Public Works Committee - Regular Meeting

The minutes oh, sorry. Okay. The meeting is beginning for Monday, July 13th. 1st item on the agenda is the review and approval of the minutes of the June 8th meeting. Any. Questions thoughts, concerns.

Additions recognize how quickly it went though. Yeah. What? Without a chair. Okay. Finish that. I don't know. It was like an hour and 11 minutes. Yeah.

Is there a motion to approve?

I move approval.

Okay. Second, anyone? Okay, all in favor? Aye.

Okay.

I understand that we have a member of the public here to comment on something that is not on the agenda. It's not typically part of our agenda, but since you're here, come on up and state your name and address. And again, we do have kind of an agenda going tonight, so if you don't mind keeping it rather brief.

Okay. Good evening, everyone. George Swoboda, 4973 North Lake Drive. I'm here tonight to bring some attention to needed maintenance at Buckley Park. I live directly across the street from Buckley Park. I see it on a daily basis and there's some things going on or has not gone on that I think you need to be aware of and potentially address. So if you've been by Buckley Park recently, you might see a large amount of vegetation that has grown up and is basically blocking most of the overlook bluff area. The last comprehensive maintenance that the village has done in that area was three years ago. So all the vegetation you see there, it's popped up in the last two to three years. In another year, two years, you could be standing in that park and won't see Lake Michigan at all. Right now, there's seven observational benches along the Overlook area, the bluff, six of seven. You can't see anything except a jungle of trees and shrubs. So my neighbor and I discussed it over the fence a month or so ago, and we got in contact with Director Collins. He generously met us at the park about four weeks ago, and we had a discussion with him about what can we expect maintenance-wise. I'll summarize a little bit. Basically, there's no current plans for the public works to address the vegetative overgrowth at the park. A couple reasons Director Collins cited. He's got lots of projects on the books. He thinks it's unsafe for his workers to dig saws and whatnot down the slope when they don't have really training for it. If anything is done on that Well, if you would like to have an assessment done for soil conditions, try and gauge what risks there are in cutting away some vegetation. And if a third party could do it, there's no budget for it. So those are some of the concerns he raised. Those weren't really satisfying to my neighbor and I, so I decided to come to this meeting to raise it to your attention to see what the outlook is down the road for that park, because I fear if we leave it go the way it is, it's gonna kill the park. I mean, it's a small park. What it has going for it is the most accessible views of Lake Michigan in the village. A person walked down the sidewalk, could get to the bluff in a hundred feet or so. People driving by see a great expansive view of Lake Michigan. Newcomers to the village coming north on Lake Drive Within a few blocks, they see that expansive view of Lake Michigan. It's got to create a positive impression for the village. So I think it's a resource to the village that we don't want to squander. So that's why I'm here.

Okay, thank you. Because it's not an agenda item, we can't respond in any way. But we have heard you and we appreciate you coming and sharing your thoughts and your concerns. And there may obviously be other conversation about it and potentially in the future agenda item, but I don't know that for sure.

When I last spoke to Director Collins, he mentioned he might be able to get in touch with a third party to a first impression of the bluff area what might be feasible i'm just wondering if if you made that contact or not yes i have and if we want to touch base after this meeting or maybe i can give you a call at a later time i can give you some updates okay all right well um uh if there's no that yeah sorry sorry about that i know that's not very fulfilling but i i appreciate i mean i do appreciate your time and coming and sharing your concern Would it be more appropriate to go to next week's village board meeting?

You could, but it would be the same outcome because it wouldn't be on the agenda. We wouldn't be able to have a conversation about it. The idea behind that is that we want to have intelligent conversation and not just off-the-cuff conversation. Thank you for presenting your concern. We may independently have different conversations, but in this public setting that it wouldn't be appropriate for us to have that.

I just have one other thing to say that generally conversations like this are handled by staff and not by committees and not by the village board. And so we really don't have a role in this other than budgets. How about that? That's the only place where, you know, but that's even generated by staff saying we need a budget for this. So it really begins and ends with that side of the table.

We did the right thing by contacting Director Collins. Yep. Yep. Exactly.

And coming here is not a bad thing either. It's just that we can't discuss it with you.

I'll just leave these photos with you. Three are taken Sunday, yesterday. Yep. Showing the current state of the park and the two photos on the second page are recent photos from 2022, 2024, showing how essentially clear-cut- How it changed, yeah. Awesome.

Thank you very much.

I was also at the park on June 20th.

I'm sorry, but we aren't able to take comments from people who are online. I apologize, but that's been our policy all the way through. If you have comments to share, please feel free to email any, all of us, if you'd like. Okay, so our next agenda item is the Hampton and Santa Monica Intersection Improvement Project Concept Alternatives presentation.

All right, I will tee it up and then I won't steal too much thunder from our presenter for today. As the committee is aware, we've been going through the process of a WSDOT grant where we were awarded 90% project funding for intersection improvements with Hampton and Santa Monica. We recently hosted a public information meeting where we gathered public input feedback from residents as well as the local businesses on viable concepts that Strand and Associates has presented to the community. So, as part of that information sharing process, we wanted to make sure we checked in on an earlier stage with the public works committee to offer feedback. So there's no recommendation or action at this time, but this considered as a workshop to make sure that we're pointing strand and associates in the right direction. So then afterwards, after we have this meeting. They will workshop that internally based on the viable options and the concepts, and then look for final recommendations and approval with the village board, which I believe would happen in August, either the first or the second meeting with the village board. So again, I consider this as more of a presentation and an option because this is a very heavily used intersection that's going to have a lot of eyes and ears on it once we go into construction. So we want to minimize surprises, and this seems like a formal stage to go through that presentation. So with that, Adam Walter is our main project manager with Strand Associates, and he'll be going slide by slide with the presentation.

