Village Board of Trustees

Village of Weston, Wisconsin OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL JOINT VILLAGE BOARD AND PLAN COMMISSION held on Monday, December 13, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., in the Board Room, at the Municipal Center AGENDA ITEMS. 1. Meeting called to order by President Maloney at approximately 6:18 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Declaration of a Quorum by Secretary Parker of Village Board (BOT). Roll call by Secretary Parker indicated 7 BOT members present. Member Present Maloney, Mark YES Ermeling, Barb YES Fiene, Nate ABSENT Meinel, Steve YES White, Loren YES Xiong, Yee YES – Late at 6:58p.m. Zeyghami, Hooshang YES 3. Roll Call and Declaration of a Quorum by Secretary Parker of Plan Commission (PC). Roll call by Secretary Parker indicated 7 PC members present and two alternates. Member Present White, Loren YES Meinel, Steve YES Cronin, Steve YES Guerndt, Gary YES Jordan, Joe YES Marshall, Gayle YES Mumper, Roy YES Maloney (Alt. 1) YES Zeyghami (Alt. 2) YES Village Staff in attendance: Donner, Higgins, Wodalski, Trautman, Weinkauf, Wheaton, and Parker. There were 5 audience members present in-person and 3 audience members present via Zoom. PUBLIC COMMENT [0:18:20 Zoom Meeting Recording] John Rondeau, 5403 JM Place, was present stating he is opposed to both TID#1 & TID#2. He stated when he attended the September meeting, it appeared that this was a closed subject, and how last week he received a call about this being brought back up at this meeting. He then brought up other concerns related to spending on Weston Avenue and the new Municipal Center. He brought up a concern on a 5-acre wooded lot with two houses that he heard Weston is buying, and questioned why the current owner does not take the houses down himself and sell it. He questioned what will become of the current Municipal Center. He commented on the public works building over at Weston’s Ryan Street property. He commented on commercial properties along Schofield Avenue with right-in, right-out access. He commented on how Ross Avenue will need to become a 4-lane road (removing the bike lane) if 150 houses get built. He also made a comment about the Village’s dog park. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 1 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 [0:22:41 Zoom Meeting Recording] Laverne Rondeau, 5403 JM Place, was present, pointing out she attended the September meeting also, and how from what she noticed not one person who attended was in favor of the amendment. She questioned why the Village would think any of those who attended the meeting have changed their minds. She stated that how the project was reduced in scale and denied then. She commented on a handout that she was looking at, discussing a proposed cost of $14 million and how $8 million is to be absorbed by projected revenues, and questioned what those projected revenues are. She asked how much incentivizing the Village is looking at giving people to come in. She asked who is putting together the cost analysis (staff or consultant). She commented that she heard the Village may be over budget on the new municipal building. [0:22:41 Zoom Meeting Recording] Thomas Salzman, 277521 Lahr Avenue, was present, and stated his main comment is that TID #2 should be closed. He feels most of the proposals in the document are outside of the TID, and feels the main purpose of a TID is to benefit the property owners within the TID. He stated when you put projects outside of the TID that benefit the whole community, you are not benefitting the owners of the TID. He feels the TID should be closed and projects should be paid for out of a different fund, other than the TID. He commented that what he got from the last meeting we are asking the property owners of the TID to contribute to these projects with special assessments and condemnation. He commented that he has talked to property owners all along Schofield Avenue, and how the owners don’t want to come to a meeting because they have to discuss things with the Village staff later and don’t want the staff upset with them, as they are speaking out against things. He then brought up how there was some accusations about ex parte communications, and how it was downplaying normal talk between citizens and Board members. COMMUNICATIONS, DISCLOSURES, AND RECUSALS 4. Written Communication Received NEW BUSINESS [0:28:38 Zoom Meeting Recording] 5. Reconsider TID#2 Project Plan Amendment Donner handed out, and made available, to the Board, Plan Commission, and audience a printed copy of the Table 1 Potential Infrastructure and Related Project Costs Assigned to TID #2, along with printed Notes related to tonight’s discussion (both attached). Maloney explained to the audience that at the October Plan Commission meeting, this topic was brought up under Project Updates, on that agenda, and two of the Plan Commission members indicated they were considering changing their vote. Maloney stated the reason this is coming back up is that we need to make a decision, to the State, by April 15th, if we are going to close this TID. He explained what occurred in that September Plan Commission Meeting was it was decided by Plan Commission was the proposed amendments to the TID were denied (not whether to close it). He pointed out how Plan Commission is the deciding body on the TID. He stated if not one of the 5 Plan Commissioners bring this back up for a vote to reconsider, even a smaller amendment version, then we have to decide tonight on whether to close it. Rondeau commented that he feels if we have a project listed on the plan, and that project does not occur, those proposed dollars should not then be moved to cover a different Village project. Maloney stated with the plan, you have to declare a project in order to do the project with TID funds. He commented on how some of the members had previously asked why this plan is suggesting to take on projects outside of the TID. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 2 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Maloney stated with the comment on ex parte conversations (members discussing an item before the meeting), he investigated the claims made and have found the issue to be untrue. He stated there was a perception of this, but it was found that ex parte conversations never happened. Donner explained how ex parte discussions can be done at the Federal level and not hear, and explained the Federal level is “legislative”, where the local level, we are talking about Plan Commissioners acting in a quasi- judicial role, where they are serving in a similar role as a judge. Higgins explained if the matter is for a rezone or a conditional use, the members are acting like a judge. Higgins pointed out you would not discuss your public hearing case with a judge before a hearing is held, and this is the same. Rondeau feels the Village is trying to sneak this through a hearing. Higgins explained tonight is just a work session between the Plan Commission and Board to discuss this and not a public hearing. She stated there is always a public comment period on all the meeting agendas. Cronin brought up that if this TID is closed, we cannot open a new one, due to the amount of land we have in our two TID’s. Meinel commented that our bonding people have indicated that our borrowing in our utilities and cash coverage is substantially lower the last time we did borrowing, so there is have room to tap into instead of tapping into our TID. Donner stated he understands the discomforts about projects outside the TID, and emphasized that it is not staff saying we need to include this into the project plan. Staff is asking their feedback as to whether or not they want to entertain this further at a reduced scope. Donner stated there is an opportunity with the position of TID#2 to help promote some development and redevelopment along the Schofield Avenue corridor. He stated this was one of the reasons TID was created in the beginning. He stated we realized we have more of our assessed equalized value of our whole Village in TID’s, and as has been recognized, TID #2 does not satisfy any level in reducing that percentage significantly. He explained there was discussion at the September meeting as to what the impact would be if we were to borrow on the general obligation note, the money we needed ($3.5 million) for Schofield Avenue reconstruction, and it is estimated at $0.30 per thousand on the general tax roll, whereas, by closing TID#2, we would only see a reduction of about $.09 per thousand. Cronin confirmed that reconstruction Schofield Avenue would be completely on the Village (not the County or State). He confirmed at $3.5 million would be all the Village’s costs. Donner stated unless we get a grant from the Federal or State levels, but those come with strings attached. Xiong arrived at 6:58 p.m. Mumper stated from what he understands the purpose of a TID financing tool used to redevelop a blighted area, and then he looks at our #1 priority on this list, which is to repave Schofield Avenue. He feels repaving is maintenance and questioned what the justification is to have this project in the TID. Donner stated all the infrastructure to support the redevelopment/development has always been a goal in the TID. Wodalski explained that the Village currently spends $150,000 - $200,000 per year in maintenance and concrete repair on Schofield Avenue, for the last 3 or 4 years. Meinel stated the money in the TID going towards Schofield Avenue could make more sense. He stated if we have to replace Schofield Avenue, it would be better to have the TID pay for it, and use all of the TID money, then the to have it land on the taxes for the entire Village. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 3 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Wodalski stated the project description should be expanded upon, where it touches on the storm sewer replacement. He stated there are places that surcharge the storm sewer system, due to the impervious area of the road. There would be storm sewer enhancements, to reduce flooding throughout the corridor. He stated also along the intersections, the traffic signals and loop detectors need replacement. Wodalski stated the description should not just state milling and repaving, but instead reconstructing, etc. Ermeling is not necessarily in support of any projects outside of the TID, and feels we should have a designated project, not potential project ideas. She agrees with the Schofield Avenue project, and feels we would be missing an opportunity if we don’t do anything here. Marshall questioned White if he previously stated he read the current TID that was currently in place, and how Schofield Avenue could be replaced under the existing language. White stated the currently language broadly states the project, and does not specifically identify it. He stated the language is very vague, which is why it is best not to depend on that document. Donner stated the issue that we have been advised by our financial consultant is that as you look at the level of expenditures that have been authorized in TID #2, in order to accomplish that project right now we would have to authorize the additional expenditure that is listed. Donner stated the consultant is saying we have reached the level of expenditures that have been approved in the current document, at this stage, and how we should not take on any more debt, to avoid