By Kim McDarison

The Whitewater Plan Commission Monday approved a conditional use permit and site plan for a 128-unit apartment complex with a condition restricting the developer from accepting Section 8 vouchers and Section 42 housing tax credits.

The permit and site plan, along with the restrictive modification, were approved by a 4-3 vote, with Plan Commission Chairman Neil Hicks, and commissioners Carol McCormick and Mike Smith voting against the measure.

During the meeting, Kory Krieser, described by Whitewater Economic Development Director Taylor Zeinert as project developer Chris Slater’s “right-hand man,” said the developer would accept a modification including language that excluded the housing vouchers and tax credits as long as such language did not violate stipulations as they related to fair housing requirements.

During the meeting, City Attorney Jonathan McDonell said he believed the city could require the restriction, adding: “I think that it’s fair to have those conditions regarding Section 8, limiting potential new development, limiting them to … not have any of this federal funding as long as the city, you know, has zoned properly where they do allow Section 8, and I do believe, we do currently comply with that, so limiting that as a condition would be legal.”

Responding Tuesday to questions by phone, City Manager John Weidl said that a Wisconsin statute, known as the Wisconsin Open Housing Law, prohibits discrimination in housing based on such factors as race, color, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation, lawful source of income, age and ancestry.   

Weidl, who did not attend Monday’s Plan Commission meeting, said that upon learning of the restriction placed on the conditional use permit Monday night, he sought an opinion from Rick Manthe, an attorney who was recently hired to advise members of the city’s Community Development Authority (CDA).

He asked Manthe to provide a legal opinion as to whether the deed restriction placed by the Plan Commission as a condition of approving the apartment complex’s conditional use permit was in compliance with the federal fair housing laws, and if it was enforceable.

As of Tuesday morning, Weidl said, he was waiting to receive the attorney’s review.

On Monday, Zeinert provided the Plan Commission with a brief overview of comments and concerns shared Thursday by members of the public about the proposed apartment complex during a listening session. 

According to Zeinert, those in attendance Thursday shared concerns regarding tax incremental financing (TIF) associated with the project, which was earlier approved by the CDA and city council.

Addressing members of the Plan Commission, Zeinert said: “I just want to be very clear that this body has no affiliation with the TIF use. This body specifically is to see if the conditional use permit and the site plan meets all of the codes, the future land use, etc., TIF is something that is decided by the Community Development Authority and the Common Council.” 

She added: “This body has no authority to talk about TIF or vote on TIF here today.”

Additionally, Zeinert said, members of the public on Thursday, expressed concerns about rent. She said Krieser was on hand to answer questions about rents associated with the proposed development.

She reminded members of the public in attendance Monday that the public comments portion of the commission’s meeting “is not an open dialog.”

She added: “The goal of this body today is just to make sure that this project falls within the ordinances and future land use.”

The board next received a presentation from contracted city planner Allison Schwark.

During her presentation, Schwark said the conditional use permit was required by the city to allow the developer to place buildings with more than four units on a single parcel of vacant land within the city’s R-3 zoning district.

Addressing the board, Schwark said three outcomes were available when city staff considered land use applications. She said: “We have our permitted uses, we have our uses that are not permitted at all, and we have our conditional use permit. The conditional use approval process is a permitted use with conditions. So tonight, you will review this project, you will see that it does meet the intent of our ordinance, and the conditional use request does comply with all of our ordinance requirements.” 

Schwark described the project as including eight, 16-unit buildings, proposed for construction within an R-3 zoning district, which, she said, “is our multifamily residential zoning.”

The proposal sought to create 128 market-rate units using a two-phased approach.

Plans call for the complex to employ a part-time, onsite manager, who would be available during daytime business hours, Schwark said.

Units will have individual trash and recycling bins, she said.

The contracted city planner noted a “future land use map designation for the parcel,” defining it as “high density residential.    

“That type of designation is intended to accommodate for a variety of residential units at higher densities, including rental apartment complexes, condominiums, townhouses and the preexistence of continuing two-family and single residences.”

She said the project meets the zoning requirements and the conditions of the future land use map, including the designation of high-density residential.

Sharing some history, Schwark said in 2016, a conditional use permit application was submitted by a different developer to the city for the same site. The earlier developer sought to build 96 units, configured within 12 buildings, with eight units each.

“So this is a very similar development, and intensity to that, that was approved in 2016. This was approved by the PARC (Plan Commission),” she said.

Within her “planner’s report,” which was shared with commission members Monday as part of the meeting packet, Schwark said she provided various calculations to determine whether the project fell within an approved definition of density.

Within the city’s R-3 zoning guidelines, she said, “our code requires that any multifamily in the R-3 zoning district is based upon a calculation. So there shall be 2,500 square feet for a one-bedroom unit, 3,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit, and 3,500 square feet for any three-bedroom and over units. Per the calculation, this development does come into compliance with our density requirements, because they have 96 two-bedroom units, and 32 three-bedroom units. So if you have 96, multiply that by 3,000, that’s 288,000 (square feet), 32 times 3,500, is 112,000, that’s a total of 400,000 square feet. This lot is currently 11.36 acres, which is equivalent to approximately 494,800 square feet. That leaves the developer an additional 94,800 square feet on that lot. So they are not even maxing out their development here.”

