right, so actually through a little bit
of a lot of information at you.
And so as we're coming in,
starting to kind of come down in altitude
and start lining up for a landing, it's pretty soon.
This is kind of the, you know, some significant chapters.
And so let me just, as I have been doing,
we're just introducing these chapters or articles
as they're technically called.
And then just kind of what some of the,
I'll summarize or just kind of point out some questions
or issues that I want to, you know,
throw at the plan commission for any possible discussions.
So I'll just start going through 18, 19, 20
and then laying out some of the issues for that.
So starting with the dimensional standards.
This is, you know, as we see, you know,
this is defining lot area setbacks.
Building heights, as mentioned,
and we'll get back to that, you know,
and then kind of the accessory garages
and how things are measured, how big they are,
how they're placed on the lots.
But I did want to highlight some
of the building height components to this.
And then again, this is discussion.
We're not deciding anything tonight.
But this is, as the mayor pointed out,
something that we can discuss.
And prior to going into the approval cycle,
try to get some consensus between now and then.
So real quick, a little highlight that I thought
was actually having the diagrams
of how certain buildings with rooflines are measured.
I know in the past, there was always sometimes
some confusion with how building heights are measured,
particularly our garage heights measured
when we would have some of these special exceptions.
And so we kind of have a picture for everyone.
And I think it kind of demonstrates, you know,
how to measure based on these rooflines.
This is actually too much different from our current code.
It's just that when you see the diagram
it makes a big difference.
And so we're going to see them in front of you.
The other item I wanted to bring up,
or just kind of mention at least,
was the idea of a required step back for attached garages.
And I think the intent text that we see here
kind of sums it up.
And it's just so we kind of have in Port Washington
moving forward, if we get this far with this provision,
is highlighting the residential portion of a house
fronting a street and in a neighborhood
rather than, you know, the garage portion of it.
And so the proposal in the zoning code
will be a kind of a modest step back
from the front living portion of the house.
And then, and so the garage doors are, you know,
in this case, they're proposed for like a two,
just a modest two foot setback.
And then that kind of gives, you know,
that kind of gives a prominence
to the residential portion of the house
and kind of its neighborhoods for people
and kind of puts the cars in the back seat, so to speak.
So I just wanted to highlight that.
Just moving into touching on the building heights,
I thought I'd get some previously reviewed
multifamily apartments and kind of showing their heights
in comparison to what is proposed, at least or drafted in.
Real quick, RM4 is the multifamily district
that we have now.
And then R4 will be, is the multi-district
in the proposed code.
As some of you may know, 60 feet has been the maximum height
in our RM4 district for as far as I can tell, decades.
It's a pretty big, it's a pretty tall height.
And I don't think outside of downtown
that it's come up at least since I've been here.
And I remember even when I first got here,
architects remarking that, you know,
for a, you know, outside of a major city
or a density in the Milwaukee area,
you know, they were surprised to see that.
So I think it's outlived its life in this code.
I think it hasn't been used outside of downtown.
And so we're looking at, you know,
changing the maximum height
of our dense multifamily district that we'll have.
Currently in the draft that you had, it is 60 feet.
I've since, you know, given the heads up to our consultants
that this should come down.
I have the suggestion at 48 feet,
it's actually, I eventually have a suggestion
that previously was 42 feet.
And I can just show, you know, how we get there.
So real quick, the apartment on the top,
that was a proposal that you saw last year,
late last year on Seven Hills Road
between the Holiday Inn and the parking ride a lot.
This is a four-story building.
And based on their submitted elevations,
granted it was just a concept plan,
but their submitted elevations showed
about a 49-foot building height up to the top,
the ridge line or the top of the roof.
This is a slide below is a cardinal capital proposal
from about seven years ago on LL.
Again, a four-story building and looking at,
it was approximately 46,
and not approximately 46 feet.
Again, this is a flat roof,
so up to that flat roof line.
A little more perspective for you all,
looking at the recent police and fire building.
