Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

First order of business is call to order. And then roll call, please.

Peterson? Here. Bazel? Here. Batia?

Here.

Rizzer? Here. Meyer?

Here. Okay, meeting minutes. We have two separate meeting minutes and they should be approved separately. So we need a motion on the March 18th, 2026 meeting minutes. Mr.

Chair, I move to approve the March 18th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

I'll second.

Okay, got a motion and a second, all in favor?

I'm abstaining because I was in the hospital.

Okay, was everybody else here? Do we need to have a quorum for an approval or not?

As long as you get four.

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that everybody was there. But were you there on the- Yeah.

On that one, yeah, he was.

And Frank was not, though. No, I wasn't. Okay, so then let's go ahead.

And I was not.

I think as long as four people vote or abstain, you have a quorum, and then the winning vote is the winning vote.

Okay, again, I don't know how to handle that, but okay, so we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, we'll pass. Okay, for the April 16, 2026 meeting minutes, I'd appreciate a motion, please.

Mr. Chairman, again I move to approve the April 16, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Second.

We got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Approved. Old business, there's none. New business, scheduling a public hearing for Brown Road and Oaks Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 26-0001.

Okay, guys, you just plowed right over the nice banner.

Yay.

All right, going back. All right, hello. So you got all me this time. So Sam is still out on paternity leave with his new baby boy, Peter. You know, hats off. You'll probably listen to this at some point. So we'll just have a rather uneventful planning commission with Adam. So, very first off, scheduling a public hearing for Brown Road and Oaks Road Comp Plan Amendment, CPA 26001. The applicant, Bear Development, applied to amend the village's part of the transportation element of the multi-jurisdictional comp plan for Seen County 2035, wishes to update, reconfigure the roadways to match their future, well, it is the preliminary got approved future final plot the comprehensive plan update will delete connections no longer feasible and incorporate the village's braun road reconstruction project with a roundabout at braun and oaks road so all this is is scheduling a public hearing for that comp plan amendment there will be probably more um uh... more presentation materials and stuff like that but it's more to just to get that out there uh... and and schedule a public hearing for it so after we schedule a public hearing And that happens, then it'll come back to plan commission for final approval. And I think the applicant was waiting on this one, but because of us, our plans about the Brown Road reconstruction and stuff like that, staff just thought it best to go ahead and move this forward so at least we can get it on the agenda.

Any questions?

Yeah, and all it is is basically accepting this layout of, you know, Oaks Road and the subsidiary roads. There's deleting a proposed crossing of the Pike River pretty much at the northern boundary of the subdivision and then the reconfiguration of Braun Road with the roundabout and as of now no sidewalk on the north side and a 10-foot multi-use trail on the south side it would be staff's recommendation that because there is not a plan to put the sidewalk in and that's fine that we basically outline what conditions would need to be present for us to consider it that's just Good planning. So if X&Y happened, then we can think about putting one in. That would be staff suggestion. And that would be a part of that public hearing on June 29th.

guess the only question i had was we were talking about it would be nice to have a roundabout and now it's showing up a month later so i mean obviously that's a good thing um what if anything does that do to the developers plans at this point is there anything that i don't so because i i can't really speak on some of it because because the villages plan to reconstruct brown road is on

the village. So we put forth that design and all that sort of stuff. And then essentially, our village board decided that they were going to go with the roundabout option. And so that was relayed to the Bayer development and this plat. It was relayed pretty early after this plat was approved that they should prepare for that eventuality.

Right. Okay, so what year are we talking about? Do we have a, has the village got a plan for that?

ROM?

For the Brown Road, yeah.

No, no, ROM might be able to answer that one. The Brown Road, so basically it's going to be budgeted this year, the Brown Road reconstruction?

Yeah, these are the plan, but on the other hand, You can hold me responsible because the plan changed. These are the plans.

So it's going to be budgeted for next year? Is that the, what are we, I mean?

Again, how's it going to impact the developer?

My question is, how's it going to impact the developer and their plans to go in and egress in there?

No, I had the same question, but I'm sorry, but I'll have to think about what the budget was for this year and next year.

I don't remember that. Joe, that clarification helps things. As far as I've been aware, there are also talks with us constructing the extension of Oaks Road as well. So their development would not go in before Braun Road was reconstructed. So they wouldn't start until after that was complete.

Got it, okay, so we're going to put Oaks Road and Brown Road complete for them to then build off of? Correct. Got it, okay, thank you.

And that's the purpose of this public hearing. Yeah. Proposed public hearing, yeah.

Yeah, and normally we would wait completely on the developer to get that through, but considering those are some of our plans, I felt it was necessary to at least get a public hearing scheduled.

i hope they budgeted enough for brown road because uh when i first got on the public works committee many many years ago we were going to reserve you know redo it and we found out when they did a couple soil borings that there's probably not a base it's probably asphalt over top of topsoil yeah many many places

They're I mean given the our most favorite railroad speed bump. I think we're all prepared for that and it's it's being funded as basically through tit 5 because it's connected directly to TID 5, both of these roads. And that's a first for us to go outside the TID's boundaries to use funding to directly benefit the TID. So that's good for the pocketbooks and all of that.

OK, then I'm looking for a motion then. I have a question for Robin. If it gets approved after the public hearing, it's going to come back to the Planning Commission. That is correct. So my question is, at what point in time, we, the Planning Commission and you, are supposed to go back to the Bay Area Development and ask them, saying do they have any comments or concerns based on the Oaks Road? They've been brought in. Is that now? Okay, so they've been brought in and they don't have any comment, they don't have any concern?

