[0:00] I'm going to have this village.

[0:07] » I'm calling the plan commission of the village across plains September 8th,

[0:12] 2026 to order. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Johnson

[0:17] » here. >> Commissioner Thus,

[0:20] Commissioner Cree. >> Commissioner Hillbrand

[0:23] » here. >> Commission or Trusty Rochious

[0:25] » here. >> Trusty Calibator

[0:27] » here. President Langfeld >> here. Please stand for pledge of

[0:30] allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:35] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:41] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[0:49] » All right, we're at public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone to address

[0:53] the plan commission on any issue. Please observe a time limit of 3 minutes while

[0:58] the plan commission encourages input from residents and may not discuss or

[1:02] act on any issue that is not newly noticed on the agenda.

[1:08] All right. Do we have anybody that would like to speak

[1:18] here? Go to general business. Approval of the minutes from the July 6,

[1:25] 2026 plan commission meeting. >> Make a motion to approve the July 6,

[1:30] 2026 plan commission meeting. I'll second.

[1:35] » All right. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

[1:40] All in favor say I. >> I.

[1:43] » I. All oppose same. So move. Uh, I think I need a motion to move number two to

[1:50] the bottom of the agenda since we don't have six people.

[1:57] » All right. >> What's that?

[2:00] » Go ahead. >> I have a motion and a second.

[2:02] Discussion. >> I was just going to tell them why we're

[2:06] doing it, but >> Okay. Go ahead. Because we don't have

[2:09] the six votes. >> Three votes and he's running away.

[2:16] Okay. >> All right.

[2:17] » Yeah. All in favor say I. >> All oppose. Same. So move.

[2:25] » All right. Discussion regarding the rep family development proposals

[2:31] highway KP and east of Hills way. I see Dave's on on the internet. Do you want

[2:37] to go ahead and start? >> Sure. [clears throat] Sure. I'm not sure

[2:43] if this is being presented up on the screen or not, but I sent Carly sort of

[2:47] a package uh a little bit to kind of cover off what we'd like to at least

[2:52] discuss tonight. Um I know we met uh back in June, I believe, just to get

[2:57] some different guidance from the village. Uh we've met with the township,

[3:02] so we're just trying to come back to to get a little bit better of an

[3:05] understanding um before we kind of go down a path. It

[3:09] is just to let you know it is looking like we're we as a family of four

[3:14] myself, my brother Bob Raj who is right there in Cross Plains and Jenny are

[3:19] looking to to sell these four parcels. Um one of the parcels is a village

[3:24] parcel and the other three are township parcels. Um so we wanted to discuss that

[3:30] this evening.

[3:33] So, I'm not sure what slide you're looking at, but um I I can kind of

[3:41] I don't know. Can we share screen with him?

[3:44] » Uh either that or I could >> Dave, it's up. You should be able to see

[3:50] it. >> Yeah, I was gonna say it.

[3:51] » Oh, it is up. >> I'm trying to see which too many screens

[3:56] up. Um hold on a second. I apologize if I

[4:02] kill it. Uh okay. So are you seeing the second

[4:07] slide? >> Yeah.

[4:09] » Okay. So um again tonight really like I said we're looking to just understand uh

[4:16] sort of our where we can uh take this relative to uh the land itself. Um we're

[4:23] kind of going through um looking to understand both the village and the

[4:28] township's um sort of jurisdictions on it for for a potential future owner or

[4:34] or a person who buys it. Um like I said, there's four parcels. Um we're not

[4:40] coming to try to do any resoning or annexation or any of that today. We're

[4:45] really just trying to get a better understanding of what we can communicate

[4:49] uh to a potential buyer of the land for either themselves as one estate lot or

[4:54] possibly three to five estate homes on that land. Um we've actually cleared a

[5:01] piece of the land sort of if you will the easement that goes up to the uh

[5:06] piece that's part of Glacial Oaks uh which is already kind of zoned for

[5:10] residential rural residential zoning. and the other it would actually allow to

[5:15] get into the other three pieces um as part of a part of the the plan to kind

[5:21] of uh showcase the land. Um like I said, it's 35 total acres. There's four

[5:28] separate parcels. Um and I'm thinking if you're looking, you'll see the numbers

[5:32] one through four. The the parcel one is actually a village parcel, which right

[5:37] now is, you know, most of this land is all um used. It has been used for deer

[5:43] hunting and such. Um we've gone up there. We played paintball up there as

[5:46] kids and done a lot of different things up there. Used to have an apple orchard

[5:49] up there. Um but again, if you look, we're trying to basically on that uh

[5:55] parcel 4, there's a um easement that was built into the land as part of um that

[6:03] that parcel to allow access into um those then other three parcels that were

[6:10] required. quite a few years ago. Okay. Um if I move forward, so like I

[6:18] said that um that glacial Oaks estate that's the plot um number four has a 66

[6:25] foot strip along the part the parcel running from Gills Way north to the

[6:31] parcels one, two, and three. And you know it's expressed in the actual uh

[6:36] title and um appraisal of that lot to be there for reserve for public future road

[6:44] um dedication. And as we are looking at it, we would look at that as being like

[6:49] one straight shot up into the land with a turnaround uh to be able to allow for

[6:55] different uh public vehicles if necessary to get in there uh as well as

[6:59] turn around up in that area to serve, if you will, those four different uh lots,

[7:05] if you will. Um we did look and check in on the percent the grade percent the

[7:11] road um in terms of the grade it does um it does fall within that maximum grade

[7:17] it's actually less than that and then we've also looked into um the electrical

[7:22] and and access easements if you will for for the power lines as well as um other

[7:27] access up there as well as a water tower that's up there which actually has a

[7:31] different road that actually accesses that

[7:35] and feel free to stop me with any questions as we as we go through this.

[7:40] So, like I said, we're we're trying to to best use the land uh in the sense of

[7:46] not high density at all. Really, we would ideally love to find one one buyer

[7:51] that would want all that the whole the whole 35 acres build on build on it and

[7:57] then be able to have that other land, you know, accessible for that use by

[8:01] that one buyer. However, we are trying to get just in a general understanding

[8:06] um as we talked to both the village and the township of the ability to

[8:10] potentially look at it as sort of three to five uh state lots. Um as we cleared

[8:16] out, we actually cleared out different pastures. And I think there's a a

[8:19] picture that I'll show later showing um if you will some some pretty beautiful

[8:25] um land plots where if you had an you know an acreage house sits on five six

[8:31] seven acres uh it would be definitely a very nice looking building. Um it's one

[8:37] road going in and out so it's not any sort of high volume road. Um the rural

[8:42] services are are kind of right now what it would be in terms of wells and

[8:46] septic. I know we had kind of talked about it in a earlier meeting with Carly

[8:51] to talk about um could it ever tap into village um village um uh infrastructure

[8:58] and right now that's not what the ask is. It's really more about just the

[9:02] understanding of that use of that land. Um those village trails that are up

[9:06] there um are still there in terms of the biking trail as well as the walk walk

[9:11] trails on on the parcel one. Um it does fit right into the glacial oaks. Uh the

[9:17] intent would be it'd be just really sort of an extension of that current glacial

[9:21] oaks um estate homes that were originally set up I don't know years 25

[9:26] plus years ago when my dad um developed those different various um estate homes.

[9:33] And then again this is all looking at being um funded by whoever that owner

[9:38] would be. Um, and there's really no ask here at all from a village funding or

[9:43] even township funding.

[9:47] You know, some of the different concerns that were raised as we as we've talked a

[9:51] number of times were, you know, the slopes and the and the um the mapping,

[9:56] you know, they would how how would that be mapped out? We basically have

[10:02] provided a lot of those different um parcel maps to understand exactly where

[10:06] where the land is and such. Um, again, it would be the density of of homes

[10:12] would not be it's not looking to build build a subdivision up there with we

[10:16] have 10 20 homes. It's really looking at just like three to five estate homes in

[10:19] terms of just a plan. Doesn't mean that whoever the owner would be. Um we're

[10:24] just trying to understand so that when when we actually talk to cell that the

[10:29] person would understand that hey Dave we've talked to the village we've talked

[10:31] to the township this is sort of an idea uh of consideration but it's not

[10:38] necessarily any green light to do anything. We would have to we would

[10:41] basically emphasize they would have to come back to get detailed plans if and

[10:45] when they were to pursue anything. Um, like I said, the MG& easements and power

[10:51] lines, that's that's all check the box, if you will, in terms of us

[10:56] understanding what those are, and they continue to stay in there. We talked

[10:59] about the grade of the road. Um um we also understand that that um the

[11:07] village did I think uh when we actually talked about potentially annexing those

[11:12] three other lots um I think the village when we talked at the time talked about

[11:17] some possibilities of of um water pressures and other things from an

[11:22] infrastructure. So again, we we we basically kind of backed away from any

[11:26] of that to get, you know, any sort of approvals or anything, but more of a

[11:29] just an understanding of what would potentially happen there. Um, we did,

[11:35] you know, the one big thing is that we made sure to find in the documents,

[11:40] [clears throat] and that document is attached in appendix the 66- ft uh road

[11:46] reservation that's plotted in for lot six,

[11:51] which shows up as a number four parcel. And again, that intention was done years

[11:57] ago when my dad set that land up to be able to access

[12:02] um Hilliburn's land uh down the road if there was a if Marvin and my dad had

[12:07] reached an agreement back then that if Hilliburn ever wanted to do something on

[12:12] that top land that there would be have that easement access which would would u

[12:17] allow persons to get to that that top those top three parcels.