Yeah, thanks, Matt. So, yep, Adam Walter, I work for Strand Associates, and we're working with The Village, City of Milwaukee, and WisDOT on the Hampton Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project. So the agenda here for this presentation, I'll give some project background, the existing conditions that led to our alternative evaluation and improvements. We'll go through the traffic operation summary, public involvement, and stakeholder outreach, and then schedule. So project background, as Matt mentioned, this is a Highway Safety Improvement Program project. to address the existing crash trends at the Hampton Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard intersection. Since this is an HSIP project, it's 90% funded through federal money, 10% local. So with that, we follow the WSDOT process as far as environmental documentation and then reports as well. The main scope of this work is traffic signal replacement, milling and resurfacing the pavement, and curb ramp improvements. And as we zoom in here with the image on the right to the intersection a little closer, you can see that the northeast, northwest, and southeast quadrants are located in the village with the southeast quadrant in the city of Milwaukee. It's also worth mentioning Milwaukee County Transit has Route 14 that runs north and south along Santa Monica Boulevard with bus stops at the intersection. Also nearby is Oak Leaf Trail and Esper Park. So given the Oakleaf Trail, Esper Park, local businesses, the bus route, this is a high volume pedestrian and bicyclist area. And one other thing worth mentioning is that we're aware of the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the south leg of Hampton Avenue between Santa Monica Boulevard and the Oakleaf Trail. But given that's in the city of Milwaukee and not at the intersection, it's outside the scope of work for this project. But we are working with the city to potentially find pedestrian and bicycle solutions there, improvements that can potentially occur adjacent with this project. So existing conditions, crash history, there was 19 crashes over the five-year period when the HSIP application was submitted. Some of the trends from that crash study, the major trends were angle crashes. There were four left turn angle crashes. One was a level A type crash, which is high injury severity that involved a pedestrian. And that pedestrian actually showed up to the public involvement meeting a couple of weeks ago. She told her story about the crash and the multiple year recovery from it. So she was very happy to hear, you know, that safety improvements were being made to this to this intersection. There was also two level B lower injury severity crashes and one property damage crashes from those left turns. There was also five right angle crashes and then four hit signal poles. So some of the existing deficiencies that potentially led to these crash trends. One is a negative offset for northbound left and southbound left turn movements. So this image over here kind of depicts that where if there's a queue present in the opposing left turn lane, it makes it hard to see that oncoming through traffic. So you kind of got to stick your head out to be able to see if that oncoming traffic occurs. And that can lead to angle crashes. So to kind of illustrate that a little better, here's a southbound left turn movement. And especially when you have higher profile vehicles like trucks or SUVs, you can kind of see it creates issues to be able to see that oncoming traffic, which can lead to those angle crashes.

Isn't that a pretty common situation at a lot of intersections?

To have the negative offset?

Yeah.

Yes, yes and no. I mean, more and more, we're trying to eliminate those negative offsets. And there's different signal phasing that you can do if you do have those negative offset that we'll get into that can kind of reduce this conflict. Because when we see this, a lot of the times we see those higher angle crash trends.

I was just having a hard time because I was like, this looks like many, many intersections. And that's why I was curious. Okay. Okay.

So another deficiency, poor traffic signal head visibility. So for your northbound and southbound movements, you only have two post-mounted signals. So once again, when you're trying to navigate that challenging left turn movement, you don't have any far left indication. So as you're making that movement, you don't really have a signal head to guide you through that movement. You kind of have to look back to be able to see it. So poor signal head visibility. Non-compliant pedestrian facilities. So all four intersection quadrants are type one curb ramps. They don't have detectable warning fields. There's not pedestrian push buttons. Also inconsistent bicycle markings. So the south leg is the only leg With bike markings, the other three legs don't have bicycle markings. There's one marking here, but it's not specifically marked for bikes. And then access control. So the driveways at the intersection, which I'll go into a little bit further later in the presentation when we have our property owner meetings. There's quite a few driveways, especially this gas station within the functional area of the intersection, which can cause issues as well. So to address these issues, we looked at three different alternatives, two signal alternatives and one roundabout with a bunch of different improvements within each of those alternatives. So the first signal alternative, the improvements include pavement resurfacing, multimodal enhancements include curb ramp replacements, bike lanes, bus stops, and then high visibility crosswalks. The traffic signal improvements are monotube traffic signals. So those are the big signals with lane designated heads. We'd also have reflective backplates. So similar to what you have on Silver Spring. for better signal head visibility, updated detection, emergency vehicle preemption, pedestrian push buttons and countdown timers, and then updated signal timings with phasing for protected only northbound left turns and southbound left turns. So they would only get to make that left turn movement if it was a green arrow. Currently, they can also do it when it's just a green ball, but the protected only eliminates that challenging northbound left, southbound left movement that we showed earlier. And then also leading pedestrian intervals to provide better pedestrian visibility so that they can get out into the crosswalk before that next phase. And it's for both the traffic signal alternatives, the right away impacts are it's only temporary limited easement. So that would likely be from the curb ramp reconstruction or temporary signals. So basically that kind of means you're going to be put it, you're going to impact a little bit outside the right away, but you're going to kind of put that back to what the existing conditions are.

Do you want comments on these as you go, or how would you like to handle that?

Maybe we could handle them at the end because we'll kind of walk through a little bit more. We have some property owner meetings, public involvement.

I mean, in today's meeting, anyhow.

Yeah, yep, yep. Okay. And then alternative B, and this is similar to alternative A, the only difference really being the south leg. So this south leg provides additional storage for the northbound left turn movement. So with that protected only phasing, the queues extend and the traffic operations are slightly worse. So this provides additional storage for that high volume northbound left turn and northbound through movements. It also restricts parking along this horizontal curve right here. So currently queues during your peak hours back, you know, along this horizontal curve. So if vehicles are parked currently here, it creates some sight distance issues to be able to see that queue from the intersection. So this restricts that parking to provide better sight distance. And then the final alternative is a roundabout. This one would be a complete reconstruction. Multimodal enhancements include shorter scenes for pedestrians with refuge islands, also curb ramp improvements. This would be lower intersection speeds because how slow vehicles have to travel navigating the roundabout. The big thing here, though, is right away impacts. So there would be right away acquisition necessary in all four quadrants. That's what's shown in the red on the image here. And then also the yellow shows what the construction impacts would likely be outside of the right away impacts. So basically where you have to tie in, you know, it's kind of outside of what your roadway facilities are. So if you look kind of down in this quadrant over here, you can see that it gets into where those gas station pumps are. So that would likely require takings of two of those gas pumps, which when you take multiple pumps from something like a gas station, you have to basically take, potentially take the property because you're impacting how that business operates. Also impacts are very close to the new building, the apartment building here in the northeast quadrant impacts to the parking spaces at CVS and then also impacts in the southwest quadrant. So because of these impacts, right away acquisition and property acquisition is outside the scope of this project. And a reconstruction like this would likely exceed project funding. So we had heard from the public that they wanted us to evaluate a roundabout to see if it was feasible. We did that. And because of the impacts, this alternative isn't feasible and it won't be moved forward with. That's cool, though.

