Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

He he said okay. All right. Good afternoon and welcome to the September 17th, 2025 plan commission meeting. Uh call to order and roll call, please. Basil here. Basinoski here. Rizzler here. Washburn here. Batia here. Meyer here. Okay. Now, the meeting minutes from the August 20th, 2025. Do I have a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the August 2020 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. Second.

Um, Mr. Chairman, under discussion. Um, I'm not sure which ones are in this packet. I had emailed Sam earlier today and made a request to amend item number seven. uh recommendation of the Krishna Grove final plat.

Uh the last couple of sentences sentences of that were unclear. So, I recommended that in the prior to the onvoice on voice vote, the sentence before that or before the motion seconded by Rizzler, I wanted that to be amended to read over with each property sale to the lot owners so that we ensure that those will be managed by the homeowners. Those will be owned, excuse me, owned by the homeowners and managed by the HOA. And that was specific, that change is specific to uh Krishna not showing the undivided interest of the outlot. And I wanted to make it clear in the motion um as well that they were to be an undivided interest transferred to each homeowner. And ultimately though, the HOA would maintain the open space

owned by the owned by the lot own by the homeowners and managed by the HOA. Okay. Yeah, I guess I I got that email and I changed it in not what's in your packet because that was already out. So they're changed to be when you uh in what'll be the final minutes. Correct. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion to include the recommendation by uh by Trusty Washburn. Okay. So, I do with the second. Okay. So, we got we got a motion and a second for the amendment. Um all in favor? I opposed.

Passes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. The old business discussion of comprehensive plan transportation element. Sam got one in front of that. Mr. Chair, I you might have a old agenda. Uh oh. 4216. 4216 Old Green Bay Road CSM. I don't have that on my agenda. Okay. The one that Sam just handed over. Do we have something in Oh, there's something in a packet then, too. Oh, boy. I picked this up Monday. Wait a minute. Let me I think Sam is This is again an old I know, but let me

Okay, this is next to Aurora. Give me a minute, please.

Oh, no. This is not Aurora. This is the other one. Oh, this is down on me. That That's where the the sports Okay. Yeah, we had this one. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, um surprised surprise. Why not in the first day? Okay. Recommendation of a 4216 Old Green Bay Road certified survey map CSM 24-02.

Mr. Chair, the village board previously approved this application to create a 2.66 acre lot to create a senior living facility. Due to timing coordination with the hospital system that owns the property, the applicant did not record the CSM within the 12-month limit. The register of deeds would not accept the signed CSM. Um and so uh we heard about that uh late last week. Um on Monday, we updated the agenda to include this um before the you know statutory deadline. we can amend the agenda u more than 24 hours in advance to add this as a last minute so we can get it reapproved just with a more recent date so they can go back to the register of deeds and record it. The reason they need to create the lot is they are creating um we consider senior living facilities a commercial uh or sorry a residential use um but the rest of the property is zoned commercial which we technically only allow on the second floor of a commercial building. So, they need to create a new lot. The zoning is already approved for that lot. They just need to record the CSM to create it. And then they can go in, do the renovations, and open their senior living facility. So, just trying to get out of the way here.

Okay. Move to approve. Second. A motion to and a second. All in favor? I I opposed. Any discussion? We should have done that before. I just have a comment, but just that I'm I'm happy to see them moving forward. I've been watching that building. We don't have enough senior living in this community and so I'm very happy uh for their group that they are able to move this forward. Terrific. Yeah, this will be on the village board consent agenda next Monday as well. Perfect. Okay. All right. Okay. Now, remain calm.

Yeah. Recommendation of 1127 Prairie Drive certified survey map CSM 25007. Oh, go back one. Oh, god. Discussion of comprehensive plan transportation elements. Thank you. It's the one that you you you you got in the first place. So, it's not like you missed it. So, that's a big old wall of text. So, uh if you remember, we handed out homework last last month.