[12:22] Um, and then we did have like a I guess a solar group that kind of came up there

[12:29] and staked out or said that this land could potentially be used for solar. Um,

[12:33] again, if the owner decided the next owners decided to do that, that would be

[12:37] something that, you know, we would let let that be um discussed at a different

[12:42] point. But it again fits into that whole lightest use of the land so there's not

[12:46] any sort of disturbance or high density type activity going on up there.

[12:53] So really um tonight is really just the ask of of just keeping you guys aware of

[13:00] what we as a family are trying to do and and so we can actually pass it along to

[13:04] a future buyer. Um and we're [clears throat] also you know basically

[13:09] say before that the land changes we would just like to understand uh your

[13:13] thoughts on on on sort of the direction we're going. Obviously um we're not

[13:18] asking for any okays or per um you know permission to do this or gaining access

[13:24] into the infrastructure of the village or any any specifics but more a sharing

[13:31] of the information to the village with the awareness of what um what some of

[13:35] the intents are for the for the for the parcels

[13:40] and then like I said you know all there's a different um appendix items

[13:44] that show the different easement um easement strip that's in there. Uh we

[13:50] talked about that grades and such. It's actually within the um appraisal within

[13:56] there. Um and again part of the attachment and really like what we did

[14:01] we did actually hire someone to come up and and do some clearing up top. Um, and

[14:05] you can kind of see some of the openings up top that would would um, you know,

[14:10] basically be ideal for some estate type lots that could potentially be put up

[14:14] there.

[14:17] Um, and then right now from those parcels perspective, there's one of

[14:21] those lots which is rural residential. So, that one actually has the, you know,

[14:25] sort of the the already um zoned uh, abilities to develop as part of that

[14:31] glacial oaks um, group. uh and it's really the other three um three parcels

[14:37] but it wouldn't mean that every three part every one of those parcels would be

[14:41] developed. I mean there's intentions or there's some thought about saying parcel

[14:44] one which is actually a village parcel or or village um included in the village

[14:50] that could potentially be you know a park or something that you know whoever

[14:55] would potentially want to do something up there and if it is three to five

[14:59] estate homes um that piece of land could potentially be used for for other

[15:03] purposes that would be sort of a give back into crossplains. So

[15:09] anyway, that's kind of what I wanted to get um in front of this the village

[15:14] board and I appreciate you guys in the time to put us on the agenda and I just

[15:19] wanted to give make you aware of some of the intents um of what we're what we're

[15:25] looking to to do. And then just uh it's really more of an awareness from you

[15:29] guys so that if we do have a future buyer or realer that starts asking as

[15:34] well, we would be able to to turn to that that potential buyer and say yes,

[15:39] we've talked to the village, we've talked to the township uh about some of

[15:43] the intents and again no approvals of such but more the intents and the

[15:48] consideration possible.

[15:52] » All right. Thank you. Anybody have any questions or thoughts? I have Judy.

[16:00] Phil, go ahead. >> Is there a house up there already?

[16:04] » There is uh not on not on any of these four parcels. There's a house that was

[16:09] built um if I go to there's a house that is I don't know if you see my my cursor.

[16:17] So, there's houses that go all the way around on Gills Way that round. It's

[16:20] basically a big round and there's I think there's not eight or nine houses

[16:23] that are up there that are sort of estate lots. There was a house built in

[16:27] this parcel just uh south of the number four there uh in

[16:33] this area. That was my actually a cousin of mine of of ours that sold that uh

[16:37] parcel to uh someone and they actually built a house up here in the kind of the

[16:42] I'll say the norththeast corner of that lot. Um, and again this easement that

[16:49] goes up the way, he's got his kind of access road that kind of goes up there

[16:52] along that way too. But in terms of if a road was put in, it would basically, you

[16:58] know, go in under the proper code and zoning, if you will, to be, you know, x

[17:04] number of feet away from the the property line and also to the actual

[17:08] property line on both sides. But there was a 66 foot um easement uh that was

[17:14] sort of sanctioned off or at least put in there for that for that very purpose.

[17:20] » Okay. Thank you. >> So, you know, planning planning ahead of

[17:22] time by my dad, which I you know, we we appreciate as siblings. Now,

[17:27] » so I I apologize. I have a hard time kind of hearing you from from the from

[17:32] the laptop speaker, but the water reserve is up there, right?

[17:36] And so what are we what are we doing with the access road and how is that how

[17:40] is the access road and water reserve entering into the service?

[17:44] » No no the way we go to the reserve does not go on on this property at all.

[17:49] » Okay. >> Yeah. There's this land to get to that

[17:51] water tower. There's a there's a road right here which is a little it's very

[17:56] that's a steeper road. It's really not meant for

[17:59] » public vehicles or such and has not been developed. It's really more of just a

[18:03] gravel path up. Right.

[18:06] » Right. >> And that would, you know, that would

[18:09] probably if we if we were to go if someone were to go forward um you know

[18:14] that road, this road coming up would kind of basically feed into a more I

[18:19] guess a more uh whatever a different type of road that

[18:24] would be serving all these houses with still easement and access rights to the

[18:29] tower obviously. >> Okay. So why why are you opposed to

[18:34] steady water and sewer? >> I think what we when we talk last um

[18:41] because first of all these are village this number one is the one that's a

[18:45] village lot. These other two three and four are all part of the township. And

[18:50] when we did talk last, we talked about would there be any interest by the

[18:55] village to annex those lots in um and then obviously to build if that was the

[19:01] case then if if a builder or the owner of the lot wanted to gain access to

[19:06] public to to village infrastructure um that would have to be something they

[19:11] would have to pursue. Um, so that if if there's an interest in that or if

[19:16] there's um I think part of it was because of the infrastructure because of

[19:20] some of the the I I want to say expense of doing that or even if it could

[19:25] support it that high up up on the top of that hill which you know again the water

[19:30] tower is right there. It's not like you got I don't think I I'm not a engineer

[19:34] so I don't know. I'm a different I'm a mechanical engineer but not a civil. So

[19:37] I don't know if there would come off that water tower or any of the other um

[19:42] abilities to provide water village water if you will into those lots if those

[19:46] lots were actually annexed in. >> Okay. And then that road the south part

[19:52] of Gills Way is the town of Cross Plains, right?

[19:57] » Oh that's already that's already an island.

[20:00] » Yeah. This this road is all these this road is a big circle. Um and it probably

[20:06] the road that would be built here would be probably be similar in nature where

[20:09] it's a it's an asphalt road with with the um I forget covert sides that you

[20:15] know according to code of whatever the the township would have at that time or

[20:19] whatever the township would require of anybody who who would purchase it from

[20:23] us and want to do anything with any of this.

[20:25] » Right. So, so the only access to that part of the road is through Gil's way

[20:31] and so >> uh yes, you'd have to come up up in this

[20:35] valley which again this is village in here and then once you hit I think this

[20:40] where T-bones or TE's or kind of branches off wishbones off that I think

[20:45] becomes where township kicks in or actually township kicks in I think even

[20:49] a little further up like right about here where the houses end and that's all

[20:53] township. It's just a big circle drive of township that goes around and the

[20:56] township comes in and it plows when necessary and such. And then the the

[21:01] intent would be this would be an extension of a township road that would

[21:05] just go straight up with again a turnaround up top adequate

[21:10] enough to provide turnaround for a fire truck, ambulance, you know, anything

[21:15] that would it would be required, right? And it would cut into, you know, those,

[21:20] you know, those top lots if you will. But again, those parcels are, like I

[21:24] said, are pretty big. I mean, it's 35 acres total for those four together.

