[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