Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

That's ideal. I mean Great.

hospital. My seat, sir. I forgot.

What is that?

Holy. Now he is left out. Tell him to stay around.

Huh? Well, Sean's got to write it up. So, he's got we got to get approval, you know, plan. So, it's up to you. I mean, it's your money, but you may save a lot as you say to see it.

I am doing good. My property's a little underwater, but you know, that's that's uh that's life. That is not All right. Good evening. It is uh 6:30. We'll start the meeting for uh the Joint Plan Commission and Village Board meeting dated August 14th of 2025. Uh stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everyone. Uh roll call plan commission here. Buckles white here. Niles here. Nelson here. Peckers. Dable here. All right. Village Board Stigler here. White here. Niles still here. Adams here. Buckolds here. All right. Open meeting law and compliance check confirming that uh it was published and distributed uh on or before 6:30 p.m. on the 13th of August. Yes, that is correct.

Very well. Citizen comments. Anyone like to speak? If so, come on up one at a time. There's Come on up. There's a microphone to the right there. If you could just give us your name and address, please. Good evening, Kyle Robbie. Um, W252S5251 Sage Road in Walkshaw. Um, so, uh, hopefully, uh, and you may not have had a chance to read the email that I sent over the weekend, um, relative to the wetland or pond, um, that's behind my home, um, borders on the Bellman construction that's going on behind me. and noticed that over the uh weekend and certainly with a lot of rain over the weekend. I think a lot of us I heard uh somebody's property was underwater. Um but there was a substantial amount of runoff that went into the pond. The pond is now fully brown has been brown before been there since or for 21 years. Um and a couple of questions just arise arose out of that. Um number one, I know that silk fences and construction design is intended to keep runoff out. Um but clearly that didn't happen. um how do we number one get assessment to understand how much actually came into the wetland that is now on my property. Um and then number two like what's the threshold of that assessment that would require remediation to return the wetland to the way it was and not brown silk fil uh silk fil pond. Um the second part of it is um maybe a little bit more theoretical uh theoretical question that I'd like to ask. Um, as I built my home, uh, 21 years ago, as we filled in around the home, uh, we were few feet too far into the, uh, 1% setback from the pond and certainly, um, 75 ft away from that. But as we filled in, um, it cost us thousands of dollars to pull back um, what accidentally went over that line. Okay. So, made sense. As I look at the plans for development development um that's being done right now, there are roads uh going in 30 feet away from

wetlands with no setback. There are um construction that is being done inside of wetland lines. Um there are a lot of changes that have gone on and certainly I would hope and like to believe that all of that work is being done under permit. Um that it's been done uh in accordance with the planning commission here, of course, the DNR, right, and all the the legislative bodies. But it just seems very peculiar that as as a homeowner that had was forced to abide by the zoning of staying away from wetlands, not only the 30-foot setback, but then also building um uh well out 75 ft outside of the 1% area that a development behind my home um seems to be inside of nearly all of those regulations. And um maybe just as someone who is not certainly an expert in this area um I would like to understand or and understand who the conversation is had with to maybe hey is Bellman um doing the work that uh is intended under the permit are the rules being followed and certainly um there was a breach in containment in the soils and the construction process um that then went and released a enough dirt and silt and construction um let's say uh debris or dirt into the wetland and how do we get that remediated? So I guess it's maybe a question to the group. I don't know if

answer questions. Okay. Take your information or person on the agenda. It's not fair to decide where they want to. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead. Sam, if you could just give your name and address, please. Thank you.

Tammy Robbie, W252 S5251 Sage Road. Um, I was just going to hand out something to just share with you as well in regards to the same issue with the pond. Um, and you guys can just take one and pass it around. I looked back through some of the photos that we had of the pond back in 2008 after historic flooding, which we know was one of the most historic in Waca's history, if not the most historic in recent history for sure. And you will see that on those photos, our pond is nice and nice colored water even after all of that flooding and rain that had occurred. And now the bottom photo is a picture taken this Sunday when we woke up to extreme brown water. We now still have brown water in the pond that keeps resurfacing through depending on the way that the wind is blowing. I also included Bellment um some the rules of what which again we had to follow and our survey is actually the last page of that which clearly defines for us the 30-foot setback for any change in grade and then it also calls out the 75 ft of which we had to abide by in order for our home to be built and our home could not go any closer than that 75 ft to that wetland setback. back. The reality of it is if you look at the Bellman development, what's being allowed is not only the grade being raised within that 30 ft, an impermeable surface being put in in the terms of the road and then homes being built within that 75 ft setback. Now, if that was all permitted and

that's been approved, that's great and fine. But I'm assuming, and maybe that's not the right assumption, that it still should not be allowed to impact someone else's property in doing so. Of which our property is being negatively impacted. If the pond was public area, that would be a different story. But the reality is that is part of our property and our lot that we own. we purchased, we paid for with it being expected to be maintained as we were held to being maintained. So we were just looking for the rules that we all had to abide by as individual citizens that the development should have been we we feel as though the development should have had to follow those same exact rules because just because you're bigger doesn't mean that the rules don't apply. So, I thought some of the visuals might be able to help share some of the um insight that we have with what's going on.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Sandy, West 230 South, 3827 Milky Way Road. I'll I'll give it a little update on Milky Way Road. Um we had quite a wash out at the bottom of the hill from our house to the south and um where the culvert comes underneath from Zyle Hoffers into the old Kikfer property and uh it got coned very fast and by now it's been filled in with nice big huge white rock and has been had asphalt put over it. So um we're very pleased to see that. Um, as you continue south, there was a big embankment kind of I think on the property being referenced in item seven, um, the Bushman property and it just collapsed and came down and was on the road and everything and that's been taken care of. So, I just wanted to let everybody know that that's what happened and it's been taken care of. Um, regarding item number seven, I know we were here in February of 2024, and I don't remember there being any concerns with this other than the fact that it was within the 5-year uh period in which they could not further change the boundaries. So, that looks like it's a go-ahhead. And in fact, I looked at this agenda, it's kind of overwhelming. And yet, when you go through it all, I don't really see hardly any problems at all. As far as the um Buddhist temple goes, I mean, they're talking about two tiny little things to put up. I I certainly hope we don't struggle with that. And I can't see any reason to have uh public uh hearing for um the signs over at the nail salon. And and I'm looking forward to the site plan for the new DPW building. It was five weeks ago when I asked for an update on that. I still haven't heard anything. um not just the

site, but you know what's where does it stand? What's the target date for completion? That kind of thing. And so I'm looking forward to getting that at some point. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? Public comments. All right. Hearing none, we'll move on. Approval of previous mean uh meeting minutes from July 10th of 2025. Commission. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Usually at the board should decide if they are going to refer those matters in. Um Greg and Sean don't know this yet, but there going to be a tour later. Sean knows this. The president might be asking the board if the two of you should stay on the tour. I've already talked to you. Okay.

But what I was going to recommend is while they're waiting for the rest of the village board actions, they could meet with those people and get the rest of the information if the board was mind to have them do that. Sure. Just to use their time, you know, use your time while you're waiting. You could further details and some of those questions they asked I think there are relatively easy answers but I don't want to go into it now but I'll defer to let you guys take care of that. So is that acceptable Mr. President? Yeah that's good. I can um I don't want the the questioners to leave and then miss that opportunity if the boards of a mind to use the planner and the the planner and the engineers time wisely while we finish out the rest of the agenda before we take the tour.

Yep. That's good. Do you guys have the email on your It was forwarded to you if you didn't already have it. Their email that that was referenced. So, I just sent it to you. Thank you, Mr. Y. Thank you. All right. Approval of previous meeting minutes for July 10th of 2025. Plan Commission.

Thank you. Is there a second? All right. Uh motion by Rob and seconded by Todd. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor uh of recommending approval of the minutes for July 10th of 25 say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Uh plan a board village board. It's been a week. Sorry. I will make a motion we accept the planning commission's approval and approved to minutes from the last meeting. All right. Motion on the floor. Is there a second? I'll second. Very good. Motion and seconded. I've got a question.

Okay. Um we talked about the the maturity rate that we went through which was 7 months as opposed to a 12 month that was available as far as that's concerned. And I had made the point that I was against it and I voted nay because of the fact that the circumstances are simply that with our money we should be judicious in understanding what's happening in the marketplace and with interest rates at that time um on on the downward um I have recommended that we should go with a longer term. Nobody took that up. But I want to make the point that I think we need to be mindful of of the uh villages uh assets and get the best that we possibly can in in dealing with them.