That top section over the overhead fire doors is 35 feet.
45 feet is actually the top of the base of the host tower
and then the light fixture, that part is above it.
So just to give you perspective of 35 feet,
looks like 45 feet looks like.
And then getting to that 42 feet,
that was that I kind of suggest,
that has been discussed.
And this is kind of the harbor springs on Highway 32,
which I think is a, you know,
the scale of that building,
I think really granted it's oriented,
you know, the short faces is fronting 32.
But I think overall, this is a nice scale for port.
And then you can see how it's about 42,
approximately 42 feet, again, to that ridge line.
And so I think, you know,
I don't think there's any argument
about getting away from that 60 feet.
And then the discussion is,
how do we, where do we wanna land?
42 feet, 45 feet, 48 feet.
And then we also have to take into consideration,
you know, the different types of roof lines.
So how we measure that.
So that's what I really wanted to bring
to the commission's attention.
Maybe have some discussion tonight,
and that can continue.
Just moving along and highlighting the next chapter,
as far as architectural standards.
Well, let me back up.
Engineering and environmental standards,
not much to them, it's a short chapter.
And a lot of it is just kind of required items,
like state's required items.
It does make a provision for the commission,
can make have the power to require a,
or ask for a traffic study
for any development that comes up.
The only thing I would add is just,
instead of requiring a traffic study
for certain benchmarks of a development,
I think it'd be best and a little more flexible
if this is an optional tool
that the commission can have in their back pocket
and not necessarily a requirement.
I think I can opine on parking studies.
I think the city engineer can as well.
I think it'd be a little more flexible
if you just have that ability on a case-to-case basis
and rather than requiring one.
And then finally moving to architectural standards.
A couple of highlights in my report,
requiring a four-sided architecture in defined cases.
What that means is that it's not just
the nice face of the building,
it's on the front having kind of the architectural,
the nicer architectural details,
but if there's a building backing into a residential,
then so the public right-of-way facing front
should also have some type of standards
for the residential portions as well.
It's not just residential, it's just if it's visible
and it's not requiring a full treatment,
but for example, if you're driving down 43 south in Mequon,
you see that longer strip mall that backs into 43.
Four-sided architecture also can just include matching
paint color in some of the details.
And on that strip mall, Mequon,
you see like the blue matching color in the front,
there's trim paint and it just kind of helps it blend in
rather than the stark unfinished or untreated
block brick masonry or what have you.
The other one is when, I think it's the one
that was the family dollar,
I remember talking to Marty Becker when he was mayor
and he told a story about how the city required
some type of finishing product on the roof lines
since it was backing up onto the residential.
So that's what it means by four-sided architecture.
It's just nice having that codified in a new zoning code.
The other item is just pointing out scale,
scale of residential homes next to each other,
but also when there's a residential district,
a budding and non-residential district
and requiring a certain kind of scale.
So in the example above, there's an idea
where residential additions within a residential district,
the plan commission and the code
would provide some language to prevent kind of,
and this is an exaggeration example for port,
but this is an actual, this actually happened.
And so to prevent kind of these out of scale additions
or new homes that could be part of any rebuild.
So it's not just completely,
it's preventing some form exaggerated or not
this type of situation.
Excuse me.
Wanna note this picture here
with the large residential addition.
This is a recent story from the New York Times
and I remember noting that when I was reading it,
but I also got an email from a resident
referring to the same article.
So that kind of, you know,
there was kind of nice to see that.
The code is covering what, you know,
what kind of public input I've received so far.
The other items are just kind of simple.
Like for example, in the design review board
kind of is on top of this, but taking these large,
some of these multifamily buildings
or commercial buildings for that matter
and just ensuring what I put as a building needs a hat.
That's kind of my, one of my little pet peeves
of certain types of architecture,
particularly some that's going on today
where you just have minimal coping
really or no parapets at all.
So this code is gonna require that we get it,
we don't have this situation in the bottom left-hand sort
where it's just kind of this flat building
with minimal treatment at the rough edge.