[21:30] » So, so I'm looking at and Google maps and what I'm think what I'm looking at

[21:36] between your photo and what I see on the map is that all that green space to the

[21:42] east of Gills Way and south of the water tower, that's the

[21:46] area that you're talking >> right between our bike trails,

[21:50] » right? >> Yes. Yeah, the bike trails the bike the

[21:55] bike trails if I if I'm thinking would go up along kind of the perimeter of

[22:01] those lots and you can I think you take the bike trail all the way to this this

[22:05] um the water tower access if if I'm got my directions right because this east

[22:09] side here is that is um that's just another development in this valley.

[22:16] Um, I think this is um I want to call it Gills. Uh, I forget the name of it, but

[22:21] it's like that whole Gillies land of it used to be a cornfield.

[22:25] » From the south of this property is all open. I think that's enchanted valley,

[22:32] right? >> Yeah. On this side over here,

[22:36] stage coach. >> Yeah.

[22:38] » Right. And then if you go further down, you've got Sheps.

[22:41] » I think it's Shep's development. That's further west. I think that's the

[22:44] direction. Yes. Would you have access then from stage coaching to this or it

[22:49] all come from Gil's way? >> Uh it's only it's only from uh Gil's

[22:53] way. So I want to and forgive me I haven't been up like Roger can't make it

[23:00] because it's his wife's birthday so they're out for dinner. I said I'd take

[23:02] the take the lead. I believe is it Roden Schmidt maybe that used to own this lot

[23:07] this land up to the right to the um I want to say the souththeast.

[23:13] And there are there are some estate homes in there and stage coach I believe

[23:18] used to run that does run into that but we're not

[23:23] the intention is not to connect stage coach into that.

[23:26] » Yeah that's called celestial server. >> Yeah.

[23:29] » Is it okay? Okay. Yeah.

[23:34] » Yeah. Yeah, I mean the whole idea is to really keep it just very private, very

[23:40] again limited in terms of the type of homes that a home or homes that would go

[23:45] up there. And it really just it just uh allows for that land to be used in a in

[23:50] sort of what you know at the end of the day if all of us kids wanted to build

[23:54] you know up there it would be beautiful you know beautiful homes. you know,

[23:58] unfortunately all my kids are, you know, out of the house now. So, I'm I'm in the

[24:01] mode of downsizing, not not uh upsizing. >> I guess from my perspective, this is Jay

[24:08] speaking. Um I I can live with the four houses, but if you, you know, if it gets

[24:15] increased, and this is because I'm sure developers want to put more up. If it

[24:20] gets into the 20, 30, 40, then that'll be problematic because all that traffic

[24:26] then comes down that one road. I think four houses isn't going to add uh too

[24:32] much to it. But again, it does uh have to use, you know, village roads to get

[24:40] there. Um the other thing is I know water, you're too high for water. sewer

[24:47] would could be a possibility, but I'm just thinking that it would probably be

[24:51] cost prohibitive for four lots to put all that infrastructure in.

[24:57] » Yeah. Yeah. >> But the other

[24:59] » But I but that would be one of the things if it if the say someone bought

[25:03] it and they were going to develop four or five estate homes and they said,

[25:06] "Well, that's part of the development." um then they would have you know the

[25:11] point was they would come back to the village to have that discussion. We're

[25:15] just we just wanted to make sure you're aware of of what we are as what we're

[25:20] doing as a family to look at putting this on the market as a as a 35 acres

[25:26] you know prefer a single owner and you know but open to discuss if to with

[25:32] someone else but with that that caveat that this is not high density. is if

[25:39] anything, you know, the four to five estate lots,

[25:42] » right? And that's what we're meeting to give honest feedback. So, that would be

[25:46] » Yes, we probably fight that uh quite a bit. Um

[25:50] » and then the other last thing is the one lot that's in the village. Um that would

[25:57] take a little bit more work because we don't allow uh septics and wells and

[26:03] it's really strict for what we have to do and what

[26:07] people have to do now if they have a well and septic.

[26:11] » Yeah. >> Quite a bit of burden on them since we

[26:14] changed our ordinance because of our waste uh water treatment uh evaluation.

[26:22] Can I go back on on the beginning of your comment when you said that you'd

[26:27] fight? Now again, that's if it they came in with a high density plan, but but if

[26:31] they came with a four to five homes, would that still be come up against a

[26:35] lot of resistance? >> I'm just speaking for myself. I probably

[26:39] would not have major concern since there's already a few house houses right

[26:45] next to it the same way. I just don't want to flood a neighborhood

[26:50] » with a lot of traffic. Yep. Totally understand.

[26:53] » That's already a one, you know, road that goes from those developments down.

[26:58] So, uh, like I said, I could live with a few more homes, but not a whole large

[27:05] subdivision. >> Yep. It would, you know, it's really

[27:08] trying to be a little bit more of an extension of that Glacial Oaks Estates

[27:13] homes that are up there with that same intention where they're sitting on, you

[27:17] know, four anywhere from four to seven, even nine acres. If you ever drive up

[27:22] through that circle, it' be th those type of homes.

[27:26] » But it wouldn't be that it wouldn't be that dense either. I mean, it would

[27:29] actually be less dense than that because I think that that whole circle

[27:32] encompasses about 88 Well, actually along that [clears throat] and along

[27:36] with the number four and the one that was sold that all was about 80 acres of

[27:40] land. We we used to kids call that the 80 because we go up there and you know

[27:44] get the cattle down. Do you know if you have or maybe some of

[27:50] the village is there an easement approval already for us to get to the

[27:54] water tower coming from Pat's place up to

[27:57] » I think that I think you already have an I I don't know exactly but I know we

[28:01] were looking more on this easement here um to make sure

[28:06] » Dave they can't see your Dave they can't see your cursor but that where you see

[28:10] the water if you go back to the original um yeah you see up top you see a little

[28:14] white dot above number two just northeast of number If you're looking at

[28:18] the picture, that's the water tower. So there is a road that comes up to that

[28:22] water tower we were talking. That's the easement they have already. But the

[28:27] grade is steeper. So I guess the so I guess the asked

[28:32] tonight from this group is really you know what would be the gotchas because

[28:37] we either list it again as one property owner and owns all the properties or we

[28:44] say okay uh if we if there is a developer that's interested and that

[28:48] wants to look at you know four houses five houses if it gets any bigger than

[28:54] five house houses we just have to be able to tell them hey you're going to

[28:58] have major push back from from the both village and town, right? So, that that

[29:04] was our ask and I just share you how we were going to position this to a realer

[29:08] that has both access to residential people um that would build single

[29:13] properties as well as a developer that would be looking to develop, you know,

[29:17] four or five homes. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. Knowing that we have an

[29:22] easement that could come in there as a major road with a turnaround for safety

[29:27] reasons and public vehicles. >> People about dropping there.

[29:33] » Does that make sense? >> You say the people on lot two and lot

[29:37] three then would need some sort of a document that shows there's an easement

[29:41] on their property if they bought it and was lost indicating the usage.

[29:45] » That that is correct. That road is an easement and for if a person was to buy

[29:50] on lot two know that would be part of the

[29:54] development that road to get up there whether they create a dirt road that

[29:57] gets up there like the person who bought on a property just south of just to the

[30:03] bottom of number four. He just built a dirt road up there. But for a for

[30:08] somebody to buy the property and wanted to build two on two and three and one

[30:12] and four, then that would be part of the development plan. I imagine that the

[30:18] that the developer would look at. >> And just to add to that, it would right

[30:22] now that easement the easement is is only from Gillsway Road up to where four

[30:31] » kind of is adjacent to parcels one and three. So that's where the easement goes

[30:36] today. Again, if we were to put this on the market and sell, we would tell the

[30:41] realer that this that if any of those other lots were being purchased that

[30:46] that that there would be, you know, sort of a common easement that everybody

[30:51] would have to agree to, unless it was just one per one buyer. And that one

[30:55] buyer might want to if they ever sub subdivided if he ever sold off that back

[31:01] back 29 he might say okay I'll sell the back 99 and you can have an easement

[31:06] that goes back but right now that the piece that goes from the I'll call the

[31:12] north northwest corn or northeast corner of number four and up to the circle

[31:17] that's not that's right now not an easement that's just that is our all our

[31:22] land so there's really no easement necessary.