I'm going to guess somebody's going to ask, like, why is the diameter not smaller? And my guess is it has to do with turning radiuses, because I think, is Hampton a truck crux?

That would be a nightmare. I live right there. That would literally... People would die every day.

Yeah, there's a lot more to it than just the right-of-way impacts. You know, yeah, these are both minor arterials. Let's go back to my question. Yeah, they're both minor arterials. So you have to turn trucks through this intersection. And we made the diameter as small as possible that you can have for a single-lane roundabout. So this is the smallest that you could have and still be able to, you know, with the – these roadways being minor facilities, be able to turn trucks.

For the record.

Yeah, I mean, I looked at this and I was like, holy shit.

So I'll just anecdotally, I used to work at a place that had two roundabouts that were brand new. And the first year was awful. And after that, it was wonderful. People get used to it.

I agree with that. And I think roundabouts are useful. I just don't know. There is so much traffic right here already. And I think when people move into that apartment building, I just think... When I saw that, I just thought, oh my, that is, yeah.

Well, it's not going to happen. And the big trucks.

Well, I'm glad to hear that.

I just want to stick up for roundabouts.

No, I disagree with roundabouts. But I just think here, when I saw that, I just started thinking about the number of people and the bikes down over here. And oh, yeah.

Yeah, both of those are good points. I mean, one of the issues with roundabouts is typically when you implement them, you want there to be more than just one in the area. There really isn't any other roundabouts that here so you'd have to put additional signage and like you mentioned the first couple years you're likely going to see increases in crashes there but you typically get lower severity not fatal crashes at right so that's one of the reasons we we looked at it can we go back to a and talk about it sure

Well, I think you have, I think when he was talking about the business meetings, he was referring.

Maybe go to the level of service and a couple others. Yeah, maybe we can get through a few more slides and then we can go back to the alternatives.

Their decisions between the alternatives. That's all.

So this slide here shows the traffic operations. Typically the top line. Graphics here are in the AM peak, so that's 7.30 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. The PM peak, this is from 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Level of service A and B typically represent good traffic operations. Level of service C and D, so that's yellow and orange, that represents acceptable operations, a little bit worse than A and B. And then E and F are usually like your failing operations where you wanna make improvements. So all the different improvements here operate in that level of service B, C to D range. With the traffic signal improvement, those operations are slightly worse. You can see a couple of level of service D movements, and that's because of the protected only movements You know, they don't have the opportunity to make permitted movements. So the operations are slightly worse, but still overall acceptable in all these different alternatives.

So Adam, just to clarify, the center rating, that's an average of all the different turning movements, correct? Because some are higher, some are lower based on where you're turning, but the average is shown in the middle.

Yeah, good clarification. So this is your overall intersection operations for the intersection as a whole. And then all these little arrows are your different movements. So this would be like your northbound through, your northbound right, your northbound left. So you can see which movements operate, you know, poorly.

Is the color like green is better?

Yeah, exactly. It's pretty intuitive. Green's better. You know, yellow is worse. Orange, a little bit worse. If there was level of service E and F, we would put those as like pink and red.

So your argument for decreasing the level of service of that intersection is purely the safety aspects of it.

Correct. Yes.

There will be people who will say, wait, you're going to make it worse.

Yeah, that that makes me really nervous because we've we've gone through an intersection like this. And the reaction was not good to basically downgrade an intersection and make it worse for 90 percent of the people who use that intersection.

Yeah, so, I mean, with any of these improvements, you have your pros and cons, your drawbacks. So, I mean, one of the reasons for this project is it's a highway safety improvement program project. So addressing those angle crash trends. So to kind of what was in the application was to make these left turn movements protected. Now, one of the other things we evaluated was moving the medians to provide more of a positive offset. The issue with that is then you can't turn trucks. Once you shift those medians over, you have a harder time turning trucks. So that's why we landed on these protected movements for your northbound and southbound.

Is Santa Monica a truck route as well as Hampton? I know Hampton is. Is Santa Monica also a truck route?

They're both minor arterials. So they're designated truck routes for the Whitefish Bay. They're not like any WSDOT truck routes. They're not a long truck route. They're not OSOW. They're the village routes.

But you have to treat them the same because they're both minor arterials. They're both.

Correct. Yep. Yep. I would also caution just how we frame this as like make it worse, make it better. Because for 19 people who were involved in car accidents, not insignificant, I'm sure to them, the additional safety, having to wait an extra 10 seconds of light or whatever it may be is not tricky.

When you go from a B to a C, what is that additional wait time?

Yeah, so this level of service A is like a, Zero to 10 seconds. Level of service B is like a 10 to 20 second average delay. Level of service C is 20 to 35 seconds. So it's in and I don't have the actual what the delay is. These are probably pretty close, but you're looking at like like you mentioned, maybe, you know, 10 more seconds on average per at the intersection.

Is this during peak hours when you did your level of service?

Yep. Yep. And this is during your AM and PM peaks. And that's typically what we'll design for, you know, that's when these facilities are being used, you know, we don't, don't design these facilities for, you know, when it's noon or midnight, when people aren't using them, we'll design them for the peaks, you know, when they're, when, when they're being used.

Um, I assume that the current signaling does not have any cameras, radar, looping, any of that stuff, and the new one will.

Yeah, so it does have detection, but that was one of the, with public involvement and property owners, one of the things that they mentioned was that the detection doesn't work great. A lot of the issues people had mentioned was they'll be at that northbound left turn lane and they won't get an arrow. So the detection's not working properly. That'll be added as part of this project. And that will help improve some of the operations as well. That's harder to model, you know, detection deficiencies, I guess you could say. But detection improvement will help as well.

So when you give out grades, you are evaluating detection and how it will flow better.

Well, in the existing conditions, we aren't really... we're showing it operating with detection as well. It's not capturing that missing detection, I guess.

You're probably using real data though, right? You're using actual data for existing conditions. So whatever the detection is or is not working, it was actual versus giving it a grade of C is a theoretical grade.

Yeah, so we're taking turning movement counts. So however many vehicles actually made these movements during our peak hours when we evaluated it, those are the volumes we're putting into the models to determine these delay level of service queue lengths.

Can I ask another question? And it was on the... option A map, probably option B as well. You have bike lanes on three of the four corners. And they immediately terminate because we don't have big bike lanes 100 feet away from that. Can you explain what's... How does that help? And it seems like it is to the detriment of like a right turn, like a westbound car trying to make a right turn now cannot do that because there's potentially a bike lane there and there's not, I don't think you can get three cars abreast. So, so first question is, why are there bike lanes there when they terminate 100 feet away, like what, what is that so to answer that it's it's to help the bicyclist navigate the intersection, to be able to get through the intersection.