I mean, they didn't, I mean, no developer wants to do extra stuff.

Which is true, which is true. Okay, so.

So we let them know that that was how we were gonna go. They were initially suggesting a stop sign control there. We thought that that was not acceptable. And so we were planning for further in the future and That's how it's going to be. And they're fine with that. I mean, obviously, we're building the road. So and the as far as the negotiations, that's over my pay grade as far as, you know, any kind of land acquisition or anything like that.

Thank you.

i have just a comment and i know it's not going to change anything at this point but the misalignment of the interior roads that run northeast and southwest continues to be a concern of mine and it will always be i'll never i'll never be okay with the way that the interior roads are configured that meet up with oaks road we've talked about it the last couple of meetings ago And in my opinion, those roads should align where they intersect with Oaks. That's at the north half of the property, the two interior roads that open onto Oaks.

I'll relay that. I mean, this is something that can be Fixed at you know, they still haven't done a final plat. This still hasn't been committed to comp plan So I would say I can say to them we could relay that to them How hard would it be to change this to line up? What is the the pluses and minuses of it?

I think I would concur

Are you just talking about that northernmost road?

No. There are two interior roads in the north part of the property that open onto Oaks, and they're misaligned. They don't line up with one another. Right. And to me, that's an unsafe situation. Okay, but there are several home sites, though, between those two roads. I mean, it's a block long. I understand. Could be done better. Yeah, that's always been a sticking point for me. I've made it known in previous meetings and I just want it to be out there.

Well, at least I'll at least commission them to kind of give us some analysis, like draw up a pros and cons list and maybe see if something could be reconfigured without losing any lots.

Well, we had that discussion with them here at the Plan Commission. And so, I mean, obviously, we don't know where they are with that from that feedback at that point because they aren't any part of this submission.

No, they applied for this. It was just that. I advanced it a little bit quicker, just because of all the other stuff we were doing on Braun Road.

Okay, well then I agree with you guys that we should have them come back and show us what their thoughts are on what we discussed before.

I think this can be done in my...

That would be a part of the public hearing, yeah.

My sketchings of it, I think it's feasible. And whether or not they lose a home site, I don't think is our concern. I think public safety is probably at our most important priority. and I just don't see that this is, it's what, eight or nine very narrow home sites, and if the traffic coming down Oaks Road is going at 30, 35, 40 miles an hour, I think if you have a right turn, and then someone who wants to make a left turn, and 200 feet later, I think it's possible it could cause issues in the future. Okay.

Yeah, that's all. Good point, thank you. All right, now I'm looking for a motion.

Move to schedule a public hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment for June 29th, 2026.

Okay, we got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Pass unanimous, okay. All right, next on the agenda is Ordinance 05-2026, Emerson Road South and Green Valley Drive Zoning Map Amendment ZMA 26-2. Okay.

Oh, and one quick note about the previous one is that June 29th is not a normal village board hearing date. It is being postponed a week because of renovations to this room. So we'll talk about that at the end of the meeting as far as our particular meeting and how to proceed for June, but that's just letting people know. Okay, so this is Emerson Road and Green Valley Drive zoning map amendment ZMA 2602. It is for 11.73 acres. Oh, there it is. That is... sort of if you can imagine sunny slope is to the west and emerson road is to the east um greed valley drive dead ends to the northern part of this parcel um the the rezone is from AG1 to low density residential, RL. As I noted in the packet, the application indicated RM, but I assume that that was just a typo because RM does not anywhere come close to the subdivision plat that they're applying for. And we have the right or we can zone something down anyway no matter what but I figured it was just a mistake because that did not match the subdivision plat in character or anything like that for that it would not meet the minimum density in an RM district so just clarifying that The applicant is concurrently applying for 22 lot subdivision with SPP 26001 and a comprehensive plan update CPA 26002 which was on the agenda last month. The public hearing for that will be on June 29th as well because we needed 30 days in order notice for that to get on the agenda. There is not a Village board meeting at the end of this month and then there will not be one at the middle of next month So it goes to June 29th So that is this is the rezone the next The next item also is the preliminary plat that is about this rezone as well the the next item after that is the condominium plat that's adjacent to but not directly to related to this application. So we can proceed how we want to consider them separately, together, something like that. The applicant is here. But I would say we could probably limit it to as far as asking of PLAT questions for the PLAT portion and then rezoning overall questions earlier. Other things it does meet the comprehensive plan for residential. And this is had, you know, basically proposed roads planning on a subdivision extension through it for 30 years.

Just a quick question. The first two are the same parcel, but they have different acreage slightly, and I don't know what that means, if there's any reason to that. When I first looked at that, I thought, well, what's going on?

Oh, I think I can explain that, actually. Because they're giving away a small portion of the acreage to the condominium plot that's later on.

The Hamilton one?

Yes. Thank you. And so that is the discrepancy, and I didn't catch it on both of them, I think.

That's okay. I just want to answer Ram's question from earlier. Yes. Okay.

I don't recall. Are the outlots detention areas?

That that lots that's part of do we that's the plat, so this is just the rezone.