Um and wanted to get any of your thoughts on it. I'll just do a brief overview here. I know not everybody was here last last month, but um due to the number of development pro proposals that have been coming in front of plan commission in the off the Brown Road area east of Pike River and west of Taylor, the amount of public discussion has been a lot. And so staff thought it would be prudent to review the comprehensive plan in order to have overall strategy to hold developers to to so avoid roadways not lining up and not contributing to connectivity to the village. Um I know that commissioner Basil had Basil or Basil Basil. Basil okay

Austin Towers um you know sorry that's a man that's a real old reference. Anyway um let's move on. um he had suggested that as well to make sure that we have all these things that are coming in and being connected. So with the overview, we look at the comprehensive plan, suggest removal of proposed roads that don't make any sense anymore, um and propose a street layout that meets our current ordinance, subdivision ordinances, block length, etc., etc. Um and we have a couple of suggestions of things that would go into uh a transportation comprehensive plan update um that would address the residents concerns that we have heard so much as uh traffic calming speeds so on and so forth. Um we do uh this is merely a transportation element. This is not a land use element, but we will go back and say that we still def still believe that the land use element of, you know, housing and moderate density housing given where it is makes sense. Um, so we we're not going to we're defending that point. Okay. So, as this area moderate density residential growth is warranted as this area would be within decent walking distance or a short bicycle trip. So quarter to a 3/4 mile from over a half million square feet of retail commercial uses including grocery stores uharmacies and um Quick Trip is I guess is a bodega sort of thing convenience store as well as many uh job opportunities in the village. So it just makes sense if you want to be able to walk or bike somewhere it would be kind of around here. All right. So um development that would be necessary to complete the infrastructure required or planned in the vision 2050 transportation plan that we already have um has a connection of Oaks Road to

Durand Avenue to Bronn Road that's been in in kind of the plans for 20ome years. Okay. So you guys we discussed this and you wanted to move forward. we go bring back a formal proposal within the next couple of months and go through the the actual standard public hearing process and so so on. So here's the current comp comprehensive plan for local area 16. As you can see um Oaks Road is planned to connect downwards or southwards to Bronn Road and then continue. Biscane Avenue is set to be a collector going east west that connect to Oaks Road as well as there is a sort of connection between Green Ridge and South which are currently very very long deadend streets that don't connect anything. Um the practicality of some of these is uh to be examined. Okay. So suggested deletions. Um so these are things that we think that no longer work. Um, one is the bridge over the uh both the the Pike River there as well as the train tracks that's not even like a half mile beyond it. Um, there's just not financially feasible based on the fact that there's no development there. Um, and nothing planned. We would also suggest removal of a roadway through the wetland environmental area right there in the middle of the the plan. That's also a suggested public park site. So that doubles up as um where two birds, one stone. Um, we're also suggesting removal of a connection south of Bronn Road that would just be shifted over um because it would would be too close to the one of the existing exits for the season's development. Um,

another of the X's is just stuff that connects into that subdivision that's there, but it goes through existing homeowners or homes and it just doesn't make sense anymore based on that layout. Um recommendations that are remaining consistent things that we are keeping um or suggesting to keep is the Oaks Road connection, Biscane Avenue, Yates Drive coming down and connecting to the seasons as well as some sort of pathway to both connect South Green Ridge um and that subdivision that includes uh Cozy Acres and

is that uh wander lane and so on and so forth to the national avenue like so there's a public road as a part of the Menard's Walmart thing. Now there is some terrain issues there obviously um so feasibility isn't is a concern okay so new recommendation based on current ordinance requirements so what I did was basically take our block length ordinances so blocks um can't be any smaller than 200 by 600 and the a block can't have an uninterrupted um a culde-sac or whatever can't be longer than 1,200 F feet. So essentially, you take that and you take our standard lot size for RL, which would be anywhere between um 60 and 90 ft wide and then 120 ft deep. Um and then you add those up. So you have like 120 120 and then the roadway. 120 120 in the roadway. And this is basically the grid that you get. Um, so this would be, we heard about the residents wanting the basic same format and size and scale as their subdivision. Their their lots would fit in this. So now they might be a little bit narrower or whatever, but that's up to the developer. This is basically a grid that would fit out if that were to be continued no matter what. It's not more dense or or less. It's just the same grid, same depth of lots. So, I mean, that's quite a bit of them. Um, but when you kind of you a developer is going to want to come in and they're not going to want to waste a lot of land. So, there's a portion of this that could be converted to storm water ponds, other kind of features, so on and so