Yes, they do terminate, but, you know, navigating an intersection is where you have a lot of your conflicts. So helping them being able to navigate where they need to go through the intersection is helpful. Also Hampton Avenue is on the sewer packs bike designation route. So although there aren't bike lanes there now, it's on the long-term planning to add bike lanes there.

Let me just ask the question then. So if you're a car trying to take a right turn going north, right?

Yep.

Is there space for three cars abreast right here? There is now. There is now. There's a left turn lane, a through lane.

And it's... You're on Santa Monica going north?

Yeah, so it'd be your same... You're on Hampton and you want to take a right turn.

Oh, I see. It'd be your same footprint that you have.

Same footprint. Except now there's a bike lane there. Well... Yeah, so if there's a... It's not a protected bike lane. It's just... Yep.

So if there's a biker there and you need to turn right, you would have to yield to them.

But that's not going to stop... Well, I'm curious, though, in the modeling, you know, you're probably saying... right turn actions are not going to happen because you're just, I assume you're going to assume that there's a bike lane there. You can't freely take a right and go north.

Yeah. So we model this like it would operate. So either of these have, like you said, they have a, they're wide enough lanes to be able to make that right turn. So in our models, we put very small right turn lanes in there to make it what it's, how it's actually going to, so it's pavement marked as a through right, but it actually operates as a very small right turn. That's how we'll model it. And

there are a lot of bikers that use this intersection but it's not a high enough volume to you know really change the how that'll operate okay yeah i would say one if we do this we absolutely especially don't stand model because should be extending the bike lanes they make a huge difference especially when you're kind of in that tight space but also You can always take a right-hand turn lane. Whether there's a bike lane or not there, a biker will still be there when there's an actual human body that you can't take the right-hand turn.

I was always just wondering, why have 100 feet of bike lane when you don't have 1,000 feet? But I totally get the explanation now.

Yeah, and it's for that future connectivity as well. So I've got a few more slides here, mainly public involvement and stakeholder outreach. So we had our operation planning meeting on May 20th. That's where we invite utilities, stakeholders, and then elected officials to give them some project background, let them know that this project is occurring. We had our public involvement meeting on June 24th, which I'll go into more on the next slide, and then property owner meetings on Thursday. We're at the public works meeting now, and then we'll be presenting this at the village board meeting in August. So at the public involvement meeting, the major sentiment was support for intersection improvement aimed at enhancing safety and operations. Some of the residents used this intersection as motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Some of the concerns that were raised were regarding red light running and disregard for traffic control. Visibility concerns were identified for northbound and southbound left turn movements similar to what I had showed earlier in the presentation. Traffic signal alternative B was mainly preferred among attendees. There was a small number that supported the roundabout, but most participants opposed that.

Is there anything in here that addresses the red light running?

Yeah, so that's a good question. So you get red light running kind of from a couple different scenarios. One is the people that see that it's red and they're going to run that intersection no matter what. From an engineering standpoint, that one is hard to address. That's more on the enforcement side. The other, which we've seen more over the last 15 years, is distracted drivers not seeing the red. They might be distracted looking at their phone. And that's where the lane-designated signal heads, the high-visibility reflective backplates help that for, you know, putting that signal right over where they're about to drive to kind of help some of that red light running if it's from distracted drivers. From the people that are, you know, disregarding it from an engineering standpoint, that's harder to...

Yeah, let's see. Could you back up one slide? Just that one. Yeah, that visibility concerns identified for both northbound south, the left turns. I agree with that one there. And did these 19 accidents, were they daytime or nighttime mostly?

I'd have to look back at the traffic or at the crash analysis. I'm not sure. I think most of them were during the day.

Because in your enhancements, I didn't see anything but better lighting.

Yeah, so that's a good point that there will be intersection lighting as part of the project.

I mean, it's kind of dark right now. I know when I make a left turn, it's like, where is that little island divide when I want to go north on from Hampton to going north on Santa Monica? Correct. It is hard to see in that, so...

Just quickly adding, because on page 13, it does have little designations of the timing. I think it's like four of them were DRK, which is dark. Oh, I missed that. Okay. You got to zoom, zoom, weigh in.

Okay, okay. Yeah, and there will be intersection lighting included as part of the project, too, for the intersection.

So that will be addressed.

Yeah, yep, yep. That's a good addition. Yep, that will be included, yeah. So the first property owner meeting we had was with the gas station here. The gas station currently has four driveways to access its property. So we met with them to see if it was possible to potentially close a couple of the driveways that are within the functional area of the intersection. Unfortunately, they recently reconfigured their gas station within the last few years where they put new tanks here and then added two additional pumps. And they did that with anticipating having these driveway openings here and here for tankers to be able to get in and out of their property. So after meeting with them, it was Pretty clear we wouldn't be able to close these driveways, but they were open to adjusting them. So shifting the driveways a little bit further away from the intersection. And this is important because we're going to have reconstructed curb ramps. That isn't just one curb ramp down the middle. It'll be one going kind of one direction, one the other, and then the traffic signal on the outside of that. So we need a little bit more additional space there. So they were open to modifying their driveways, but not the closures altogether. And then the second property owner meeting we had was for the funeral home here. And the main reason because of that is, although we're adding additional storage here, we have a lot of design considerations as far as traffic operations, safety, multimodal accommodations. Another one is parking. So with that additional storage here, there is removal of the on-street parking in front of the funeral home. So we met with them, and some of the concerns that they raised is that they experience challenging to exit their parking lot during peak hours to travel northbound. They expressed concerns with this northbound left turn arrow that, you know, vehicles exiting their parking lot will sit here for multiple cycles without getting an arrow. They expressed concerns about people kind of cutting the corner on this horizontal curve. They were interested in adding additional storage as shown in alternative B here, but not giving up the parking.

How much parking would they lose?

They would lose approximately from the exit between alternative A and B would be five spots. So from the existing condition, it would be seven spots. So that's the on-street parking they would lose. Right.

So they're going to lose some parking regardless. It's just five more if you go to B.