[31:24] However, that easement would be something that you talk to the to the

[31:29] buyer about that, hey, these other lots um you probably there'd have to be put

[31:34] put there' probably be an easement that you would have to identify when you're

[31:37] looking to to do whatever you're going to do with it in that area. But easement

[31:42] to the water tower, that's already a given. That's already an approved um

[31:47] easement in that uh that uh Hillbrand Gilly Hillbrand put in to allow for us

[31:54] to for for the town or the village to get to that water tower through that. I

[31:59] think it's called Tilda's Lane that kind of goes up and then goes up and up there

[32:03] and there's like I think a chain link fence that allows like a service truck

[32:07] to go up there to go look at the water tower.

[32:10] I'm just thinking that could be a done right. It could be our second entrance,

[32:15] maybe an emergency exit or entrance to this parcel if needed be for a second in

[32:19] and out. >> Uh it could be, [clears throat] but I

[32:22] again I wouldn't um that could be that could be part of a discussion if you

[32:27] will, but right now that road is sort of I believe it's I think it's lightly

[32:31] play. It might be just gravel. It might be a gravel

[32:38] painters got up there. >> There's an emergency exit type

[32:44] designated as emergency exit for a second.

[32:48] » Yeah, >> but that's a long way

[32:53] » to get open. >> Yeah.

[32:58] » All right, Seth. Um, I'd rather if this was going to occur,

[33:04] I'd rather see this village town, but some recognition of the unique

[33:11] characteristics in this property. I think from the village perspective, um,

[33:16] this could help with our parks open space plan. We've got, uh, loses loop

[33:21] trail and connections up there. This could help finish off across

[33:26] » utilize the path place extension I guess I'll call that that roadway that driver

[33:32] hits the water tower if we're already having an ement there potentially

[33:36] combining ement across person one uh to connect to uh trails to the east. Um so

[33:42] I think from the village perspective this has some appeal. Um, having said

[33:48] that, uh, if it's in the village, I don't think a 2500 foot long village

[33:53] street is going to serve, uh, much good. Um, I wonder if the village would

[33:58] consider a share driveway arrangement. Um,

[34:03] that village doesn't maintain, doesn't plow. Um I know if we don't have any

[34:09] chair drivers to that extent I believe but I think

[34:14] » the top of Rocky Bluff is a private road >> be maybe similar to that where it's a

[34:20] private

[34:24] it's about 25 to go some hills to the bottom of two right now. So we're

[34:31] talking a half mile. >> Yeah. Um and so I don't know if consider

[34:37] again this is for three, four, five homes obviously not one but if it's for

[34:41] a few homes uh a share driveway would be a benefit to the the buyer

[34:49] developer whoever also be less of a burden on the village. Now having said

[34:54] that I think um I would like to see these connected to the Oak Stewart uh

[35:00] water is well I'll understand the challenges of

[35:03] that even though the reservoir there I I believe the elevation of these lots is

[35:07] at least a few dozen feet higher than the reservoir elevation. Um so it's not

[35:12] that the reservoir would be able to serve those properties now or something

[35:18] but I think a sewer connection is definitely more feasible. Um and then um

[35:25] yeah, he already mentioned that part one's already in the village. It's owned

[35:29] R35, but it's not in our service area right now. Yeah. So all of these if

[35:36] we're going to have any certain services, we have to include all the

[35:40] area that would be that. But again, I I I see some some

[35:46] benefits in the village and I understand the town just recognize that there's

[35:52] some things that we do.

[35:58] » Yeah. And I I think from a a person an owner of of the whole parcel or all

[36:03] parcels, you know, looking at that that uh parcel one and carving off a couple

[36:10] acres. Right now it's a 10 acre piece. There's probably some pieces of that

[36:14] acorage you just say, "Listen, let's put walking paths in there. Let's put a

[36:17] off-road bike path." Um, and you know, I don't think a park would be something,

[36:22] but maybe there's picnic tables and such for the bikers and the walkers. But I

[36:27] mean there's a lot of possibility since that is a village parcel and chances of

[36:33] building on that 10 acres is probably limited probably just because of the

[36:38] fact it's village unless it's thrown back to the township uh with some of

[36:42] those asked if you will for um if there's any development on that one

[36:49] » you know. >> Yep. So

[36:53] » anyway, I again go ahead. >> Um, so as much as I have to disagree

[37:00] with Steph a little bit, as much as I would love the tax revenue out of this,

[37:08] um, I think it would better serve the owners to stay in the town. I don't

[37:15] think I think if coming into the village and having to follow our ordinances is

[37:21] going to complicate what what they're trying to do. I my

[37:27] opinion and you guys could think completely different, but I think

[37:31] they're better served staying in the in the town than coming into the village.

[37:36] » Okay. I think what we I think it everybody's kind of I think we can go

[37:41] forever tonight on this. I think uh you have what you need, Dave, to kind of

[37:46] wear the flavor and it'll be obviously more detailed from your family and how

[37:53] you marketed and what a developer may want to do. Um

[38:00] » since I'm taking it, you're not developing this. You're gonna to sell

[38:04] it. So, I think what we should do is probably put a hold on this right now

[38:08] until someone actually um is thinking about it and and have a actual concept

[38:16] plan that details more than what we have right now because I think we could go on

[38:21] all night long. >> Yeah. Can I ask one question on that?

[38:24] Would if that if if the parcel one is in the village would ever would that ever

[38:30] be considered thrown back into a township if the township takes I'll call

[38:35] accountability or ownership for you know all that delayed

[38:39] » we can give up property just like we can annex property we can certainly give it

[38:45] up that is an option that is out there I don't know what the process is but uh

[38:51] it's certainly yes it can be done Okay. So, so really again I appreciate your

[38:58] guys' time, your the whole team's time tonight. Um really just to hear us out

[39:03] and hear some of the thoughts and then obviously

[39:07] the whoever the next owner or owners would be, it'd be probably then them

[39:11] coming with with a more engineering plan and ideas and but it was really where we

[39:19] as a family can say to the to the realer and such and say, "Hey, we've met with

[39:22] the village. We've met with the township. There's nothing jumping off

[39:27] the page saying no. Other than high density, obviously no. But if it's being

[39:31] looked at for four to five estate lot types, you just need to put a plan

[39:36] together that you would be able to have to go back to the village and back to

[39:38] the township to talk and share so that there'd be a thumbs up if that would be

[39:43] a plan that would be acceptable. >> That that sounds like a good plan.

[39:48] » Okay, great. >> Thank you.

[39:52] » Thank you guys. let it if there's any questions, Carly, let us know. Um, but I

[39:56] appreciate the time tonight and and just having you listen to some of the

[40:00] thoughts we have. >> All right, sounds good.

[40:03] » Thank you everyone. >> Okay, thanks all.

[40:05] » Yeah, >> I did email Kev Enthusiast and he had

[40:08] said that he's not going to be able to make it. [clears throat]

[40:12] » So, we will not be able to take your item up for action since we don't have

[40:16] enough people to vote.

[40:22] We'll have to figure out what we're going to do.

[40:27] Apologize.

[40:33] » I was going to say this had to be noticed. It doesn't be noticed or

[40:37] anything. >> Well, I don't think this has to be Well,

[40:41] obviously the meeting does. >> Yeah,

[40:43] » we have to pull a meeting together. Uh >> you know if we could do it like before

[40:49] board on Monday like if you could >> So we're talking about Wednesday,

[40:51] Thursday or Friday. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[40:54] » I meant Monday night like >> can we do a plane commission meeting

[40:57] like 15 minutes before? >> Yeah. We could do that's another option

[41:02] we could try that >> do Monday before three of us here

[41:08] » this Monday. Well, >> we pull and if we have to do it on

[41:14] Thursday, do it on Thursday. Why Why do we lock ourselves into just Monday?

[41:18] » Well, because Monday, three of us already are present at another meeting.

[41:22] So, you've got you only need three more people,

[41:25] » right? I get that >> versus Thursday where we could be.

[41:29] » But if we pulled and say we have three people now, we're still short. Well, I

[41:33] understand we're short, but >> yeah, we can try to get

[41:37] » I just want to lock it down to Monday and then I'll send somebody a short one

[41:40] again where we could have met on Thursday and had a full

[41:42] » How much notice do we need to move? >> 24 hours.

[41:46] » You can get away with 12.

[41:55] » You know what I'm saying? If we lo

[42:00] » Is Kevin available Thursday? I am I agree with you. Uh but is

[42:06] » I guess that's what >> Well, the problem is I'm not going to be

[42:10] here Thursday night. >> Wednesday.