Understood. We can't really discuss the minutes from that perspective. Are the are the minutes accurate as they are? Is that uh No, no. This is the board. Are are you are you saying there's an issue with the minutes, Roger? we can't really discuss. I'm saying topics are not agenda items.

I was under the impression that I said that is uh that um 7 months is is is not long enough and I also added that due to the the the minutes are this circumstance is incomplete and I wanted it on the record that due to the prospect of decreasing interest rates that we should have made a different decision. It was not in this and I wanted it to be in there that I had made that point. Well, proper procedure is to make a motion to amend the minutes to include you don't like what was stated in there, right? Adams, I did say that.

If you want to make a motion to amend the minutes, you have the right to do so, but you got to make the motion and say what you want added to the minutes and then they can second it.

Right. I think that's what you're getting at, right? Exactly. Yeah. It's already in there. It's the the minutes state trustee Adams felt that the village should invest the CD funds in a 12-month CD as he does not feel the seventh month uh is a long enough term. Okay. Then uh that gives uh the publication that I uh was looking for and let's just leave it at that then. Thank you. Okay. And it does show that it um the vote was four to one with you voting against the motion that was denied. So So there's not an issue with the minutes then. There's not an issue with the minutes.

Okay. So there is a motion and a second on the floor to approve the minutes as they are in the packet. Any further discussion hearing? None for the village board. All those in favor of approving the minutes say I. I. I. Anyone opposed?

No. All right. Then uh motion carries unanimous. All right, discussion and possible action. Item number seven is a discussion of possible action on certified survey map request for petitioner Kurt Bushman for the property located at West 230 South 4353 Milky Way Road, Tax Key. There's actually two of them. uh the WAKT 138899605 and the other one ending in 9002 for reconfiguration of the two existing lots to create a new 5.98 acre lot and a new 20.63 acre lot. Sean, so the two properties in question are on the overhead there. Here's the uh here's the north property and here's the south property both with frontage on Milky Way Road. The south property has a very small 33 foot access onto Milky Way Road. Uh there are some environmental corridors and wetlands uh in the back of the north property. Um as was mentioned earlier, we talked about this um in February 2024. The petitioner wants to essentially uh split the northern lot um vertically north and south. this large portion that contains uh some environmental corridor and some wetland and to combine that with the southern property that includes the existing house uh on that and then uh this would be split into a separate parcel basically. So there's two parcels now. There'd be two parcels in the future. There's a house uh under construction doesn't show on the aerial photograph but on this property now. So it would be on a smaller lot essentially, but both the lots uh in their configuration meets the zoning requirements of the R1 zoning district. Again, the issue we had last time is that this northern lot was part of the five lot certified survey map to the north that was done in 2000. And the five lots is basically the limit within

a 5-year period. So that five years had to expire for him to to modify this the southern lot that was part of that five lot CSM. So, um, at the time back in February of 2024, the plan commission board did review the concept plan. And let me bring that up. Uh, this is the certified survey map. So, as of now, this is the northern lot. This is the southern lot. Here's the new line. So, this would be new lot two. And then here's new lot one essentially. So, this was the configuration was discussed in February. Uh I recall um and in my notes the there was there wasn't a lot of opposition to the configuration. It was just that the timeline didn't allow for the reconfiguration of the lot. So the plant commissioner is back asking for the approval of the certified survey map. I would say that it makes sense in a lot of ways because there's you know most of this back here is environmental corridor. This piece back here that's not environmental quarter does seem to make more sense with this southern lot than it does with uh the lot one that's over here because of the you know the very narrow boundary to get to it. Um again I mentioned the 33 foot um frontage on Milky Way Road for this this southern lot that exists. It's non-conforming. We require 66 feet of frontage no matter what uh for new lots, but because this isn't creating a a greater non-conformity, it's already there essentially that it would be okay to continue as it is. I had a couple of technical comments. One was the village president's signature had to be updated. Um remove references to Wauaawa County Park, Department of Parks and Wreck uh in in terms of the wetland and and environmental corridor notes on the property. They don't have any jurisdiction. It's purely a a village matter since we're no longer a town. And I did because there is an actual new

home being built on lot one um which I was pointed out to me um that should also be included on the certified survey map in terms of a structure because it it does exist. I know I think Greg you might have a few comments.

Yeah, correct. Um so again from a technical standpoint not a whole lot to go through. We had a few comments according to Wisconsin Administrative Code. um things like some some bearings that were missing. Um some additional phrases and wording that we'd like to be shown on the on the uh certified survey map. I have not spoken directly with the petitioner, but typically these are things that are pretty easily addressed and you know we would take a look at before um officially recommending um signatures and recording. Um, according to the village code of ordinances, we need some information from the, um, property owner to be added to the CSM, square footage of existing structures. Um, typically, I guess per village ordinance, um, it requires a drainage and a grading plan to be shown for any new structures, but typically we would we would take a look at those at the time of a subsequent submittal site plan for any proposed development. So, that's what we would recommend for for things like that. Um, and then just, you know, like Sean said, some names and things need to be updated to be more current since uh 2024 that have changed. So, other than that, um, no major issues.

Can I just clarify one thing? Because we did review the house on this lot. Um, it's it I think we issued the permit last year and it's still it's almost finished, I think. But, we did review the grading for that for that new house in the lot. So that that's fine. Uh petitioner, are you here? Okay. No comments there. Uh board pl commission discussion, motions. A motion to accept the recommendations by the engineer.

Second. Okay. So, the motion is to accept the request for the certified survey map um to reeparate these two properties um with the staff recommendations and village engineers comments and concerns. Correct. Correct. Okay. Uh any discussion on the plan commission to that? Don't know. Oh, okay. You want to come up and talk? Welcome. If you could just give us your name and address, please.

Yeah. My name is Kevin Monroe and my address is W230S4263 Milky Way Road. Okay. Thank you. Which would be the new lot that is being sectioned off of my father-in-law's property. So, Kurt Bushman would be the original petitioner, but I'm here representing him today. Okay. Uh, anything you want to add or discuss related to what Sean's already discussed? No, I think everything that was said sounds correct from what I've seen in the documentation. Okay. So, you understand your surveyor has to update per the technical comments and then if this is approved tonight, we just verify, check it, then it can be signed and recorded. Yep.

All right. Uh, with him now present, uh, anybody have any questions or anything for the petitioner? We do have a motion on the floor, but no. All right. Go ahead. Is there a motion from the plan commission right now? Is that done? Yes. Yes. We're in discussion phase. So, you need approval from the board to accept once we vote on the plan commissions. Yes. Land commission didn't vote then. Not yet. No, because I was about to do that. That's what I was trying to catch up and then he

stepped forward and that he's here. All right. So, no other nothing for the petitioner. Very good. You can sit back down then. Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, plan commission uh hearing. No further discussion. All those in favor of of the motion say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Village board. I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation from the planning commission. Okay. with with all the staff recommendations also. Is there a second? I'll second it. All right. Motion by Al, second by Stu. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the uh request as discussed say I.

I. Anyone opposed?

Motion carries unanimous. Thank you, sir. Uh number eight, discussion of possible action for an accessory building request for petitioner Everlast Structures on behalf of the property owner Kyle Berkkey uh for the property located at South 58 West 23340 Glengary Road Tax Key W AKT1433004 for a 40 by 50 uh accessory building to be used for personal storage. Sean All right. So, here's the here's the property on Glengary Road. It's a little over three acres. Um, there's a a newer house. The petitioner is requesting to put an accessory building basically in the in the very back of the property, which is shown on their application. Um, it's a it's a 2400 I'm sorry, a 2,000 foot building, 40x 50 for personal storage. It also includes a 10 by 50 foot porch overhang. Um that's part of the equation. Um the height is just under 20 ft 19 ft4 in. Uh the application states that the materials will match the decorative portions of the house and the colors will fully match the house. Here's what the house looks at at least the front of the house looks like. You can see there's some decorative elements and some metal roofs and there's the windows. The proposed accessory building uh brings some of that same motif through. Um, here's basically the porch in front. It does have a metal roof. It does have metal siding. Uh, and then there's stone wings coating on the bottom. So, there's been discussion in the past about metal siding on residential accessory structures. We have, you know, there there have been some that have been approved that were ornate enough or attractive enough or comp is compatible with the house. Essentially what the ordinances say is that um accessory

buildings shall be compatible with the principal structure. Uh they don't necessarily require the same elements. The overall design should be compatible and complimentary. So there is some discretion there uh as as it goes. But again looking back at the at the aerial photograph this is a pretty secluded property. It's it's way in the back surrounded by woods for the most part. there will be an element of the building that is going to be exposed, you know, to the to the neighbors to the east. Um, so it will be visible in some locations. Um, it it meets the zoning requirements in every way. Um, so it meets all setback size, number of buildings, they're right at the limit. So they're their property is eligible for 2,000 square feet accessory building and this is at 2,000 square feet. So this this maxes it out. Um, I just have the standard conditions in here. Oh, the height the height is above 18 feet, which is our normal requirement, but we do allow you to go one foot above 18 for every two feet of offset that you do have. Um there's there's plenty of room here. This is 35 ft away where where 20 feet is required. So, they they do meet that requirement as well. So again, just the standard conditions for accessory buildings, including a deed restriction on the property. Um giving notice that the uh building is for residential purposes only. Great.