So yeah, they would be So this chairman if we take this item For the agenda rezone Then we go to the plat question and if we have question on the plat or if we have any comments on I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it makes more sense to have a discussion on the plat question first and then come back to the rezoning because rezoning is yes or no. I mean, mostly it's yes. So there's, at least I don't have any question and I don't think there are many questions, there will be many questions on the rezoning. So any comment or question would be on the plats.

Yeah, that makes total sense. Yeah. I mean, RL1 or RL matches everything that's in the area anyway, so.

Again, I'm proposing that we- You're making a recommendation that we move to- Propose that the order of that, yeah. Okay. Yeah. But okay with that? Okay, let's go ahead then.

I seem to have done it already, apparently. Yeah. Yeah.

All right, so let's go to the, yeah, item three then in that section, the summary of native-

All right, I'll go ahead and do the summary on this one. Yeah. So obviously the background is pretty much the same, so that it is an application for a 22-lot subdivision. The intent is to do duplexes or condominium duplexes on each of these. Pheasant Creek is immediately adjacent to this, and that is what they are. So, I mean, they would be very similar product. We also use that as the comparison for the fiscal analysis. to do so the the plat um plats a new roadway generation grove and continues green valley drive north to south and and this is contingent on both the rezone and the comp plan amendment so the one thing about the comp plan amendment was about access that there currently is plotted an access to emerson road from this from this parcel. However, that proposed road goes through a house. And so that probably should have been adjusted at that time when that house ruled that out, but that was not the case. There was another avenue that could have been taken, but there was another house built by the applicant. Basically, they're asking to move the two accesses to the south. And that's fine because the three that are planned on the comp plan is too many. They're too close together. But that was just something that the comp plan is considering. Generally, the application meets all of the requirements as far as preliminary plat. And I will say that I have been contacted recently by numerous neighbors. about the issue of construction traffic because there has already been construction traffic started probably to construct a garage on the condominium platts property so i've made the department of public works as well as code enforcement aware of that issue but that is construction traffic off of green valley drive is an issue where I've been contacted quite frequently.

They're driving through the field to get to the back of that other property?

Yes.

They don't want to use their own driveway that they're building the barn on?

That's something I do not have the answer to. Okay. And so that access was not authorized and we are taking care of that as far as code enforcement and DPW. Just to kind of set that record straight as far as whether or not we, because some of the residents were thinking that we had authorized that access. And I was like, no, public hearing is here and here, so.

Yeah.

Everything about the plot. checks out that's that's good that was just an issue and it was an issue that uh nancy said that we should look at as well i talked to nancy she was not here said that she was concerned about that and we'll raise it at the board meeting when this is reviewed so

Did we ever vacate that other road off Emerson Road? Does that have to be vacated at all or not, or are we just dropping it?

No, it would be removed through the comp plan amendment. It was just a proposed road. It was never actually dedicated right away. Okay, okay. I mean, there could have been enough room for that access off of 630. It would have been very, very tight or would have required acquisition of the adjacent parcel, which I had been informed that negotiations did not proceed. Okay. Any questions of me, both the developer as well as the surveyor, plant maker, are both here for any overall questions or technical questions.

And the outlots are what?

I believe that those would be your detention ponds. Very, very specific to that would be directed towards the surveyor.

And the access to the ponds would be another question.

Oh, I don't see that located on there, but I'm assuming that would be either through the backyards or or whatever I also not sure if there's an overall Like HOA or condominium association for the whole thing or just for individual properties.

That's not something that One appears to have frontage so

Okay, I can be any questions of me Mr. Matt.

Yes. Yes Robin.

I want to clarify because you mentioned the your conversation with trustee Washburn also, but looking at the plot plat what we have on the screen right now We're talking about access only from the Green Valley Road Up on the top, right?

Mm-hm.

So where was this question or comment from access from the Emerson Road because I don't see anything on the screen and I've gone through all the documents. It does show a small access to the Emerson Road in your package for the zoning. But it doesn't show anything here. And again, so I still want to understand better what the issue was, because that access is not wide enough. And like you said, there was a plan to acquire the neighbor's property. But looking at, now you have gone to the other- Yeah.

Now you have gone to the- That is what you're talking about right there. That little sliver, it's 18 feet wide.

But that is the that's the next item on the agenda.

Yeah, it just is a clearer indication of what you were talking about As far as when you're saying that that access that was never like dedicated or anything that's private property Yeah, but it is an 18-foot wide strip.

Yes, but but I guess my question is then why is How is this connected to the item on agenda item number three?

so Tangentially, as a part of that condominium plat adjustment, this, and the applicants can speak more specifically to it, but this is transferring those slivers of land from the larger parcel, the AG parcel, to the condominium plat parcel, 630 and 632. Okay.

I'm sorry, maybe if other members on the commission understand, help me out. So the Hamilton condominium below this on the right, below this of Emerson. Yes. And this is right north of that, but not off Emerson because on the right- North and west, yes. Correct? Yes. Okay, am I the only one who's not understanding?

I'm not understanding what your question is, that's what- My question is on this item.

Right. Okay, it's on the Kingston item, there was the issue of the access from the Emerson- That's way north of the other condominium project. Way north.

Way north of it, there's a house there now that they can't go through. yeah okay we're not going to get an entrance to this subdivision when it until it's completed until later on because they're developing it appears to me they're developing it the north section first oh they don't control they don't control properties to the south of here oh they don't no okay

That was the kind of the main point of discussion about the comp plan amendment. Do you want to take to force a connection now or sort of punt it to indeterminate property owners down the road? We have no way to force it. I mean.

