On the proposed variance for a cul-de-sac beyond current 800 foot limit; some thoughts and observations after Board tabled the measure for now:
- Citizen comments, especially Mike Wilkom(sp?) hit it right on the head. He and his wife own 8 plus acres and went to Village and reviewed the land use plans for The Orchard area before they purchased their land and built their home. Since the current rules only allow 800 foot cul-de-sac from main road, he and his wife thought at most there would be 8 homes of about 2 acres each (similar size to current properties in the area) because they would need other land to make a through, connecting road for two entrances. Now developer comes along and wants a variance so he can maximize the number of homes for one entrance (19 with 20 being max--Developer originally proposed 20 homes but had to give up some land for ponds). So Mr. and Mrs. Wilkom did the right thing, but if Village allows a variance, then their due diligence was wasted and the comments from Village staff that you should know what will happen with a property before you buy is now a questionable comment at best. The Village made this same comment during discussions about Bike Trail crossing to Prairie Trails West residents, but if a prospective homeowner went to the County, they would have found out the Village had no permit and would likely not receive one.
- Rick Renzuli (sp?) also spoke and had pictures of what he has had to deal with for last nine months while a new home was being built accross the street (28th Avenue) and was concerned how magnified this would be with a whole subdivision worth of construction traffic passing by his house; garbage, muddy road (he mentioned he has cleaned the road of dirt 22 times), cement trucks dumping their waste in drainage ditches...etc. (Pictures speak a thousand words and if you see someone doing something wrong, by all means get it on film. Village inspectors can't be everywhere). Rick proposed that a temporary road connection occur from Prairie Trails East to the Orchards through one of the cul-de-sac lots. Great idea since they already have to run sewer and water through same and would also make emergency access significantly shorter. One problem; The Orchard developers would have to work with PTE developer (sounds like this has already been a problem) and PTE has final plat approval and doesn't have to make any changes unless their permit expires (could sue if Village forces changes). Clyde Allen did the right thing by proposing a motion that would require a permanent connection occur instead of temporary road but he was quickly admonished by Mr. Pollocoff and his motion was not seconded and died (I think Clyde got off lightly considering the way Mr. Lauer and Mr. Tiahnybok were treated by Mr. Pollocoff and Mr. Kumorkiewicz in the past for similar issues). Clyde took it pretty well and it was nice to see some discussion about this issue by all members of the Board and staff.
- Monica Yuhas asked whether there were similar cul-de-sacs like the proposed one and both Jean Werbie and Mr. Pollocoff said many (greater than 40). What neither added was the streets they mentioned are mostly old streets that currently don't terminate in a cul-de-sac and most will eventually connect as through streets. How many times has this type of variance been granted where a permanent cul-de-sac was intended? And how many of the current streets will permanently terminate in a cul-de-sac? I'd like to see the answer to those questions before one claims 'many'. And, if there have been 'many' such grantings, then the whole idea of a variance is also questionable since these are supposed to be one time uses and not 'whenever we feel like it'. Mr. Braig, who is a current Plan Commissioner, was sitting in the audience shaking his head so one might think this variance idea isn't that great.
- Steve Kumorkiewicz asked about putting No Construction Traffic signage at 116th Street and 28th Avenue. When Addition 1 went into PTW area with similar signage, the trucks still rumbled down our street even though the road didn't go through. They had to back up and turn around by the pond and field where all the kids play and go back down the street to the required entrance (my wife videotaped a few times--scared the crap out of them!). Make the fine for violating an attention getter if you really want compliance.