Thanks, Sean. Um so just a couple additional things from a grading perspective. It's a fairly large building and back where they're placing it at the rear of the parcel. Um you know, trying to line this up with county contours as as well as I could. looks like maybe two and a half to three feet of drop from the southeast corner to the northwest. Um, which isn't a ton, you know, likely to to have them impact or disturb a lot of soil, but it's enough that they're going to have to do some grading out there that I'd like to get a better um illustration of exactly what they're doing. More from an erosion control standpoint where they're going to have to put something like silt fence to protect the disturbed ground while they're they're building this. Um, so those are the kinds of things I'm asking for. Just maybe a little bit of grading information. Um, some the amount of um, grading they need to do will likely depend on the elevation of the of the slab that they're placing. So asking for that information and then just again perimeter erosion control measures primarily around the north and west side where where runoff is being directed for the parcel. um likely not to impact any thresholds with total land disturbance, but again, without them, I guess, noting that on their site plan, I I can't say for sure. So, that's all for me.

All right, petitioner, are you here? Come on up to microphone. If you go your name and address, please. Okay, Matt Manny, Everlast Structures, representing Kyle Berk. Um address is W or S58 W23340 Glengary Road. Um and we read through this. We have no problem finding all that information. So we'll do the silt fence and give you the elevations and contours.

All right. a little hard to hear with the microphone the way that it is, but you're agreeing to what the village engineer mentioned as far as correct rate and stuff like that to get all that worked out with him. Yes, absolutely. All right. Any discussion from the commissioner, the board? What's the access to this building? You're down there pretty far. That's a few hundred feet. Yeah. I I don't I haven't heard if they're going to put a driveway in or not, or just going to keep it basically grass to get back there. I I don't know. It seems like a pretty sizable building. I would assume there's going to be some kind of equipment or something going in there that you need a building that big. How do you get there? He has access on along the right side of their house.

So, is he do you know if he's planning on putting a driveway in or is it just going to be on the grass basically to get back there? Right now, it's just grass. They'll put in a temporary driveway, temporary gravel driveway to get equipment down there. Likewise, a building that size, I mean, if there's ever an emergency or fire back there, the fire department can't get there. It's that simple.

What What would you require? Well, I mean, I don't know what's going to be in there for equipment. It says personal storage, so there might be, you know, that this lawn mower and other things, maybe a camper. Um, so yeah, it's a garage. It's it's a garage. 2,000 square feet is a sizable garage, but we've certainly improved much bigger. But I I get your point in terms of access. Is there water back there? No, there will not be plumbing to the building though. It's going to burn anyway. Electricity. Yes. Typically, they show access.

Dan, if you turn your microphone on, please. Microphone, please. They do. If they're planning access, they normally show the They do normally show the driveway. Yes. Right. I guess that's what I'm saying. I mean, if if that's a condition of approval that that you would require access back there, we certainly can add it. Well, I think there should be. Yes, that's I think that should be your requirement.

Do you know if he's going to be agreeable to that? You've already You're already saying he's putting in a temporary gravel driveway. I'm sure he'd want to put a driveway in at some point to it. So, I'm sure he'll be agreeable to it. Minimum width standard private driveway 12 feet 12 feet wide or thereabouts. Yeah. Can we make a motion to approve this discusses this with John? So is there going to be a concrete slab in this? Yes.

So I would assume if they're going to have access for concrete trucks and equipment, whatever they use for access could be maintained for um access down the road, right? But it should be showing on the drawings, correct? Should be on there. That's all we're asking for. We can add that,

Sean. Where would that be? I guess in compliance with lot lines and stuff if there's Yeah, that that's all fine. I mean, the driveway wouldn't wouldn't be an issue. Um, we would just have them update the drawing to show a 12 foot wide driveway to the back from, you know, that tease into their existing driveway essentially and and call it a day. All right. So, do you want to make a motion with that being a contingency? I'll make that motion for approval of the building with the recommendations from the planner, all the conditions from the planner and the engineer and that added added access driveway. Second.

Okay, we got all that. Very good. All right, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from the plan commission or the board? Okay, I got a comment. Go ahead. We've always had accessory buildings that aren't made out of metal and I think you're had to comply with the house. This one's not. Are we going to go everybody okay with that? I mean,

well, as I I mean, they're rare, right, that you you guys rarely approve metal accessory buildings for residential use. They have been approved at least one other occasion that I recall for an accessory building because it was it was well detailed. Um, it looked like a barn basically. It had koopal on top. It was it was of a you know it looked very nice and it was detailed enough found to be compatible with the house. Again they've they've took they've taken a lot of you know design elements here that matches up with what you know what they're showing for the house. There is a lot of metal decorative metal on the house already. Um so they're incorporating some of that. You don't if you don't think it's compatible you certainly can deny it. um if you don't think it's compatible with the house, but there, you know, we don't say anywhere in our ordinance that there's no metal. It's just that it's got to be compatible. And one of the things that has always been said, hey, just boxy metal buildings don't look good on residential properties. And and that's usually been the policy that's been taken. Um except where they've gone above and beyond. And

didn't it always say though the material had to be the same as the house? Uh at at one point at one point it did say that it's completely different than what we've been doing in the past. I guess is what I'm bringing is why I'm bringing it up.

Yeah, at one point it said that, but a few years ago we changed the appearance and compatibility section. It reads now uh accessory building shall be compatible with the principal structure. The plan commission and or village board may require specific elements of the accessory structure be compatible with the structure which may include materials, colors, roof pitch, windows, building massing and scale. Accessory buildings do not necessarily require the same elements at the as the principal structure to be compatible provided the overall design's compatible and complimentary to the structure and surrounding. So talks about those are the things you consider to be compatible and you can use all those things and many times you know you've said no the metal is no metal because it's really just a box. So you know if you if you feel like there should be a different material you certainly can say that.

No I guess I'm just asking because I'm not saying it's not compatible but I guess I always had this hard line in the past. I wasn't aware that you changed that part of the ordinance. I think that was maybe five years ago, but since then, within the last five years, we have approved another metal. I do remember that we have done it. I guess I'm kind of wondering what kind of precedent are we going to taking here in the future? I mean, if this is what if that's okay with the ordinance, then I'm fine with it. The ordinance is flexible. The ordinance is very flexible. It's up it's up to you what you think looks good and compatible. No, I'm fine with the design, I guess. Doesn't look like a regular box like we what we said. Rob, did you have something else? Did you have something else?

No, I was listening. Okay, taking it all in. All right. Any other discussion? I just give a comment. I think it looked a beautiful building going there and and with trustee over um see what he had stated. Um, I think there's it shows like the engineer was saying or plan was saying that there's a lot of compatible materials on this particular site. So, I think that's a a good thing for you to to go ahead with this. So, I like it. All right.

Uh, Mr. President, should we be voting on this before the board is talking about it or because it most of the time it' be us discussing it and then you guys or discuss? No, we typically we have a group discussion. Okay. Yeah. Yep.

All right. No other discussion then for the plan commission. There's a motion on the floor uh to approve the request uh with the recommendations of the staff to include the planner and the engineer. And then with the uh added requirement that was added related to uh the 12 foot wide um driveway to get back there. Um, all those on the plan commission in favor vote I. All those against. Motion carries. Village board. I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation of the plan commission. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it.

Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor uh of the motion as is um signify by saying I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous for both. Thank you. Thank you.