[42:14] » Well, Thursday you can still you just need six.

[42:17] » I'm just telling you Thursday I'm already tied up and need

[42:20] » Friday or Yeah. Whatever.

[42:26] » Anytime. If we do it like at five o'clock or

[42:30] Thursday, I'm fine. But

[42:34] committed on something.

[42:40] » I think we got to find it. I can make it. Whatever.

[42:44] » I can make it. >> All right. Well, let's uh tomorrow send

[42:49] things out because if we're going to do it on Thursday, we got to notice it.

[42:56] » Yeah. Tomorrow.

[43:00] Yeah, please let us know. >> Yeah, we will.

[43:08] » All right. Uh, discussion, possible action regarding updates to the street

[43:15] light policy. Come on up, Michael. >> The microphones aren't on.

[43:21] » No, I tried testing them. I >> don't know. Well, I mean, when I was on

[43:27] the Zoom, >> I was talking into the mics and it

[43:30] wouldn't it wasn't picking them up.

[43:35] » Yeah, but >> it's not plugged in.

[43:37] » The main thing I don't think to bring people out there that

[43:40] » the mics are irrelevant today. >> Okay, sounds weird. Um,

[43:45] so felt it was time to do an update to the street light policy because then

[43:51] five years on the market now there are 2200K

[43:57] LED street lights that are available whereas 5 years ago not really

[44:01] available. They were sort of coming in. Um, so a 2200 shade light will bring the

[44:09] light down to more of an amber. slightly above the highpressure sodium ones that

[44:13] exist. They don't quite get quite that low. I was curious about that myself.

[44:18] Some have been installed out past Richland Center. Last week I

[44:23] drove out there and it's these few towns up in the Kickfoo Valley. They were

[44:27] trying to get a dark sky preserve up there and they've been installing them.

[44:31] And I went up there and looked at them and I was like, "Oh, these aren't under

[44:36] like more amber than high pressure sodium daggers. They're slightly above

[44:39] that." I thought they were going to be much lower in terms of the redness that

[44:42] they go down. Um, there's some documents in the packet if people see any of them.

[44:49] I'll just talk real quick about one. They got angled somehow. For some

[44:53] reason, they were all legible when I gave them darling. Somehow they all

[44:56] gotated. >> It just tell me what page, Michael,

[45:00] » it would be page 31. The next page

[45:09] So basically this is an example of where an individual did a bunch of different

[45:14] KS of lighting. We show you up in the corner you have 27K 22 18 and then high

[45:21] pressure sodium is like what exists. We basically did it to demonstrate the the

[45:26] CRI indexing which is the color rendering index which is how well colors

[45:30] are perceived in different lights and as a high pressure sodium doesn't have a

[45:36] very large bandwidth of light that it gives out the colors become muted. You

[45:39] can see with even the 1800 K you can still make out red, green, blue on the

[45:44] 22, we still have a and and all it seems like all these LEDs that are coming out

[45:50] they all are 70 CR or higher which means you still get a good color rendering out

[45:55] of it even as you bring the the temperature down.

[45:59] » I don't see a difference. I I just I just want to give you some it's way

[46:04] above our heads on all this stuff. They're from the 27 going to the 22. I

[46:10] don't see a difference in those color codes at all.

[46:12] » So, where are we at? What do we currently have? And what do you what do

[46:15] you want? >> Right now, MG is installing 2700 in the

[46:19] village, but 22s have became available >> in most street lights now. So, it's a

[46:26] the policy is a movement down to them. right now. Middleton and Middleton

[46:31] adopted a new light ordinance I want to say back in February or March and they

[46:35] mandated all their street lights at 2400K or low is what their ordinance

[46:40] says. Um so but I don't ever see any 2400ks.

[46:45] That's what this 2200K is. I don't ever see any made in 23 or whatever.

[46:49] » So they're looking to move to 2200 KS. Um they bought a lot of 20 cents they're

[46:56] putting up but next year they're going to be doing a lot of 2200ks like the

[46:58] ones that Matt did in the CIP for those posttop ones. Middleton is looking to

[47:03] replace like over 200 posttop ones next year with 2200 K ones and I'm kind of

[47:09] hoping to work with them and that so when they do ours it's kind of maybe we

[47:14] can use Middleton stock to stock them and kind of work together. whole entire

[47:17] thing is like us trying to work with Middleton in doing this and I even know

[47:21] like Verona is looking into moving to 2200K as well. I don't know how far

[47:26] along that process is but heard about they are they are also updating their

[47:29] lighting ordinance but it doesn't cover street lighting but it's just a jump

[47:33] down to the 22 is what this is.

[47:40] And there's also inside of here, there's also a reduction inside of residential

[47:46] neighborhoods from 3500 to 20 to 2500 lumen, meaning you're bringing them down

[47:52] because the ones that are installed in certain areas,

[47:56] they can be kind of bright, but yet the ordinance says like along Bourbon and

[48:00] along Church, we can still use 29, which is modeling what Middleton is doing

[48:05] right now. Middleton is using 29 or 3500 lumens along major roads inside

[48:11] residential areas. They're they're reducing them now.

[48:14] And I went in and looked at some of them and to be honest with them like okay

[48:17] yeah those legs are because we have we have some at the 35 just underneath 35

[48:22] installed. I went to Middleton and looked at the ones that are under 25 and

[48:26] I'm like it's down slightly but it's not a ton. It is not. And if whole thing we

[48:32] install some and they're lower, we can bump them up. I mean these these

[48:37] fixtures have a dial. You can actually turn and dial the lights up and down

[48:42] like the ones that are currently being installed. Like it you can turn them up

[48:46] and turn them down. It's very simple. >> So you could turn them higher than the

[48:50] sorry you could turn them higher than the 20. If we install the 22, we can

[48:53] turn them higher than or whatever. somewhat the

[48:56] » you you can't change the 2200 K, but you can make the bulb brighter.

[49:02] » It'll put out more light, but you these don't have some lights do have the

[49:07] ability to change the color, but these do not. A lot of times these are just a

[49:11] solid. >> Can you go to the one that shows the

[49:14] street lights?

[49:17] Yeah. >> I did not preook at this.

[49:20] » Yeah, I didn't. That one you're talking about? Yeah.

[49:26] So this just shows the idea of

[49:33] saying did you do a question? >> Yeah, I do. It's not a question. It's

[49:37] what I would like to see part of our street policy. I would like to see the

[49:43] shielding done because if you notice uh when you drive on Church Street, look on

[49:48] Evergreen, you can see how bright it is. You know, there's no reason for us to

[49:54] see the light on Church Street from Evergreen. So, if you shield it, then

[49:59] you're shielding the light more from escaping. And just so at Midtown, the

[50:04] neighbors complain because the bright lights weren't shining at them. They

[50:09] were shining down, but you can see the bulb and it's very annoying. So, I would

[50:14] like to see shielding done where from 180 degrees at street level you cannot

[50:21] see the light bulb. I'd like them recessed in

[50:26] » or they put a band around because I think that's really annoying looking

[50:31] down evergreen and seeing those super bright lights.

[50:34] » But we do want it to cover, >> right? But you can see the covering is

[50:38] you're not changing that much covering. you look at the the the

[50:44] drawing and it depends on how far she'll fall. I put on a half inch and you

[50:49] didn't notice it in the parking lot, but when you were in the neighbors Y because

[50:54] one woman was watching TV and there's just you could just see the bright

[50:58] light. It's not like it's shining in you. You just seem like a really bright

[51:02] star >> and it made a ton of difference. I don't

[51:08] think you need to see the light from the side. It's down.

[51:13] » That's all I'm saying that I'd like to see in there somehow. And I don't know

[51:16] what the language would be. >> Um,

[51:19] right now we do require it's called full cut off, which basically means you

[51:26] aren't ejecting light up, but like with what you're shielding, the shielding

[51:30] downward isn't covered. And a full cut off just means it's all but you can

[51:35] still have some really at the top. Full cut just mean it's not going upward.

[51:38] like in that first going up, >> right?

