Ordinance & License Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We'll call the Buildings and Grounds meeting for July 6th to order. I see I have Alders Everett, Miklitz, Ventraste, and Helgestad with me, so we have a quorum. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Okay, when I reviewed the minutes of June 1st, I noticed that item 5A, item 3697 did not have the vote on it. Oh, sorry. Time for public comment. Would you like to speak? Yeah, just real quick. Please go ahead. I thought you were going to talk at your specific item number, but go ahead.

Oh, I can too, whatever. State your name and address. Yes, my name's Emily Schultz, and I live on 379 Gascoigne Drive in District 2. I noticed there was an item up for parking on my street, and I just wanted to quickly mention that while that does solve the issue on the intersection of Pewaukee and Gascoigne Drive, the intersection not being viewable, that is moving the problem of people parking on both ends of the street on a regular basis directly in front of my house. And nobody wants that. I have a two-year-old son that's autistic. trucks and trailers that are allowed at all hours of the night and it also will decrease my visibility from the intersection right by the loop when I'm reversing out of my driveway. So I'd like to propose just an extension of the no parking area just a little bit beyond my house so I'm able to see that loop and so we're not just moving the problem downwards directly in front of my house because there's still issues with traffic flow, ambulances, buses not being able to get through the street in addition to snow plows.

Okay, thank you for your thoughts.

Thank you.

Sorry, moving on to the minutes. I noticed that June 1 minutes, again, item 3697 did not have the vote. I believe the vote was unanimous for the five of us that were here on that day. So with that correction to the minutes, is there a motion to approve? So moved. Thank you. Alderman Helgestad? I second it. Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed?

Okay. Okay.

Thank you. So moving on to item 5A, review and possible action on traffic study on River Crossing Drive and Tanglewood Drive. This was sponsored by Alderman Matthews. Darren, go ahead. Yep.

Yeah, so Alderman Matthews made this referral a while back. I believe it was in January or February to kind of look at the intersection of Rivers Crossing Drive and Tanglewood Drive with the park directly to the east and seeing how it all kind of plays together in reviewing traffic and what could better serve the Residents in the area, so we did perform a bit of a traffic study for that location and I'll kind of go down to some of the information from what we found and we put some counters out there to get volume and speed data information. I think we have a better. Oh, I apologize. I was on a different one, but. So in the in the morning it is. Pretty evident for and actually just to give him some better perspective here. Apologies rivers. The intersection of Rivers Crossing Drive and Tanglewood Drive is there highlighted in the red circle where. It's south of River Drive, that is County Highway H, and then east of Salisville Road, which is Highway 59 there. So down in the subdivision itself like this is the entire subdivision as well as Tinglewood Drive there that is the city of Waukesha. So it's pretty well landlocked with the only ingress and egress being these three driveways up off of River Drive itself. So anybody that's down in and around this neighborhood itself is those of the residents that live in that area. So specifically at this intersection, as you can kind of tell and infer, is that during the mornings, it's predominantly traffic going north, leaving the subdivision, and then in the PM, predominantly traffic going south for those individuals that live in the southern half within that subdivision. I mean, obviously, grabbing or getting some of the volume information for this location it is not substantial by any means i mean in the in the southbound direction in a 24-hour period is about 650 in the northbound direction 625 so kind of makes sense that it's pretty well even so it's not a lot throughout the day i mean in any 15-minute period there's probably no more than 20 and that's at the highest end and that's not even for a long substantial period of time. And then as we kind of go towards. just the aggregated volume information i'll kind of skip some of the the finer detail of it but just to get to the kind of global information so for the southbound direction over that 24-hour period the average speed for southbound traffic just south of that intersection because that's where we uh put the tube counters that also get the speed data the average speed was 26.9 miles per hour with the 50th percentile being 27 miles an hour and the 85th being 30 miles an hour and then for the northbound direction the average speed was being 34.6 miles an hour with the 50th being 30 miles an hour and the 85th being 35 miles an hour So obviously, as we can tell, northbound traffic is traveling at a greater speed as individuals are leaving their homes in comparison to them coming back towards their homes. So this is information that I have relayed to the police department already for them to do some spot enforcement as they can sit at Tanglewood Drive itself and see traffic going north and south on Rivers Crossing Drive. So with with the fact that it is kind of a straighter stretch of roadway and the impotence of the referral itself was for the awareness of the park to the east of the intersection and the crossing that exists between the residents on the west side and the park on the east side just to have greater awareness to drivers of the park itself and to reinforce that they should be slowing their speeds when the presence of children is there so there is already an existing playground sign with 15 mile an hour speed limit sign when children are present closer to the intersection However, we are also proposing further to the south, because the park is so big and expansive, placing an additional one further south, just north of, I believe that's Stillwater, maybe? That's the intersection just that runs east-west to the south there, of the same Messaging and signing which is the appropriate messaging and signing of the playground sign with 50 mile an hour when children are present and then and then additionally Reinforcing it for the southbounder direction as well with the playground 50 mile an hour when children are present and then also providing acknowledgement of the crossing, of the pedestrian crossing at that location too on the south leg of the intersection of Rivers Crossing and Tanglewood, along with just the more simple transverse painted markings for the pedestrian crossing along with a stop bar for those that are on Tanglewood Drive.

Okay, does anybody have any comments or questions?

Go ahead. So based on the traffic study, it's all happening when people are going to work like 7 to 9, right?

Correct.

And kids aren't really present in the park during that time frame?

Correct, but that's not to say that you know we obviously gather majority of our data during weekday hours. And it certainly could be a different case in scenario for weekend events as well, where the park itself could be. more well attended all throughout the day and then you have greater variability from those in the residential neighborhood to the south and how they may be navigating through the neighborhood i get it and then so it's just to make people a little bit more mindful that children could could be present so i don't have an issue with that but but i i guess just to add more signs to

That aren't really saying anything. You know, there's no kids present. I would like to see maybe another crosswalk south of there. You know, you have the 2 crosswalk areas and then put the crosswalk signs and that might make people more mindful not only of kids, but. Pedestrians, you know, just people running in the morning or biking in the morning and that kind of thing. That would be. What I know what I would propose.

Anybody else?

I just want to ask a clarifying question. Sorry, I just want to ask a clarifying question.