violating any laws. The advice is that we need to make an amendment in order to get things into compliance. Maloney brought up some of the priorities on the list, and how the Schofield Avenue project refers to “repaving”, but we are constantly replacing concrete. Wodalski clarified it would be concrete. Maloney then brought up the other priority #1, which is for Village acquiring land for $750,000, and questioned who would take that on (staff or other hired professional). Higgins pointed out the plan (map) that was put together about a year ago or so (by Plan Commission, staff, and MDRoffers), which outlines potential areas for redevelopment. Higgins stated there are pieces of land along Schofield Avenue, which have been sitting idle for almost 19 years. Maloney pointed out the General Administrative, Legal, & Planning costs listed on Table 2 (of the printed NOTES document), estimated at $723,550. White reiterated how this is the original proposed amendment, and how staff is asking how we can reduce the list or close the TID. Guerndt stated if this proposal goes forward to amend or to extend the life of the TID, who will be the cheerleader selling (going to the developers and realtors)? He feels we have not gotten very far with the last one, as far as communicating. If we do this, get as much build-out and done as quickly as possible. Will it be staff or a hired consultant to go out and advertise this. Maloney stated to get someone to buy those properties and get shovel ready and advertise to developers. Zeyghami commented hiring marketing companies to promote. Maloney stated he met with some developers or marketing companies in Wausau looking for shovel ready properties. Maloney does not feel we have anyone here (staff, elected, or appointed) that can do this. Ermeling questioned if we leave the TID#2 open, how long would it take us to pay off the Schofield Avenue project, as far as if it would take the rest of the life of the TID to pay it off, or sooner. Donner stated the TID is Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 4 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 required to close by 2031, and it would need to be paid by then. Ermeling is in support of reconstructing Schofield Avenue with TID funds, but would hope it would be paid off before 2031. Trautman stated the increment on TID #2 is $622,000 for this year’s budget. She stated there is still debt in TID #2. She stated with the funds that we have available, we could pay off the debt in TID #2 right now. Donner stated if the Village chooses to do nothing, the TID#2 closes by the end of next year. Jordan confirmed with Trautman that the Village earns $622,000 each year in TID#2, and based on that if we did the Schofield Avenue project with TID funds, it would be paid off in 6 more years. Guerndt stated how this is projecting that there will be a lot of development occurring, which there are no guarantees. Donner stated the evaluation of whether money would be spent would be on a case-by-case basis to make sure we are cash flowing by the time of the retirement of the TID. Marshall questioned how the financial consultant gets paid. Donner stated there is administrative costs and issuance which are rolled into our bonds. Trautman stated we have paid our consultant $2,000.00. Jordan stated with the Schofield Avenue repaving plan, if we are really going to get the land that is developable, he feels we should leave the money in there, and wait for those lands to get developed to help then determine what we will want for turn lanes, etc. His intent would not be to simply say “let’s put some money in there to repave Schofield Avenue”, rather it would be to allow the Board the option to do something different with Schofield Avenue after there has been more development, in case changes in road design are needed. Maloney stated it would take 22 years of spending $100,000 - $150,000 in annual maintenance to get to the $3.5 million that is in this plan. Zeyghami stated the concrete on Schofield Avenue has reached its life expectancy, and the maintenance costs are only going to increase over each year. There was some discussion on the $8 million in projected project costs, and how this amount is based on some assumptions on potential development. Cronin questioned if the TID currently cash flows each year at $622,000, and if we had no new development in the next 6 years, it results in $3.7 million. He confirmed in order to get to the $8 million projected costs, we would need new developments, which are not guaranteed. Maloney posed the question on if repaving would bring in more business or having more shovel-ready property bring in more business. Donner stated how if Schofield Avenue is falling apart and full of potholes, how it will detract from someone wanting to come in. Maloney stated we need to figure what the best route to go to encourage more development. He stated if it is not the road, and it’s about buying property and getting it shovel ready, then that’s the route we should be going. Marshall commented we have $3.7 million to over the next 6 years to do the land acquisition, development incentives. She stated we don’t need to borrow $8 million. Trautman clarified that we are not borrowing $8 million. She stated that currently with our TIF#1 situation and with the cash flow at the Village right now, we could loan TIF#2 monies, so we would not have to borrow. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 5 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Donner stated we could identify a partner to help to market and inform landowners or people who have their property on the market that we have some ability. He stated we could look into doing this among staff. Guerndt feels we should reach out to larger corporations, nationwide. Higgins explained how we used to partner with MCDEVCO, the County, and other local municipalities, and go to large retail conventions. We would have a booth and meet with different retailers. She stated a lot of the people they were talking to back then were looking for larger pieces of land. She stated at that point we were concentrating on marketing the Camp Phillips Centre. She stated we have not attended one of these conventions in a few years now. Guerndt stated if we have property owners out there who want to sell, and the Village doesn’t own it, how do we market their land. Donner stated Kwik Trip owns the Layne Northwest property, and they are marketing that site all the time. He pointed out there are some people interested in the Alpine site. Donner stated right now, the way the district is, we can’t do anything. Higgins stated some potential projects/land purchases will involve discussions at Board level in closed session, as we’d be talking about pricing and properties. White stated as far as incentives, if a developer is looking help to demolish existing structures or bring in utilities, that could be covered under incentives, where we would not necessarily have to buy the land. Jordan disclosed that he owns some property on Schofield Avenue that would qualify for redevelopment money. He stated he is not looking for the Village to acquire his property, but instead looking for if a developer comes in to help them get over the costs of demolition. He stated that based on the appraisal that they have, the building is actually a detriment. If we close the TID, the issue he has is then is the Village zoning going to allow those property owners to just build whatever they can to utilize that property, where there are all types of potential uses that don’t fit in, or the property just continues to sit the way it is. He really likes the idea of putting the reconstruction of Schofield Avenue into this plan long term, but with the idea that the Board recognizes that we are not going to spend the money for the reconstruction until after we get through to what we are trying to accomplish along Schofield Avenue first. He does not support our going out and reconstructing the road right away next year. He feels something should be done first with the properties. Wodalski stated in the CIP, he has the Schofield Avenue reconstruction as a 2025/2026 project. Wodalski stated even if the Board directed staff now to get the project going, it would still take over a year to get through the design, etc. Wodalski stated 2026 is the last year we can spend money. Jordan feels the idea should be to get the redevelopment done over the next couple years, prior to closing. He stated for this reason, he is not in favor of closing the TID #2. Maloney and Donner confirmed to keep the TID #2 open, we can’t just let it sit, as we have to propose something, and we have to have some increment and to show some expenditures, or we will be asked to close the TID #2. Marshall feels that since we are already generating increment under the existing plan, we do not need to do the amendment. Trautman explained we do not have in the project plan that allows us to the type of work that they want. Guerndt stated we need to modify the plan to list potential projects or cost values. He stated we don’t need to spend the money, but you have to have it in there in order to access it. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 6 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Jordan suggested we remove all the proposed projects that are not along Schofield Avenue out of this, and hold the Board accountable to not spend money on Schofield Avenue until the effort has been put into getting those properties to change hands. Ermeling questioned if we are waiting on Schofield Avenue for the development, if we put it in the plan, but not spending it yet, will it trigger the State to question why we have not spent it yet. Maloney questioned if payroll expenses is enough to satisfy the State. Higgins stated this would be part of the strategic plan where we would put a priority on staff time or hire someone outside to be the cheerleader. Guerndt questioned why the TID has to close if end the date is 2031. Donner stated if we don’t have any commitments to spend any more money, or plans to spend any more money, then we need to close it. Ermeling stated we would have enough increment or savings to pay off the debt. Guerndt stated there has not been any projects in the last number of years, is it because of limits of putting money towards demolition. Donner stated there is not a clear direction of what the current plan allows. Jordan stated the reason they built was based on incentives. Jordan stated the only way anything will happen is there has to be a focus to find people interested in doing this, and he is for keeping the TID open, as long as we hone in on the reason for doing this. Cronin stated he struggles with is this redevelopment TID that started back in 2004. He does not know what has changed along there over the past 17 years. Donner stated the focus on the TID was on beautification of the corridor. Maloney brought up the different developments that has come through. There was discussion on what it would cost to create green fields. Zeyghami stated demolition could be about $0.50 cents per cubic feet. Marshall stated the project sounds good to her as we want to develop things. She feels we are ignoring the fact that we are double the TID value. She stated until we can subtract land out of TID #1, to bring us more in line with what is reasonable, to rely on all the homeowners outside this commercial development, she is not in favor. Donner stated what we can or cannot