You'd have to abandon a house. You'd have to.

Oh, no, I mean, there would be a couple of the other different options for, you know, access. The access through, that would have been through 608. Like, that was never possible, but access through 630 or just even waiting for an acquisition of something to get out onto Explorer Drive, which is on 710. I mean, if one way in and out is an issue for the Planning Commission other than just construction traffic, then yeah, that's definitely something that can be talked about.

Fire and ambulance come to mind.

I mean, we have situations where there's one access in and out that have far more units than this. I'm thinking of the condos off of Wood Road. Both of those are. But I tell you what, our fire department doesn't like that.

But you don't want to perpetuate it.

would like to have another access i'm not sure necessarily if that's possible given the current configurations but that is that is something that is not i can't magic that yeah the wood road situation took all kinds of discussions between the town and the county and the developers and it was a mess it looks like it it was an absolute mess yeah for those of you don't know it's uh what what there's two condo developments in wood road and we have streets that dead end into both of these and you just can't get in through a street that leads directly to it it doesn't make any kind of sense but that's how it goes sometimes

Well, this isn't overly large in addition. The other thing that they're going to have to do is we're going to have to put T's at each of those dead ends, too, for turnaround. So they're not showing those on the plot at this point.

Yeah. Any more general zoning or comp plan questions I can answer, too? It seems like you also have a lot of questions of.

Mostly of the plot.

Yeah, the developer and surveyor. Yeah. Who would you like first?

What's your thoughts, Rob? I know you want to approve the plat layout, or you want to do the zoning first and move through this? I don't see any big issue with it.

No, I don't see any problem or any comment on the zoning. And if I look on this plan as a standalone, then I don't have any issues. But when I combine that with the issues of the access and And the future, like you say, whether you're able to buy the property or not, so then I'm getting concerned because I'm not understanding how we are asking or how we're going to vote on the approval on this item based on something else, which is contingent upon the future.

And there's also the issue of construction traffic, which is happening now, and people are calling me about now.

And that's what, yeah, so if I combine these two, then I have concern, then I don't feel comfortable either going for the approval. But if I just look at this standalone, then I'm okay. So I'm looking for some. other discussion from other members. Maybe I'm the only one who's kind of mixing these two.

Well, I guess my question would be is, from a traffic standpoint, and I can understand where the condominiums that are adjacent to the north are going to have a lot of traffic. Is there a location that they can come in from off of Emerson Road as a temporary entrance for construction?

I am not sure. I mean, I had slated that it could come through 630, a property that they control, or if that 18 foot strip Is it would be sufficient? I don't know. Um, but I mean I do recommend that they not they try to not come in through Um, you know kingsview and And green valley as much as possible. We just paved kingsview so I mean those are just concerns considerations

And has the fire department looked at this layout and they see any concerns with it at all?

We submit things to other departments, but we haven't heard back anything on this one. And because it's such a long turnaround, we're giving them a few more weeks.

Well, in that case, would it be prudent to table it until the next time, until you hear back and

I would ask some questions of, you know, the developers as far as questions that you have about how they plan on going about that as far as construction traffic and stuff goes.

Would it be helpful for them to have another cul-de-sac on the east side of Green Valley instead of connecting, trying to connect to something that may or may not ever get built?

Yeah, I mean we that was just basically we had a The comp plan has that going and basically hooking back into Kingsview Kingsview dead ends into a property. That's like four parcels north of here And so that would just be like a kind of mini turn cul-de-sac and come down These are the problems created by long bowling alley lots and

Well, I like your idea of tabling the plan.

I would agree. I think we can start moving forward on the zoning map amendment. Move the zoning forward and tabling the plan? I would agree with that, yeah.

To that end.

Well, I do would recommend to see if you can ask the developers what they plan on doing with the construction traffic, because I think that's what's been ringing my phone off the hook.

Is that zoning or plat?

That would be the plat. Okay. But. And we're tabling that. But I mean, it's still a question that you could have and you could ask.

We can move forward with the zoning maps. And then we can bring up the preliminary plat and if the developer's here. They are. Okay, then we can have them address. I didn't know they were here. Yeah. So let's go ahead and do that.

Let's go back to zoning. Let's go back to zoning. Sorry for that, but.

I move that the plan commission recommend approval of ordinance 5-2026 to the village board, Emerson Road South and Green Valley Drive zoning map amendment ZMA 26-2. I'll second.

Okay, we've got a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Passes, thank you. Okay, so now we're back to the plat again, right?

Okay, perfect.

So we've had a lot of questions, and I think if everybody's okay with that, why don't we have the developer come up and field some questions from us. All right, sounds good. Thank you.

It's about time. I'd love to get off the hot seat.

Mark Eberle, Neil Samantha Barber, 1458 Horizon Boulevard. So what can I answer for you?

Well, you've heard some of the questions.

Yes. So let's talk about construction access. So this is a preliminary plat here. So typically, we've got to design these things. We've got an entire final plat to bring before this board here. So we would like to not focus on construction access at this time. We do have two or three months of design where we can get this thing designed and come back with some solutions for access to this property that may or may not be through the development to the south. So I guess I'm asking if we could potentially go that route here. Coming off of Emerton Road, that 18 foot wide strip is just lined with fences and trees and all kinds of stuff. It's really not wide enough to provide access to the development. And the condominium property to the south that the developer owns also has brand new driveways and that type of stuff on it. So those two are really not- You're saying to the south, you mean to the north? No, the condominium is in the southeast corner of this general.