Another question is what will happen during the proposed road improvements on 116th Street, slated for 2010 and 2011? What affect will this have on The Orchard and Prairie Trails East construction, along with the areas existing residents access to their homes (both 26th and 28th Avenues plus Tobin Woods), since nothing for The Orchard can happen until PTE has been started and the roads are in place? Is there a chance all this could be ongoing at same time? If so, it would put quite a strain on the one entrance from Russell Road for residents, trucks, busses,...etc. I also remember that when PTE proposed similar cul-de-sacs greater than allowed length years ago, Village said that it shouldn't happen (both Chief's didn't like the idea) and that's why they needed the Kenosha County Bike Trail road crossing. So I was fairly surprised to see no concerns raised from either Fire Chief or Police Chief since the proposed emergency Bike Trail crossing won't really help due to the current proposed road configuration to get to The Orchards as it is quite long and out-of-the-way with current approved final plat for PTE (down 39th Avenue to 122nd Street and all the way through and around pond in Prairie Trails West, across the bike trail--but first have to wait for emergency access only gate to open--East through PTE to near 26th Avenue, North on 26th, then over to 28th Avenue on 121st, up 28th Avenue to 120th Street and all the way to the end of 120th Street to the cul-de-sac) In addition, coming from 116th is a crapshoot at best with such a narrow road. But in the end, I'll bet developer will get his variance without a permanent road or even a temporary one based on past experince with issues raised by residents before Plan Commission and the Board.
Mr. Pollocoff presented about Snow removal and associated costs and where the Village currently is financially. See RAG's comments (click here) for more discussion or video (click here)/audio files (click here) when available. Just one clarification in Mr. Pollocoff's presentation, the symbol for Magnesium Chloride is MgCl2 (the two should be a subscript), not Mgcl (used to help salt melt ice and snow).
I had to leave after item D so can't say much about any of the other items, but I did here there was an issue with the Consent Agenda raised by Mr. Allen.
17 comments:
As a precursor to this comment, I am one of the 4 owners proposing the Orchard.
First, the original neighborhood plan proposed 27 1/3-acre parcels on those same 16 acres. Mrs. Wilkhomm protested these plans as incorrect (she incorrectly thought those included her land), but it was one of the reason the parcel was purchased.
I also know neighbors didn't protest the sale of two other 1/2-acre parcels being sold off the Szele orchard as pieces. The first was to Carol Alter, I don't recall the name from the second sale one year later. It was kosher to do it the first two times, but now it's unacceptable? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Or is it those neighbors who feel developmental guidelines should be approved by them first, then the Village? Isn't that what people run for office for? to guide policy?
Also for the record, Mike approached me about buying 2 of the lots adjacent to his. When I said the Village wouldn't allow us to restrict the water access to those lots (which would have reduced our costs), he deferred on that and came out guns blazing against our proposal....which is his province.
The list of reasons against the Orchard used by its neighbors is long and most are severely lacking conviction. If you are against development, say so and be done with it. Don't hop scotch around your true issue and fling about false reasons.
It started with lot size consistency, of which there is none throughout that area. Yet, the Orchard has lots too small to "fit" that rural neighborhood. Nobody farms there (save the Kim's bees and small number of apple trees), so an argument rendered moot. Joe Szele hasn't farmed that orchard since the mid 1990s. The phrases "light pollution" and "owl endangerment" were used. Neither of which was a serious matter (there are no endangered animals in that orchard now). You yourself waffled on the use of shrubbery and landscaping for our retention ponds. At the meeting in November of 2006, you suggested the landscaping would prevent children from approaching the ponds. In February of 2007, you said the landscaping would attract children to that same pond. Mike Wilkhomm said his children would be drawn to the retention ponds and the pond's danger was unavoidable. The CDC doesn't even do studies on retention pond drownings, I checked (I have a 3 year old son and 2 year old daughter). When you concurred with this pond issue (citing the drowning in your Prairie Trails West), you failed to mention the driver who crashed and died was drunk.
You also rave on Clyde's "amendments". Do you realize he's voted 3 times in favor of PTE? He's also voted in favor of the Orchard's preliminary plat. He cast all those yes votes fully aware of what the outlook was/is. As you are one who attends virtually ALL the plan commission and Board meetings, you knew this as well. Save your kudos for those who stand by their convictions, not those who swish from side to side to garner momentary praise. I don't see you as naive, nor unintelligent, but heaping praise on those lacking conviction makes you look as though this isn't the case. You and I may agree to disagree on many things, but I don't feel this would be one of them.
I am honestly interested in discussing some of the Village issues with you, obviously this being one.
Sorry for the longwindedness, and thanks again for the forum.