Yes. Because right now, your taper lengths don't meet standards. So that's why that difference between the existing seven parking spots, alternative A and five parking spots. Um, so one thing we're going to look into more, you know, we just had this meeting on Thursday with the property owners is if there's a way to add some parking spaces here, um, kind of in front of their carriage walks, um, and still keep this storage. So that's something we're going to evaluate further, but you know, for each improvement, you know, there's, there's pros and cons. So there, there's not always a silver bullet that everybody can kind of get, you know,

There was the reason when you look at alternative A, I was looking at the bike lane is pretty wonky. How it kind of, is that because it's going around parking spots?

Yeah. Yeah. And with this alternative, you know, you would get, you know, your queuing would be significantly longer along Santa Monica as well. Because you're adding that protected northbound left, you're kind of shortening your storage here. So this would worsen operations as well, this alternative A.

Can I ask, and this is across both A and B, at the top of the graphic, it appears as though where I imagine the streetlight will be, there's like a physical concrete barrier. Is that recurve? Yeah, right there.

Yeah, this here.

Okay. I'm curious. is that it seems more difficult on this side versus on the south side of Santa or Santa Monica, but is there any way that could just be bumped up a little and turned into some sort of refuge for pedestrian refuge? It just seems like if you are not on a bike, if you are not in a car, this intersection hasn't changed that much. You're still walking the same distances.

Yep.

Yeah. So, so technically to get pedestrian refuge, you need six feet, um, which is like face the curb to face the curb. And this just isn't wide enough. Um, some of the issues with bumping this up is it makes it harder for your truck turning as well. The further you raise this, I mean, you, you could potentially raise it up here, but it wouldn't, it wouldn't be considered pedestrian refuge. Like you couldn't put a push button in there. Um, Yeah, and then it makes it more challenging for the truck turning. But, I mean, we could potentially, we would have to look at that a little closer. If we could shift it, it wouldn't actually be a refuge. So you're kind of giving pedestrians a little bit of a false sense of security there, maybe.

What about shifting the crosswalk itself further south so that it intersects that non-refuge area?

Yeah. So, so when you shift the crosswalks further away from the intersection, it's more, it's harder to see for turning vehicles, those pedestrians. So the farther you get away from the intersection, you kind of, when you're making the turn, you anticipate to see them. The further you get away from that, it's, it creates a little bit harder visual. So we try and keep those as tight to the intersection as we can. Also, then it creates longer splits, worse operations. If you move your crosswalks down, you need to move your stop bar down. That increases your yellow time, your red times. So it hurts the overall intersection operations as well.

It does not be a good intersection to have a skywalk for the pedestrian.

And another reason we didn't look at adding pedestrian refuge is the crossings aren't significantly long. You know that where we... When we were out on site, you know, doing our counts, you know, we didn't see pedestrians having a challenging time making it from one end to the other in their walk, flash note walk intervals. You know, if that was the case on like a, you know, if it was like a larger intersection, then we might consider pedestrian refuge to give them, you know, a point to stop.

Well, I was, you know, it's on both sides, but I was especially looking at the, on the The south side of Santa Monica, it appears as though there is a little bit of space that's reserved for parking. I didn't know if it would make sense to maybe remove a few spots in front of the new apartment building and just make a wider... It doesn't have to be a refuge. I just see the intersection and it looks... I know a lot of work has gone into it and I'm not trying to be demeaning in any way, but it just seems if you are walking a stroller or have a couple of kids, like this intersection is broadly the same.

Yeah, and that is also one of the challenges too when you look at, if you're talking like here, like a bump out, that's one of the drawbacks is then you don't have, it's harder for your trucks to turn once again. So if you did put that bump out, you wouldn't be able to turn your trucks. And then also with a lot of these bump outs too, they'd be buying for the same space as your bicycle facilities. So like for this North or South Lake here going North bound, if you had a bump out here, then you wouldn't have your bike lane. So we're trying to weigh, you know, kind of these different multimodal accommodations with what we heard at the public involvement meeting with a lot of bikers, what we saw with a lot of bikers at, um, um, You know, during our traffic counts of a lot of different age bikers and then also with what what's in the sewer pack long term planning for this for Hampton Avenue.

It's not a great intersection. I mean, there's a, I, there's, I travel it every day, multiple times and, you know, between the restaurants that are there and the people that sit here, those apartments that are there that have people with kids and strollers and dogs and bikers. And now these new apartments and the traffic at CVS and this gas station and the BP and the Oakleaf trail. I mean, it's, It's a lot. And at nighttime, it's not as bad because there aren't so many people using the Oak Leaf Trail and the people with the kids and the strollers certainly are in and stuff. So it doesn't seem as harrowing, but like in the mornings and at lunchtime and at after work time, it's, you know, there are people that live down here that walk their kids to Cumberland and back and some of them that ride their bikes and their scooters. And it is, yeah, there's a lot that you're trying to fix. in that area where there isn't any extra property to fix. You know, like if you could make the lanes wider, like you said, that would be great. But between the gas station, the dry cleaner, and then now this new apartment building, there's really nothing. I mean, CVS, you could probably take some of their parking. It wouldn't, be as bad of a thing.

They may not like that.

Well, they might not like it, but I will say sometimes that parking in the front that gets used the least, you know, like that's the last thing you could probably take some of it, but when it comes to right away, the trucks that are turning and the, I just,

So I guess two comments from my perspective, that would be a hundred percent on the village for any right away acquisition that would not be split 90, 10. So that would be directly out of the village funds and that would have to be negotiated with attorneys. And when you're talking about a big corporation, that would be a thing. We did early on look at bump outs. That was one of our ultimate goals is pedestrian safety with this. So Adam's team helped me out with visually showing truck movements. And I think you put it very well with that false sense of security. Because if you think of these larger truck movements, the back tires, and we have this in some of our village intersections, start to roll onto the pedestrian intersection. And we don't want that false sense of security where even if it becomes a bump out, God forbid a truck driver doesn't manage that appropriately. And you have people that are actually at the crosswalk waiting for their turn. Now you're having a very dangerous competing demand between the two. So I do appreciate your staff looking into it. And it just was too tight of a corridor to lessen that walking lane of our crossings over there. But we did look at that as part of our preliminary investigation. I appreciate knowing that it was looked at.

Can I ask... Currently, there are four concrete medians in the middle of each leg.

There's one on the south, the east, and the north.

Am I getting it? Yeah, there's three. There's three and not four?

There's not one on the west.

Right, right, right. Okay. I'm looking at Google Maps. Is that going to remain three or go to four?