Oh, the Hamilton. Yes. Thank you.

Correct. Correct. So, again, that has new construction, new driveways, some other stuff. So those two are really not options. So we need to explore potentially a solution to the southwest here. But we do need time to do that.

Mr. Chairman, then, well, I appreciate your comment. Then my question would be, like you said, you want us to go ahead and move to approve, and then it gives you time to rethink about your construction plan. So I don't know if my question should be to Robin or to the Planning Commission. If we go ahead with that, and in the construction, if you still don't have what I would call a reasonable access through either Emerson Road or some other way. And you still have to go through subdivision, and the neighbors are not happy. And we have approved that, so what's our recourse to, so unless we move to approve conditional upon acceptance of the construction plan. No, and I don't know how to reword that because the construction plan, it will be then, because I can see that you can come saying, I'm sorry we looked up all the options, this is what it is. It is what it is. And we've already approved it, yeah. Yeah. So that's where I was kind of hesitant saying, is it a good idea to move ahead or do we just table the whole thing until you come back with it? Robin?

That would be the issue at the public hearing. So in June 29th, the people that will be speaking or are following me, that is your number one concern.

Well, Robin, as much as I agree, it will be an issue at the public hearing. But at the public hearing, if people come opposed to that, and we already have approved the public hearings for the rezoning. It's not for the approval. So even if people come and they are opposed, they are concerned, we have just moved to recommend to the village board for the rezoning. So I don't see then what recourse would have based on the public hearing, except they will come back to the planning commission.

Yeah. and say that you would like for them to have an answer as by the date, or yeah, tabling is an option as well. It is a first for me. It's not a very clear you have option.

So Robin, if I may speak there. So again, we design plenty of subdivisions that only have one access to them across the state here. And a lot of times, construction has to come through that access and through existing neighborhoods here. So we will do our best to find a alternate solution to not come through that subdivision here. And we will need some time to do that. But technically, that's not a platting item here. We're bringing the plat in front of you today and looking for approval of the plat.

Hang on just for a second, we're going to have to have you come to the microphone please. And your name and address then at the microphone, thank you. And how are you associated with this whole project?

John Osterman, Golden Construction and we're seeing LLC working with Mrs. Hamilton on the development for this particular project that she's looking for. Mark, I'm thinking about that 18 foot access that we do have coming off of Emerson for a temporary type of an access to get down to that property. 18 feet wide if we do run a temporary type of service going in to get in and the site right there may be an access point which may eliminate any opposition from the subdivisions that are up there. That would just be to get the materials and get the project going in, coming in off of that 18 foot if that becomes a big issue. That would be probably the easiest access point for us to get in is to run a temporary from point A to point B. 18 feet wide should take care of any The equipment that's coming in trailer wise, materials for that site, which we could further go in the future and design something for that to get in and out of.

That would help a lot.

okay so that's pretty much what i would propose at this point for that access to keep neighbors and stuff and as far as the access that we did come off of green valley that was the only way to get onto her property without any damage going through for her existing driveway brand new driveways brand new homes that she put in it was the only access that legally she could come off of where her property adjacents to the south on that property. So we did go in and we put a temporary service to go in to put the new garage that we were installing back at that point, which we can eliminate and do the same thing coming off that 18 foot stretch. Don't know about the neighbors there. They probably aren't going to be real happy with that access either. So that one access point coming off of Green Valley is the best way to get in and out. But there are options that if we have to, that 18 foot wide one, we could use. And I don't know your thoughts on that, Mark.

Who owns the 18-foot section we're talking about? Oh, she owns that 18-foot strip, huh? Okay

I would only clarify that according to the DPW, access off of Green Valley through the is not permitted. That's full stop. So without kind of an approval of a driveway or something else, you can't take

down dead end signs and access the property i understand that but but on approval of this plat and assuming they're going forward that fully becomes a a dedication that's going to come to the village and that road is right away and and access is you can't deny it yeah i mean it's a cart before the horse situation i know Well, this last one, I understand the garage thing. That's a whole different ballgame. But for this plat here, they have every right to use Green Valley to come in there.

It's a public road.

So our decision is to say, hey, we can't deny them to do that once we approve the plat.

Yeah, once we approve it. Yeah.

Any other thoughts?

No, based on what I heard from the construction manager, it makes me feel better that that option can be used and it's a viable option. Because before you spoke it appeared to me that option is closed So I'm okay with that. But now I'm trying I'm looking for how to word that motion to To incorporate that well, you're gonna have a couple people on Emerson Road.

I could be very happy either. I know so, I mean you got I

Well, I guess. But splitting it, at the very least.

Yeah, I know. If the zoning and the plat are two different items, the zoning seems to be reasonable. Yeah. Seems to be appropriate. I'd be comfortable acting on the zoning and continue to table the plat because the plat has a ways to go, in my opinion. Well, we already moved on the zoning. Oh, yeah. Hold on zoning. So I guess what's left for me would be, I wouldn't be comfortable approving the plan that I'm looking at here.

There seems to be too many questions.

I think the reason, the question I have for you, Larry, is on what grounds are you doing it? Are you saying that you don't approve it because you don't want them driving through a road that's already there that they have every right to use to bring in and build?