So we kind of have some visual variety
and distinction at the top.
And then just a simple thing of requiring mechanical screening.
That's not a, it's not something that's in our code
and that's a pretty standard requirement.
I think that's all I have for this.
But I know going back to discussion here
is the idea of our multi, our RM4 type of multifamily
and getting away from 60 feet and where do we wanna land?
I will note that it's not much of an issue
for the remaining districts, they're all pretty consistent
or it's all pretty much the same as what we have now.
Residential districts in our current code,
it's always been 30 feet.
There's a newer addition where it's gonna be,
it's proposed they have 32 feet.
The older multifamily districts in the proposed code,
there hasn't changed, it's about 35 feet or so.
So it's really this RM4, this high density multifamily district
that's really bears or needs some discussion
on where we wanna go with that.
And with that, I'll stop my summary
and throw it over to the commission.
Questions or wonderings for Bob?
Mr. Ehrlich.
Quick question I have is in
where you start looking at how you're measuring the heights,
building heights and how you've shown
that graphic and where you kind of cut the peak in half
and so on and so forth.
But we're not being very consistent
if you're looking at some of the other things
where you're going to the peak, you know what I mean?
We have to make sure that we're very clear
where we're changing it, if we're going to change it
or if we're gonna count that 42 feet
or that 45 feet to the middle, correct.
Okay, and then the other thing that I wanted to talk about
which is not on the slide is there's exceptions
to the building height that you have.
And that was something that was kind of a thing
of contention on some buildings
that were proposed here in downtown.
One of it is the elevator penthouse,
allowing that to go above that minimum height.
Is that, I just wanna make sure
that we're all on the same page
that that's an exception that we want
or is it, look, it's 45 feet and that's it, you know?
Now downtown will have its own, really?
Okay, yeah.
I mean, and I'm not saying one way or another at this point,
I just wanna make sure that we're all on the same page
that that doesn't become something that it's, well, yeah, but,
you know.
I'm sorry, I agree with you on that
because one of the notes I took in my packet was,
if we set it at 48 or 42 or 51 feet,
how often are we gonna be sitting here
going against the intention which was to be able
to just simply call balls and strikes on everything
and then have people coming in for variances
because as we saw with the potential apartment development
on the north side, that's a canned,
pre-architecturally designed, developed piece
with a good ROI for the developer
and who the heck is poor Washington to say,
I can't be at 46 feet, every other community in the world
is at 46 feet, so how do I cut four feet off of this
or how do I add, you know, those different pieces?
Because I, when we can set it wherever we want to,
and make that recommendation up to council,
I just, my greater concern is,
wherever we set it, I just want it to be in a spot
where that's a standard for that type of level development
because I don't think poor Washington is appropriate
for eight, nine, 10 stories anywhere yet,
but as we do that, I just want to make sure
that that's something we can answer.
Because I thought we had settled on 42 feet
and when I saw 48, I was a little surprised.
Mr. Reyer?
Yep, yeah, I would echo, I'm at 42 at the top end
for what I would be comfortable with.
You look at the rest of the residential districts
and like Bob said, you're sitting at like 32 feet
for most of them.
The neighbors that came in when the taller buildings
were proposed by the old hospital,
I think we heard them pretty much loud and clear
that when you're dealing with an existing residential
neighborhood, people were not in support
of something that was out of scale.
And there's not too many areas of town
that already have that height.
So almost anywhere you go and anywhere you build
unless you're really separated from that,
you're gonna have existing residential that's shorter
right next to something that could be a lot taller.
And I agree with the two of you, the comments,
either removing the exceptions from anywhere other
than downtown, otherwise you probably are gonna be in here
with each developer with a product
that's been successful somewhere else,
making their case that I can do this project
but only if I get the extra five feet
or the extra six feet or what is the height,
where does the height stop,
then can I do a such and such on top?