Could you guys hold on the conversation?

Sorry, just to ask a clarifying question, because you were saying there'd be another crosswalk. Are you talking like down at Rocky Creek Drive? Like looking at the map that's on the screen?

Yeah, right, at Rocky Creek Drive, right.

Okay.

So that'd be did engineering consider putting a crosswalk there? No, it was not considered.

It was not considered because that was not directly within the referral itself.

Thank you.

I was going to say, cause my, from my memory of that part too, there was not like a, um. I forget what the right word is, but the ramp for the crossing, there's not one there on the other side of the street, so it would be marking plus installing a ramp next to that driveway. Just something, as you mentioned, if that's going to come back, that would probably require that type of additional installation. Does that make sense?

Okay, I do not want to add to the scope of what we're talking about here.

No, and I apologize. That's not what I intended. I just wanted to clarify.

No, because if they haven't had a chance to look at it, I don't want to put in any signs that don't have support from traffic data. So, you know, just us thinking it up on, you know, on the fly at the meeting, I'm not sure is a good way to go. um i i also i actually thought the that they were so mindful of the traffic speeds on the way south that this neighborhood does look after each other and the fact that they're in a little bit of a hurry in the morning does not surprise me very much so i'm not sure i'm not sure if we need any of these suggestions i i'm not sure it will get everybody up a few minutes earlier you know right so I don't know if we need to do anything, but I want to hear from some of you to see what you think about it.

I have a different question, and maybe you can answer this. So I wonder, the proposed signage in here and where the placement would be is, you know, this park has been here for a few years now. Is this more in line with how the modern, like the current standard for signage would be applied for this type of, you know, installation? Or is, if my question, or maybe to rephrase that, is what's there now out of date, essentially where it's placed?

this would be this type of installation would be more in line with how it would be proposed if this was a new installation yes just simply because the how expansive especially the park is on the east side how it takes up you know essentially two you could argue like three full blocks or like that's a pretty good um length where you can put in a sign sometimes but uh sometimes we can be quick to forget of what we see and realize sometimes and having some reinforcement on on what is adjacent to us right it's not a bad thing right are you finished

Yeah, I mean, actually, I should say, generally, I mean, the science of the South makes sense to me, you know, just in thinking about when I was reviewing the presentation earlier. If we want to table this, I think that's what you were kind of leading towards. I'm not opposed to that, but... Well, I'd like to resolve it one way or the other.

I mean, just talking about it again next month doesn't... Change much. Change much, right?

Yeah.

Do you have anything further?

No, I'll yield.

I have one other question. Could we not put, you know, because we're going to have the, you already have a speed limit sign, you know, a child presence speed limit sign right where you want to put the crosswalk, or the crosswalk, where you're going to add crosswalk signs. Couldn't we not move that sign a little bit farther back to the entrance of the park? Maybe not as far back as what you show on the map, but closer to the driveway that goes into there, and then install the crosswalk sign so that would make people a little bit more mindful and go from there. Then we're not, now we're not adding another two signs We're just moving one sign and adding the crosswalk sign.

So relocating the existing one that is out there just further south, just south of Rocky Creek Drive, and then removing this other proposed set that is down here?

Yes.

Yes, that would be...

I really don't want it. This is only my opinion. I don't want to. I don't want us to overrule the engineering department. So, if I know to change it. It's so, especially, you know, if I'm city staff and working out at the city garage and somebody wants me to dig up a sign and move it. I'm going to think, what are they doing? So this is part of when I was talking about restructuring the committee. This is kind of the thing that I was trying to think of. It's like, what kinds of things can we globally say about our committee and how we want to structure these requests and what do we do? That's the kind of thing I want to think about when we work through this. decision-making sheet that we're gonna work on in the next month or two. So this is kind of the situation, like do we want to second guess the engineering department and change their proposal? Are we gonna guess the proposal or know the proposal? So that's kind of got for right now, but think about some of these issues when it comes up later. Does anybody else have a comment or is there a motion? Go ahead, Mr. Alderperson.

I like what's there now. I was just thinking about possibly putting that crosswalk right there, like you said before, on Rocky Creek. Because you said that this whole thing is a park area. Right, right. And that's within the bounds there. So why can't we just put the crosswalk there? Because they would want it too. It's on both ends of the park. You got the signs that are already there. You know what I mean?

So you also want to change the engineering recommendation?

I just wanted to add just the crosswalk on Rocky Creek there.

So crosswalks aren't free and they have to maintain them. So that's it. One of the other aspects I want to talk about, not today, but as we move forward, you know, that this city budget is under some stress and we have to deal with some of that stuff. So as older people, I think we need to support that effort by not adding things we don't need or, you know, having some restraint in, you know, suggesting all of this stuff. I mean, that's my current thinking. I want to think it through with all of you as we get to that. And we've got all of tonight to deal with before we do that. Just a passing thought. That's why I want to think about it with everybody. And that's why I'm bringing it up now to know going forward what some of the things I'm thinking about so you have a chance to think about it and decide. If we want to change all of this stuff, we have the authority to do it. So.

I like the proposal that it is. I just thought about the crosswalk, that's all.

Okay, is that a motion?

I motion that.

We accept the engineering recommendations?

Exactly. I have a comment.

Go ahead, Alderson Vantraste.

um my comment darren is uh this can you educate me on on the open circles uh versus the closed uh red circles that we've got sure yep so that's a very good question the open circles are actually existing poles and the closed circles would be poles that would be newly installed so those would be new poles that would need to be installed okay so obviously when we go through this exercise of locating or thinking about new sign installations or anything like that, we always try and use existing polls that might be out within cities right away or a light pole or a utility pole or whatever it might be. So thanks. Thank you.