take out of TID #1 would depend on what other projects that we continue to take on. He stated we need to take a step back and analyze that. He pointed out later on this agenda, we will be talking about Weston Avenue, which has been made a number #1 priority in TID #1. We can’t substantially reduce land area in TID #1, but we have to keep enough land in there to take on any additional debt that may come up. Guerndt stated if you don’t give money for incentives, those existing old buildings on Schofield Avenue will sit for another 16 years. Jordan stated that he agrees there have been some development over the years, but what we have left now are the tough ones. Higgins stated the shift went to the Business Park from Schofield Avenue. We could not assist if people came in and asked. Guerndt stated what happened was the easier to take care of properties got developed. Mumper stated he agrees that without incentives, unless you have big corporations that can afford it, nothing will come in. Cronin would like stipulation that we would have to spend money to promote redevelopment before it could be spent on repaving Schofield Avenue. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 7 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Jordan asked if we are in favor of creating an amendment with only projects along Schofield Avenue, and have staff work on something that focuses on development with the idea of reconstructing Schofield Avenue would come after a period of time. White pointed out the staff suggestions in the packet. Donner stated staff can bring back a draft of what we’re thinking and then conduct a hearing. Donner questioned if they want staff to draft a revised TID#2 plan amendment. Guerndt wants to make the best decision for the community and asked staff to come back with actual facts of how many cents it is and taking payroll out of this so that they can make an educated decision on the $3.5 million as far as what that will be, and/or if we close it. Marshall stated right now we charge staff time to the TID, and questioned if the $.09 net of the employee staff time or is it gross. Maloney stated this is existing payroll, where we are able to take a certain percentage of it and move it over to TID, as they are working on projects on the TID. Ermeling stated that if we close the TID, then that percentage of staff time being charged to the TID would go back onto the general tax roll. Guerndt stated we need the justification in order to tell someone why they made this decision. He stated he is for development, but he also wants to make a proper fiscal decision to make sure he can justify his reasons behind this. Donner stated if we close the TID, it brings back $64,200 to the general tax levy. Taxes would then drop $.09 cents per thousand. Donner stated of that amount $46,400 is administrative costs for staff salary, etc. Maloney commented on how we are only talking about the Weston portion, not including the school districts, county, etc. Mumper commented about lots not getting sold because of existing buildings and the costs of demolition, and wondered if we could offer to the landowners that we will pay for the demo and then they pay us back when they sell. Maloney questioned who is inclined out of 7 Plan Commission to make an amendment to TID#2: *Marshall and Meinel were opposed *White, Cronin, Guerndt, Jordan, and Mumper were in support Guerndt stated to know we have to maximize our efforts up front to get opportunities. Mumper stated to let property owners know we are willing to work with them to get to a greenfield to generate a sale. Cronin stated he is not opposed to seeing an amendment, but still has questions to be answered. 6. Weston Avenue Design Concept. [1:53:07 Zoom Meeting Recording] Donner stated AECOM is working on this project, and want to schedule a public informational meeting. He stated they have reached a 30% plan level. He stated the two main topics that came up are the typical cross section of the street and what we may want to consider in terms of utility special assessment. Wodalski stated explained his discussions with Zach Larson, of AECOM, for the stretch from County Highway X to Ryan Street, AECOM suggests that we carry a 2-way left lane (TWLTL) through entire corridor, which adds 14 feet of extra needed right-of-way. Wodalski does not feel this is necessary. He then went through some of the plan options. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 8 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Wodalski explained the reasoning behind starting on the east side of this project is that it is going to take some time to acquire the right-of-way needs along the west side, and so they could get the east side construction underway, and by the time they are done with that, then start the west side. Wodalski confirmed this will not lengthen the time of the project. There was discussion regarding putting bicycles on the road or the paved path, which Zeyghami feels bicyclists should not be on the pedestrian path, that they should be on the road. Wodalski stated there will be 5 feet of paved should that bicyclists can use. Donner brought up special assessments and utilities. He is thinking of proposing something like what was done for Apache Lane, where they base the assessments on 200’ of length of the base cost for the water main and use that as the amount as assessed and deferred until they want to connect. White commented this is a good standard to use 200’ maximum. If a subdivision comes in they would need to move connections in there. Donner connection fee for one location and developer has costs to take care of. White stated we are trying to plan this out to not bankrupt anyone. Donner stated we are required under Statute to defer assessment for any land under cropland preservation or management forest. Wodalski stated estimating $98 per foot. Mumper is in favor of following the Apache Lane concept. Donner stated we want to schedule a public information meeting on a special meeting night. White commented that sometimes the public gets a number that is not accurate, and how we need to have all the correct numbers in front and ready. He would like that included at a public informational meeting. Donner stated in terms of right-of-way acquisition (eminent domain process) and special assessments being two different things. a. Set Date for Public Informational Meeting It was discussed that this meeting will be held at Dale’s Weston Lanes. Two dates were suggested: January 31st and January 24th. Maloney suggested to check both dates for availability. 7. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 14 Building and Addressing Regulations [2:15:04 Zoom Meeting Recording] a. 2017-2021 Permit Statistics Donner stated the statistics were just furnished for Meinel’s purposes. Higgins pointed out the permit totals on page 92. Maguire, who put this report together, went through all the details, stating there is 5 years of data. He pointed out in 2021, commercial building valuation was the highest in 5 years, over $28 million in valuation. It was stated this would include schools and the new municipal center. The total valuation added was $45 million. Wheaton stated municipal center pulled $14 million. Donner stated the permit fees do not track the assessed value. This report does not include utilities, well permits, etc., just the Planning & Development department. White brought up the proposed revisions to Chapter 14, the members went through and brought up their suggested edits. Tatro explained how this code follows the State code and cannot be more stringent than theirs. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 9 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 Tatro explained if staff needed an evaluation from a testing lab on a product that is not listed in the State code, this is when a consultant would get hired to do the evaluation. Higgins stated we want to take this to public hearing, as there are pieces of the Subdivision and Zoning code to be amended. Higgins stated this will come as a hearing at our January meeting. Meinel questioned telecommunications towers. After some discussion, Maguire stated we can include a better definition. Meinel brought up the Certificate of Occupancies required for change of use. Donner stated this is used for adding personal property. It was stated if new occupants remodel space, we can ensure the building and fire code are met. Higgins stated this is also to make sure a new businesses is a permitted use by right. Guerndt stated the issue he sees is when there is a problem, staff should be letting the owner know directly, not making the future tenant bring it to the owner. It was stated the knowledge of new businesses usually comes through sign permits or during fire inspections. Higgins stated a few property owners will have their new tenants contact us. Wodalski commented he bought a new home, and how Assessor, Greg Schmidt, asked if his basement was finished, as his records did not reflect it, but the realty ad did. 8. Proposed Changes to Chapter 94 Article 13 Signs [2:45:45 Zoom Meeting Recording] Wheaton explained the suggested changes by Yde and her suggested changes. Mumper commented on how the ETZ had comments on the rural stuff, and feels they should be included in this discussion. Higgins stated we can share these draft changes with ETZ Mark Hull and Milt Olson and will have them here for the public hearing. Wheaton explained the changes and commented staff is asking for PC to give more direction or send this to public hearing. It was agreed the temporary and political signs will be more critical. Wheaton stated we are still basing on timing and quantity and not based on content. People can have them outside of elections for 30 days, limiting 2 signs, and within 30 days of an election, any number of signs for residential. Marshall would like to see this as 60 consecutive days. The PC members are in agreement to 60 days. Maloney brought up drones using signs. Donner suggested we can furnish Yde’s letter for the hearing. Cronin asked to receive these draft ordinance revisions in advance. Maloney commented on flags. Wheaton signs allowed without a permit, and that they were renamed from building mounted to angle pole mounted. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 10 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213 MISCELLANEOUS 9. Announcements & Trustee and/or Commissioner Remarks [2:56:08 Zoom Meeting Recording] Zeyghami the hearings in January. Higgins stated all will be done at same time, and that there will be 2 hearings (Chapter 94 where affected by Chapter 14 changes, and Chapter 94 for signs). The hearings before Plan Commission will be on January 10th, here at the Municipal Center. The other meeting (Public Works to discuss Weston Avenue) will be at Dale’s Weston Lanes near the end of January (24th). Maloney brought up a plaque the Village was awarded from the Hmong Association. He explained his experience this summer, where there were over 14,000 people in attendance. Ermeling and Zeyghami both have attended those events and really enjoy them. Maloney pointed out the over $2 million in positive economic impact. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Cronin, second by Guerndt, to adjourn PC at 9:21 p.m. Motion by Hooshang, Second by Ermeling, to adjourn BOT at 9:21 p.m. Minutes prepared by Valerie Parker, Planning Technician Page 11 Mtg_BOT_211220_Consent_Minutes_BOT-PC 211213_211213