Item number nine, discussion, possible action on a site plan, plan of operation amendment request for petitioner Adam Rosquist doing business as enterprise for the property located at West 226 South 1700, Highway 164. There's two tax keys, WAKT129886001 and 1298985 to revise the previous approval for vehicle rentals. Uh Sean,

yeah, they were in front of us in April for an amendment essentially. This is what was approved back in April for new layout. Um they were looking to add rental vehicles to the existing car sales operation which included remodeling the current garage. uh to include a retail store environment in the lobby, uh manager's office, restroom, break room, etc. They were going to add additional uh overhead door on the on the south side of the building facing Lincoln. So, there'd be two overhead doors for the car wash uh bay essentially for them with a with an automatic car wash inside. They were remodeling the south face of the building uh to improve it, removing the door on the east side again for in favor of a door on the west. and then restriping and redesigning the parking lot for flow and stacking and storage of cars. That was approved. Um they've since changed their mind on a few things and wanted to change some things up. And so here's the new layout. Um essentially there there's going to be no overhead doors anymore uh facing Lincoln which is which is better. Uh it's there there will still be a storefront here which is which is shown here. Um the east garage door will remain. And so the car wash as people, you know, basically take their rental cars back, that's the purple line. There's basically better queuing now and a place to to stack rental cars being returned. They bring them through, wash them, and then put them where they need to go. So, it's pretty minor. Uh, but it is a change to the to the building exterior and and a change to the building layout and operation of the site. So, they were required to come back in for site plan of operation. I don't really have any comments besides, you know, just noting the the changes. Do you have anything, Greg? petitioner, come on up.

Hi, I'm uh Doug Riser for Enterprise Renar uh W226 South 1700 Highway 164. Um yeah, just as we after we gained approval and started meeting with contractors and looking at what we wanted to accomplish, we fell on this, we felt like this is a better look for the south side of the building and still accomplishes the flow we wanted with less overhead doors and whatnot. Okay. Any um questions or discussion? I'll make a motion to approve. All right. Motion uh to recommend approval of the request as discussed with the recommendations from the staff.

I'll second that motion. Motion seconded. Any further discussion? Yes. Thank you. All right. Hearing none. All those in favor from the plan commission for the approval signify by saying I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous village board. I make a motion to accept a approval from the planning commission. I'll second it. Very good. Motion and seconded. Uh any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I.

I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Item 10, discussion and possible action for a site plan of operation amendment request for petitioner uh I apologize. I'm going to mispronounce that name. Uh for the temple that's on the property located at South 46 West 23214 Lawndale Road. tax key W AKT13889960002 for two open air gazeos for member gathering and meditation.

So the village just approved um for the for the temple the replacement of the shed on the west side of the property. I think that's actually still being worked out in terms of grading and so on, but it but it was approved and so they're coming back tonight just to essentially add a couple of gazeos to the property which does require site plan approval. Um the current the proposed locations of them are fine in terms of zoning uh etc. But on the site they have a 12 by3 foot gazebo here which is just between the residence and the the new temple. And then in the northeast corner there's a 10x10 gazebo. Uh this is them basically shown on the aerial photograph. So there's one here and there's one here at least 20 feet away from the lot line. This is the picture of them. They're open air structures. um they intend they're apparently they're um donated by members and they intend to use them for member gathering and meditation. So I just have the standard approval conditions as as part of the site plan of operation amendment. Greg, anything?

Yeah. The only thing I would add, I guess, um, looking at these structures and where they're placing them, I have no real issue with where they plan to put them other than, you know, as we dealt with the placement of the shed, making sure that I guess the gazebo number two, the 10 x 10 one, keep it out of any areas that are designed for storm water runoff. It It looks like it's pretty close to a drainage channel. And again, if this um site plan they submitted is is accurate, just making sure that you know, you're not putting it anywhere that's um it's going to receive runoff or require runoff to be routed around it and cause issues for this property or the neighboring property. So, just a note.

Petitioners, do you have anything you want to add? No, just up to the microphone, please. Thank you. Can give us your name and address, please. Kongla uh South 46 West 2323232323232323232323214 Ldale Road. Uh again, last June was our 32nd anniversary uh at this location. So uh thank you for you know allow us to be your your neighbor. So uh two of our members donated uh like Sean mentioned uh two gazeos and then the the location was the uh we suggested loc those two locations. Okay. Discussion, questions for the petitioner.

I'd like to make a motion to approve and happy anniversary. Thank you. All right. Motion on forward to approve the request with the uh staff recommendations. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Any discussion? Hearing none. Joe, you seconded that, correct? Yeah. Vicki and Jo. All right. All those on the plan commission in favor of the approval uh signify by saying I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Village board. I'll make a motion to accept the recommendation of the plan commission.

Very good. Is there a second? I'll second that. Bob and Al. Okay. Any further discussion? Discussion. Um, they run a really nice looking facility there. I stopped in to see them. I met Paul over there and they gave me an update on the things that they're trying to do and what their future represents and they are an outstanding neighbor. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other discussion? Who's going to be in charge of making sure that it's not in any runoff area or not? Subject to number two. your approval and with building inspector

because it's not technically um and and like I said I don't know the accuracy of this and I haven't been out there myself to know you know how much runoff that collects or if it collects any um but just something that's noticeable to me that they're placing it kind of on the the upper maybe the the top of whatever that drainage ditch is. Um so So right now the location right now is really flat. Is it flat? Flat. Okay. And it's not in an area that anecdotally I guess you've seen collect water. Obviously you wouldn't want to put it anywhere where it does collect water. Okay.

I mean to me looking at those contours it doesn't necessarily look like a channel. Just looks like a a slope. Yeah. So they like it'll be it'll be bottom that should be down here. Yep. Right at the bottom. Yeah. Towards the bottom. They they likely won't have issues then. I just discrepancy I guess between what's actually out there in the the site plan. Okay. Okay. Is that good? All right. All those uh in favor of u approving the recommendation from the plan commission signify by saying I I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank you.

Conceptual discussion for zoning amendments related to the livestock offsets for property lines. Sean, you want to discuss or Dan or

Yeah. Yeah, I can I can kick it off if you want to chime in. If you remember at the end of last meeting, um, Commissioner Blau suggested we bring back for conceptual discussion. Um, some thoughts about livestock offsets. Um, you know, right now it's 50 ft in some districts. I guess when we first talked, Dan, I didn't realize, but the A1's district, which is our egg district, doesn't actually have a livestock building offset specific to livestock. So that's that's the farming district. It's not in there as 50 ft. It's only in there for equestrian facilities that we added later on. The residential estate district does require 50 feet for for those uh uh livestock buildings be set back. And then every other district that allows livestock that are residential districts refers back to the residential estate district. So, I guess we can talk about whether or not A1 needs a special offset or or not, but I guess what we did, we essentially thought maybe once you get to a certain number of animal units um and we threw out 50 or 80 as sort of a starting point, you know, a larger operation if you have so many animals and maybe your building has to be set back 50 feet otherwise you just comply with the minimum setback. So A1 for instance is 20 ft our you know residential estate is 30 feet and so and then once you could get up to a certain amount you'd have to go more. The the other things we thought about are essentially um you know what's the what is the threshold? Is it 50 animal units? Is it more? You know what what makes sense? Should we think about setbacks for pastures and other outdoor areas? We don't normally we don't require those now and maybe that's not a good idea but I thought at least bring it up for discussion uh to you know so we can we can be definitive on that and then whether or not livestock buildings adjacent to residential property regardless of how many animals it is or how many you know what district it's in should have a certain setback if it's

next to R1 should always be 50 feet or is it 20 feet okay if it's under a certain number of animal units so all we did is you know correct added that in there in terms of the districts the you know if it exceeds a certain amount then it's set back 50 feet otherwise it just meets the minimum setback standard again I just want to reiterate current A1 outside of equestrian facilities doesn't have that 50 foot standard I think we need need to clarify our ordinance though because that's if you read that section

I understand what you're saying and we found that too as we were reading through it Um it's it falls the the requirement for the 50 feet off 50 foot offset does fall under the equestrian or the stable setting. It's under that section of the code. The one we added like in the last year or whatever that was. However, if you read what it says, it it refers to horses and other livestock and makes it confusing. So I think we need to clean that up.