OK, so we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

OK, thank you. Second by Alderperson Helgastad. Are there any other comments or questions? All right all in favor say aye aye aye aye. That motion passes unanimously. I'm assuming there's no objection since you all just voted. Next item 5 B, please investigate possible pedestrian accommodations and speed reducing measures on Michigan Avenue between McKenzie drive and green meadow drive.

i'll just go over this real quick since uh alderwoman mclitz is here but um this referral came in from alderwoman mclitz to review the section of michigan avenue more or less from mckenzie drive on the western limit to green meadow drive to the east as this is can be a busy area at times with waukesha north high school being on the north side of the road and lowell park on the south side and obviously is we attend the fourth of july that was a busier area and everything else but obviously the park on the south has quite a few things going on While there's limited street parking, individuals use the parking lot on the north side. A woman, Miklitz, tasked the engineering department at looking at this area to see ways to uh look at and evaluate the speed that's out there and provide some recommendations on what can be done to help reduce the possible speed issue if there is one and evaluate crossings as the existing crossings across michigan avenue only exist at least in proximity to North High School to Lowell Park on the south. The only crossings that exist are at the west side of McKenzie Drive, and then the next closest one is at the west side of Green Meadow Drive. If you have additional things to say, Old Woman McLitz, I'll get into some of the other finer traffic study details that we have.

I'd like to hear the traffic studies.

So as we kind of got into it similarly. Just to show some of the volume data. For the westbound direction. In the. So we kind of we we wanted to evaluate. And let me go back here. Because we know this is a little bit unique with the high school as the oldest say the East driveway here of the high schools and enter only. And the West driveway here is an exit only so that very much. Kind of dictates how vehicles are coming in and out every day. So we place 2 different counters out there to kind of understand the speed east and west of those driveways to have a better understanding. If there's a speed issue. away from the driveways themselves. So we had counters to the east of the entrance and to the west of the exit. So just to kind of skip this because I created an additional little diagram, we can get to some some of the extra stuff there but um created a tried to create a little bit of a speed profile information here so as we know the posted speed the general posted speed is 25 however it is posted as 15 when children are present so let's keep that in mind as well So the dots that are showing are the approximate locations of where the tubes are in relation to where Michigan Avenue is there. So on the west side there and on the east side. So with respect to the legend that is showed there, In going in the eastbound direction, the average speed goes from 24 down to 21.2. The 50th percentile goes from 24.1 down to 22. And the 85th goes from 29 down to 25 as we go in the eastbound direction. Now, in the westbound direction, it's a little different here. vehicles are traveling west the average speed stays pretty consistent at 24.1 to 24.6 as they're traversing the 50th goes from 25 down to 22 but then the 85th goes from 28 up to 31 so it It appears that vehicles are. Generally increasing their speed as they're going West across the park and the high school itself. So and then the amount of volume that is. is going through this area in a 24-hour period ranges and it's pretty consistent of a thousand vehicles going east and a thousand vehicles going west within a 24-hour period So as we looked at and understood this and watching the video, especially of high school drop off and pick up of, as you can imagine, vehicles and high schoolers all over the place and trying to find the most appropriate place to to cross michigan we came up with a recommendation of the the mid-block crossing there that would be right adjacent to their entrance driveway which would split the difference between mckenzie and green meadow and also from the north it aligned right out from their high school front doors as this area here is the sidewalk that leads up to their their front door so when they're coming out from the high school and vehicles that are parked on the on the south side or if there's an event happening where vehicles are parking on the north side now they have a they would then have a common place of where they should be at least crossing hopefully at that at that juncture right there then it would not interrupt where the school buses stage themselves on the north side of michigan And it also would not interfere with transit that has a bus stop on the south side of the roadway, as well as you can see faintly a little bit. There is the transit shelter there on the south side. And then as a means of trying to, we'll say, create more order along Michigan Avenue here and helping reduce the speed. There's plenty of documentation out there of whenever you tend to make traffic feel more uncomfortable they lower their speeds and with this by adding the pavement marking with a double yellow in the middle and the edge lines and shrinking that footprint and actually putting markings out there instead of it being nothing at all that would be the uh measuring the effort to help reducing the the speed of traffic for both directions.

Thank you. Did you want to say how this came about?

Sure, it came about from a constituent who was concerned that she can never cross the street. She lives off of, she lives farther west from the school. And when the school is in session, just like he says, kids are just crossing wherever they want to, not really any, you know, a semblance of any order whatsoever, and I get that with kids, but if we did have a designated area, people tend to gravitate towards that a little bit more, just like they do at Carroll College. You know, people go to where the crosswalks are instead of crossing in the middle of the block, and I think that this would help at North High School as well, so.

Okay, anybody else? Old person Huggestad? Yes.

You mentioned where the buses line up. On the map that's on screen right now, where do the buses currently line up? Just because I'm not familiar with it.

Yeah, they line up all along the north side of Michigan Avenue here, and there are signs on the road of there's no parking from this certain timeframe as it's bus, because of the bus being there for the particular times.

So that already exists? Yes. Okay. And then the follow-up question to that is, you know, based on that, where they line up, is that enough, like, sightline for people trying to cross their, like, if the buses are parked there? And I'm thinking kids trying to cross to the park. Is that enough of a sightline, do you feel?

Sure. And we kind of thought of that a little bit, too. And so the other thing that we... Hmm. I guess this is the high school, so it would be a little different. Yes, but that's not to say having the, trying to force the traveling public to stay more within the middle of the roadway itself and not overtaking on the sides should try and free that up. And if we find that maybe we need to work with the high school as well to say, is it possible that we can see if the buses can position themselves further to the east to help open up those sidelines? I'm sure that would be a conversation we can certainly have with the high school administration and resource officer and everyone else.

Sounds appropriate, thank you.

Does anybody have any idea what the school board's plans for the high schools are? I didn't ask.

I think that's a very big question that many are wondering about.

And I was going to use Carroll as the opposite example. I've been contacted by Carroll. Well, they used to be in my district, well, half of it. And then after we got redistricted, I don't have that problem anymore. But they... They have, their students walk wherever they want, no matter where the crosswalks are, and they, you know, that's the problem with pedestrians. They can walk wherever they want. I mean, the cars, you can keep them on the road for the most part. So, you know, not at today's meeting, but I want to think about some of these things. Like, if we've got one person that has one complaint, are we going to spend $25,000 accommodating that one person? Go ahead.

So you're looking at the cover sheet I know the recommend we have a couple recommendations here and the cost is definitely outside of our normal B&G budget right so If this is to move forward, you know, we're gonna make a recommendation tonight to either go towards it looks like Thanks, you know motion to put it towards either the Finance Committee for a budget amendment to do it this year or put it towards CIP, right? Right It seems like this is you know Because, yeah, my math was like $25,000, $28,000. That's not a small thing. It seems like maybe that's a good question to ask if we make the recommendation to go to CIP. And that can then help spur that conversation with the school district.