forth. But, this is just a general sketch. Um, so these are recommended controlled intersections and intersections that should have traffic calming measures installed. So we heard about the the concerns about traffic. So we're recommending that these to prevent cut through traffic, speed through traffic, stuff like that, that these intersections be specially looked at um even if they don't meet the warrants. So whenever you do um each of these sub each of these thing proposed developments that we had in this area would require traffic impact analysis. So we would also listen to those but even above and beyond the warrants meaning that okay this is what the math says this is the amount of cars that go through. So these are the recommendations for a stop sign or a traffic light or whatever. Above and beyond that, we are suggesting that these be improved to be safer intersections to meet the the concerns of the community. Um, so that would either look like a mini roundabout, a standard roundabout, curb extensions, so on and so forth to make sure that people don't fly through there. Um, and honestly, it would probably create a better neighborhood streetscape as well. So, um, it's really a win-win. the the star on the map is for the intersection between Oaks Road and Brown Road, which would be a controlled intersection almost 99% of the time. Um, so we're taking a special look at that one to say that, okay, this should be X, Y, or Z. We also think that a roundabout would work well there because we're not planning on expanding Brown Road to four lanes or anything like that. So, I think that would be good. Um so and when I'm talking about curb extensions and many roundabouts up on

the we like to draw reference from um NACTO which is a engineering North American council of traffic officials council I can't remember the C is probably council but them and ASHTO are the leading um proponents of basically standardized engineering and design in America um and they tend to focus on some of these sort of small scale stuff. Ashtto is more like interstates and whatnot, but um these are a couple of their designs kind of showing you curb extensions um and then also planters uh as well as a mini roundabout um for that both achieve traffic calming and make it easier to walk around so you're not basically walking in the road for a bigger distance. It also there's a side benefit of these kind of bumpouts prevent people from passing on the right through an intersection. Um or you know otherwise sort of abusing the bigger space of a road in ways that that paint cannot. So So anyway that's that's the run view of the packet that you've already received. So uh questions, thoughts, discussion? Um I've been talking for too long. This is about you guys. Robin Robin. Uh thank you for all this uh recommendation. I do have one concern or and question.

Uh the uh the connection that you show uh going to Biscane Avenue. Mhm. Uh there's a roundabout which good and also there's one from Yet Drive down to Grand. Yes. my recollection. No, that that subdivision those were the residents who were uh very much opposed to that development which was a CCM development. Yeah. Yeah. The 600 unit development. Yes. Exactly. And uh their main concern was obviously once we connect to the Biscane Avenue and the and yes drive is going to be heavy traffic and so forth. Mhm.

But with that in background, I recall that when not from the planning commission, but when that at at the public hearing when it came to the board, a comment was made to the resident, it was not I don't think it was a serious comment, but comment was well, there's a gap, you know, in that land which is not owned by that developer and uh so why don't you as a HOA buy the land and make sure that not that road never gets built. Mhm.

Okay. that I don't think it was a serious comment but the point was that they were concerned don't to build that road and so from and even otherwise uh the developer would build up to the end of the uh the subdivision which they have proposed which we approved then it will not be connected to Biscane Avenue and according to this uh proposal eventually whenever that happen it will be built.

Mhm. So, one of the thoughts I had is maybe we should not have that connection uh you know from that last round that you you show on uh what street is there to Biscane Avenue and instead show that connection on the uh one which is below which goes to the yes dry so that takes away their concern. That's just my thought and my recommendation. Does that make sense?

Uh yeah. I mean obviously there's there's a lot of room for suggestions improvements. What I'm saying is instead of this just make sure this one that was the concern and this land is not going to be I mean so that the comment was made that why don't you buy HOA if you buy this land this no this road would never be better which again I don't think that's a serious comment but the point was that the CCM development kind of stops here and then this land is owned by somebody and so we cannot build the road until unless the Kramers. Yeah. The property owner in between is the Kramer.

Yeah. So, so what I'm kind of thinking is I like everything else. What I'm kind of thinking is if you don't show this then that connection can be just from here and then it it alleviates all concerns.

Sure. So the with the Biscane Avenue and Oats Road, those have been on the master plan for over 20 years. Um and because Oaks Road is on the vision 2050 sewer pack like regional plan. So obviously that's going to stay that you weren't mentioning yet. You're talking about Biscane as a collector and so it's got to it's got to come from somewhere. I think there should be a direct route. If it kind of bounces or jogs or there's other kind of traffic calming measures, I think it could achieve the same thing without disconnecting the route. Um, as far as the Kramer property being like not up for sale anytime soon, I agree. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

But a layout like this would basically have the best connections if there were ever missing pieces. So, if that piece doesn't go through, you would still be able to go south out to Brown Road. Um, if and then Oaks Road would still be able to go south and then those connections would be there. um in case either the Kramers decide to sell or want the road for their own usage or something like that. So that's that's all hypothetical, but the plan is basically okay, what best makes this work. Um we feel that traffic calming and roundabouts would alleviate the concern for cutthroughs dramatically. Mr. Chair, could I weigh in for a second?