I know what the original neighborhood plan was but that was also based on two entrances. My issue with the Pond was that the large berm (that I believe changed between the dates you specified) would attract kids to use as a sledding hill onto unsafe ice, and that the shrubbery would help with attractiveness and slow an errant car but would also prevent people from viewing pond if someone fell in. I was also concerned that people turning into the subdivision might go into the pond based on what happened in our subdivision. As far as the person who drowned in our pond, the PPPD sent me this reply:
""Per the Kenosha County Medical Examiner’s Office, the driver in this accident tested positive for both alcohol and cocaine. He also had a history of seizures. These can be caused by drug use.""
I'd be careful as the report didn't specify the levels of drugs or alcohol but you may be more privy to that information than I.
I wouldn't say I waffled but that the information and design changed between my comments as I believe originally a large berm was approved and then removed do to safety concerns. Just remember that the Board voted not to cross the bike trail, then voted the opposite later. So things change and voting now may not be the same next time around (see below now that you criticized Mr. Allen).
I'm not against development, but that all points of view must be considered. I can tell you a long story of how I have been treated over the years by the Village and you then might actually understand why I'm such a gadfly (but I also have good things to say too). I'm not necessarily knocking your development as much as I'm concerned about the Village's decision process where they say one thing in one instance, and then another in another instance, and it makes it appear that there is a lack of consistency applying their own standards. Again, even though I attend MOST meetings, I don't have all the information you discussed to base my opinions on. I only have the comments and activities that occur during the meetings and not the discussions offline.
So, was I off on my comment about working with PTE too? Just curious as I had to deal with the same developer when i was President of our POA and engineered the merger between the original 24 homes and the Addition #1 66 homes.
I'm also curious if Tobin Creek had any input into the connection that was originally slated to occur between Tobin Creek and the proposed Southshore subdivision but has now been removed? Again, things change.
As far as your comments about Clyde Allen, I'd be VERY, VERY careful there too.
We initially added the berm at your behest (other neighbors concurred). Then, when it was added, those same neighbors (you later agreed in comments) thought it was a dangerous attraction to children (in spite of it only being 3 ft. high).
It is my knowledge the driver was legally intoxicated (I didn't know about the narcotics) at the time...to what extent I don't know for sure.
I also feel the Village HAS to be different in each case, as no two neighborhoods are alike. Nor should they be, which is why we (my 3 partners and I) purchased this particular piece of property. We feel it is a great neighborhood to raise our families in, in spite of Mrs. Godbold telling us she hates us.
Due to the diligence of many villagers (you included), Pickus and other future developers are under stricter guidelines with regards to development. The Village learned from that experience as well.
I do know of your "treatment" and issues with some of the Village, as I campaigned FOR Clyde Allen during the last election. I passed out cards, walked through our subdivision, etcetera. I tried to get both sides of the issues and thought (and still think) he can be good for the Village. In this instance, I feel he thought it best to go against his prior votes too hastily. It's obvious he was approached by the neighbors in that area in regards to the cul-de-sac variance (of which there are many). Instead of an impossibility (the final plat for PTE was passed -with Clyde's yes vote), he could have looked at the current, amended construction road suggestion that was tabled.
BTW, Clyde knows I am not a yes man. I also sent him questions regarding his dismissal of the plans he voted on prior. As I said, I am one of his supporters and it's my right to question what it was that changed his mind. It's no hard feelings, I don't mind valid reasons for change or differential...it's the arbitrary lack thereof that doesn't sit well with me.
As to Tobin Creek, our last HOA meeting had nothing in regards to Southshore. We had several brutal issues the current HOA board is handling quite well (including developer issues). It's my understanding that Southshore has been on again/off again for quite some time....even prior to Tobin Creek.
As I said, gadfly or not, I would be interested to hear more from you. I have thought of running for a Board seat, and would appreciate your insights.
I thought I remember a larger number associated with the height of the berm such as 15 or 30 feet? Oh well, I may be mistaken.
Some things for you to think about:
If you want to be on Board, then stop associating with anything related to me. Honest. I'm not exactly on the Village's most loved list as I'm sure you have witnessed by the Anonymous comments.
Talk with former Trustees such as Alex Tiahnybok, Jeff Lauer, William O'Toole, and Tom Terwell. Talk with current Board members and staff, and also with Larry Matson and Frank Hauck who both ran unsuccessfully. I like John Braig because he doesn't hold back and is one of the few Plan Commission members who questions staff on issues and votes against the rest of the members on some items. Dick Ginkowski, Bob Babcock Sr. and Bob Jr. also regularly attend meetings. You would definitely get both sides of the story from those guys.