But are we going to mandate that project? Or are we going to let the engineering department evaluate that project with all the rest of the projects they're doing?

I think, well, okay, let me ask this. Is this motion that we're making tonight an endorsement to say to move forward and then work it within the CIP project then as Public Works sees fit? Because that's how I read it. Or is it saying that it has to be done next year?

I don't know. Do we know the answer to that?

no that that the determination for based on the the recommendations is up to the building and crowns committee on what they see most appropriately whether it be a budget amendment or a directive to engineering to have a cip item for it for whichever year, whether it be in 27, 28, 29, whatever it might be.

Okay, well, this is your thought. What do you think?

I would like to see that, you know, move it maybe, push it towards the CIP budget, you know, get it on the CIP budget, and then at the same time, then that would maybe give me some opportunity to talk to the school board and see what their thoughts are on it.

And you want to push it ahead of whatever else the Public Works Department wants to put on their CIP? Or you want it evaluated the way they evaluate every other project?

Right, exactly.

Okay, can we make a motion like something like that?

Do you want me to do that? Yeah. Okay. Okay, I'll make a motion to move this item to a possible CIP item through Building and Grounds or Public Works. I'll second that.

And have them evaluate it with other things that they're going to put on the next year's CIP?

Yes. Okay. I'll second that.

You'll second that? All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. Just for the poor resident in our thing that doesn't probably have got the flavor of these meetings, we'll move her item. I believe it's item 39725I, review impossible action on establishing no parking zones on both sides of Gascoigne Drive off Pewaukee Road. So we'll take that item next and she can go home and watch soccer. Sorry to throw you off there, Darren.

No, you're good. All right. Sure. All right. So this referral came in from Alderman Everett to evaluate no parking on both sides of Gascoigne on the east and west sides of Pewaukee Road. So just to provide some perspective of the area. So the area in question is within the red box there as Pewaukee Road runs north-south there. and Moreland Boulevard is to the south that runs east-west. The recommendation was to have No parking quite adjacent to the intersection, roughly 50 feet in both directions to help with sight lines for pedestrians and helping. Turning movements of emergency vehicles coming into and out of gas going on the East side and West side. And as we know, there's the quick trip, especially in the Northwest quadrant where there are some vehicles that do park on the. West side of P walkie road on gas going. That can park. A bit closer than appropriate to P walk you wrote so that's part of the reasoning for at least the no parking area in the North West quadrant and it's also as there's been. Some concerns with other. Vehicles parking closer to the intersection than appropriate and. Trying to move those vehicles or ensure those vehicles are more moved away from the intersection itself to make sure. People can churn in and out more appropriately and I will pass this to ultimate effort if he has more comments.

As you know, well, as you may or may not know, getting on to. He walked the road from gas going is a trick in and of itself on a good day. I believe it. When you have people parking their cars all the way up to the corner. You've got you, you can't see out and then you got to stick the nose of your car halfway into traffic. And he walked the road doesn't. if you're traveling that way, you don't like to see a car's nose pulling out. And so I proposed to have this done and I was going to have the lower right.

Why are the arrows on the top two signs pointed toward Pewaukee Road and the arrows on the bottom two signs pointed away from Pewaukee Road?

That would be a question for engineering.

It's the way in which you have to orient yourself as you look at the sign. So the line itself is how the sign would be installed. So if you look, you're looking south, the arrow would point to the right. Got it.

Thank you.

Okay, so I was going to take, I was going to ask as to have the, or right one uh-huh i wanted to move that it's not there now i was going to i wanted to move that to just yeah dry just to the right of the driveway right

Okay, it sounds to me like some people are parking too close to the corner, which is already against the law, and this would be a law enforcement issue?

Absolutely, and Michelle told me that it was as such. But she also told me that there are certain people that have handicap placards on each and every car that they own, have owned, or ever will own, And I'm not getting into whether or not they deserve it. I'm just saying that with one of those, you get special privileges to park and don't have to move.

Okay. And how did you pick the distance from the corner?

Well, because we've got the, I didn't pick the original distances. That was engineering.

Okay.

I proposed to move the one sign back here farther. only because of the lady in the gallery there. She lives here.

She lives here?

Yeah. No, she lives here.

So she lives here.

Yeah. And she's the one with the autistic child that has a tendency to go into the road that doesn't work. Right. And I just thought that if there was no parking, it would be clearer, at least just on the one side, it would be clearer for people to see if the kid goes into the road or not.

And did you talk to all of these neighbors who are losing the parking in front of their street?

It's just her. It's at 379, and it's the one on the corner.

Okay, I've done this before and I have no, I did not know until I got this particular position exactly how much people care about parking, but they care about parking a lot. And, you know, so if you're going to change these people's, like there's four people, I suppose quick trip isn't necessarily, but if we're going to change parking for these three people, have we contacted them?

I've spoken to the people here and I've spoken to her. I haven't spoken to those. I haven't.

OK, he's pointing at 1701. We gotta say this for the record that I haven't been.

Nobody answered the door at 1619, OK? 1622 I spoke to them and they didn't seem to have a problem. OK, again, you know that falls within the 50 foot area and. If people are parking there and people trying to get out and can't see, that is a safety issue.

I hear you. You know, they could drive out of the neighborhood in a different direction and turn right.

I am not the vehicle police. I don't know. I know that there's another way out that goes out by the courthouse. This is a little cul-de-sac here.

Did you ask the police department if we actually have any problems here?

Yes, I spoke to Michelle at the police point. Ticket lady? Yeah, parking enforcement, and she said that there's a problem there.

Okay, and these signs are going to solve that problem?

Couldn't hurt. I assume they will because if they park there, they're going to get a ticket.

So, ma'am, do you mind coming to the... So do you see on the diagram there where the second dot is near your driveway? So if we put the no parking any time from there to Pewaukee Road, you'd be satisfied with that?