[51:41] » So on a lot of street lights, they do have certain shielding aspects like what

[51:48] you're talking about. Like with the street lights that MG is currently

[51:51] installing, there is I'll do I'll go over shielding real fast. With street

[51:57] lights, they have things called house side shields, which will shield light

[52:01] going backwards, like it's going backwards into a house. They have front

[52:04] side shields, which cut it off going across the street. But these also have a

[52:09] shield that goes up and cuts off all the light above 80 between 90 and 80

[52:15] degrees, which might be what you're talking about. You're you're cutting off

[52:18] that top little sliver of them and it goes all the way around it,

[52:22] » right? And that might be what you're talking about. That isn't in here. I

[52:28] know that they exist for these fixtures. >> Okay. And it's kind of on like my to-do

[52:34] list is sort of like ask MG& to sort of install some of these because some of

[52:40] these fixtures like when I ride around the bridges they're they're installed

[52:43] and I don't know if they're totally level but sometimes I'm kind of like oh

[52:45] there seems to be a lot of light like going on the house like in the road like

[52:49] is it level or what a shield like >> you know knock that off and do that. So,

[52:54] it has been say something I've been thinking about

[52:57] from talking to MD about haven't done it. We're working with Matt to talk to

[53:01] them, but it's not explicitly written in the policy, but that can be worked out

[53:08] individually also with them. >> Okay, that's that's fine. I just that is

[53:12] just the one thing that I would like because I LEDs is clearly the way to go

[53:18] to save money, right? We all agree that they take a lot less electricity, but

[53:23] they're so much brighter than a sodium light, you know, in the sense in mine.

[53:29] It's that yellow look. So, you can look and it disappears as you're farther and

[53:34] farther away. You don't see the brightness like you see on epree, right?

[53:39] They're pretty they're pretty intense because they're very small little dodes

[53:43] that are producing a lot of the light as like a pinpoint of density

[53:48] » what it is what you're alluding to. >> Right. Right. Um

[53:53] and like what I've found I mean I've looked at a fair number of street lights

[53:56] a lot of these ones with the LEDs is that they make them and they make them

[54:00] pretty flat and they put the panels like right under there so you don't get a lot

[54:04] of like how our main street has a large overhang over. Yeah,

[54:08] » a lot of times on these neighborhood lights, you don't find a whole lot of

[54:13] overhang. They're really >> they're really tight up to the flat.

[54:18] » They are. >> And I am looked at building street

[54:20] lights and I'm like, I can't find one that just has like even a little bit of

[54:23] And it might be because like what you were talking about because when you do

[54:26] that, you lose coverage and on a road.

[54:33] Um, so those were kind of the two things that are inside of this policy.

[54:40] Um, did anybody have any questions? Well, um,

[54:46] so how many light bulbs are we talking about?

[54:50] We change this ordinance. We got to change about the entire village. We

[54:56] one, we don't have to like the ones that MG& put up like I don't think we can

[55:00] enforce that. to place a bunch of 2700 KWS. I wasn't planning on doing that

[55:06] because I think they would bite that. They're like, "These are out." But I

[55:10] know like next summer across the village there are some remaining mercury vapor

[55:15] ones and Matt's talk spoken with the guy from MG, not just the ones that are in

[55:19] like the Evergreen or Elwood Circle way that that MG wants Matt to buy because

[55:24] they don't want stock ones, but the other ones on the poles, they're looking

[55:28] to replace those. And there's, I don't know, 12 of them around. Now, the whole

[55:34] thing, I mean, I don't know. I've spoken to MG. They might have 50 of the 2700Ks

[55:39] in stock. We're going to move 50 of those before we get to the

[55:42] » I don't know because MG owns. Okay. The village doesn't, but our policy will

[55:48] dictate what they will install at a future.

[55:51] » Okay. So, does this cost anything change?

[55:55] No, this won't. Right now, I'm not planning on this costing us anything.

[55:59] I'm not I'm not looking to come next year in the year with like a CIP and

[56:04] being like no because like we have um like in the newer developments like

[56:09] Scenic Valley pre-crossing all those are using 2700K versions of this fixture.

[56:15] I'm not going to say we need to buy 40 light fixtures and get them down to

[56:20] 2200K. What happens when they go bad or take go or we need to replace them in 10

[56:26] years? venue, but I'm not looking to do a like a CIP and spend

[56:34] like $200 fish. I'm not going to spend like $10,000.

[56:39] » So, if you're changing from sodium to right the village, I don't think the

[56:46] village owns any owns that owns all the pools and

[56:51] boosters in your neighborhood. Village does.

[56:55] » Okay. So, does the fixture need to be replaced if

[56:59] you're going to change it to LED? That's where that's where,

[57:03] » you know, your question and say this is all everything that we have right now is

[57:09] grandfathered in it. What this is saying is in the future, this is the direction

[57:13] we want the village to go. We want them to go from 27 to 22. So like in uh this

[57:20] Marchstone all the lights in Marchstone if this passes will move to a 2200

[57:27] » that that I don't know because the first phase might be 2700 but the second phase

[57:31] might be >> I'm just saying because I think

[57:34] [clears throat] >> and then when we go and replace that's

[57:38] what we want to replace them with. >> So there shouldn't be any cause to this

[57:42] is it just the change of >> that's fine. However,

[57:46] I guess if I if I'm changing a light bulb in my house and I'm going from a

[57:51] regular incandescent to a LED, the fixture is exactly the same. I'm going

[57:56] to change the fixture. That's what I was asking. Is the fixture exactly the same?

[58:01] Whether you're using a sodium or you're using an LED, you know, they or the

[58:05] fixture has to be replaced. MG& when

[58:11] sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't. When a high pressure sodium bulb

[58:15] goes out, sometimes they just come out and they just put a new bulb in. Those

[58:18] bulbs are still available. You can still purchase them in the United States soon.

[58:23] Who knows that might become illegal or you know like they don't sell them

[58:27] because of energy inefficiency.

[58:31] Some fixtures I have seen where the highpressure sodium fixture has been

[58:35] converted to an LED, but what happens is that the electrical guts have to be

[58:39] changed out. Okay, >> that cuz all LEDs run on direct current

[58:45] meaning and okay and the high pressure sodiums there's a ballast in there that

[58:51] comes off the alternating current that it balances because at the beginning of

[58:54] it it needs a lot more current once it warms up it needs less current so

[58:57] there's so the electrical guts get changed out but I have seen high

[59:01] pressure sodium fixtures where they put a bulb

[59:05] LEDs all around >> they convert it from AC to DC put the

[59:08] bulb >> NG is not doing that with any of their

[59:12] fixtures. When one of these fixtures fails, they just tape down that old

[59:16] fixture, gets recycled, and they are just installing a whole

[59:21] new LED fixtures. >> We're just dictating to MGM what we're

[59:25] going to allow in the village in the future. That's that that's kind of where

[59:29] you're getting so much in new developments, we try to hone the stuff

[59:34] cheaper. So, it's really what we want. >> That's what we want. But it also helps

[59:38] with engine. And then like Middleton is going to be

[59:44] installing a bunch of the 2700 KS, but if we switch ours to like if Middleton's

[59:51] ordinance now is like, you know, under 24, which is 22, and ours is 22, it

[59:56] really encourages MG& to say, hey, when we have to go service Middleton, one

[1:00:00] 2700s go, both of these places are 22. We're just going to stop 22s. It kind of

[1:00:05] encourages the utility to go down this route is is what it's doing. Did do you

[1:00:13] know did Middleton talk to MGB at all about this and how they I'm just asking

[1:00:18] » um

[1:00:24] Middleton bought a bunch of the 2700s when MG&

[1:00:29] was still operating under the 2700 which this policy was sort of written around

[1:00:34] five years ago. I don't know how NG feels about

[1:00:40] Middleton going to the 20. I don't know. But I think

[1:00:45] are they gonna fight it? I don't have any idea. We'll find out at some point

[1:00:48] in the future. But just on the ordering thing, it's it's like the exact same

[1:00:53] picture. It doesn't make a lot of headache for them. And if it's what

[1:00:55] their customers want, I don't see I think I think you need

[1:01:01] the Middleton part of it. We need to do a little more research because

[1:01:04] Middleton's not on a policy. They have all their energy

[1:01:08] renewable, right, for the whole city by 2015, whatever. So, they have a goal and

[1:01:13] it probably makes sense why they're doing this because they want to reduce

[1:01:17] the amount of energy that's being paid for or whatever. But I think there's

[1:01:21] just more to it than just because their neighbors doing it. I was thinking, but

[1:01:26] it's kind of And then I'm confused about we said we don't own any of the street

[1:01:30] lights. >> We do. We own street lights. We own the

[1:01:35] ones in the newer developments. >> Okay.

[1:01:38] » That survey and show how many village and how many were in Gene,

[1:01:42] » right? Yeah. No, we we own in Scenic Valley. We own in Creek Crossing. We own

[1:01:48] in >> Main Street.