Additionally, she said, the developer’s proposed plans met the city’s required lot setbacks.

According to Schwark, the city’s zoning ordinance additionally calculates “lot coverage,” which, she said, stipulates that “350 square feet of usable open space shall be required for each dwelling unit. The developer’s site plan is in compliance.”

She added that the plan additionally meets building height requirements and the developer is aware that they will “have park fees that are due and that has been discussed with the city.”

The proposal also maintains compliance regarding state statute for traffic, parking and access, Schwark said.

Commissioner Lynn Binnie, who formerly served on the commission and was recently reappointed, asked if such proposals were “still being forwarded to the Urban Forestry Commission.”

Zeinert said they were.

McCormick, who also is a member of the Urban Forestry Commission, said that body had discussed the development at its last meeting and the commissioners had “concerns about the landscaping being all one species, being the fact that if one dies, they could all die.” She said the commission was “in conversation with the developers to get a list of more diversified plantings, both shrubs and trees.”

Hicks said he understood that “Mr. (Chris) Slater is the developer.”

Zeinert said he was correct.

The developer was unable to attend Monday’s meeting, she said, noting that he was “traveling.”

Public comments

The commission next heard comments from members of the public.

Hicks told board members that he wanted to allow five minutes for each commenter rather than the “typical” three.

Said Hicks: “It’s a highly visible project, so I want to make sure everybody gets five minutes to speak, however I would expect or I would ask that you stick to that and don’t go too far over. Also, please try to avoid from any duplicating of comments or thoughts, you know, if someone mentioned it before, maybe just tag on it once, but let’s not do the same comments over and over, hopefully.”

A resident residing on Jakes Way, addressing the board, said: “I’m against this; I think it’s too big for our neighborhood, and the traffic is going to be way too much on Moraine for all of us. It’s more of a family friendly, tiny neighborhood — only like four streets — and this is just going to overpower us. I’m hoping that there’s not going to be any Section 8 or (Section) 42. I know we did talk about it, and that maybe it would go in their (developer’s) paperwork that they wouldn’t do that, and then I’m also concerned about what it’s going to do to our home values and our taxes.”

Brian Zellmer, also a resident of Jakes Way, said he, too, was “against” the project.

“I think that it’s going to be a huge traffic issue. We got 128 units of two- and three-bedroom units. If you have just say two people in the two-bedroom and three people in the three-bedroom, each having vehicles, we’re talking 288 vehicles.” Zellmer provided an additional calculation where he could see the complex, he said, contributing as may as 600 vehicles to the neighborhood’s existing traffic. 

He also expressed concerns with the egress system proposed for the complex, saying: “Now these vehicles, the driveways are about a block apart and that’s it. And one of those entrances is going to be across from where my condo is.”

He said he was concerned about how many people might live in each unit.

Referencing Thursday’s listening session, he said city staff said that up to five unrelated people could live in a unit. He said staff did not provide a number regarding how many related people could live in a unit.

Said Zellmer: “You could have three generations living in there. Now you’re talking about fire issues, and other issues, and even more vehicles,” he said.

He said he also was upset about rents, quoting such prices as $1,740 to lease a two-bedroom unit and $1,900 to lease a three-bedroom unit.

He said the rents were higher than the amount he pays to live in a 2,200-square-foot condo.

He wondered, he said, “how an individual would not be able to rent or buy a home for $1,700.” 

He advocated for more single-family homes. He said such developments would bring with them less vehicles and buildings. He said the city also could use more condos.

“This is what we really need,” Zellmer said.

Zellmer said that he understood there to be 114 vacant apartments in the city. The number included units of various sizes. He noted housing inventory that, he said, also was being rented, with some as large as six bedrooms, which, he said, “are vacant as well.”

Citing a “report from 2022 on the housing,” Zellmer said that 23% “of the people living in the city of Whitewater actually live here. The other 70-some percent live outside of Whitewater.” 

He added: “If you had more housing, you could bring those people in and you could get more tax revenue. It’s simple math.”

Jeff Knight, who identified himself as a resident of the city and a member of the CDA, said he was “here for two distinct, separate reasons.”

He said he wanted to make commissioners aware that the CDA’s adoption of the development agreement for the project was “not universal.”

He said he believed a conversation about TIF was appropriate for Monday’s Plan Commission meeting “from the standpoint we’re subsidizing this project to the tune of $40,000 an apartment, whereas a comparable project in Madison, it’s only $11,000, so that’s driving the project to success in a community where recently SEWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission) presented at two different forums that we’ve got a 4-6% vacancy rate, which is hitting the HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) guidelines. So I think it does — it is germane, and that it made this project bigger than it needed to be.”

Further, he said that he and his wife had lived in apartments developed by “Kowalski,” describing the complex as “a nice development,” but, he said, “it’s far less intense than this project is, and I certainly think the smart move would be to maybe look at those eight-family clusters that they had close to the residential, and then maybe we could put some of the bigger subdivisions, do it on the end similar to what Kowalski had done, because I do believe that right now, because this is a TIF, it will impact revenues going back to the city for 20 years.”