I would, yes. The problem is the residence at 1701 and then 1619, they both park on the street. So especially during snowstorms, they're not moving their cars. The snowplow can't get through. The school buses have trouble getting through. So I believe if you put two parking signs across from each other, that will only solve the problem in that one spot. It'll just move it down in front of my house. So I do believe there needs to be a little bit more to direct it not to still both sides of the street. So are you recommending something different than what they're talking about? I think no parking signs are great to have there. I do agree with it. There have been car accidents there, and I know for a fact I have not been the only neighbor to complain about it. Per Michelle, the parking supervisor at the police department, numerous neighbors have been contacting. They keep ticketing them, but it keeps happening. So I do think no parking signs should be put there, but I believe also enforced, too.

Okay, thank you.

Does anybody else have a comment or a question?

Is there a motion? So the way he's got this diagram here...

I propose that we pass this like that.

Start with I move...

I move to... I move to...

Insert no parking signs as designed in this diagram.

Very good.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Thank you, Alderman Helgestad. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thanks for coming in. All right, so we're back to item 5C, review and possible action on establishing a no parking zone on the north side of Dopp Street from South Moreland Boulevard to 100 foot east of South Moreland Boulevard.

So this item was brought forward by Alderman Camacho. As read, it is to establish a no parking zone on the north side of Dobbs Street for a distance of 100 feet east of Moreland Boulevard. And just to give An idea of where it's at, Moreland Boulevard there runs north-south, and further to the north there is Madison Street that runs east-west, and St. Paul Avenue there that runs predominantly east-west to the bottom of the page on the south. So DOP is a bit there in the middle area. As far as the actual... Reasoning behind the establishment of the no parking. Zone itself. I did not get that explicit information from ultimate Camacho, but the the. The wreck the recommendation from his referral is what is shown on the. On the screen here.

so without any understanding of why we wanted this or whether or not these property owners have been contacted it's my thought that we should uh vote this down and he's didn't give me an explanation he didn't come in to make an explanation yeah or should we table it for a future meeting so he can has the opportunity to be We could do that. Want to do that? All right, we'll set this item to the next meeting, and I'll contact Alderman Camacho and see if he'd like to explain himself.

Do we need a motion to table it, or do we can just? No, we can just put it to the next meeting. Okay, just want to make sure. Thank you.

Yeah. Item 5D, review and possible action on installing, quote, cross traffic does not stop, end quote, warning signs to supplement stop signs on Spring City Drive at Chapman Drive.

All right. This referral, excuse me, came in from Alderman Wells as the item mentions to install the crosswalk, or excuse me, cross traffic does not stop supplemental plaques underneath The existing stop signs that exist for spring city drive at Chapman drive and just to give some idea of where this intersection itself is is surrounded in the red box there where sunset drive there runs east west on the. Towards the bottom of the page there and Century Drive is runs North South just to the east there. I know this referral came in from Alderman Wells. However, this used to be Alderman Manions District and I do believe maybe Alderman Manion may have. some knowledge or some information he may provide as far as to this referral itself.

Do you have something?

Yeah, it's not my district, and it hasn't been my district, but Alderman Wells did make the referral kind of at my request. I actually had a resident who lives in my district contact me about this particular intersection. It's also based on personal experience at this intersection, as I am there almost daily through this intersection, at least once a day. Sometimes more, um, the, the intersection is an artery that comes out of the shops at Fox river. Um, and is fairly well traveled. Um. And I have personally witnessed a couple of near misses with cars pulling out in front of other vehicles. I think, as best I can tell, expecting that or suspecting that that's a four-way stop rather than a two-way stop. The intersection that is to the west of there that is more in the shopping complex itself is a four-way stop. This one is just to the east of it and is not. Chapman in my district south of sunset does have a number of two-way stops like this One of them that is on the road just south of sunset which the name of that road escapes me right now But it was recently switched the the two-way stop was switched directionally And this signage was added when that when that intersection was switched the two-way stop was switched onto the side road rather than on Chapman. So it's a very similar intersection to this, and it does have the signage. So I thought it was a reasonable suggestion to improve the safety there.

I agree with that statement. It'll be additional North South traffic with the water utility opening there. So does anybody else have any thoughts?

Is it cheaper to put another stop sign there than to put the placards or 180 dollars? And if we put in 2 new stop signs there, so, because the traffic is going to get increased, would that be cheaper that way? Then, as opposed to adding those 2 placards.

Adding additional stop signs would be more expensive. The cost of the stop signs themselves are more expensive, and then I do believe we would need two more additional polls for that as well.

And I don't know if you want people to stop twice in two two adjacent intersections. Yeah, used to stop a lot of people. Does anyone else have any thoughts or comments on this? Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the cross traffic does not stop signs as indicated in this diagram.

Second.

Thank you, person Helgestad. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Is that everybody? Okay. Thank you 5 E review and possible action on removal of the 1 hour parking restriction on West new hall Avenue between Walton Avenue and Southwest Avenue.

So this referral came from all the men and to review and possibly remove the one hour parking that exists on new hall between Walton Avenue and West Avenue and to give an idea of where that area is new all there is the area in question is surrounded in red. College Avenue runs east-west to the north there, and West Avenue runs north-south just on the eastern limit of the area in question. There is one hour from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Saturday, Sunday, and holidays on both sides of the road within both of those limits. doing uh some historical digging this has been in place since 1978 so it has been there for quite some time and there has been some general turnover in the area and i apologize could have put some historical information in there but um there was Certainly a change in some of the land use that has taking place in that area where The to the south side it always appeared to have some sort of industrial use however it appeared that maybe they didn't have as much of the parking usage as It currently does then as the years kind of passed and progressed they did actually create better and newer parking and in the same light saratoga park to the west that we kind of found out that parking lot that's there on the southwest we did kind of find out or kind of have put together that parking lot was created at some point after the fact of when that one hour parking did take and come into effect. So we're kind of trying to piece a couple of different things together because we don't have exact documentation as to exactly why the one hour parking itself was there. So just trying to give a little bit of historical perspective i guess on just some some digging we were trying to do to try and know and understand a little bit but i'll pass it off to alderman mannion if he has any other uh comments regarding the the referral okay thank you

Thanks, Darren. So, yeah, the request really came from one of the residents that lives on this stretch. As you can see, there's basically one house that has frontage on that block between Waverly and Walton. That's the resident in question that made the request they've lived there for approximately 20 years and now have teenage drivers so there's additional cars and This parking zone got enforced when it rarely was in the past and got a ticket and were Upset about that and wondered if if the zone could be changed or removed And as I went out there and surveyed it what I will say is as Darren mentioned the the zones have exist since 1978 All the signage that is out there looks like it's been there since 1978 And rather than replace a whole bunch of signage that is horribly faded. And by the way, Darren, just I don't know records wise if it says that it's two hour parking on what would be. I guess the north side of that street. I just made that actually signs signed as one hour parking along there.