Yes. I just want to provide a little context. Uh first the Kramer is actually further west. Um this is the Wilks farm that we're talking about. Oh.

Um so the the Kramer is between where Bear has um got their zoning and Cardinal got their zoning. The I hear what Trustee Batia is saying regarding uh Biscane and we certainly heard that feedback in a lot of those public hearings. However, I also want to acknowledge that those property owners bought those lots knowing that that was a collector street at the time the subdivision was platted. Biscane is an 80 foot rightway um as so it is currently built as a collector street and it widens out to a 100 foot boulevard as it approaches 31. So those property owners, whether they knew it or not, as part of their home buying process, did buy a property fronting a street that was planned to be a collector street. So that's why we're trying to balance their concerns about traffic speed, which we certainly have a lot of empathy for while still acknowledging that Biscane is from its conception has been planned to be a collector between there. And what makes that particularly important is state trunk highway 31 in this area is a fully limited access highway. And so you can not have more connections to 31 until you get all the way south to Bron. Um so this being an existing connection places it in importance a little bit above what we would consider standard. Um, and if you don't have that internal connectivity, um, then you are pushing all of that traffic south to Braraw to go to those intersections and it push puts stress on the rest of the thing on the rest of the traffic system while underutilizing what was built as a collector intersection. So that's why you hear Robin saying we're trying to balance. We get it. We don't want people speeding their true.

Um there's bus stops, school bus stops, all that kind of stuff through there. We have every ounce of empathy for that. We want to slow traffic through there as much as possible. But just removing that connection causes downstream effects that that neighborhood might not have to think of, but everyone south and west of them would have to think of. So that's why we're trying to balance it there. And that's why you see Robin pushing towards things like roundabouts or bumpouts or things like that because we think we can do both at the same time. Hopefully that helps. Yeah,

Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I I appreciate those comments and again I I was bringing out my recollection from those public hearing was they were very strong opposition and like is hypothetical but once it's in the plan then down the road 10 15 years from now uh but 20 years from now people are going to say it's it's in the plan so we have to build it but at the least maybe we connect to the Biscane road and I'm just making a suggestion at the least maybe you know we can propose a a stop sign or thing so that if the people are coming from you know maybe four-way stops or something like that then it will slow the traffic just I'm just kind of thinking out loud how to alleviate the concern how to alleviate their concern about the traffic and also have that connection you know I I agree with your comment Sam

yeah but well putting stop signs into it is kind of a different analysis because that's why I brought up warrants as far as um stop signs have a specific thing with the FWM the the facilities design manual FDM um from Wisconsin saying, "Okay, in order to put a four-way stop, we need to have we need to check all these boxes." Um we're saying we should probably put like a mini roundabout or these curb bumpouts in even if it doesn't meet those because a lot of times we get people asking for four-way stops in the village with existing intersections and it doesn't meet the design requirements, so we don't put them in. Um, this way we can kind of say, "Hey, we would like this to be a slower street even before it's it's come in." So, it's always that's baked into the process. Um, so we don't have to build a street that's too big too fast and then people get hurt and then start complaining because it's it's bad. We're trying to meet that from the the front end. Um so yeah that's what a stop sign um can help but is more restrictive based on engineering standards. Um I think if that explains it right.

I was just thinking of slowing you know so that the existing subdivision when people enter in and out of this proposed connection be a stop sign or maybe another roundabout there because you do have one roundabout down to the Y Avenue. So just food for thought. Oh, we have for Biscane, we had three. So I'm I'm proposing three of them. Um and then the reason why sometimes roundabouts are better for traffic calming than stop signs is because people can run through stop signs. They can blow through them. They cannot see them. Um it's kind of hard to miss a roundabout. And if you don't miss it, then your car is going to slow down really quickly, uh really fast. So