No, not a bit. My concern lies more with turnaround access. Just doesn't doesn't appear to me that dead end that goes back swings around back to the north. I think I would rather see a sack at the east end there and not try to Imagine a connection that's may or may not someday be feasible.

Oh, well Yeah, when would that when would that occur Whenever whenever the neighbor decides to build I

Yeah, that's correct. We originally had a cul-de-sac there, and then actually working with Sam and Robin, we extended that road to that property line so that could be an infill through the next neighborhood.

Well, I prefer your solution.

Yeah, I couldn't support another cul-de-sac there. There's too damn many cul-de-sacs anyway.

You know, I think Sam and Robin were correct here in good neighborhood planning to eliminate some of the dead ends and have some through streets. So we did accommodate that for them. All right. I'll stand down.

And then also, you know, you've got to put the T turnarounds on both those dead ends.

That's fine. A plot type items here, but correct. Yes.

There's a lot of refinements by the time the final gets here, you know?

Yeah.

know how they're going to get back to Outlot 2 and all that kind of good stuff. That would come up before the recordable document comes in.

That is correct. We do need to provide access to Outlot 2 in the final plan.

I don't know where we go.

Any other thoughts or emotion? Does anybody have any other comments?

Somebody else can make a motion, you know, it doesn't have to be me all the time.

Well, it doesn't have to be for, it can be any motion that you want to make, whatever your feelings are.

I think tabling is waste of everybody's time because it's a preliminary plan and they work with the staff to develop the connections. I come from a unique point of view that I did this kind of stuff I almost said crap stuff for years with these neighborhood plans and whatnot and making sure connections you know I don't know that they kept them but there's so many plats and file drawers out at the county that how to fill in some of these places where the first guy in kind of almost cuts everybody off. But I guess I would recommend the approval of SPP26-000, I guess it's three zeros one, lineage estates, preliminary plat.

Second.

Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any other comments before we call the vote? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Moving forward. Okay. Next on the agenda is Kingston Homes Condominium Platte Addendum CP. It says 22026, I think that's 2026-02, 630 and 632 Emerson Road South.

Oh, so the original one was CP02-22. This one is the amendment. Oh, okay. So this is an application to amend the condominium plat. This is required almost for any minor amendment or recordation of a condo plat. The changes are the addition of the additional area will be added as well as on the garage that was aforementioned will be added and responsibilities about that will be delineated in the condo plot. No new units or anything else that has been submitted to change.

Was the addition of the whatever portion of acreage now allow them to build another condominium if they want to go?

No, they would have had the space.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, maybe not.

Well, this is basically a redefinement of the legal description.

Yes, plus the addition of another building, a garage.

Where is that additional?

It's on the back, the building all the way in the back of the property.

On the back on the northwest. The northwest corner, they're actually showing the building there, yeah.

I'm asking because we are looking at the documents online, it's all black and white, and although in the description it says additional, but it doesn't, I think. It'll be nice to either circle that or put in, you know, maybe note that this is the, that's what we are talking about. Otherwise, it'll be a question like me. Where?

Yeah. These eyes aren't young either, so.

I know.

A night of pain.

Yeah, because at least in the old days, when we make these on the autocars, you put a little kind of circle or the note here saying that's what we're talking about, so then I wouldn't be asking the question. Thank you, Robin. No problem.

Any questions? Again, both the developer and property owner are here to answer any questions, but this one seems pretty minor.

So all the previous discussion and question that we had about the Emerson Road and the neighborhood property, they don't apply to that. That was only because we were trying to combine these two.

I would only say that I'm not quite sure about it. So if you wanted to mandate an access off of the 18 foot area if you guys wanted you or the village board wanted to mandate that that be in access as well um that would be a lot easier if that 18 foot portion were still a part of the parcel that was being amended was was the plat um With this one, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how the property rights work where it is a separate parcel owned by a separate corporate entity, all that sort of stuff, whether or not those can be considered as the same project or not. That would be the only thing that I would raise about that. But considering they're going through at the exact same time, going to the village board at the same time, That can be a decision made then.

If they're two separate entities, maybe we can encourage them to enter into a written agreement allowing construction access. Excuse me.

That would be sufficient.

Encourage is the word you need to use because you can't make them do it.

Well, before it's transferred over.

Yeah. Maybe it's a recorded document.

Mm-hmm.

I don't know how you would do that.

Just, you could say an access easement, like you can recommend the addition of an access easement.

So we're going to hold the Kingston Homes condominium plat addendum? It wouldn't be a hold. Tied to her allowing them to, or encouraging them to let them use their 18 foot right of way to get to the property?

Yeah, I would say something like that. Because they're separate entities, I'm not quite sure, but I think that's a cover your basis moment there. It's like saying just, if you want to transfer this over, make sure that an access easement to the property that's doing the transferring is put on there.

If we're encouraging them to use that access, then that seems logical to me.

And it could be even temporary.

Yeah, it could be temporary.

Yeah. So that's the condition. But I don't know. Somebody, if you want to come up with the wording on that, what the lawyers want or need.

Conditional on the addition of a temporary access event through the construction of the subdivision along the 18-foot portion that is to be transferred.

Yeah, I understand that but we're we've already approved the preliminary plat without that access to being demanded if you will and now we're going to worse we're going to attach it to a condominium plat addendum and approval of the plat addendum to the requirement that they allow that the They allow that 18-foot strip be used for access to the other development I think it's a covering your bases thing if you're gonna have it transfer I Know I know but it's to me. It sounds kind of interesting.