Do what ever you can to be the most conscientious developer and not make the mistakes that were mentioned last night. You won't change many people's minds but you only have to do a few to make a big difference in how people will feel about you because they will expect the worse. Whether you agree with them or not, you have to find a way to be a politician. You also have to have very thick skin because believe me, what you're dealing with now is nothing compared to what you will be dealing with as a Trustee.
Just MY opinions and I say again, seek out those who have experienced the position or have run.
Mr. Roscioli,
I would be happy to discuss anything you might want to know about running for trustee. Too bad this idea only came up now, but April 2009 is only a relatively short time away too.
Respond to this posting, and we will find a way to get in touch.
Alex Tiahnybok
Alex, I appreciate your willingness to work with the Village, as well as the offer your insights and experience. I think speaking with both Mike and yourself could be detrimental to my "political aspirations" if I indeed had any. :)
I think, obviously contrary to some of your views, that the Village administration and Board do much of what they are asked to very well. That said, I think I can add to their legacy. I also think I can bring a fresh approach and fresh ideas, similar to what Clyde and Monica are doing.
I'm just curious why the following comment was made:
Due to the diligence of many villagers (you included), Pickus and other future developers are under stricter guidelines with regards to development. The Village learned from that experience as well.
Each subdivision is not necessarily done by the same developer. Some developers take "innovative" shortcuts in order to save costs. They may seem to be up to standards on the surface, but don't actually meet those standards when you scratch beneath the surface.
For example, the mailboxes in Tobin Creek were installed without the proper support posts. Without opening one up, you weren't able to know this. I know several board members came to inspect this, and the Village administrators were brought up to speed. Steps are being taken to remedy this, but it hadn't ever been done (to my knowledge) in a different subdivision.
It was my understanding Pickus did some illegal dumping while developing PTW. I have heard from residents of the Village other developmental issues were in PTW as well. I know the Village administrators were apprised of this situation as well.
I think it's an unfortunate situation when developers take extra lengths to short the community to line their pockets. Pickus was guilty of this, and I assumed you were part of the solution (as you were part of the PTW HOA). If I am mistaken in your bringing any of those problems to light, my apologies. I was being complimentary of the residents who take action, and I thought you were one of those I referenced with PTW.
I was just wondering if some 'new' standard hade been developed or unwritten rule was being communicated to developers in general as the Village hasn't made that necessarily clear but I'm happy to hear (and no I won't take credit for it and I don't have a big ego--for the naysayers). There were some major issues with Pickus but as far as I know, they'd been addressed with Village and DNR; although the neighbor bordering PTW may think differently (and you probably weren't aware but Mr. Pollocoff at a Village Board or Plan Commission meeting called Mr. Pickus, who was present, the worst developer that the Village has ever had to deal with). I have raised other concerns or items that the Village may want to look at in the future but again, I can only deal specifically with what I have experience with or hear. These would include making sure there are no roads that "T" into a retention pond without at least a barricade (person who drove in pond and drowned). Making sure inflow and outflow pipes are installed correctly or are reinforced to prevent separation (the CWU fee paid for the Village to reconnect our ourflow pipe this past fall). Ideas for better aeration systems for ponds and weed prevention/algae growth such as windmill energy generation and bubble aeration instead of noisy, expensive and energy sucking pumps (which can quietly run 24 hours a day). Ways to restrict individuals from using ponds contrary to what POA wishes without completely restricting all uses (only way now is No Trespassing with Police given letter of authority from POA to ticket). Checking to make sure that when the POA is turned over to the homeowners, that the documentation is up-to-date and the reserves or dues are funded as required. Making sure that when the Village says they have permission, that they have the permits in hand so as to not confuse people. We also had several sections of road replaced in the Addition #1 area due to breakup and sinking even though the road was only six years old. These are some safety issues and construction issues that by perhaps better oversight or improved standards, might be prevented and reduce costs both to Village and Property Owners Associations; at no extra cost to developers. That's why I had suggested a while ago to John Steinbrink Jr. and Jean Werbie that some type of meeting be set up with POA Boards and interested Village residents. Or a FAQs page on the Village website to discuss these issues so that Village knows all the issues that are out there and/or on going. This is also important because our POA is surrounded by non-Association subdivisions and a lot of times those residents don't understand our rules (how do you enforce?). That's why I was glad to hear Clyde mention meetings with POA Boards and such at a recent VB meeting. This is especially important now that the economy is not doing so well and contruction materials and costs have increased so significantly. We don't need any more 'innovative' shortcuts. The fact that you'll be living in the development will ensure you do things right or else you'll have a lot of visitors. But you can always sell and move at anytime.