[1:01:51] » Main Street. We own We own the ones on Main Street.

[1:01:53] » We own the ones by the junior high. Any development built after the junior high

[1:01:57] development. All of those street lights we own.

[1:02:01] » Yeah. Church Street and Evergreen. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody goes back to Twin. Yeah.

[1:02:06] We own all of those, >> but we don't own like down parks. We

[1:02:12] don't own anything there. In Elmwood Circle, we might own some of those

[1:02:16] posttop ones if we start buying them and MG needs replacing them. But like the

[1:02:22] Street Lakes where you live, we don't own any.

[1:02:24] » No. No. Yeah. >> This makes sense.

[1:02:27] » Yeah. Um but this also saves money, right? going from a 27 to a 22. I would

[1:02:33] think that would save some electricity. Where you're going to save electricity,

[1:02:39] the coloring isn't, but where you will save it is by dropping from the 35 to

[1:02:43] the 2500 lumens. That mean that on these fixtures, you'll save 10 watts per

[1:02:49] fixture. So, it's not a ton, but multiply it across 100 lights, you're

[1:02:53] saving a,000 thousand. You know, a th00and watt multip 300, you're saving

[1:02:58] 3,000 watts. I think right now I haven't looked at it bill like what it

[1:03:02] is per thousand watt of installed street light I think charges $2 a month so

[1:03:10] reduction of a th000 watts over a year

[1:03:15] » I mean that's on

[1:03:19] there's there's all kinds of advantages to doing this and I agree with Bill we

[1:03:24] it's not such an advantage that we want to invest in it what we do is this is

[1:03:28] one of those things that we do it as we would be doing it anyway. So like phase

[1:03:34] two of Marchstone, they'll be putting in the 22 30, you know what I mean? That's

[1:03:39] that's how we should do it. If car wax a pole down, they got to replace it. Then,

[1:03:45] you know, we put the new stuff in. That's that's kind of how I'm looking at

[1:03:49] this. >> Yeah. I'm fine if everything's

[1:03:52] grandfathered and we're just going from this point on from whatever gets proved

[1:03:56] forward. I'm fine with that. I just don't want to have the expensive Oh, no.

[1:04:00] I agree with having replaced the entire village with with something different.

[1:04:05] No, no, that wasn't the intent. It doesn't

[1:04:10] say that in here. >> Yeah, we'll have to change it or if you

[1:04:14] want. Um >> I would say purpose just say future.

[1:04:18] » Yeah, just make Yeah, just have language in there. So I would say yeah I could

[1:04:22] add something in there like uh yeah purpose

[1:04:27] after oh wait well >> I thought you had it in the second

[1:04:30] paragraph but >> the whole thing is that it happens down

[1:04:34] at the bottom of policy updates and amendments this policy will take effect

[1:04:38] immediate plan adoption. So with that saying everything above that is grand

[1:04:42] because this policy >> after so once that's signed this is

[1:04:47] going to go into effect on everything before that

[1:04:50] » is not retroactive. >> Right. Exactly. Everything that's up is

[1:04:54] still good because this is probably going to take effect on whatever day it

[1:04:59] gets improving. I will be holding

[1:05:14] no issues with understand this is a new policy follows.

[1:05:23] Um, as someone who walks a lot, uh, including at night, I do have a little

[1:05:27] concern about the ribbons, um, on residential streets because there's

[1:05:32] already a lot of spots where it's pretty dark. Um, some places we have street

[1:05:36] lights that are more than 480 ft apart, wherever the distance talk about

[1:05:42] intersections. If they're more than 480 ft apart, you know, you can look at

[1:05:46] immediate ones. I haven't gone through and done my research to see how many,

[1:05:51] but I'm just someone who walks around a lot at night and thinks spots are too

[1:05:56] dark. I have some concerns about how I I recognize like you can dial them up and

[1:06:02] down a little. So maybe it's on case by case basis. If there are some spacing is

[1:06:09] larger, having a brighter fixture on both ends uh makes sense. I just want to

[1:06:15] some we adopt

[1:06:19] » there there is there is allow there is a policy variance down at the bottom that

[1:06:25] says things need to be submitted to the building prior to

[1:06:30] increased illumination or use of an alternate. So there are this has been

[1:06:34] written in that it isn't just steady and it doesn't have to be absolutely like

[1:06:39] the policy states. So there's there there there are ways to increase that.

[1:06:46] » Is there any thought given to public safety or police department this?

[1:06:52] » Uh no it went through sustainability. They passed it.

[1:06:58] » One other comments policy. have will give any thought to specific

[1:07:09] like non street lighting like pedestrian

[1:07:13] pathway stuff like I'm thinking Xander

[1:07:18] didn't put in the lighting we're talking I'd love to see fully lit walkway down

[1:07:25] to the boardwalk across the tracks and back to the new W hall especially

[1:07:30] center as we're putting in more paths through the village, even if they're on

[1:07:34] streets. Um, I'd like us to see to at least consider some kind of pedestrian

[1:07:40] scale lighting. Um, I guess that's something interesting now, but as if

[1:07:45] we're redeveloping policy update, uh, as we're putting in more

[1:07:50] paths and things like that, you know, smaller, obviously not tall,

[1:07:57] but smaller, more frequent scale

[1:08:03] places. >> Um, Katie Rip and Mike Jackson had they

[1:08:07] were trying to write a grant for solar at one point in time. Put in there for a

[1:08:11] walk. Yeah, we have those two right now. They're on either side of tracks.

[1:08:19] » Yeah, that's been brought up in if you look along University Avenue by the W

[1:08:24] hospital much more frequent smaller than once,

[1:08:28] but with solar and something like that going from at least the boardwalk to I

[1:08:33] agree with you from a boardwalk to the pavilion because people are going to be

[1:08:36] parking at village hall and taking the path so it should be lit. sort of like a

[1:08:42] path on right now rely on the people living there to turn their lights on.

[1:08:47] It's really dark. It is places

[1:08:57] on path. That's dangerous. >> Maybe easier now that we have power on

[1:09:00] that side of the Wasn't one to hold up before the

[1:09:05] pavilion. >> You mean we have power by pavilion?

[1:09:08] » Yeah, we have power. We have access now before we never had that ability to tap

[1:09:13] into something

[1:09:17] like the entrance to the pavilion.

[1:09:20] » Yeah. >> They have rough.

[1:09:26] » Yeah. The conduit. >> But that only takes it around the

[1:09:30] pavilion. >> You would still need to go from the

[1:09:32] pavilion to the boardwalk because the lights that the railroad made us put in,

[1:09:37] you can easily see. I just brought up this policy. We might need to have a

[1:09:42] separate >> Yeah, that would be something.

[1:09:44] » That's a good call. I really, especially with winter coming up,

[1:09:48] » you know, it gets darker earlier. >> You can't walk the boardwalk.

[1:09:52] » That's right. And I can tell you, you can trip over a piece of

[1:09:56] » because I got a scar that prove that. >> Yeah.

[1:09:59] » And the boardwalk's not not level. I mean, there are balls.

[1:10:03] » Okay. I Yeah, that's a different topic that we should be bringing up. Um, so

[1:10:08] where are we? Does someone want to make a motion on this?

[1:10:14] » I'll make a motion to approve the I recommend approval of the updated

[1:10:20] street policy. >> All right. Do I have a second?

[1:10:26] » I'll second it. >> Okay. I have a motion in a second. Any

[1:10:30] discussion? I just I like Seth's idea of having the safety committee take a quick

[1:10:37] look at this and just make sure they don't have any issues with it. I know

[1:10:41] sustainability looked at it, but

[1:10:46] having dark spots in a village I think is worth taking a look at.

[1:10:50] » But but here's the thing as some most of our in in cities most of your dark spots

[1:10:58] are caused by either shrubs and trees blocking the light.

[1:11:04] It's not on how bright it is and the path at on a long brewery. You could

[1:11:10] have lights right there and because the tree branches and everything go over

[1:11:16] that's what's stopping the light through. I don't think the brightness of

[1:11:20] the light is going to send it so much farther that it's going to make a

[1:11:24] significant difference. I don't have a problem if we want to send this uh to

[1:11:29] public safety. I don't see it as a public safety um part because it's in

[1:11:35] there that certain areas are going to be lit differently. This is just a standard

[1:11:41] operating unless you think sub uh public safety has the

[1:11:46] expertise to take all this and really know the difference in it. Michael's

[1:11:51] going to be in there explaining it to them and they're going to be just like

[1:11:55] us listening to what he has to say because unless you can come up with some

[1:12:00] type of data that shows whatever however you measure brightness

[1:12:08] from different things from a 35 to a 25 what are you really talking about?

