The Village of Mount Pleasant Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend ordinance 17‑2025 to the Village Board, a package of changes intended to reduce abrupt sidewalk terminations and create clearer, fairer rules for when developers must install sidewalks.

Sam, planning staff, told commissioners the draft ordinance clarifies that division 90‑4‑20 (parking and access) will apply to new development and redevelopment and cross‑references the landscaping and screening applicability standard so staff and applicants know when sidewalk requirements are triggered. He said the draft also expands the village’s in‑lieu fee program to cover urban street cross sections as well as rural ones and would allow payment instead of on‑site installation when a property is more than 1,200 feet from an existing sidewalk or multi‑use path.

“The in‑lieu of fee program is not supposed to save you money on a sidewalk, it’s just supposed to take what you would put into a sidewalk and pay into a fund that puts those improvements where necessary,” Sam said, explaining that the village intends to spend collected fees nearby or in areas identified in adopted plans.

The staff proposal also includes administrative practices, not in the code, that the village would use to manage timing for installation. Under the recommended development‑agreement approach, subdividers could delay installing sidewalks, multi‑use paths and street trees until adjacent lots pull building permits, with a requirement to install the improvements within five years of final plat recording or sooner if two‑thirds of lots pull permits. If the subdivider fails to comply, the village would install the improvements and may specially assess adjacent properties.

Sam said staff will investigate abrupt mid‑block sidewalk endings and recommend solutions in staff reports to Public Works, the Planning Commission or Village Board; potential remedies include warning signage, mid‑block crossings, village installation using various funding mechanisms, or installation at adjacent owners’ expense depending on engineering and right‑of‑way constraints.

Several commissioners raised concerns about infill areas with open ditches and limited room for sidewalks, and asked how the ordinance would affect long‑standing homeowners. Sam said the policy provides for case‑by‑case evaluation and that staff reports will identify funding options—including grants such as Safe Routes to School—and indicate whether special assessments are appropriate. Commissioners also debated whether the Board of Appeals’ past variances created uneven outcomes; staff said the in‑lieu fee would provide a more consistent, village‑wide approach.

Trustee Nancy moved to recommend ordinance 17‑2025 to the Village Board; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously on a roll call vote. The item will next be reviewed by the Public Works Committee in January before going to the Village Board for final consideration.