Can we just route construction traffic temprarily down the bike trail?
Have a good day!
:)
Sure, go ahead and use the bike trail, then emergency crossing would be unneccessary. I'm sure Fred Patrie would have no issues with that!
If the construction work is done as specified by Village restrictions, and they clean up after themselves and adhere to the rules, then no temporary road would be needed. They just have to remember that they are 'intruding' on this areas peacefull way of life as these homes and the neighborhoods are quite old.
So who developed Tobin Creek? Same as Tobin Woods? This developer have anything else going on in Village?
I think you've heard of the developer of Tobin Creek....Bear Realty. They have several future plans within the Village.
As to the Orchard, we offered to restrict times/access for ALL construction vehicles based on the neighborhood's suggestion. For safety and trafic concerns. Our hope was the Village pushing up the schedule for the 28th ave repair (I believe it's on the 2009 budget)...which could coincide with our construction vehicles and possibly bring city sewer/water to ALL the residents of the 28th. It was just a possibility.
Also, one of the largest cul de sacs in the Village is the entirety of phase 2 in Tobin Creek. There are only 2 access points for our entire 98 home subdivision, and we haven't had any complaints about traffic. I have been to the last 2 HOA meetings. I would say that is pretty recent.
Finally, if you are looking into alternative methodology for retention pond aeration, the Tobin Creek HOA has done quite a bit of legwork lately...I could get you that info. I think our new system is an underwater, multiple hose, blah blah blah system. It's supposed to be very good.
""There are only 2 access points for our entire 98 home subdivision, and we haven't had any complaints about traffic.""
Is there a future access other than the one to the proposed SouthShore Subdivision as that one is no longer going to happen? According to Village ordinances, your subdivision doesn't comply with code:
§ 395-63. Lots.
O. Number of lots per access connection. Each residential subdivision or large lot subdivision should generally have roadway access or provide access onto an arterial, collector or minor street as outlined below:
(1) One to 20 lots require a minimum of one access point;
(2) Twenty-one to 80 lots require a minimum of two access points; and
(3) Eighty-one or more lots require a minimum of three access points.
Yes, there is a stub out to the west. I am not sure if that is to the subdivision you reference, but there is one. I am also not sure of the major road that would be connecting to. 39th is an awful far stretch, and Sheridan Rd is east. My point was there haven't been any problems as of yet, in spite of the lack of access and lengthy cul de sac(s) within the second phase.
Aerial view shows three entrances; two from 116th and one from Sheridan plus looks like a future one from west. So no issue.
I am curious to know where the 2nd entrance to 116th is. As of now, there only two outlets from Tobin Creek...and a stub out to the west.
The strangest thing happens when you zoom in on aerial on mapquest for that area. It looks like it fooled me. One pulled back view doesn't show a connection but when you zoom in to the second closest setting on aerial, it shows a connection with construction vehicles. Not sure why. Maybe it has been started and not connected yet and the pictures are aerial shots from different times? I'll try and add a picture to a new blog so you can see.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?formtype=address&addtohistory=&address=%5b3550%2d3599%5d%2014th%20Ave&city=Kenosha&state=WI&zipcode=53140&country=US&location=r%2f%2bNZ%2ffmQhZur6jgT%2bk8EaL46iWp17m%2bgHCCLHVJJB8o0m4H4zSgJ19l2x6cdtkjxDfa9YBPPicGGH9E%2biJgGzGqe%2fC0aUqW1kDYAQZ1ZzCSf2%2fjmMYUjQQX6sFqV6ghS516gCnK%2f0tME%2f09Y%2f4fsQ%3d%3d&ambiguity=1
Post a Comment