Yeah, it is interesting I said this is there's a lot of new stuff here for me. I

That's why I brought the earlier question, because if you look at both of them standalone, I don't have any concern. But when you combine these, because one depends upon the other, it becomes a little messy.

So I don't know. And this would be my suggested solution to address that different, both the transfer of that property and the ownership concern. So if it's transferred via this and away from it, then the subdivision property says, well, we don't have access to that anymore. But if you have the temporary access agreement, then that's not an issue.

Okay, so. I think that it. Okay, now it's making more sense.

Go ahead, Rao, are you ready to make a motion?

Larry, we're going to call you for a motion.

Larry's going to make a motion, and I'll second.

In the matter of, let's see, this was CP 26-2. 630 and 632 Emerson condo plat 2026-5-20. We would recommend that the village board approve subject to the implementation of a temporary easement to facilitate construction of the Emerson and Green Valley Drive zoning and map amendment that we already approved, right? And preliminary plot. And preliminary plot.

Yeah, lineage estates, preliminary plot. Yes, thank you.

Second.

Whatever I said.

Okay, we got a motion and a second. Now, I would like to have the owner of this, if the owner is here, or whoever is representing the Kingston Homes condominium come up, if you could, please. Thank you. And John, your name and address again, please. Thank you.

John Osterman, Golden Construction, Vercing, LLC, 7930 Brown Road, Mount Pleasant.

Okay, and I guess my main question before we call the vote is to make sure that you and the people who the plat is for, they're amenable to this and that there's not going to be an issue with what we've just done.

Won't be an issue. I've already spoken to the owner and Ms. Hamilton has agreed to that.

Okay, very good. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now I call the vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay, good. Passes and we're moving on. Good luck. Tricor Professional Park Office condominium plat addendum CP 2026-03, 6921 Mariner Drive.

We're over the hill, guys. We haven't had any condo, maybe one in five years, and we have two in one agenda. That's just how it rolls sometimes. Okay, so this is the applicant submitted an addendum to the plot of survey and amendment to restatement and declaration of the Prairie Professional Park Office Condominium, which will be renamed the Tricor Professional Park Office Condominium. The amendment brings the 1055 Prairie Drive parcel into the condominium as unit five and expands from four buildings to five. and updates the legal descriptions and easements to cover the expanded footprint. It also consolidates the original 1982 declaration and for prior amendments in 87, 92, 97, and 2021 into a single restated document. And that's recorded. The zoning is C3. None of the zoning or uses are changing. It's just ownership and consolidation. And I believe there's a representative here.

Okay, I guess the only question, anybody else had a question? Because I have one, just one small one. Was this building five, was unit five, I'll call it, was just a standalone?

Yeah, it was a standalone separate parcel.

Okay. Within the condominium development?

No, it was outside of it and now it's being absorbed.

Okay, so the whole thing was not a business condominium project. Five was all by itself?

It was not five beforehand. And one to four existed, and now they are absorbing five. They're bringing it into the family.

Why don't you bring up the, come on up, sorry about that. Name an address for everybody, please.

TJ Orris, home address is 3512 Fence Line, Caledonia. office building 6939 Mariner in this office park. So the office park, the association has consisted of four buildings since the whole thing was built. But when it was built, it was built with all five buildings. But the owner of 1055 back then, whatever their lender issue was, they didn't want them to be part of the association. So the association said, okay, that's fine if you want to stand alone. But these five buildings have been operated together as an association the entire time. But now the owner of 1055 and all of us as board members of the office park want to finally just get the building into the fold and be done with the nonsense that that lender created way back then. So it's always been operated as a five business office park. All the buildings are the same. They're built by the same builder. We're just trying to iron things out.

Okay. Okay. Makes more sense. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. All right, any other questions?

I think it's a good idea.

Looking for a motion.

Okay, Ms. Chairman. Okay, no, no, Michelle, go ahead. No, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

Motion to recommend that approval, that the plan commission moves to recommend approval of CP-26-3.

Second. Okay, got a motion and a second. Any other comments, questions? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? None. Passes. Nice clean up.

Yeah, dang, legal incorporation and property, it's a lot of the same verbiage, so, you know. Oh, okay. All right, I'll eat egg for that one, that's fine. Okay, so next up is another plat.

Yeah, the sanctuary at Pike River Plat, Final Plat SFP 26-0001 Old Green Bay Road and Brown Road.

So this one is very familiar to all of you guys, and even more so because the Final Plat is almost exactly the same as the preliminary plot that was approved last year. So this is a 95 lot single family subdivision located between Old Green Bay Road and Brown Road adjacent to the Royal Oaks subdivision. The final plot substantially conforms to the preliminary plot and approved as PSP 25-1 in August 2025. With minor changes including the elimination of one lot, which is the quarter acre lot on the west side, number 52. And one out lot, which is former out lot two on the south of the property. Judging by what's on there, and I'm not absolutely sure, but it seems like that one was dedicated to one of the property owners. It was like a little sliver that had been essentially, not essentially, it had been used as a driveway for those property owners for years. So I assume that it was just dedicated over. they would be able to answer more to that. And Outlot 1 retains the proposal of a public park and wetland area. So we recommend approval of this. And I actually just received today a couple of slides from which is the home builder. That's another thing is that the ownership of the property has transferred. from Primestone Real Estate to Lenar Home Builders. So they submitted this, which is a park concept plan for that corner off of Little Prairie Drive, which would have a playground. Village has said that taking unimproved parkland is not a part of the park's plan because that's a liability. But if it's an improved park plan with improved amenities and then dedicated to the village, that becomes a different story. So we had not suggested a playground, but this is still nice. And the other suggestions were a walking path around the wetland area. which is right up there, as well as a potential entrance into James Turret Park. Those were the two main suggestions as far as actual improvements that would warrant acceptance. But this is nice too. And then they also submitted this as far as the monument signage, which would be approved separately. I believe there's a representative here, and if you have any questions of me,