yeah. Um I I guess Rahm in in kind of feedback to your comments. So, I was, you know, I've been working on in the village and I remember when this was built and I remember when it was designed and I I within within that subdivision. And what I look at more of is also the fact that you now have a fully complete subdivision that right now only has one access on 31. I would hazard a guess that as some of these internal other new roadways are built, you're going to find that the people in the subdivision, whether they're they're built tomorrow or 10 years from now, are going to be glad for those connections because they're not going to want to all go out to Green Bay Road and hit Green Bay and Brown Road or Green Bay and Highway 11, which is already hard to get to. They're going to want to use that internal system. Number one. Number two, police and fire. Right now, there's only one way in and one way out. So, we need to give them uh we need to give all of this neighborhood with the population, it's going to get lots of options. And I think that the the many roundabouts and and the extra concrete on the intersections is going to be very helpful to that. And um I think with the development intensity over there, should a a subdivision that is not on the Wilks property come in, um you know, I think we have to show the Biscane uh access if they want to wind it down. And you can see from the grid system that there will potentially be roadways going east and west over to Yates Road anyway. Um, so I'm going to I support the s the transportation element as it's shown and uh don't think that we should remove any

of the connections at this time. I I think um sorry to interject. One more important note is that today we're not asking for to move this forward to a formal public hearing. We just kind of want your general blessing. Um we'll take this and go reach out to both developers. um we wanted you the first chance to kind of noodle on it as the plan commission. So if you're generally good with this um we we'll certainly take whatever remaining comments you have um to the developers who have proposed stuff as well as the adjacent neighborhood um to kind of show them areas that might be of specific interest to them. So we're going to do additional feedback beyond this before we start the formal process. Yep.

Yeah. The other cool thing is that I'm sure that neighborhood would really like to have their trips to Menard's kind of go through something like this where they could even take a cargo bike or a nice pleasant drive as opposed to going all the way up through 31 through the 311 intersection which everybody hates. They're scared of the traffic right now like it's going to be overwhelming and I understand that. I I I do understand that and have empathy for that. But I think that overall as time goes on, it will be a very very um effective connection point. One comment I'd like to make regarding the the continuation of Oaks Road,

just looking at the surrounding and what it connects to when it connects to Green Bay and as it goes up to 11. Um, I would almost coin this as a super collector in that, uh, this is going to receive a lot of cut through traffic in my opinion, and I'm no traffic engineer, but look at where it's going compared to going up 31 up to the stoplight at 11 and going west. Um, so

it's a straight shot and uh, without a lot of of interruption. So, I would suggest that we limit the number of driveways that open directly onto Oaks Road like to zero. Um, given the semi- traffic that I would anticipate there in the in the general uh level of traffic, I think having driveways that lead from single family homes directly onto Oaks would be a mistake. And um I'd like to see a different uh overall concept for the property that's being considered for where that oaks extension is going to be.

We can definitely put that in the recommendations um either through alley served um entrances and exit exits or just not having properties face that road. But I agree with your assessment of how busy that Oaks Road connection is going to be. As a matter of fact, I when talking about the improvements at 31, I suggested completion of Oaks Road as a way to alleviate traffic volumes on 31. WISD dot did not believe me. Um, so or it just didn't say the modeling didn't show it, which I believe them on on that. I I just think people reroute based on how easy things are. Um, so we want to be careful not to overbuilt it to make it too easy of a cut through that everybody's speeding down it. But it is going to have truck traffic and business traffic and and people coming down from 20. I mean people take Oaks from 20 to get to 11 easy right now as it is. So

I have a couple of comments if everybody else anybody else before I start up. Okay. It is in regards to the Oaks Road and your point is well taken in regards to the traffic because I'm very concerned. We know we've got a cement plant there and bringing that down through south. Is there a way for us to limit that uh traffic going south to there that make them go out to 11 because that gets pretty heavily traveled if they're going to be going through a residential area with like I said all the stone and sand and and then this eventually the cement trucks. I mean there's a lot of traffic. If you look at Willow right now between Brown and and 11 Yeah. Not one driveway is unwilling. Yeah. And that's and that you're that's a good point.

Give it up. Just give it to the traffic. And don't try to put homes on it. Yeah. Is where I'm going with this. And allow it to be what it it's going to be. And don't try to reroute trucks this way or that way to say, "Okay, this is a a very busy street and we're not going to open uh homes directly onto it." Yeah. Because you only affect one side, right? Because is there any development that's going to be west of there at all? That's the river. There is. there is potential residential development to the west. Um but how what form that takes okay is still under concern. All right. And then my last comment is opening up Cozy Acre to the south.