I think something did not copy over for me.

Gotcha. So anyway, I looked at it just for some perspective in case you're not really familiar with this area. I know I know Beth is, but that's the armory in that southwest area. Corner of this stretch. There's basically one What I would consider manufacturing or industrial user on that others Basically just to the east of the armory and then an open lot that's adjacent to what used to be the DMV back in the day And then there's basically two other houses that have frontage on that block between Waverly and West The mail delivery wouldn't be affected by this. I did ask that question. It's a walking delivery route, so they don't have mailboxes on the street. I know that's a concern sometimes with parking.

Why do we need the no parking anytime on the bottom right?

So, I added that part because

the with this one hour parking that was kind of established in this in this block over to the east on the south side of new hall east of west avenue it's actually no parking on the south side and the sign that is installed further to the east. It just says no parking this side. So I wanted to make sure there was a clear terminus to that no parking zone. So that's why just that one singular no parking sign with the left arrow for the south side.

So where the side ends, got you.

Because there's an existing one on the west side of West Avenue. Okay, south side of the street and does it does the arts assume the armory doesn't care They have their own parking yeah, they have an ample lot So I don't think they're really using street parking. Yeah, I don't think so I've been over there a few times during the day researching for election stuff in there They fit in their parking lot the the other thing I'll say, you know, this is basically adjacent to Saratoga Park And, you know, we, Darren and I, or Darren's speculation was maybe this was established back in the day to prevent people from parking there, you know, with park activities, although the time doesn't necessarily sink. We recently removed a very similar parking restriction all along Prairie Avenue, which is on the other side of Saratoga Park. So this is kind of consistent with what we did there. um to create some less parking restrictions for the park itself so um like i said i i thought it was a reasonable request given the the neighborhood around here there is a lot of other two-hour parking restriction it's it's kind of a hodgepodge in this neighborhood as to what the parking restrictions are on different roads but uh As I went out there and surveyed the condition of the signage, I'm like, either we're going to replace these signs or we're going to get rid of them all together. So I opted for what I thought was the cheaper option and a reasonable option of removing the parking restrictions that are there.

Thank you. Does anybody have any comments or questions?

I'll make a motion to approve the and rescind the previously approved resolution dated May of 78 of establishing a one-hour parking on both sides of Newhall Avenue and Walton Avenue and West between 7 a.m. And 5 p.m. Except Saturday Sunday and holidays and include the no parking anytime and include the no parking anytime sign Thank you.

Do I have a second? Second, thank you all in favor. Please say aye aye aye any opposed aye All right, thank you. We're up to 5 F. Review and possible action on installing advanced quote, no trucking, no trucks, 3 tons and over end quote signs for southbound river value.

So this referral came in from Alderman Matthews to review and assist with the trucks that go down River Valley Road and help inhibit or make Truck drivers aware in the southbound direction of River Valley Rd that there in fact is no trucking through the subdivision itself. So kind of the again the area in question here surrounded in red is River Valley Rd and Les Paul Parkway is right to the north. And this is right adjacent to that newer quick trip that was installed right of right by the bypass there. so in the diagram here there is an existing no truck three tons and over further down river valley road however a bit of the problem is that it's further down the road and around the corner and by the time trucks see it it's a little bit too late and they're almost a little bit committed so to speak to either to basically go into river valley road and navigate the rest of the way through it or possibly get off at lawrence drive to the west and and hit highway 59 over there so the recommendation was to provide some advance warning of the no trucking um of no trucks over three times 300 feet ahead and we place it at that location specifically because still within that area technically trucks are allowed and it is more specifically for those that need to get into the quick trip whether it be for their fuel tankers or their supply trucks that come into and service quick trip itself and obviously as we know quick trip takes in a lot of Customers every single minute and everything else. So, and I had some information here that we pulled previously from the. The drawings for quick trip where this does show that the trucks. those service trucks go further down river valley road and then they will come and park adjacent to that like southwest side of quick trip itself so they can unload the their goods to restock and then similarly the the fuel trucks that need to go a little further past elkhart drive they're still as well so they can loop around and and uh Reload the fuel tanks that are. That are underground there, so we kind of pick that location with the impotence that. Trucks can still use that little stretch still provide advance notice, but they could use that drive if it. Was just a very blatant. you know someone erroneously just using google maps and not paying full attention and hopefully having better awareness and they can turn around with what might be available there at that point thank you um do we know whether or not trucks are actually using river valley road We we have. It comes in that yes, trucks go down River Valley Rd as we're told.

OK, anybody have any comments or questions?

Yeah, so it says here there's one, I'm just looking at what the recommendation is. So there's one no trucking sign, one over three ton sign, and then one 300 foot warning. So is that one pole with all these signs on it?

That is correct. Okay.

All right, is there a motion? All right, it makes a little bit of sense to me to tell them that that sign is ahead. So I guess I will make a motion to approve the no trucks, three tons and over as presented. Is there a second?

I second.

Advertisement. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Next we have 5g review and possible action on installing no engine breaking signs from the intersection of interstate. I 94 southbound to the intersection of U. S. highway, 18 state highway 59 as well as the northbound traffic between these 2 points along the by workshop bypass.

So this referral came in from Alderman Van Treeste, as made mention, to install engine brake muffler required signs for the section of the Waukesha Bypass from 94 down to Highway 18, which is Summit Avenue. However, with this being a bit of a unique case in situation, any of those signs installed along Highway 318 are permitted through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, WSDOT. So we have to go through WisDOT to get their approval for any of those types of signs to be installed as they be installed via a permit. So I've had some preliminary conversations with WisDOT with this sign to be installed at those two locations. They were. They have tentatively approved for the one to be installed for the Southbound direction. As shown on the screen as it is coming into the city limits as that is one of their criteria for this sign is that it has to be. Entering within the city limits. however they will not permit for the other sign for the northbound direction on highway 318 north of summit avenue because it's already within the city limits and because there is already a engine brake mufflers required sign on eastbound Highway 18 that we have permitted through them already and one on northbound Highway 164 that they have said. So with that, then the proposals to have the the sign be installed for the southbound direction, Meadowbrook Road, Highway 318, just south of Silvernail Road there, of the engine brake mufflers required. And it has to be installed with respect to WSDOT requirements. And that's what all the subsequent pages and exhibits and everything else is for your

Yeah, we sure reading if we start is very thorough. Alvin been trusted. You want to make a comment and tell us how that this came up?