I I agree. I agree. I think we should be consistent in in either way. Does does anybody have any thoughts about the current 50 foot setback whether it's an egg district or it's a residential estate district because as you know now or maybe you don't know if you're not an egg if you're not in A1 you need at least three acres for the first animal unit right so and and that's a horse or a you know a cow or a goat or whatever you know whatever it might be uh counts as an animal unit and then you need an acre beyond that for each additional animal unit. So right now if you're a residential estate you got to be 50 your building's got to be 50 feet off the lot lines even if you have one animal right it's a goat or horse whatever it is thoughts

I think it should be 20 feet across the board whatever the minimum offset for that district is right so if if residential state normally requires a 30- foot offset it should it should comply with that 30 foot offset that's my opinion if any other accessory building has got to meet that 30 foot offset Why wouldn't an a building with animals in it? Except if you have chickens, then they can be 5t off, 10 feet off, right? Because we we did we we did talk about that, but that's a very small building. Sometimes cold shelters are very small buildings, too. That's, you know, I I think we're maybe we're splitting hairs, but

but if you want I mean, I think we're going to be more contradictive contradictory if we start saying, okay, buildings with animals don't have to abide by the by the accessory building setbacks. That can be something different than what your garage has to be. It's less. You're saying it should be less than what your garage is. I'm just saying it should be 20 ft all the way around, right? Which is less than res. I'm saying residential estate is 30 ft. 30 ft. And why is that different than because it's a larger lot. You you want more room for your neighbors. All I'm saying is that the the setback should be whatever the minimum the district is to be consistent.

What about make what about making it 30 foot across the road? No. No. I can live with what he's saying. I mean that's No, he said absolutely not. Who's the one that wanted 20, right? Well, that's what A1 is is 20. A1 is 20. That's why I don't understand why residential estate would be because it's just supposed to be a more of a spacious. It's an estate, right? It's a spacious lot with big setbacks and everything else. Yeah. It just seems kind of weird that that's a greater setback than even A1, but I think 20 ft is adequate all the way around myself, but I can agree with having it the minimum setback required for that district. I understand what you're saying.

Okay. So, thoughts on increasing that setback to something else once you get to a certain number of animals? Is there any rationale or is that is that good logic? I don't really see a need for it. Looking at you, Bob. I know you are. And I'm listening to all these setback requirements for this animal and that animal. I guess I don't understand why that's an issue, but And maybe it's not. Maybe it's not an issue. And maybe we don't have a

day one zoning. I guess why are we messing with it? We're not necessarily all All I think all Dan is saying is that when we added the equestrian facility conditional used to it, we added a provision in there that said horses and other livestock, whatever buildings house them have to be at least 50 feet in the A1 district. Otherwise, A1 doesn't require the 50 feet. So, he's he wants to make that consistent for one, right? Make it across the board. 20 feet if you're an A1, doesn't matter. Um but re and other residential districts that allow it leasing he's saying well we should also reduce that to the minimum setback whether it's 20 feet or 30 feet whatever it is it's just a building I guess I'm looking at 20 feet to 30 feet isn't going to matter.

No I I I agree you know if I got a horse 20 10 feet farther away is that going to matter to me I no all I want to do is be consistent with whatever whatever the minimum offsets are for a garage we should just have that the same for a a building that has animals in it. Right. We shouldn't allow the the buildings with animals to be closer to the lot line than your your detached garage is.

I Yeah, it's a building. It's a building is a building, right? It's it's 20 feet off the the lot line. The the past the the thing that never made any sense to me is, you know, we allow animals and pastures obviously to be right up to the lot line essentially, which is fine. That's the way it's always been. That's fine. But why make the building set back 50 feet if the animals can be right up to the lot line in the path? That was my makes no sense. So from a visual from a visual standpoint, meeting the minimum setback requirements,

that makes sense, right? Your your garage is 20 ft, your animal building is going to be 20 feet and call it a day. So I'm I'm agreeing with Dan in terms of reducing the setbacks. The only outlier is essentially if you get up to a certain number of animals, do you care? Do do you need to be do you need to be further? I would say not probably. I think Dan you probably what what does the A1 zoning state does it restrict animals? No. No. But residential estate does and you know R1 it's different again a different zone. Right. Right. So yeah I guess I don't want to start messing around with

this. The simp the simplest way again just to be simple would say these are no these buildings are no different than any other accessory structure in terms of setbacks and offsets period and just be done with it. Yeah I agree with that. I guess I Okay. Is it does everybody agree with that? Take a poll because the next step is to come back with some the language for actual public hearing. Yeah. Go thoughts.

Everybody feeling good about that? The only other thing that that Dan suggested Sorry, trying to take a poll. Are you good with that? I thought everybody know. Yes. Okay. Yes. Go ahead. Sorry.

No, no, sorry. I thought I thought I I saw everybody approve. Um the only other thing that Dan suggested is that in the permitted uses in the A1 district, this isn't related to setbacks and offsets, but we could certainly bring it back at the same time. is it lists a bunch of animals um that are permitted uses. Dairying, general farming, crops, herds, feeding, fattening and raising the cattle, poultry, pasturage, green houses, chicken c all these animals with pigs is not in there. And so he thought it'd be good to add pigs back in there. At one point in time, pigs were a conditional use in the village. Like pig hog raising and pig raising was a conditional use in the village. We talked a little bit about it. You know, there's we didn't feel like pig raising was necessarily going to be a big deal in the village. It's not a people don't have major commercial farms here where raising pigs would be a concern. So that if someone wanted to have a hog in their property or a couple hogs wouldn't necessarily be a big deal as a permitted use thoughts.

Well, if you're zoned A1 and you've got say 160 acres of land, are you going to tell him he can't have pigs on his land? Right now you can't. Well, that's I never You never Because it was always a It was always a condition. I guess I was in violation. It was a conditional use. Just let the record show Bob was in violation. Is he talking to the mic? Yes, he did. I heard it. Statute of limitations is over. Oh, sure. Sure. Deputy in the back. Well, it was always a conditional use in fear of like large commercial operations that were raising define that. Years were grazing herds, weren't they? What years were grazing herds?

They were in a barn confined. We had 400 a year. Is that considered commercial or excessive or what do you want to call it? I I don't I mean I don't know. I'm not I'm not an expert on I'd say it's not residential to have 400 pigs. Well, no, but it was owned a saying. Is that is that all of a sudden now? Yeah. No, Dan wants to just clarify it and say, you know, just just add the word pigs that it's a permitted use in egg. I think it should be a permitted use. It always was. All right. Anyone I guess let's make it simple. Anyone opposed to having pigs added back in? All right. And the pigs. Good enough. So, can we we'll we'll set the public hearing for next month for and bring these changes back for consideration.

All right. Any other questions? A1 discussion. The other thing that we talked about in there was was height requirements, but there's language already in there that and I think you going to clear clarify that if you look under the I don't have the section number where it just says um I think it's right under where it has this the house the residence requirements and then it says accessory buildings is 18 foot height requirements for res for residential accessory buildings, right? And I guess that's where there's some confusion because it doesn't specifically say that

and I can I can clarify that as part of this and then then it goes on to say egg related buildings. There's no limit on those. So, right. I guess that just need to be clarified too because it's kind of confusing actually. Okay. The way it's written out. Thanks. I forgot about that. Thank you. All righty. Uh then adjournment I suppose is next. I'll make a motion that the plan commission adjourns. Anyone to second that? Second. Thank you. Second. All those in favor of adjourning say I. Anyone opposed want to stay?

Okay. Motion carries. Uh it's unanimous. Um we're going to take uh quick two-minute break, please, if we can uh before we continue with the village board. I want to hang these posters up for one of the agenda items.

It just I thought it was your quickly. That's not My god, that's Dan. That's what Marilyn brought it in from the mailbox when I was sitting there. She says, "This looks This guy looks like Dan." I says, "It is Dan." Did you know that? No, I didn't know he's going to be on there, but I looked at the chair. I know that's him. I want to know the story.

How did that come about? It cost him 200 bucks to get That's a good question. It wasn't me. You have a press agent, you know, who handles this stuff for you? I said, he's getting an agent, John, though. Yeah, there's a movie deal in the works. Who's Who's gonna play him? Famous actor. Yeah. Or something. Danny Deito.

Well, there won't be no Brad Pitt. I know that. So, this tour

What's that? weird right now. Does he know what I mean? Must be playing for a part or something. Those things are a pain in the butt there. I can't grow.

I had one for It's a dirty thing. It's a to maintain it and Oh yeah. expect. And

at some I don't even have a water either.

All right, folks. If we can get started, get they want to come back and sit down, please. Wind was out of the west.

Got her right here. It'll be okay. Be my first time.

Really? Wasn't even that much. Stu, if you're in the back, if you could come back up, please so we can restart. Get that gap.

What are you doing? Hit you with a hammer. You know, I never did.