The south and the east. One definitely will because of those driveways that we aren't able to close. One of the things we don't want to do is remove those and then people get through the intersection and then they're waiting.

to make a left turn into those might remove the north the north one could potentially be modified that's the only one that because there's no driveways up there i have no i i i'm just asking the question you know it is i think you could stand there it is kind of a refuge spot um it's not But I just, I always think of the, if we're constrained by truck movements, that we also have artificially put these concrete medians there. I get the one in front of the gas station because you got to prevent turning movements into it, but.

Yeah, and it's a lot of your right turning movements into that, not going into your opposing movement. So even if you remove that median, that's going to be like a left turn lane. And you can't go into your opposing left turn lane if they're trying to make that turn too.

So then my next question, I'm sorry, this is kind of going back a little bit. I just want to talk about detection again. So we currently have, and just a vocabulary thing, when you say a protected left, that means a left arrow, right? Correct. Yes. And so we currently have just one, and we're going to go to four? Correct, yes. And for detection purposes, those left arrows won't be triggered unless there's a car that desires to turn left.

Correct.

Okay, and that's 24 hours a day?

Yes, yep. Just to follow up, just to clarify, because I think that is an important question. So previously with intersection projects, we have car counts done in order to have basically traffic counts for your peak hours. And those peak hours are dictated with common occurrences of left turn movements or through traffic as a law of average. And it's basically based on timing, right? So our other intersections would be different based on your response to that, that sometimes Hampton, Santa Monica would be more detection based with that left turn movement based on the technology versus historically it's been based on traffic engineering counts for the law of averages that's on timing. So I just want to make sure we clarify that because those are two separate things that we have in the village.

Yeah. So we'll put what are called volume density parameters into this traffic signal timings. So like for your left turns, you'll have like a minimum traffic minimum time that it'll be served and then a maximum time that it can't serve so if it's you know if there's a car that comes over and there's only one car like maybe for like your eastbound left westbound left which are lower volumes you know that'll have like a min green time of something short like five seconds then it'll be it's yellow and red and then it'll terminate is it it's and it's beneficial to have a minimum instead of just zero like if it's one car let them Well, they need, they need time. They need green time to be able to navigate through the intersection.

Right. But if you gave them a green light and a flashing yellow arrow, you know, I mean, we're not doing flashing yellows though. We're just doing. Well, yeah. So here, maybe I'll finish this and then, so yeah.

So, I mean, you'll have, and then if vehicles continue to actuate that your green time will be extended to your max screen. Um, so it's basically, if there's, if there's more vehicles there, it'll get served until it's max screen time. Um, if it's only one vehicle, it'll have a shorter min green time.

Okay. I mean, I, and like, I, you guys probably have algorithms and detection systems that like, I, we don't, I'm sure they work great. I'm sure they're there to optimize traffic flow.

Does it adjust though? Or is it based, is that amount of time based on its initial capture of who is there at the intersection when it turns green? Or does it adjust if a car comes?

Yeah, it'll keep, it's called gapping out. So like, let's say vehicles keep coming if there's a gap and it's usually set at like two seconds. If a vehicle passes over that within the two seconds and it's still underneath its max screen time, it'll keep extending that screen. Okay.

Do you do, I think there's two different ways of doing it where you have, let's say, east and westbound, and both of them have people who want to take lefts. Do you let the lefts go and then turn it green, or do you let one side do the lefts? What do you?

Yeah, probably how we'll phase it is we'll have the lefts occur. The lefts. Happen concurrently. Because when we looked at our truck turning, they're able to make those turns concurrently. Otherwise, you'd have to have what you'd call lead light phasing, where you'd have to have the one left turn and then the left turn at the end of the opposite through phase. Yeah.

is that detective, is that sensitive to, let's say, this side has 10 cars who wants to turn left and this has one. And so this one's going to hold the left turn. Well, this will let left turns go and then maybe turn the light green.

Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, if you have one part, the end, because then it'll give it's because you're opposing movement for your left turns as you're through movement. So once the one, like let's say you're eastbound, then it would go to your westbound through once that terminates.

So yeah, it'll be based on the- Mark intersection, love it.

Okay, so last slide here. And then any other questions we can get to, schedule. Where we're at is, we've had a lot of our data gathering, traffic analysis. We had our operation planning meeting, PIM, public works meeting. As we mentioned, we have the village board meeting coming up. After we get a lot of that direction, you know, from these different meetings, stakeholders will continue with preliminary design, get a lot of the environmental document completed by the end of the year. A lot of the design study reports, traffic management plan right away exhibits 60% plans by the end of the year. Then next year is when we would do the temporary limited easement acquisition. and final design in 2027. Final PS&E for this project, so that's plan, specs and estimate is August 1st, 2027 with a let in December of 2027 and then construction in 2028.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm gonna miss all those. Are you?

You can miss it anytime. Yeah, there's plenty of seats.

No, I mean, sorry, I'm not gonna be living near the fix. By that point, it does look, we're not going to fix all the problems, but I have to say it does look like it will help some of the problems. And if you can fix that situation, not you specifically, the Royal U can fix the problem with the Oakleaf Trail that We'll be, I mean, that is, whee, I keep waiting there.

Yeah, but that's not.

I know it's not us, but I just keep.

I will say that that was a lot of the public comments was beyond our project scope. It wasn't part of the applications. Now within the village of Whitefish Bay, as we all know, but I will say that the city of Milwaukee has been very open to those conversations. Even when we were talking about this project, I just said out loud, is there any opportunity to look at that and create a synergy between this project and a future project? And they came back with yes. So they're actually spending real money on conceptual funds with Strand because then this agency, Strand, is able to see our project with the future project to make sure it's copacetic together. So kudos to the city of Milwaukee that understand this is a good opportunity. And I think there's going to be grant dollars because that's TAP grants for multimodal transportation, pedestrians, bikes. There's a lot of nuances that they're going to have to look at that it's going to take some time, but at least it's a willingness to say, okay, this is our primary project, but hopefully in the future we can synergize and really fix that other issue.

Because sometimes what happens there during these peak traffic times is people stop for all the people at the Oak Leaf Trail, which they are not supposed to do and just makes my blood boil, but what they still do it. And then it backs up through the light. So, you know, and then you're, that's it. Yeah. It doesn't just impact that section, though. It carries all the way through. That's why doing them together makes total sense. I mean, one is causing problems for the other.