Um that road is awful. I don't care whether you're going north or south off of Cozy Acre on Highway 11 to try to get across there. You open that up, there's going to be some We got to do something at Highway 11 for them. I mean, if you had this layout, you could close that entrance the theoretically. Well, but right now you're showing it as as an opening, you know. Oh, well, so that that if co through that neighborhood would connect to National um like basically in the the development with Walmart and so on and so forth. If that was there, you could you could right here. Yeah.

If Cozy Acres was connected to those other streets, it would have other ways to get out instead of having to cross 11 like it does and it's very dangerous. I agree wholeheartedly. But I think the solution is more connections so that one can either be closed or cut down in usage. I don't think I mean I everybody has the same kind of thoughts when trying to do that. I don't think anybody would want to take that unprotected left turn as a shortcut. It's miserable. Well, well, it's not even a shortcut. Just, you know, they're going to get used to trying to get out of there instead of having to go, you know, south or or east, you know.

Yeah. I think that might be an opportunity where we could coordinate with the DOT for right in, right out access there once those streets were connected through. We should make that a note on the map. So, you know, we don't want to limit their access while it's the only one that they have, but when they have additional ones, they might want to go out in a more protected way. Yeah. If they want to go west, go find an easier way. Yeah. Yeah. Connecting through to national and going through the commercial area would get you. That's a good idea. I like that. Thank you for that input. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. I guess it's just discussion, right? So, we have nothing to You guys are going to come back to us with a a more a plan with some of our comments. And it seems like we're we're all generally on the same page and we we're looking forward to going forward with that, talking with the developers and the neighbors and coming out with something that makes sense for everybody. So, u thank you for your input. It was great. Uh I I call this little experiment and and homework a success. And so, uh, it probably won't be the last time you see it. Thanks very much. Great. Thank you.

Okay. Now, I'm going to get this right, I think. Recommendation of 1127 Prairie Drive, certified survey map, CSM25-07. All right, Mr. Chair. Uh, on the start, sorry, it says Independence Road. It should say Prairie Drive at the very crossed out on mine already.

Yeah. Thank you. Um, the applicant applied to divide the property into four lots to allow a split in ownership of the individual buildings. The map provides access to lots three and four, which do not have frontage along public roadway via cross access easements, which the applicant provided and we put in your packet. The village staff recommends that the plan commission move to recommend approval of CSM 257 subject to the condition within the endnotes. And those are three conditions for the map split. one uh and we've um shared this with the applicant as well, but one, the subdivider shall construct a concrete sidewalk or asphalt path along the their side of Prairie Drive. That's just that short stretch there. Number two, the subdivider shall install a public street lamp at the intersection of the public street and the commercial driveway. And then number three, uh they are required to plant the street trees one per every 50 feet along the Prairie Drive frontage, which when I did the math, I think is maybe two, if not one. And there are also some existing ones pretty close to um the right of way as well that might count too. So we'll go through that with them, but that is the final condition.

Pretty straightforward. Okay. Any questions? Just point.

No question. But I do have comment. Sam, uh, recently we had a conversation or discussion about with all the new development having a sidewalk where they bought against the old one where there's no sidewalk. And uh so this one also I see that one of the conditions is number one condition is that the developer will have one side or the other you know sidewalk. So my question is uh the residents at least in the subdivision that I live in and and I I think they're going to come to the public works committee anyway. So does that do those condition belong here to have the sidewalks grind to the ground or does that go to the public works committee you know for the new or can you put that in the condition I don't know you know what I mean because the sidewalks come and the the older houses they don't have sidewalk so then it comes to their uh their driveway or their or their uh front land lawn and People have come to me at least in my sub vision saying especially young moms with the strollers of their baby then they say okay now we are here so why can't you put kind of grind that thing to the ground and I talked to Sam and I think it's going to go to the public works committee so my question is I see the comments here would would it be the right place to add that comment grind that for developer or does that have to go back to public works committee and and follow the process

I I think for a general policy public works is probably a good place to have that discussion. I think in this individual circumstance um let me reread the condition but I believe I could be wrong but I think right now our subdivision the next phase and yeah it just says your foxon I think those are the only one I think mainly

the construction of sidewalks and path shall be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the public works director so I think if Tony thinks it warrants that they should have to connect into the street. Um there are additional ADA concerns we'll have to take a look at grades and stuff like that. So I I think that gives us enough coverage where if Tony feels like they're okay those connections are needed he can require them. If not then he doesn't have to require them. Okay. Thank you.