Oh, no. I was going to get Ste to come back over. Keep going. All right. I have a request uh to use the gavl. There we go. Folks, if you guys can quiet down so we can continue the meeting, please. Is your microphone on? Oh, I've been yelling. Don't make me yell. That was without a microphone. Yeah. No, no, the microphone's on.

All right, we will continue with the village board uh portion of the meeting. Item 13, discussion of possible action. Um discussion of possible action on whether to schedule a public hearing on the property or on the signage request for the petitioner uh doing business as TT Nail Salon for the property owned by Sunset Baseline LLC located at South 30 West 24896 Sunset Drive. Lost my place. tax key WAKT135594 2022 for the approval of a internally illuminated wall sign.

So I I don't remember reviewing that portion of the agenda, but this would not require a public hearing in any fashion. That's only for electronic message signs. Uh this is just a typical wall sign. Um we recently approved their site plan of operation. They're back for their signage um in shops at Sunset. Here's what it looks like essentially. Um, is there a second agenda item for actual considerations? Yeah, that was just Yeah, I think after the last one we got carried discuss just adding adding that every time now. So, that makes sense though. So, we'll we'll correct that in the future. Um, so it would be discussion of possible action on approval of the sign request for the internally illuminated wall sign.

Okay. So, again, they were they were here in July uh for approval of their site plan of operation for a nail nail salon. They're back for their wall sign. Um the way wall signage works in the village is it's basically you get 400 square feet of wall signage a portion for all units in the building. They are about 10% of the frontage. So they get 10% of the uh they get up to 40 square feet. They their sign is just under 25 square feet. Uh it meets all the requirements of the ordinance. Uh and I just have the standard conditions here for for sign approvals. All right. Discussion board motion. I'll make a motion we approve the signature the nail salon.

I'll second it, but we don't have to because it's not a Well, it doesn't apply because this is not an electronic message sign that got carried over from the last time we had one on the agenda. Public hearings only for electronic message signs, right? Say that again. Yes. just electronic message signs. All right. So, no action on item A. Item B would be approval of the science request, which do you motion? Correct. I second it.

Bob seconded that. Any discussion beyond that. All right. All those uh in favor of approving the sign for TT nail salon signify by saying I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Very good. Uh, operator's license for Caitlyn Halfley. We'll go for thoughtful. We'll go either one. I don't see her here. Chris, uh, there is no record found. I would recommend approval.

Her information is in the packet. This be for employment at Legend at Merrell Hills. I'll make a motion to approve the license request for Caitlyn FAF. I can second that. Motion to approve. Any discussion? All right. Motion to approve and seconded to approve the regular oper license for Caitlyn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Anyone opposed? I will abstain.

401 with due abstension. All right. Moving on to the much awaited updates and such uh related to the site plan location for the new DPW building and that uh so a couple weeks back we had an open uh workshop here in the the village hall related to the uh ongoing project related to the fire department portion of the campus. Um, for those that recall, uh, a while back, we had a previous motions in place that approved moving forward to go to bids on the DPW building portion of the the campus projects, uh, that are separated from each other. Um, so we are in the process of trying to move forward with that. Uh, it was approved for Rukert Milky through previous motions to put that out to bid. Um there is uh some work that had to get done as far as clarification on some of the items within the packet of details so that it could go out to bid for a proper bidding process on that. Um so that's more or less the update there. That's not out to bid at this point because there's some some stuff that had to get done with the packet of of plans and specs and such for that. Um, with that, uh, part of what was never really finalized, uh, other than some conceptual discussions as far as location of that building is, um, part of what I want to discuss tonight, uh, this is going to include, for those that are present that are wanting to, a little field trip outside, uh, to see where some stuff has been marked out with paint marks and, uh, wood stakes on the the campus behind and to the north of the property uh, to have some discussion from that perspective. So, that's uh that's kind of the idea for tonight. As far as the fire department portion, if you weren't at the workshop we had a few weeks ago, um we have two uh conceptual drawings

that uh the Fisers have been working with us on. Um I've held off on a public forum update here just because we've been going back and forth in meetings trying to tweak some of the the layouts to those and uh concept conceptually how that would work. So, we've gone through multiple different iterations. Um, if memory serves me correct, option B was what we ended on back in February um with the different stuff that had been in the packet back then with both projects that were being worked on um by the Fischer firm. And so, we are up to C and D here. we were up to an E and I think even an F versions that we through further discussions and meeting about the concepts um backed off of and said they're probably not going to work. So what I hung over there for those that were not at the workshop is a C or sorry a D and a E, right? No, sorry, D. C and D. There's too many letters now at this point. Uh C and D. C is uh the one that's on the left in the middle. You'll see more brown or orang-ish colored area with some blue and some green. That one's going to be heavily on the side of remodeling the current building with additional space. The blue and the green would be additional building that's added on. The orang-ish, tan, brown, whatever you want to refer to it as, uh, is more remodeling of existing building space to accommodate different rooms and things that are part of the overall project for that. Um the one to the right of that D is more or less I don't say abandoning but uh some of the current garage space in the the center portion of the building um would be temporarily unallocated as far as that drawing that's up there is concerned. We've been meeting and and discussing tweaking that somewhat and putting some things inside that space but uh it'd be D is primarily on the side of addition to the building more

than it is remodeling. So, um, it'd be a reconfiguration of the garage space where you can see on the right of that drawing where it's a lot of green because the the garage space for the fire apparatus would be double stacked. And then um the overall project here being sleeping quarters and such would be the blue space to the to the bottom of the map or the drawings up there um for addition to the building itself. So that's heavy on the side of adding on to the building versus remodeling existing square footage. So that's what was voted and discussed at the previous meeting for moving forward with cost consultant projects with um Greg and his firm to get that together. Uh I have not released that to them. they've got some of this stuff, but I I I have not released that to them to start working on that at this point because um while we do have two separate projects here, we have a public works building and we have a fire department um that two separate deals, there is some overlapping concerns and considerations that we need to have in relation to where the public works building goes. Conceptually from the discussions we had in the in the say I'll say the last six months of discussing that project uh it was going to be to the north of the existing garage on the west side of the building of this building right out back here uh with about a 30 foot gap between the two buildings. The garage face would be facing the street to the east. Um, but when you look at those two drawings up there related to the fire department, they both expand out into the current asphalt space in front of the current north facing garage doors. And so some of the concern is with how that was originally staked and looked at. We're now going to be cramping the salt trucks when they're coming in and out of um the new garage if that's where it's built. And um and so that's part of what I

wanted to discuss tonight as a group. was brought up at the last meeting um at the workshop and that and um and so I asked the board to I guess chew on the questions that were presented that way um which are basically do we look at continuing with putting the public works building in the general vicinity to the north of the existing building so be northwest of the fire department. Um, and if so, do we need to offset it further because there's going to be some um space issues related to the the proximity to two buildings or do we consider uh creating a more or less a new not a new but a rehash of the DPW current campus portion back here uh where we do yard waste drop off where there's existing garage space that's being used for various purposes. uh and basically more or less just redo in that space, putting the building there, which would mean two of the buildings in back would go down. Um and so that's that's what the goal of this is. Uh so week ago, was it I think two weeks ago, two weeks ago, no, two Fridays ago, uh the Fisers met Rob and I out back. Um we uh looked over where those things would all fall. Um, I appreciate their efforts and they went out and and marked it all with uh paint and there's already some wood stakes out there, but they added some stuff that way as well so that we can go walk around and see it because on paper everything can look good. it looks good, you know, to say, "Yep, there's enough space for this and that." But when you go out there and actually visualize it, seeing where the corners of the building would fall and things like that, I I guess I want you guys to um come to a consensus on where we where we put it, what we do, um whether or not we, you know, keep the buildings as is and build it separate to the north or if we take

buildings down and reconfigure the the yard space out here um where it is currently. Uh, I handed out um a couple of drawings to the group during the the break for members in the gallery. If you want a copy, you're free to have one. There's two different stacks up there at the plan commission table. Uh, that was something that was generated by the Fischers for us. And again, further discussion of of how we lay this out. I hesitate to put these out there because if you look at them, they are six garage doors wide, uh, not five. Our approved plans that we've been moving forward with is five garage doors wide. I say hesitate because it got us a long ways to get to the five door project that was approved. Um but the discussion as was raised uh at the workshop and that was if we go with this we're taking buildings down and what what happens to the storage of the equipment in the existing buildings which brought the discussion then in in the meetings about this that we would potentially need to expand and make it six building a six door wide which means it would be larger than the 80 by 100 to be roughly 80 by 122 roughly. um is that a requirement? Not necessarily. But then it's again further discussion into the future of where the other um implements and such for the DPW where they're going to be stored. So is there anything initially I guess initial thoughts for anybody on the board? Um kind of rambled a little bit there, but you guys already have been thinking about this for the last two weeks hopefully from when we talked previously about it. So, initial thoughts if you've been working on this on your own.

