Vote for the future
There isn’t anything compared to being a grandparent. Quality time spent with grandchildren is one of the pluses of growing older.
Even though we don’t have responsibility of raising our grandchildren, we have responsibility to see to it that our children and grandchildren are safe from crumbling collapsing roads and bridges. We owe it to future generations to have clean air and water for a quality life. We need to make sure our grandchildren have quality affordable healthcare.
There are many issues needing to be solved. I’m voting for Josh Kaul, Tony Evers, Mark Pocan and Tammy Baldwin, since I want a future for my grandchildren as well as their grandchildren.
Zoning change for parking is a concern
I was recently reminded that every word matters when it comes to the law. On Monday, Oct. 15, 2018, at 6 p.m. at the Village Hall, the Trustees will be voting on several changes to amend our zoning code. Each amendment deserves a separate public hearing where residents can voice on their support or concerns. The density ordinance allows parking and storm water improvements within 500 feet to be counted toward minimum lot area required (1,200 feet) per residential unit in the C1-D zone (Sec. 133-491). Density is a function of residences. It only applies when people are living in a building. Therefore, the implicit understanding is the new standards only apply to mixed-use or apartment buildings in the C1-D. Jason Valerius’s Aug. 3 memo (included in the Aug. 8 Planning Commission Package) references an “already approved project.” I only know one project, Hovde’s, requiring the new standard. That project was allowed to use ½ of the library parking lot to offset their density. According to the public GIS map, the library parking lot is G1. Hovde’s lot is zoned C1-D. We are basing this change on precedent that transects zoning types.
When asked, village staff reassured me the intention is to require the lots to be similarly zoned. Great! We want the same thing. However, the proposed language fails to address zoning. It ignores the Village parking standard where that criteria is required. When every word counts, omissions can be powerful. Disregarding zoning as an explicit criteria may lead to unintended consequences and unneeded battles between the village, residents and developers. In our parking standard, the required distance to residential uses is 250 feet (Sec. 133-995-13). We are creating conflicts within our own code by going to 500 feet for density. 500 feet is allowable for commercial uses under the current parking standard. These requirements are flexible in C1-D under Sec. 133-492. However, this section may be too vague for current State law as it does not contain an objective standard. In my opinion, we should avoid conflict between new and old ordinances which meet the State mandate of objective standards.
I remain concerned these changes will have negatively impact residences in nearby neighborhoods by encouraging street parking for large residential developments because parking is perceived as “too far” to easily access in our four season climate.