I think if I could make a comment to that Rahm. Um, I think what what I was concerned with in those situations where we're forcing a sidewalk that is an infill site or a budding an existing site where they're it's dying into nobody. um in order to alleviate the the walkers walking onto people's property that they have to maintain that we make sure at those ends that they die into the road and have their ADA uh ramps and so forth die down to the road. Is is that part of what you're recommending through public works?

Yeah, I think for a more cumulative policy on those kind of interim conditions. Yep. And uh I talked to administrator Simons about that as well. So she's aware that um and advocates for the same thing. So I think we can get a policy in place, but for the meantime, this condition has enough coverage that Tony can take a look at it and see what he thinks is required. Fair enough.

Anybody else? I guess the only comment I have at this point is is that it looks like it's going to be divided into four lots. There's currently three buildings. So, I'm going to make the assumption that the applicant is going to be selling that parcel, the fourth empty parcel, and then having another business put onto that. Uh, the sale is actually for one of the existing buildings uh to my understanding, but someone and um non-accessory parking is part of the C3 district. So, the standalone parking lot is an allowable use. However, if someone did want to come and build a new property or a new building on that lot, they totally could.

Okay? Because because I think one of the things I and I drove out there and and and walked it and it's connected very well back there. I didn't realize that the the maze of roads that are connected and if somebody does build on that property, there's going to be a disconnect. Yeah. I I think so that's why I'm asking that question is is to at some point then Linderman gets cut off from there.

Yeah. We would have to look at the interconnectivity and site plans to make sure that we maintain some level of connectivity through easements to the existing uses. Um as well as you know we recommended to the applicant these are all separate ownership. Honestly a a condo plat would probably for a commercial condo would solve a lot of those problems but would also require the coordination of a lot of the different owners out there. So we think that might be a good long-term solution to better help maintain shared parking areas and things like that. But for the meantime, we don't have a issue with this as it's presented.

Okay. I guess if there's no other comments from the public at all, nothing.

Abs. Absolutely. Your name and address, please. Certainly. Evan Dipmar, 6781 Boowbo Link Drive, Calonia, Wisconsin. Um, just looking to get a little bit of clarification on the sidewalks. Um, I understand what you're what you guys are saying. Um, but I'm also envisioning it's starting at nothing and going to nothing, right? So, will Caliber collision, they don't have any sidewalk. And then the apartments to the north also don't have any sidewalks or lights. And then on the west side of Prairie is the hotel in Melly. They don't have any sidewalks. So like in what world is that th those sidewalks ever going to be connected to anything? Would those buildings have to get knocked down and then someone have to come in and build something new? Then they'd be forced to install sidewalks or like what is that's what I'm trying to figure out, I guess.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Sam. Please. This is I know this is your thing, Joe. Don't even go there that you're not answering it. I agree completely with the I don't think they should be required at all. Well, that I have

as always our argument is if you don't start somewhere then we'll never do it. I think there's a couple triggering mechanisms. Yes, it could be the reconstruction of the lots to the south, but it also could be the reconstruction of the street. We also collect funds um on through the inlu of program where we can make those connections from a municipal level um where we're collecting in fees and then could build them in. We've also installed sidewalks through tax incremental financing when those districts come up to make those connections. So I think it's a good one. This is triggered by a land division. So technically you all have the ability to wave that condition uh as a plan commission in this specific circumstance if you'd like to. um we are always just hesitant at recommending that from the staff level. A because it's required by the ordinance and B we just want you to think through it thoroughly like if you're just going to wave it every time then we should have a bigger discussion. Um so

yeah there's also special assessment. The village could theoretically go in and build the sidewalk and specially assess it to the adjacent commercial properties which happens in many communities throughout the state. We just don't do it that frequently. So, it's a matter of village board priorities, public works committee priorities, if we have funds from a variety of different sources when that sidewalk could go in. I think the question is, do you take it now? Um, you know, those sidewalks could last 50. I've seen ones up where it's of 70 years old once they go in. Um, and then that's just less that the village has to build in when those do get connected in or do you just not do it now? and you know essentially kick the can down the road to a later date.