Well, I like the idea of the other door on if you're going to take these other buildings down. I don't think that in the future we want to sit there and be concerned about we got to build another building now because we got more equipment than we thought and we already tore down a building. That doesn't make sense to me. But if you're going to do that and you add on to this one, that makes a lot more sense. You never make them big enough. I'll be honest with you. I've built two sheds in the last five 10 years and they still not big enough. So

yeah. uh with the storm this past week talking to Rob um there was correct if I'm wrong but there's more or less a river that kind of flowed through the uh the garage in the southwest corner to where water is pulled in the back of it because of the way that the garage doors sit and things don't seal on the ground and all that and um the way that that building was constructed and the floor for it was constructed and stuff which was already existing my understanding when the building was built but Um, it's housing things, but it's I I'll say less than ideal in in this current configuration. Talking to Rob and other discussions have been had on this. So, it feels like uh, you know, talking with Robin and then with Fisers and that, it seems like if we were to go this route um, Yep. We've got some I guess I'll I'll call it shed space. They're buildings, but it's more or less shed space that's out there that has wa standing water in it for heavy rains and things and that's not really good either. So, um if you look at I guess those drawings that in front of you, this is again just conceptually there's some stuff marked on those as far as paved yard material storage bins. There's a fence gate, salt storage, and such. Uh, we'll go out there and we can lay it down. We'll show you with where things are marked and such. But, uh, where the existing yard waste drop off is, the little ramp and then the dumpsters is basically the space of the ramp, uh, where these storage bins are on this drawing that's in front of you. uh the outside or south fence current that's out there would be turning into a retaining wall because the the hill of

the yard waste would be removed. It' be a flat space there and that basically the ramp space would be those storage bins where like that's out there now where you can put gravel in one and mulch in another and things of that sort. Uh the salt storage space would be fairly similar location to what it is now. Um, and if you look at what would be the paved area between the yellow building, the salt storage, and the conceptual storage bins, the space in between all that is roughly the same size as what's out in front of the current existing north fire department doors. So, it's a decent amount of space. Some of the concern there was um, you know, that the trucks are turned and now having to take 90 degree turns every time they want to leave and back in and stuff like that. Um, but looking at it and and what's conceptually here, it looks like that would all work with a new fence and new gate. The fence is already uh needing probably some repairs and things out there if we left it in place. So, um, pavement out there is already busted up if you look in parts parts of it. So the space in general that's out there now is I don't say ill repair or whatever the current term or proper term would be but um there's work that needs to be done maintenance- wise out there that hasn't been getting done it seems so

just for a point are we going to take a walk out there yet? Yes. I suggest we do it soon. It's going to be dark.

I just that's why I wanted to get your questions front or comments initially. All right. anybody that wants to come with, you're more than welcome to come. Um, and we'll just step out the door back here out here. last month or couple weeks.

Thank you. They're sort through.

There you are. There's someone

I thought the building have a place to put it first. What's the goal? Tell us where the building's going to go. Yep. Wait for everybody to come back and sit down.

I already did outside, but we'll do it on the recording, too. Come and sit uh sit back down please Al so we can keep going.

All right. So as I mentioned I think when we were all by the fire station portion of the the campus the ultimate goal here is to determine where that building's going to go. Um, if it's going to go up on top, we're going to, from the sounds of it, have to discuss making it larger than we originally planned. If it's going to go somewhere else, doesn't necessarily have to do that because we do keep the existing building. So, having seen and looked at things outside, what what are your thoughts? If we go to to the plan here and build it up on top, what's that going to do? Is that going to we going to be starting all over again as far as drawings and all of that stuff again? Is that

well what I'm hearing or I don't know that we can keep asking over and over again for more changes and more changes for free. Um that's my point. That's something that we'll have to entertain, I guess, with them if with those who have been helping engineer and draw this for us. Um, we can ask or we have to take what we've got and hire somebody to do that.

Is this building going to be still be the same type of building that Mike drew up or had drawn up? Yeah, nothing would change, I guess, other than the size of the building. It's still going to be a pole. It's still building. I don't think anything would change from that perspective because then we're going back completely on the drawing board to everything changing. Okay. So, I said after going down there and looking at that, if we put it down there, you're talking water running in that building. I can't see anything different than same thing happening down here down below. This whole this whole thing is sloped. The ground here is sloped that way.

Greg, thoughts? Yeah, I think a huge consideration of as you determine the site should be storm water. The grade you're setting the building at is also going to determine, you know, how much water runs into it. So, you know, I agree that needs to be a factor in all this where the storm water's going. Just just looking at it, water runs downhill and that's a pretty steep drop out here from this building down to that one, right? And it's all tapered, right? You may need to build the building up a little bit to allow the water. We need to build up the whole driveway out here, the whole yard to get the trucks in. Yeah, there there'd be some sight revisions, I think, necessary for that.

I guess I'll start it, Chad. Yeah, I I would recommend that we look into putting it up here on the top. And like I said, if that other building's coming down, I would extend it a little bit longer. I think now is time to do it. um to put the footage on there right now instead of having to try and add on later after we're stumbling around trying to find more room for stuff. Mhm. So, I I I would agree to put it up here and on the top and then uh extend it to the back side of what the existing building is. Roger,

I tend to go along with with ST um putting it up on top and what Bob said too as far as the drain and everything else like that is concerned. We've got some major major other issues we have to deal with if we put it down here. putting it up here has been uh I think a topic of conversation anyways and I think that's pretty much what we agreed uh to in principle at our uh workshop meeting to begin with is it up in this area right here. So I'm all for putting it up on top

I'm all for up on top too. Um, I guess that's been my big hang up since day one for this location. This building, the only negative thing that I see about going up on top is that the garage doors are going to face face the south, whatever. They they always have to, you know, back in maneuver instead of driving in and backing in. But, uh, I'm all in favor of putting the garage, um, as a drawing that we have in front of us here tonight. I think it's a I think it's a great move and and I think it's going to clean up a lot of the area that we have and space that was that's down there and some buildings that are existing. I think we could uh I don't think we're going to miss them. I think that the correction of the all the buildings are sitting out there. I think this is a better location and a better deal for us uh for the village of Walkersaw for the DBW buildings and I think it's going to be a great asset to the fire department eventually however we figure out how what design we have taken on the fire department side of it and the grade's a big issue now we thinks about that but it's a huge thing we get everything on the high side of this grade instead of let that go down there we get everything on the high so we won't have a water issue I think this is huge I is a great idea. Bob,

I I after seeing the layout here, I guess I I tend to agree with everybody. Um it does make a nice neater campus. And as far as the fire department goes, they can do anything they want after you do if you do it this way. I think you're not constricting them at all. I mean, if they want to add on to the backside like you said here, come out. that's not going to affect this will not affect that. They can pretty much do with the fire department as they as you wish. You know, whatever works. If you want to add out to the front and put on more length or whatever, I guess you can do that, too. But it's not going to this won't affect that. So, I think this is a decent layout of the campus. It's unfortunate we didn't see this right from the beginning, but I think it's I think it's a very efficient use of our our area. I'm We have to look at the the dumpster area out here already. Now, it's it's a disaster. It's needs to come down or replaced or something. But so tearing that out of there isn't going to affect anything. It had to be done anyway. So, I think that's it's probably going to cost more money to put that up there. what I'm looking at because of the stalls and for material stall storage and that kind of thing. I think the cost to tear down the buildings is going to be added into that and I mean you might be able to put a bid out there try to get an offer somebody to take that building down. They might there's people that are interested in doing that. They come down and order them. So that might work, too. But that's not the time to discuss that now, I guess. But,

right. Yeah, it's it's going to be more expensive because we're adding two stalls on. Plus, yeah, there's going to be prep work to the site that's removing things, not just right, taking grass and making it something new with Rob and his guys cutting a couple trees down on the the north side over there.