The final plat that I have is so small that I'm assuming that there are sidewalks on here, and I just can't necessarily pick them out, but I'm assuming that's all in there?

Yeah, we either say that they have to be on the plat or on the road sections, which they are.

Okay.

Some of the conditions were about that this one had 15-foot vision triangles, and it should be 20, and to spell out street lighting and street trees. The street lighting, they do have lamp signals where it has a little triangle. That's cool. That's actually way better than a lot of plats, because we always put that one on. But we need either saying that they're going to adopt the We Energy Special or go with whatever design that they want to, they have to submit that. And then indication of the street choose requirement.

Who reviews the light fixtures for appropriateness in the village?

That would be between us and Public Works. So if it's in the right-of-way, then Public Works would be reviewing it as well. WeEnergy owns most of the light poles in the village, so that's usually the assumption. But, you know, some people dare to be different.

Okay, here we are. Yeah, it looks like I'm as and maybe you can confirm this or the developer if they're here can confirm it It looks like they've on those long streets. They've also done curb cuts to the sidewalks, huh? It appears yes, I believe so That's good like that

Just, I mean, one of the big discussions when this was first approved was the connection northwards to Biscayne Avenue. They applied for an exception from the Planning Commission and Village Board and received it to basically have that removed. And that they move forward. We believe it substantially meets the comprehensive plan as far as all of the other connections.

Okay. Any questions? No questions? I'll entertain a motion then.

Motion to recommend to approve the sanctuary at Pike River Subdivision Platte SPF-26-1 subject to the recommended conditions for approval.

Second. Got a motion and a second. Any other comments?

I'd like to make a comment that I think based on what we just heard from Robin both these developments of the playground in the park and the and the sign for that these are the positive development and I think you should please the the homeowners in the adjacent Riles Oak subdivision also. That last year, if you remember, that we had a lot of discussion, a lot of concern. And like you said, most of those concerns have been addressed from going from multi-units to single units and making exception to the access from the north and now these two developments. And the other thing is that, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at your comments about the sidewalks. So even if I expand that, they don't show that. But again.

It's on the streets. Yeah, it's on the street.

So I want to, no, I'm making a speech so that it goes in the recording of all the positive developments on the record. And I'm very pleased about that. And I believe that the Neighbors would be pleased. Neighbors of the Riles Oak, I believe that they would be favorable to that.

the basically the acceptance of any proposed public park in lieu of um all of that is you know up to the discretion of the village board through the development agreement process and yeah and that will continue forward after this but this is very good time we're we're very pleased as far as taking steps in that direction as opposed to unimproved land yep

Okay, we got a motion and second, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Good luck, glad to see this one's going.

All right, staff reports? Staff reports. None, I had enough to do this month, thank you very much. Yeah, I'm sure you did. So adjourn, but next meeting, June 17, 2026, question mark. So the question mark is, I have I'm tracking a CSM and right here for Enterprise Drive as well as the number six addition to the Hoods Creek subdivision as being planned for June. Right now, maybe our tech folks can speak on to the nature of renovations here in eeby but apparently audio and video recording will be not available so if you guys are comfortable meeting and going old school i have a feeling that you all are comfortable old school but it can be still at june 17th otherwise the earliest potential date would be june 29th in order to have those items be considered at the june 29th village board otherwise they would be delayed another month

I'm good on the 17th. 17th is fine. Are you talking about one of the other rooms here, you mean?

No, it would be this room and community room one. There would be no audio or video. I don't know the extent of the renovations and stuff, but they said that we could do it old school.

It could be recorded.

Yeah, it could be recorded, old shaky cam style or... As long as it doesn't interfere with the ordinances that we're required to be recorded and broadcast, I don't know.

I don't think there's a requirement that it be broadcast. It's just that there has to be minutes in the statutes. The recording does help the taking of the minutes, but...

I'm talking about on Facebook, for people to be able to view off site.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you, I think for the whole planning commission, whatever you decide, but personally, June 17th, I'm talking about personally, I have a conflict, so I will be happy if this moves some other day. On the other hand, I think if everyone else, if the rest of the commission is good, old school, no audio, video. Yeah, it wouldn't be broadcast.

No offense, but.

No, I'm saying that I'm not going to weigh in that because personally for me it'll be a conflict anyway, so yeah.

Yeah, it would not be live streamed or live audio or anything like that. We can try to record what we can and then post it up later, but that would be the limitation. And I don't think we have ordinances requiring live streaming. It's just saying that we have to post things on our website as far as notifications, but that's it.

Does that understand? Yep. So I guess we'll stick with the 17th. Sounds good. Let's do that. Okay, one last motion.

Motion adjourned. Second.

We're out of here.

Thank you, everybody.