And then I feel like we're back to where we've been before
and I would just encourage us as a group
to stick with that shorter height, that 42 feet as a cap
and outside of the downtown area where people might come in
and pitch something that's super unique
and something that the community doesn't wanna pass up on,
really minimizing or removing that exception,
otherwise we'll be faced with that.
So.
Where do other commissioners fall in that?
I'd like to stick with the 42
and talking about the exceptions,
since you and I've been on the planning commission together,
which is I don't wanna get into this variance battle.
Yeah.
I want, no, yes, no, yes, no,
except for the overlay downtown
but I wanna consistent 42.
As well as the planner to be able to stop something
at his desk and say, I'm not gonna recommend that.
Okay.
You okay with 42?
Yeah, I agree with 42 as well,
hearing what you were saying about the existing residential
and then what you mentioned, I think months ago,
about the gateways into town, you know,
the first thing you see, you know,
do you really want something that high?
I think 42 is, I think a better height.
And just something, for me, contextually,
like when I look at, and I'm not,
I don't wanna name any communities,
but there's been some significant apartment growth
in some communities in Ozaki County.
And when you see the scale of some
of those apartment buildings, when you go through,
you know, again, I don't wanna say the name
of the community rhymes with rafting,
but like they're just, they're huge.
And they're kinda weirdly, they're just,
their zoning code must be, I don't know,
it's not critical, but when you drive into town
or you're looking up over the interstate,
it creates that canyon effect that we would lose
a lot of quaintness, and even as we expand to the West
and North and South and Port Washington,
I don't necessarily know that we need that large pieces,
but Roger, what are your thoughts?
Yeah, I guess I'm the only eyeball in here.
I like a four-story building in these areas,
and I guess I equate four stories with 48 feet, so,
I mean, you can always go 42 by going into the ground
and get four stories, but, so, I guess I'm okay with 48,
but I'm not gonna die in that hill.
Yeah.
Darden level.
Right, okay.
I do wanna point out in the proposed code,
it does have a little table of exceptions.
Chimneys, flus, spire steeples, cupolas,
solar chimneys, it does have a,
and then also a elevator pet house.
That's where I kind of was like, okay, we did talk about it,
and so I wanted to make sure everybody knew
what we were getting into,
because these are now exceptions
that we would allow above and beyond that.
So right now, and this is for height outside of downtown,
elevator penthouse, they're proposing up to eight feet
over the maximum building height, which makes sense,
because it's a foot elevator.
Sure.
I'm not gonna get too worried about those exceptions.
It's just, again, if we're sitting in here
in variance hell for an evening,
and then I think that's a greater problem.
I think it might be a nice compromise
to what Roger was saying is,
maybe it allows a little bit more height
so that you could get a little bit higher building.
You know, you can bring the building to the 42 feet,
and then your elevator can go above that if you need it to.
Particularly if it's stepped back enough further
inside the middle of the building floor plate
on the roof plate.
Right, right.
Well, we are making a recommendation,
and our recommendation is, it sounds like 42 feet.
The other recommendation is to provide
an architectural dictionary so I can learn
what a gambrel and a man's art is without,
and a hip cable, these all sound like dance moves
from the 80s.
The man's art is the McDonald's, roughly.
Yeah, no, I see that, but like, I just,
some of the, you know, it's not,
like I just, I don't know if architects lack imagination
in their naming things, or...
There's no lack of imagination in our community.
They're born, yeah, no, just in the words.
Just in the words.
Yeah.
Okay.
I have one question for you.
Mr. Numer?
Just going back to the traffic study,
we're gonna leave as an option.
If we do require that, or a parking study,
does the developer have to pay for that,
or is that on the city?
That's not developer, paying the developer, okay.
That's all it's written in there?
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
I have one other question.
Yeah.
The houses.
So if you, if that design standard gets put in there
and the developer has like a product line of houses
and the menu of options,
does that mean you just sit down with them
and simply say, before you even come in with a plat
and you have like your stock designs,
you just let them know that this is how it is,
and people that wanted to pick that design,
it's just not an option?