Thank you sure how this came up was I've got residents on the West Side southbound. On Meadowbrook Rd bypass. And they've got a bunch of Arborvitae out there to try to limit some of the noise. And they've got another instance where they've got a child that has disabilities, wheelchair-bound, And they like sitting out there on their patio and there's a lot of a lot of truck activity that goes down through there. And it's not just from the they're building just north of the pro health care rehab center. That's part of it, but then just ongoing traffic. It's really untenable. I stood out there with them and it's pretty incredible. You can hear it. I live down over the hill and you can hear it. depending on what kind of truck it is. So yeah, it would be an expense from WisDOT the way I understand it, correct, Aaron? What's that, sir? This would be on WisDOT?

No, this would be on us, the city. Oh, okay. Yep, the city would have to ignore the expense. And that's a $300 sign? Yes, that's what I had laid out. We would be, it's $170 between the sign and they require a four by six wood post.

Okay, I'll break away the post. Yeah, that's all I've got on that.

Would you like to make a motion? Sure, I'd like to. Can you turn your thing back on?

I'd like to make a motion, ID number 26-03970, no engine braking on the Waukesha bypass.

Well, that's not what the sign says. The motion has to be, see the screen? WISDOT permitted this sign that says this. Right here.

Okay. The proposal is engine breaking mufflers required signage. And again, that's regarding 26-03970.

And you're moving to approve that sign?

Moving to approve.

Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions or comments? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Next, 5H, review impossible action on extending the existing no parking zone on the west side of North Hartwell Avenue in front of 530 North Hartwell Avenue to 30 degrees south, or 30 feet.

Yep.

This referral came in from Alderman Helga Stad to, as you mentioned, move a no parking zone 30 feet south that exists on the west side of Hartwell just to the west of Fulton Street. So again, the area in question here is surrounded in the red box where Hartwell Avenue runs north-south. in that area and East Broadway runs in that northwest southeast direction. So again, it's just on the west side of Hartwell Avenue opposite of Fulton Street and just hone it in a little further of relocating the existing pole and sign itself 30 feet south. And if all of it has additional comments to it, I'll pass it off to him.

Thank you. Yeah, this came in from a resident. They reached out to me. Really stems from a couple different issues they've had with... When this was originally the way it was laid out, when the YMCA had the driveway in a different position, people would park there and such, but generally they could then still get their trash out. But since that moved, people are still parking there, and it's become a growing issue over the last, I guess, couple years where they cannot reliably get their trash out to be picked up by the trucks. Also with folks parking there, It's been an issue for snow clearing as well. So when the YMCA, you can see the new entrance there that's to the very bottom of that image. So when that moved, it ended up resulting where if we move this sign, it's gonna be a net zero change in the number of parking spaces there. Just because again that that's been repositioned and rearranged This will let them get their trash picked up more reliably I also talked to PD because there was also just been an ongoing parking issue there that they were still working on as well But they also supported this change as well Okay, is anybody have any comments or questions

Alderman Helgastad, is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve to extend existing no parking zone on the west side of North Hartwell Avenue from the south side of the driveway for 530 North Hartwell Avenue to 30 feet south. I'll second it.

Thank you. Are there any comments? All right. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Aye. All right, so we'll move on to item 5J, review impossible action on installing caution with children with disabilities area warning signs for northbound and southbound Meadow Lane.

This item was brought forward by Alderman Van Treeste in reviewing and possibly installing the warning signs of caution children with disabilities area on Meadow Lane and to give some idea of where Meadow Lane is located so it's kind of a smaller stretch of road that kind of transitions but Meadow Lane there is surrounded in the the red box there and Grandview Boulevard runs north-south just to the east of Meadow Lane and Silver Nail Road runs call it east-west just to the north of this location So the referral came in and it's more particular for the family that lives on the west side in. That lives on the West Side to provide better awareness for This family that has more than one child with disabilities to provide greater awareness to the traveling public that their children that are with disabilities and handicaps to kind of slow the fact when they're coming around the bend of both directions of of meadow to provide greater awareness for their children that are on the west side and excuse me alderman van tree stay if you have additional comments on this item

Thank you. This constituent is on 1816 Meadow Lane. She has four adopted children and all of them have disabilities. The only place that we currently have a handicap restricted area before the driveway, if you kind of go down to right in the middle, Yeah, she's parked just a little bit further north of there when she's loading. But the problem she's got is she lives in a building that does have a garage, but it doesn't have an elevator that goes down to the garage. And it's a slope going down into the garage. She loads and unloads out on the street and we've got egress going into the smoothie place and Walgreens over here as well. There's just a tremendous, believe it or not, tremendous amount of traffic. We've got McDonald's over there, Goodwill. There's Office Depot around this corner down on the bottom. You got Quick Trip right there. It's kind of a narrow road. It's not super narrow, but I don't think it's any wider than about 40, 45 feet, something like that, Darren. Could you confirm somewhere in there? And so what we're asking for is both the northbound and the southbound, just to give people a heads up that there's There's you know, we, we need a little bit of space around it. There's been 2 just to be clear. There's been 2 accidents there. 1 was a hit and run and I don't know about the 2nd 1, but there were parked cars. There were she loads and unloads and that's where these cars have been head. So. That's what we'd like to get those signage up there to help her out a little bit.

Is that a motion?

Yes, uh, this will be a motion for, um. Uh, ID 26, 0, 3, 9, 7, 9, and the motion would be for a proposed signing stating caution children with disabilities area going both the northbound and southbound directions on metal way in the locations and the presented diagram. Yeah, it is, yes.

Thank you, is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions or comments? All right, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Next, 5K, review and possible action on installing either a stop sign or a yield sign for northbound Winterberry Drive at Tallgrass Circle.