I agree. I agree.

so mad when people are they're like they think they're being nice but then like you see yes almost accidents happen and there was an accident this morning yes it's not i'm not trying to be a meanie but it's like oh i can see in my rearview mirror this isn't good this question maybe isn't for you but it's just it's maybe for the committee and in that

We're looking at this intersection through 2026 eyes, and it very much makes me wonder what will be the four tenants in 20 years, in 30 years, in five years. We just had one tenant change, but it really wouldn't surprise me if... that those three corners are very valuable. CBS won't keep it. I've heard, I mean, there's always rumors about all of these things, but the bottom line is those properties are pretty valuable. And at some point, somebody is going to pick one off. And so it makes me think, are we designing this? We're certainly designing it for what we have today because what else are we going to do? But is there any pause? Is there any thought of what would happen if CVS wasn't that, and it was a three-story apartment building, which may have a lot less traffic. And that would be good. But I don't know. I'm just reminding everyone that this intersection will look a lot different in x years. I don't know what that does for us.

But I think as long as this is a route that's traversed by trucks, we are going to be limited in what we can do. And I think you're right. If CVS does become apartments, even though there'd be more people living there, there'd be a lot less inbound traffic. And I don't think you could design a worse parking lot. Or it could be a CVS on the bottom and three stories of... That might be, yeah. I wouldn't be surprised to see it makes sense.

But there isn't anything, I mean, there isn't any hardscape or anything here that is limiting. You're right. We haven't done anything that makes it... harder to do any particular thing on any particular.

And with those developments too, there's typically a TIA where if you have some development going in, you know, they'll, they should be evaluating the intersection as well to see what improvements need to be made because of that added potential traffic from development.

So do you need feedback from us on the A or B? Maybe we haven't really discussed that.

How does A and B get chosen? Who's choosing that in the next... You said you were proposing this to the village board.

Yeah, I think, I mean, where we're heading right now with the public involvement is probably alternative B. This would really back traffic up further on Santa Monica and the Wilson Drive. I think what we're going to be looking at next is if we can still accommodate parking somewhere here. Kind of what we've heard from the public property owners, you know, this is the... Preferred alternative, you know, making traffic operations worse, which is kind of what I think I've heard from you guys today is, you know, something you don't want to do as well, which is what would happen in alternative A. So I guess kind of what we've heard from everyone is alternative B, I guess, would be preferred alternative.

Quick question. Is this just a little typo? Here you have this, you know, through, you can go north and you can go east, but here you don't have that. Is that just an A? Yeah, that should be a through, right? It should be. Those markings will stay the same A and B. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thanks.

I'm not trying to play hardball, but just to make sure I understand correctly, the parking we're talking about losing for the funeral home is owned by the village, right? It's not the funeral home's parking. Correct.

This is on-street parking that is the village. And that's something when we get into alternatives on what we can do here, you know... one of the potential options is having like a almost like pocket parking, like similar South on Wilson drive, you know, that would be the village paying for, or, you know, as part of this project, which there's funding for to provide that parking here could be a potential alternative. Otherwise, you know, it would be just eliminating parking because I mean, it is, it is the villages on street parking. Yes. It's not, it's not the funeral homes parking. That is a good distinction.

I just wanted to make sure we were paying.

More takings or more? Nope. Nope. This is all within the roadway right away. Yep.

We do need a TLE though, correct? From the funeral home? No, not from the funeral home.

Okay. Yep. TLE will likely be required for the four intersection quadrants.

Oh, okay.

That's the gas station, CVS, apartments, and dry cleaners.

Okay. What is a TLE? A temporary limited easement. So you would need their approval. So if there was parking changes or such, that could be a challenge if you need a TLE.

Basically for the constructability, even if you're doing like sidewalk within the right-of-way, if their equipment encroaches or sits on that private property, we technically don't have that authority unless we get the TLE. So it's very temporary during the construction and I think it's put back and restored after.

And for village projects, yeah, you can have construction permits, but since this is a DOT project, we have to get the temporary limited easement and we have to make a right-of-way exhibit for it since it has the federal funding.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions?

So as far as the next meeting, I, again, it's looking like alternative B would be part of that. I guess we'll look for guidance of, do we want to do the same type of presentation? What type of formal action are we looking for going into the village board meeting just from a timing standpoint? So I guess we'll have that conversation and Adam will be back to either give a mini presentation or the same volume that we just did. Yeah. Yep.

all right thanks everybody thank you very much we got time thank you all right thanks thank you all right uh moving on to our next agenda item um matt again to you up on our changes potential changes to the turf management

Yes, this one is pretty straightforward as far as a turf management plan. For those that might not be aware, back in 2015, the village adopted a turf management plan just to give guidance and guidelines to how the village green spaces parks are managed with our operations staff. Since that time, there's been notes regarding future improvements that have such have now happened. And we have also hired one of our DPW service workers had been promoted to a facilities technician that put more eyes and ears within our green spaces and parks too. So for those reasons, it looked like this was an appropriate time to clean up some language and create consistencies, as well as actually have the exhibits that were referenced, but never were attached within the turf management plan. So especially with Quality Park undergoing substantial improvements from an ecological restoration, stormwater management, the addition of hundreds of trees, this just made sense from a maintenance standpoint just to make sure that our parks are maintained equitably across the board and cleaning up some of that language for our staff to be more successful with landscape maintenance and improvements. So with that, since this is a formal plan, we want to make sure that the Public Works Committee reviews and evaluates the red line version, as well as the clean version that's right behind there, just for us to be successful with long-term maintenance of this turf management plan.

Anyone have questions or comments about the red line?

The only question I have is, particularly in section D, parks and fences, there's a few other places, I think. The old language always mentioned roundup. The new language just abbreviates it to herbicide. Can you tell me why we're keeping it generic? And then does that mean more aggressive than Roundup, less aggressive? Like herbicide just seems like a much more wishy-washy term.

No, that's a great question. Roundup in my world is very trademarked. So it's just that when you're dealing with formal documents like this, I rather prefer to use something that's more generic for that reason is because the village might have a cheaper product than Roundup and it has all the same types of components that make up the Roundup. So it doesn't make sense to try to pigeonhole into one versus more broad. The ultimate goal is the same in my mind of how we manage that is just how to treat the landscape maintenance around there. And it could be that and it could be something different, but it just seemed like since we were cleaning this up, it just seemed not appropriate to use trademark names within a document.

That makes total sense. Have all those issues with that KL detention basin been resolved? Isn't that mentioned in there to be managed naturally?