[1:12:14] I get that. But public safety, there's no rush on this. I mean, this is

[1:12:19] something in the future that's going to happen when that happens. And it's not

[1:12:24] we're not buying anything. When public safety takes a look at takes a ticket,

[1:12:28] the can maybe there's something we're missing. I mean, when I asked to have

[1:12:31] the street light, the extra street light on bourbon

[1:12:36] turned it so facing the park went through public safety and place. It's

[1:12:40] just we're covering our butt and you know it' be different if we need to do

[1:12:43] it tomorrow or next week but we don't. This could be

[1:12:46] » No, I'm not doing that. I I I just think sometimes when we refer there should be

[1:12:53] a purpose to it. Just referring it to them for the public safety that throws

[1:12:58] them in a position where okay where what are we talking about here?

[1:13:04] you know, they're going to have to become experts on the distance of 35 to

[1:13:09] 25 because you're not going to it's not really the 27 to 22 that matters. It's

[1:13:15] the 35 to 25 that matters, right? So, it's just going to be a lot of

[1:13:21] scientific stuff that I'm pretty sure cities

[1:13:26] have already researched, but I like I say, I'm not opposed to it. I'm just

[1:13:31] saying if we're going to refer it, I think we got to give them some guidance

[1:13:36] on what we are referring them to. >> Well, I think Michael would be part of

[1:13:40] that and we may hear stuff in the stet into the boardwalk. We start now started

[1:13:45] mingering down a different area. They may have something that somebody brings

[1:13:48] up as well and says, "Hey, >> I know that's my worry."

[1:13:53] board.

[1:13:57] That's a whole different topic that I agree we should be looking but has

[1:14:01] nothing to do with what we're talking about tonight.

[1:14:03] » Right. >> They may go on to their next agenda.

[1:14:06] They might make a thing. Okay. Go ahead though.

[1:14:09] » So I I disagree with you Jay only because

[1:14:14] what is proposed here is the build crossplay street light policy.

[1:14:20] Talk about parks. I'm talking about the current

[1:14:26] safety that we have with the current lighting system or changing the lighting

[1:14:29] system. No, they're not going to be experts in what's different between one

[1:14:34] loom and another loom. They're not. But they're going to know, they may know or

[1:14:38] they may look at something different than we are saying, you know, the the

[1:14:43] lights between this house and this house, there's some big black gap in the

[1:14:48] middle regardless if there's trees or not. That's something we should look at

[1:14:52] with our street light policy. That's that's the only thing I want.

[1:14:56] » Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying if they can add something to it

[1:15:01] » or if they just see something that is you blatantly says you just missed this

[1:15:06] and we're not talking about parks. We're not talking about

[1:15:10] » we're talking this is specifically street light policy that's comp

[1:15:15] and that's what I want them to take a look at is just are they cool and we're

[1:15:20] looking at it let's look at it and see if we've missed anything

[1:15:25] » but but I I we got on to so much pedestrian safety pedestrian lighting is

[1:15:31] different than street lighting it's completely different topic it's not even

[1:15:35] in the same box I think you So that that's what I'm just throwing out there.

[1:15:41] » Right. I think we stay focused on street life policy. If you want to talk about

[1:15:45] park policy and and policy, >> Yes.

[1:15:49] » bring that up. >> Yeah.

[1:15:50] » Right. But I don't I don't know. This has just been the policy for the five

[1:15:56] years. It has things written into it that if you want to add a street light

[1:16:01] somewhere can if the police think a street light goes somewhere where the

[1:16:05] policy says you can suggest to the building board to have one installed

[1:16:09] that already exists in the policy and I'm saying that I don't know everything

[1:16:14] about this anyway like we might start installing them and be like oh the

[1:16:19] 2500's too young they need to be turned up and the policy goes I'm going to say

[1:16:22] that exact same thing at public safety because I don't know how people are

[1:16:25] going to feel about it >> and I got to say 5 years is not a really

[1:16:28] long period of time. I mean if we just changed this 5 years ago that's that's

[1:16:33] not that's >> it's not that we change it. We wrote it.

[1:16:37] » Oh you wrote it five years ago. >> Put it on paper.

[1:16:40] » Yeah. We didn't really This is basically what was mostly being done in the old

[1:16:46] developments anyway just not to LEDs. We just didn't have an LED specified for

[1:16:51] the village and that's what was coming down. A lot of this replicates what was

[1:16:56] being done in the neighborhood where you live and other ones. I mean, I went out

[1:17:00] and measured like distances between street lights and came up with like this

[1:17:04] is how I think distances should function and where in the village I found that

[1:17:09] are too close and where there are places where they are very stretched out. This

[1:17:12] wasn't done like just whatever. Like

[1:17:17] » I just remember we did work on this. We got $11,000 back from MG& because they

[1:17:23] were charging us for our own >> Oh, I'm so So, but no, I'm trying to

[1:17:27] give you a history that this policy, right, why it's five years old, but it's

[1:17:32] been a practice in the village for a long, long time. What we wanted to do is

[1:17:35] put it on paper. >> It makes sense. I'm just saying five

[1:17:38] years and that's good. We're just you're seeing differences and technology

[1:17:43] changes and I get that. So, and I think it makes sense to refer

[1:17:49] back. We don't have sidewalks on Park Street. We don't have sidewalks in L

[1:17:53] village where we're relying on street light for the pedestrians to walk safely

[1:17:57] with their families or anything else. There's no rush. Why Why we can't refer

[1:18:01] this to them with some ideas? >> You're missing I referring it, but it's

[1:18:05] got to be like I say, I wanted to make sure that people's expectations here

[1:18:10] isn't there. You're going to go out there with light meters on a 35 and 25

[1:18:14] to see how far the light goes because we were talking a lot about pedestrian

[1:18:19] safety and that's a different type of lighting.

[1:18:22] » Not here when you have everybody walking the street.

[1:18:24] » That's not the because we are trying to make a Park Street will have sidewalks

[1:18:30] probably when we get done with that project. All right. That could be as

[1:18:33] early as 2028. All right. So we are we put in uh we put them on brewery. We are

[1:18:41] putting in sidewalks and stuff to make it safe. So that has to do with the

[1:18:46] street lights. >> All right.

[1:18:51] » So you know they're not too

[1:18:57] I think the street light think about the brightness. This does affect pedestrian

[1:19:03] bike safety, which is why I brought that up. the point I made about the the U

[1:19:10] block for yes that that's not a street lighting that would be a specializing

[1:19:16] that we can develop another policy for not saying it needs to be but the street

[1:19:20] lighting policy itself does impact pedestrian and safety some that was my

[1:19:28] concern in some of these places where spacing is larger I was I'm concerned

[1:19:34] about reducing the number of lumens from this but as

[1:19:38] Michael pointed out there it's already in the ordinance where we have some

[1:19:43] flexibility uh to go a brighter ball dark spot and

[1:19:48] so that's why you know I'm comfortable with this presented um we don't have to

[1:19:54] composters have to sit the slightest type of distance so it's simple as that

[1:19:58] but I think this does affect our student safety on most of our streets

[1:20:04] more block than that kind of pedestrian scale like that.

[1:20:11] » And that was partially why this fixture initially really came out to me was that

[1:20:16] it has that dial of amount of brightness that you want. It's incredibly easy to

[1:20:21] change them up to change them down. Like you like you don't lock yourself into

[1:20:26] when you get it, you're stuck here. It's easy just to have the guys up and go

[1:20:30] click click and now you get a thousand more took them two minutes to to bump

[1:20:36] them up. >> Well, we have a motion on the table. So,

[1:20:42] let's do a roll call vote.

[1:20:47] » Commissioner Hillbrand, this is to recommend approval of the

[1:20:51] updated policy. >> Yes.

[1:20:54] » Commissioner Johnson, >> yes. Trusty Calvator,

[1:20:57] » no. >> Trusty Roius,

[1:20:59] » yes. >> President Lel,

[1:21:01] » yes. All right.

[1:21:07] Uh, I guess we're at adjournment. >> Mjourn. Second.

[1:21:13] » All right. All in favor say I. >> I. I'll say move. Thank you.

[1:21:21] All right. So, they'll be getting in contact with you tomorrow to see if

[1:21:26] Thursday, early Thursday or

09.08.2026 Plan Commission Meeting

Transcript