Well, is this something where we could collect an uh in lie of fees at all? We don't currently have an inlu fee program for roads on an urban cross-section. However, this is not the first time we've had this conversation this year. So, we're talking about it internally. I just don't have a good policy to bring forward to you right now. Yeah. because at least then you're not having to, you know, install it, but they could be paying for it basically towards it and then we can use it for someplace else where it's where it's more needed. Yeah. And I expect many people would choose that path if we allowed it. So, we're thinking about it. We just don't have it in this circumstance right now.

And I'm with Nancy here. I mean, obviously, and the the gentleman here because it's a sidewalk to nowhere at this point and it's doesn't make sense. And I'd like to see us wave it actually.

Yeah. That's up to you guys. I I think one of the reasons that I I I know this area, I spend a lot of time in this area of the community on a regular basis and I see, you know, I I've been to Melly a million times, right, in the hotels right there. But the question I ask, one of the tests that I put to this is if I'm walking on Prairie Drive to get back to wherever in in the other units that are back there and I'm I'm walking on the street all the way up to where this now because of the land division has a short sidewalk. Am I really going to go off the road onto the sidewalk, go 120 or 50 uh 300 feet and then go back onto the road? I'm just going to stay on the road.

So, in that regard, I would be in favor of waving it on for this project because I think that should the village decide in the future that Prairie Drive is busy enough that it, you know, warrants sidewalk, then that would be added to their property as a special assessment just like everybody else's along there. Um, no one's going to do it voluntarily. So, in my mind, waving it now is kicking the cat kicking the can down the road. Is that the appropriate I don't want to kick a cat, but I kick the cat. Yeah. Yeah.

And and I think it is, but I don't think it's warranted at this time. And I see no reason why development is expensive enough. You know, we're talking about roundabouts now in subdivisions. Those are expensive to build. They chew up a lot of land. Their long-term maintenance is great for the village, but but the upfront cost. So in my mind, you know, I would support as I said before, I would I would support waving it and don't have a problem with it. Mr. Chairman, yes, Ron.

Yeah. All I have to add the comment except I think like Trusty Washburn said and gentleman said because of the size of this development and in the overall picture of the PR, it makes no the sense to have a no sidewalk and a sidewalk and no sidewalk. So I would also to favor not to start a new trend but on a case-by case basis this this one to wave that but I would not use a word kicking the can. We I don't think we are kicking the can. I think exception based on case by case basis. There's a big difference. Okay. Okay. Okay. I never want to kick the

Mr. Chairman. I don't necessarily agree with Nancy on some things but this one I think she's got right. Uh yeah, it's I appreciate that. I also, you know, I don't know if y'all know it, but I am on the public works committee, too. And I think we on that committee would have some problem with, you know, a sidewalk to nowhere, but uh it's a reasonable discussion and I I appreciate your support. See, now see, we need a smaller screen

to make sure that that happens that we support some other method of getting it done or whatot. So if it doesn't make sense, but there should be a sidewalk there and we don't want to excuse some projects from this requirement from any monetary part and then put it on others. Well, and I I think I understand your point and I think that, you know, there are waiverss of notice that are applied to water main extensions. If you don't have water and you have wells and you you want to uh you you you are building a subdivision where the water's not available. Frank, if you'll remember Wooded Ridge, we did that. Um, so if we can create a waiver of notice type of a a document that goes to the developer, um, and that waiver is part of their developers agreement and then it goes on title to the property and it's a waiver of notice an imposition of public hearing so that in the event that area gets assessed, they can't fight it. It's on record and on title that you've agreed that you're going to put it off until such time as the village mandates it for the whole area. It wouldn't be just you. it would be a larger connection and those are very easy to put together and they go on title and they can be very successful long term.

I like that approach. I think so. Easy enough. We can draw up some of those policies and bring it back as part of a separate discussion. Sound good. Okay. So in that regard, I would make a motion to approve the certified survey map CSM2507 for 1127 Prairie Drive subject to the conditions that were presented by staff except that uh we are willing to wave the the requirement for sidewalk at this time. Second. Okay, we got a motion in a second. Any further discussion? If not, vote. All in favor? I

I opposed. It passes. Okay. All righty. We got no staff reports, so I need a nice motion then. Move to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Okay, we're out of here. Thank you. You're out of time.