Yeah, so with that, I believe that that's on section A sub I with the Cahill Lower Pond area will be considered for a turf plan. So since that's long been passed, it didn't make sense to have any mention of that because it was almost like future tense. So since the ball field was done, the detention basin was completed, I just thought it'd be more cleanest to strike that and... manage it as is.

But to answer your question, yes. I mean, you cut it back. Is it twice a year? I forgot how many times. You have an internal process.

We do, yes.

And then it does say to be managed naturally at B4 Cahill Detention Basin to be managed naturally.

And that's still in there. Well, yeah, does that preclude using whatever we used?

It naturally does preclude.

Yeah, we just physically cut the cattails. We don't treat them.

Just to keep it in the existing.

Yes. Annual.

It just seems appropriate since it's going straight into MMSD.

I want to clarify, we're not cutting all the cattails. We only just cut it to maintain the existing footprint. There's no proposal to change from what we did last year.

That's correct. In the last section, it talks about the village may increase mowing regimen during dandelion season and we'll schedule weed and feed so as not to spray events yada yada um we we do increase the mowing regimen right i mean we isn't that kind of a consistent thing we do our staff does weekly mowing uh within these areas uh and medians included with the dandelions so

I'm just saying from an operational standpoint, I have not seen that they have the ability to increase mowing during dandelion. Now this gives us the opportunity to do so, but we just haven't had the staff because every day of the week, Monday through Friday is completely full for mowing all our green spaces. So we just, that's when the grass is growing the most. We can't bypass one area to mow another area that we're maxed out with our mowers.

Yeah, I get it. I just, if it's something we've, We wish we did. You know what I mean? We're putting it in here as if we have the option to. And I think there are residents who would say, please do this.

Personally, I didn't want to go too crazy with this. Yeah. And I didn't want to make too much red line changes unless it was something that really would benefit our staff and create the consistencies with the intent of the plan.

That's fine. So the only other thing that, that occurred a year and a half, two years ago, which was the knotweed at Clody, which was, which we kind of deemed as like a project that, Is there language in here that basically allows us to have one-off projects?

Yes, and that's where that included. It's a substantial document. I think for the village board, if this goes to the village board, I'm going to create a link because it's just such a big document. But part of the turf management plan for Clody Park that's included with this does talk about treating long-term the Japanese knotweed. Because even I talked to our consultants today, he was out there physically removing bales of Japanese knotweed, that that's going to be an ongoing thing. It's not going to be...

Yeah, obviously it codified as long as we've... So that's great that that's codified. What I was trying to get to is... having, we, we, we went through a process through this committee where we invited the West Bay Garden Club to chime in on, should we do this? And, and, and so to have some form of catch-all of, as projects occur, because didn't you, you and I were having this conversation down at Clody Beach like three, a month ago. And I can't remember what, it wasn't knotweed. It was something else that was invasive. Thistle. And how should we use pesticides for thistle? All I'm suggesting is that we should have a method where we can do projects like that on a one-off basis. This would do that.

This would give our staff the ability, especially with the landscape beds at Quality Park, to have multiple tools in our toolbox to treat this old... It would be for the park. So it's already labeled in Cahill Park with the landscape beds and it differentiates everything. So the red line version basically gives our staff opportunity to treat thistle as needed or any type of invasive. So again, this is very minor changes, but it'd be major impacts as far as our operational efficiencies that we have the tools in our toolbox going forward.

Anything else? You do not need any action on this, correct?

Yes. I believe there would be. I make a motion to recommend to the Village Board of Visions to the turf management plan as outlined in the attached memo and exhibits.

All in favor?

Aye. All right. Could this be a consent or do you want this as an agenda item? Consent.

And then our last is public, I mean, status reports. Any questions about anything in the status reports? Anything you specifically want to highlight?

No, no highlights for us. I mean, construction season's upon us. We've got a lot on our plate, but everything is moving forward.

Awesome.

Yeah, I think everything is basically labeled in red in the packet.

Awesome.

Sounds like the salt storage agreement is going forward. And so have you been starting to think about what you're going to do with the salt storage area? Just dry storage for machinery?

Our existing you're referring to? Yeah, that's our intent is dry storage, cold storage for our equipment. That was the original intent.

we'll still keep some level of salt there because we don't want to be measuring small tonnage on the way back. It just wouldn't be efficient. So there will be some salt there.

And this is actually a question maybe for, well, a clarifying question. It could be for Kelsey. In your Friday memo, you mentioned a pathway that was completed. And I assume, but it mentioned it was a schoolhouse park pathway. And I'm like, wait a minute. Library part.

Sorry, library part. Okay, good.

I just want to make sure we all. Is there something new that I missed?

So we're getting there. We're about halfway. We're done with the base course. And then you can see where the red granite is starting to be capped. So we're dealing with some other operational things this week. So I don't know if we'll be able to finish it up. But hopefully sooner than later, we'll be able to.

And this is a possibility in the turf management plan. We had schoolhouse park as two word. Do we just use one? Whatever it is, I don't care. It just needs to be consistent. Maybe our in turn, look up the history of how many times we've used both terms because we've done that.

We've done that exercise when we made the sign through the Historic Preservation Commission. It's that we went back and it's one word. So change the turf management plan to one word. One word.

All right. Anything else? Otherwise, I would look for a motion. Motion to adjourn.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I will not second it.

Yeah, this this where did I see this? Just trying to find it. I'm sorry. The. Uh, the Colfax, uh, going the modification on that Marlboro and Colfax, they're actually going to put in the permanent stuff now.

Yes, that's gonna be coming up. I'd say in the next week or 2 that we wanted to get over the 4th of July.

But yes, our contractors to be able to discussion before we had on that. They were going to move that not make it. So. It was to move those. Yeah, narrow it so you'd be easier to make a right turn for Marlboro.

Yes, I believe that is part of the plan. I'll triple check before we get...

I haven't seen any modifications on that.

Right, yes.

I hope they have.

I'll triple check for you, Jim, on that one. But thank you for the reminder about the right turn. Thank you for bringing that up, yeah.

For our two members who are not also on the Village Board, on Monday, the Village Board will be reviewing the initial design concepts for Clody. And I just wanted to mention, for the warming house there, I wanted to mention it because originally our intent was to bring it to this meeting. And then with the schedule and they're still working through the designs, we haven't seen them either. We were going to go straight to Village Board because we didn't want to slow up the project. But I would encourage you guys to watch that meeting and stay in the loop with that.

All right.

I will second the English.

All in favor? Aye. All right. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.