Yeah, I've been looking at, you know,
because I'll be talking to kind of the subdivision developers here.
They're kind of trending that way.
This is becoming more of, this is not unique,
this step back for garages.
Yeah, no, I like it.
They have, I've seen like for example,
but both Newman and Billensky, they have products for that.
And so it's much like how garages were a prominent thing,
you know, you can come home from work,
pull into your garage and don't have to worry about anything.
And now we're starting to, you know,
go back to a little more traditional neighborhood development
type of feel for our homes.
And so, this is, I lost track of what was your question.
Yeah, it's as simple as that then.
So just sit down with them and say this is the design.
Yeah, this is where we're going,
this is what the zoning code is being proposed for.
Okay.
Bob, I just want you know, I have high empathy for that,
like trying to thought, you know, 630, mid 50s.
All right.
Appendix C, Zoning Districts and Dimensional Standards.
I didn't have much for that.
It's just kind of a little more diagrammatic
and specific to chapter 18.
I had no questions at anyone else.
No, I just wanted to comment that this is really helpful,
just because I'm digging into the zoning codes a lot.
Yeah.
It's really helpful to, okay, what do they mean by this?
You know, it's so, I appreciate you doing it.
Yeah, I pointed out that, I think in an earlier meeting
where the way how this is coming together,
it's a lot more detailed.
It's a lot more detailed and I think that's helpful.
It's a lot more detailed on spelling out what things are,
what, how they're measured,
and it's also more detailed on the procedure.
Right.
So I think hopefully this will give,
takes out the guesswork, takes out some of the ambiguity.
There'll always be some in a zoning code.
There's a little bit of an art to it,
but I think this is actually,
but this will kind of, I think, really have,
rather going from fuzzy, it's kind of, you know,
more black and white.
Right.
Yeah.
I appreciate it.
That brings us to Article 19,
Engineering and Environmental Standards.
Oh, I covered that, that was with the.
So we're good with that?
Yeah, we.
Then 20, Architectural Standards, General Standards.
We covered that as well, just now.
We're good to go.
The only wondering, I do have Bob,
as we close out this evening's meeting is,
is there any architect,
and when we're looking at coding,
is there ever built into the code,
review by school district for impact?
Or is that an ordinance?
So, poor question is unique because our superintendents,
our school district's superintendents,
it's on the planning commission for advisory purposes.
But has there ever been, you know,
like if someone wants to come and do a multi,
complex apartment development,
and say it brings 600 apartments to the city,
is there ever a review by the school district
to determine impact before approval?
As part of either the code or ordinance?
I haven't seen, I've never seen it in a zoning code.
I do think that some like some reports or staff reports,
they might mention the impact on the school district.
And I don't know if it's just based on projected number
of children or persons living here under the age of 18
and how that applies to the headcount
and the funding formula.
Yeah.
I just remember when the apartment complexes
were built on the west side of town,
just west of Culver's, south and west,
or yeah, southwest of Culver's that,
the way that that was originally designed and developed,
it had a pretty significant impact on that,
on Dunwoody and that area
because of a kind of an explosion of growth of young kids.
And I just think that that's important
to make sure the school district is part of
either the review process or the approval process.
I mean, as long as, you know,
Michael's here, we're in good shape.
Yeah, I haven't seen it so much for multifamily.
I've seen it for subdivisions, of course.
Yeah.
Okay.
The superintendent in Cedarburg,
they have like a chamber event every year in summer
and he'll get up and he'll talk about like how many kids
per home are generated by each new home
versus each new apartment and they've got it down
to like each new unit is 0.76 children and apartment.
Well, there's a formula.
Yeah.
What happens to the rest of the kids?
Okay.
So with that, is there anyone willing
to make a motion to adjourn?
There's a motion to adjourn in a second.
Any questions or concerns on the motion?
Seeing none.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
That motion carries.
Good night, everybody.
This meeting is adjourned.
Go pirates.
Thank you.