So, I I agree. Um, I think I will point out for to their benefit. I'm pretty sure that the Fisers were trying to scream this at us uh months ago and none of us were willing to listen. So, um, I'm glad that we're at a point where we're able to to discuss this stuff a little bit better. And um I I agree it wherever it needs to go I as I tried saying outside if it goes up that way all this needs to eventually be abandoned and needs to be rebuilt down there in the center of the campus. Um doing it up here makes sense because it's where it already all is. It's just rehabbing what's there. Um so I I think we're on the same page it sounds like with everybody being unanimous from that perspective. Um,

is there any provision for the squad car now? Is that still going to go in the old building yet? It's quasi and unknown because we don't know what's going to happen with those. If uh if D happens, which is the primarily remodel one, then there's space there for all that to occur there. If it's C, there's not really space in this building for that with how that's laid out. So it realistically is then they're probably parking inside our new building back here. Okay. Uh so that'd be something to consider from that perspective too that they've as long as we considered it that we're not not in the way of the salt trucks and not blocking them to get out in an emergency either.

Um other things to this point then with it being here from a generator standpoint because that was one of the things we discussed at the last with the workshop and that the uh the vision is There'll be a generator for the uh fire station remodel so that they can get out when there's power outage. Similarly for back here if there's a storm that requires them to to leave to get out and fix things on the road or whatnot like we just had this weekend. Um a generator would be back here. It would simplify it with those two buildings being together because all the garage doors could be on the same generator then. Uh so there's some pros that way as well. Um, I think the con is we have to uh make a motion to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and and tweak these drawings again if if they're willing to do it for us again, uh, with the same people that have been doing it thus far. Uh, and if not, then we're going to have to meet at the next meeting to discuss who's going to do it to finish the drawings. Uh, there is an unknown there I'll give you. I think we talked about at the workshop. The current drawings have a um firewall down the middle of the building. We'll that'll probably either have to be moved or made into two depending on the size of this or we're going to have to ask for the waiver from the state that um could allow us to remove it all together. The waiver would be something that from what we discussed in the meetings with fisers from what they could give us details on um the state would have to approve it through the process of approving our plans with the waiver for the to not have that wall and then I believe the fire chief would have to approve it or fire in inspectors have to approve it as well because it's part of that due to the fact that it's so close to the fire station from a response perspective if there was a fire inside this new

So, it's not just put two more garage doors on the end and make the long building longer. There's some other things to consider there, too, which may also be now we're having to tweak the HVAC system and stuff, too, because we're adding on to all that. So, it's con conceptually, it's easy. Yep, just add two more doors. But there's more engineering that's got to go on then from that perspective, too. So, don't be surprised if that means that we have to start paying for some of that, but then we can move forward and keep going. Uh, just to make it official, you want to make a motion on what you want to do. What I said? Sure. Yeah.

Whatever your motion wants to be. like to make a motion to go with the putting the DPW building up on the top as the plans show and to add on another door actually add on two doors to make it to the existing backside of the existing building that's there that's going to be torn down. So to clarify B7 baywide correct any other details to add into that? Uh because I mentioned outside Rob was I think requesting that we look at more than 14 feet make them 16 feet. Is that correct width as far as the doors? Well, I thought that that's what they were already. They were 14 originally.

What was approved to go out to bid was 14. If you think 16 is better, I guess we use 16. Okay. So, add that to the motion then. You can add that to the motion. And then if we're worried about the baseball diamond, I said we can always add some netting around that backside and the corner to stop the balls from hitting the building. Be a lot cheaper than other things. Yep. Okay. And we want to second that motion. I'll second that, but I have a comment then after that.

Okay. Um, if we add on the extra door on the back, I since we're going to be redrawing this garage or DBW building, um, that we do end up taking over the plowing for the whole village of Walkshaw. Since we're doing it, I just want to make sure that we have enough space before we say we're just going to add one more door as that can be efficient enough for us to do so. Um, and ask the fishers if whoever is going to be doing this drawing. I shouldn't say fish, I'm sorry. Whoever would be doing this drawing would show every piece of equipment that we would want for the village if we would ever take this village plowing over. Um because let's do it once, do it right the first time if we're gonna redo this drawing and make sure it's the right size. That's all I'm ask.

And then I question the question I asked is for the DBW director if we could talk to him if if he thinks that's efficient with the 16ft doors. Do you need them all or can you get away with a couple 14 foot doors? I guess before we get excited.

So hold on to that. um to your question or your statement prior to that one. As far as does everything fit, if you wanted to be on a drunk, I guess we can ask for that to occur, but um that was already discussed outside and and Rob's already indicated that it would fit everything plus still have space. There would still be extra space. If you put two more doors, you put add two more doors on, you can you're guaranteed four trucks. If you're stacking them back to back, you're guaranteed four trucks. So, we got five right now. That'll be nine. We're never going to have nine. I should say never, but in reality, we probably never will have nine. If eight does suffice to do the plowing in the village, it's not going to be growing. Well, keep in mind the existing five door building that's already been designed already allowed for eight plus two other trucks, right? So, we already have eight factored in for a full snow service into the existing plans. What's not allocated in the existing plans is the stuff like the one ton and um the bucket truck and things like that that are in the not so nice shed outside,

right? Um, so that's where those additional four stalls that you're talking about would accommodate that. A skidster, um, probably the squad car, things like that. So, great. It should all fit because they already the the eight stalls we were talking about needing for salt trucks is already in the five door plan. It's only got so much room up there. We kind of maxed it out already. I think I don't know if we're worried about more room. I guess I don't I don't see where we can do it. to what? Add on to the building. Al saying that he's not sure if this is going to be big enough. And I said, "Well, we're already at the end where it's going to be period."

Yeah. No, I seven is going to be sufficient. We already talked about that offline when when we met and discussed this prior to tonight's meeting and stuff. So, six was going to be probably sufficient, but seven's allowing for some expansion like you said for skidsters and things like that. Seven's more than enough. Right. Right. Well, that's why I was saying if you went to a 14 foot door, 16 foot door, we only if we had them all 16t door that's grows two feet. If we had it like half the doors 14, we gain two foot spaces. So the garage wouldn't have to be that big. We could shrink the building down then because because the buildings wouldn't be as long if you use 14 foot doors versus 16 foot doors. No, it just means there's less gap between the doors, right?

Yeah. But it would shrink the building down. No, you wouldn't shrink the building down if you use the space between the doors. It is 16. I I think I know what you're saying, Al, but there'll be more room.

There'll be more room between the trunks, whatever. But um and the building, whatever. And I thought if we could save a couple square footage if or if we needed the space, I'm not sure. That's why I thought we would lay it out, we would know exactly the amount of area that we would need in there. That's what I'm saying. I mean, we're going to be sufficient, but if we could shrink it a little bit, so be it. If we can't, we can. Okay. So, there's a motion and a second been we've been discussing, which is just as a reminder to put the new building up on top as we've been looking at these plans that I've put in front of you tonight. Uh, connecting it to the existing DPW building, removing the other two buildings, making it seven stalls with 16 foot doors. Um, any other discussion on that? All right. If there's none other than uh all those in favor signify by saying I

I. Anyone opposed? Motion's unanimous uh we will reach out and see if they're willing to redraw that for us and then I'll work with Greg after we figure that out. If if they're not and they're going to we're going to have to start paying, then we'll bring that to the next meeting to figure that out. Um otherwise just I guess assume at this point that we're moving forward with it like it is. Um as motioned, I should say. Um I'd like to make a comment on this topic. On this topic. Okay.

Yes. we are talking about having to uh get the plans redrawn and I don't think based on all the services and the extra services that are current uh supplier of of of these plans Fisher and Fiser um is uh they're not the the ones that have given us these plans.

They've given us a conceptual drawing that we've been looking at, but they're not the ones that gave us the plans. they've been with us from from the beginning of it and they have a greater knowledge than anyone else that we might select uh to do this in my estimation and as a consequence I think that should be a strong consideration. Well, we'll I guess we'll reach that that bridge if we need to. Um we'll see what the the first phone call. Okay. All right. Uh, moving on. Accounts payable. We have authoriz authorized the payments of the bills which according to the packet is $132,714.73.

Did you make a motion? I just gave the number. I will make a motion in the amount of $132,714.73. All right. Bob gave the motion. Do you want to second it, Sue? Is it we're talking to? I'll second it. Okay. Motion seconded. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of paying the bills as designated say I. I. I. I.................... Anyone opposed? Motion carries. Uh adjournment of the meeting. I'll make the motion. I'll second. I'll second that. Very well. All those in favor of adjourning. I. Any opposed? Very good.