So this referral came in from Alderman Rick Lemke to review possibly installing a yield sign or stop sign for Winterberry Drive at Tallgrass Circle. And then just to give some idea here, obviously this is a little outdated, but there is ongoing development that is happening in the area that I have highlighted there, which is

Uh, phase 2 of their project is on the council agenda for Tuesday.

Ah, there we go. Okay. But, uh. So, with that, there is already the connection of winterberry drive up to. Tall grass circle and the intersection is surrounded in the. In the the red square there and Summit Avenue running east-west to the south there provide some information and and Meadow Drive or excuse me Meadowbrook Road to the left of the screen there running north-south so typically for these kinds of installations he asked us to look at and evaluate evaluate whether we do a yield sign or stop sign but typically we tend to lean towards the installation of stop signs instead of yield signs as We have seen that we get better compliance with stop signs than yield signs just because. We've we've found and seen yield people will still just kind of blow through it, whereas and this intersection itself obviously has no control. No stop signs here signs for any direction and then for this type of of. Intersection layout, we would inherently install a stop sign on the T part of the intersection itself to control that leg of the intersection, which would fall in line with the driver's expectancy for this type of intersection.

OK, with the changing neighborhood, that probably makes sense to me. Is there a reason the people in the Winterberry development? Is there a reason they would go north and then go out tall grass circle? Is there is that faster for some direction of travel?

Please go ahead that that takes you back out to the bypass, which then you can connect with I-94.

OK, so it makes sense to you that people would be using that direction. OK, thank you for that information. Does anybody else have any comments or questions? Anybody wanna make a motion? Will you turn on your microphone?

Sorry. I'd like to make the motion 2603980. This is a review and possible action stop sign, proposed stop sign at Winterberry and Tallgrass.

Okay, is your motion to approve the installation of the stop sign as indicated? Yes. Thank you, is there a second?

I second.

Thank you, Alderperson Ebert, or Evert, sorry. Are there any further questions? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That passes unanimously. All right. Back to you, Darren, on the current building grounds budget.

All right. Prior... to the start of this meeting. So at the beginning of the year, we had a beginning balance of $17,126.78, because that had some carryover from 2025. Now spent to date has been $14,517.48 because of and item associated on the public works item agenda that installed guardrail on Madison Street. Thus the remaining balance prior to the start of this meeting was $2,609.30. So basically with the items that were approved through this meeting, through the end of this meeting, and presumably they all get approved through council, there will be a zero remaining budget.

Do you know the circumstances of that guardrail on Madison Street about why we needed it? Or are you not familiar with the project?

From... When I reviewed it, there were some run-off-the-road concerns and issues of vehicles going off the road at that location and trying to provide protection for pedestrians and the residents that lived at that curve in Madison Street.

Okay, and that decision was made by Public Works staff?

Through the Public Works Committee, yes. That was at the Public Works Committee meeting.

After we spoke on the phone this week, I looked at the Public Works agendas and was searching for the meeting. Do you know when they approved that?

March 5th, I believe, is when that meeting was.

And that's why you don't know about it is because they did it before you got elected. Okay.

OK. Does anybody else have any questions yet? Where in Madison is this?

Up from Delafield St so it is. So it's at. This other section of the Madison St curve like further up. This is existing guardrail here, so there was additional guardrail. installed here and i believe it was just recently installed within the last week or two i believe can you just help me understand so if they approve something does it does it not come here then for us to also also approve it so we're aware that it's coming out of our budget so from what i understand they because of the type of item that it was because it was not affiliated or associated with any CIP budget or item and it was requested to be installed in haste they had to find a funding mechanism for it to be installed and one of the only available budgets for it to be installed associated with was the building and grounds budget and that and That is how it was laid out on the cover sheet for that item for its installation was for it to come out and through the building and grounds budget.

And they might have at the time here at the time too, because I wasn't chair back then. Because, you know, I didn't show up until April like you did. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't read everybody's cover sheets from all the meetings I don't go to. Yeah, go ahead.

They're seeing South. This is guardrail on BNG really isn't in the guardrails. How come it's going to come out of our budget?

That's just because of the reason being because they.

Yes, it was material.

It was because it was. Desire to be installed. As soon as possible so they. had to find a budget in which they could install within this calendar year because there was nothing explicitly set aside that in this year because it came up in this calendar year so they had to find a funding mechanism for it and the one.

All right, I was just thinking we have a lot of real estate before December 31st hits and we're gonna be probably out of cash I would think very soon.

We're already out of cash.

Oh, I thought we still had 2,600.

We just spent it just today. Just today, okay, okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay, you wanna make a comment?

I was thinking, you know.

Is your microphone on?

It is. Okay. For this body, you know, for the work that we have, again, left for the rest of the year, should we, I don't know if it's a referral or how we should talk maybe with the city administrator and, you know, what we end up doing for the rest of the year.

Well, I thought I'd make a comment at council when it's my turn to address this committee's business. I'd just tell everybody that we have no budget and we're not taking any referrals that cost anything.

Yeah.

So if you've got something that doesn't cost anything, bring it forward. And then we're just going to take it easy. Yeah. I mean, do you see an alternative? I don't want to spend next year's budget in September.

No, and I don't either. Like I said, that's the only thing I can think of is maybe, again, bring it to the city administrator. Is there some other way we can basically backfill our budget? But it sounds like there probably isn't. But I don't know what else to do.

Yeah, you can talk to them the next time it's time for your meeting. I'm going to do that.

I will say I am frustrated.

Well, yeah, I mean, it's a big item that we didn't know about. But, you know, I'm assuming they told the chair at the time, and nobody told me because I wasn't, you know.

Yeah.

Well, there you go. So any other thoughts?

Hey, Darren. A while back when we were talking about some other referral, I refreshed my memory here. Were we talking about re-overlays, new overlays on signage that we could do here with the employees that we've got in the city where we can take a sign off the post, redo it, make it as new again, and then reinstall it?

I mean, that's usually what we do if we can, if the sign is still in good condition, but it's still.

Not all bent up and that sort of thing.

Right, but yeah.

Yeah, going forward, maybe that's the way we've got to address some of this potentially. Thank you.

Either of you have a comment? Okay, then we'll move on. guess that's it are there any objections to a journey all right we are adjourned thank you thank you