He said residents living in a dense project would require city services, such as fire, EMS, and schools, among others. Citing the TIF aspect of the development agreement, he said: “you’re not going to be able to collect that debt. So I think one, from your standpoint, I think it’s way too big for that parcel. I think the city contributed to that massive development by incentivizing it so much. I don’t think that was a wise move, and I really encourage this body to talk with the developer about shrinking the size of this to make it a little more compatible with the neighborhood and what’s already there.”

At the microphone, Patrick Singer said he was a resident and a city councilman. 

He said he had met with “some folks at the site in question,” saying that they talked about “an unrelated matter, but we did talk about this site and some of the challenges specifically around traffic. And actually being out there and seeing it, it was kind of eye-opening to see, you know, how the one egress up by Jakes Way off to Moraine View was going to kind of handle that traffic. I know there’s another egress now, and some of the issues that Taylor (Zeinert) kind of highlighted in some of the other memos (from police and fire officials) have been addressed, but it is a significant — especially for the residents — seemingly amount of traffic for what traditionally was not very busy out there. So I think that was one consideration.”

Singer said he additionally wanted to discuss concerns raised Thursday during the listening session. He cited federal housing subsidies,” saying: “I know we still have the developer’s agreement — there could be some action by council to amend that — but there may also be an option within the conditional use to put that as a condition that this property would not facilitate that, and wanted that as — just to throw that out as a potential condition for this body to consider — legalities we’ll leave up to attorney McDonell, and those that need to, but that would be, I think, go a long way. I know in kind of in passing, and from others, city staff members, it’s been commented that the developer has no intention to have that Section 8 and (Section) 42 housing within that development, so I think getting that in writing would go a long way to help some of the concerns that the neighborhood does have.”

Singer additionally said he was in support of “screening” between the complex and the existing neighborhood.

Describing the area, he said: “you’ve got right on Jakes Way, you’ve got some single-family, owner-occupied condos, and then if you get farther in, there’s, you know, stand-alone, freestanding homes that are owner-occupied, so if there was a way to screen that, in a way, with some of the shrubbery, or as Mr. Knight indicated, stage it so that maybe some of the less dense units are closer to that side, which would be more compatible with the use and that existing neighborhood, and then gradually ramp up the density, would probably help as well for some of the concerns about kind of that incompatible, you know, going from single-family to suddenly much higher density units.”

Singer, within his comments, noted concerns expressed about traffic. He asked the developer’s representative to offer some comments about how traffic would be managed in the area.

State Rep. Scott Johnson, arriving at the microphone, said: I’m not from this local community; I’m in the State Legislature, and my interest in this is to try to figure out how you justify and rationalize using $40,000 of public funds per unit for upscale, high-rent housing as an approach to developing affordable housing for your community.

“I think the Legislature will find what you do very interesting and the target group of people that you’re apparently trying to get this housing to. I think your local residents ought to be concerned about the fact that the upper 15% of  your rental market is getting some $40,000 subsidy per apartment in this development. And there are lots of people that can’t afford $1,000 a month housing in your community, and they’re not going to see really anything of that housing.” 

Johnson described some of the concerns he was hearing as “minutia concerns you have within your own community.”

He added: “I didn’t realize that Whitewater had so many young professionals without housing that you would need to build some 128 units for some 250 professionals that probably can afford to build their own housing unit, because they are probably earning north of six figures.”

Offering some statistics, the assemblyman said the median income in Walworth County is approximately $70,000. 

“Those people could not afford to rent in this unit, at, what is it? $15-, $1,800, $1,900 a month even after subsidies have been applied?

“If that was at full market, it probably would be $2- to, what? $2,500? $2,800? Those people, if you’re a renter, basically once you get north of 20% of your income, you no longer have any funds left to put away for your rainy day or your down payment if you’re looking to buy property.”

Johnson called the plan, as it related to affordable housing, “a rather unique approach,” saying: “I question its viability and I question what its impact is on the State Legislature. During my term, I had plenty of builders, communities come through, looking for answers for low-income affordable housing. One of the things that keeps coming up is zoning, and the cost of zoning, and what that inputs into the cost of construction.

“There are builders out there that are convinced that before they move a shovel of dirt, by the time they get through with the zoning, the permitting process, they have six figures in the  sum of these developments without the land. So I think it’s a big issues; your community is not unique with regards to housing shortages, but this approach, at the high end, for a subsidy — subsidized housing — to me strikes a rather unique chord, and I find it, I’ll find it fascinating to listen to the target market that you’re trying to reach, and where these jobs are in Whitewater that all these young professionals are going to go to.” 

Peter Brock said he owns Pete’s Tire Service. He said his establishment is next to the proposed development site. He noted that the area has been developing since he built his business’s building in the area.

He said he was concerned about the security of his business.

He asked: “Where’s the foot traffic going to go from this building? Is it going to cross my property to get to Kwik Trip? Dollar General?” 

While, he said, he could put up a fence, he added: “I don’t know enough about this; this is the first meeting I’ve attended, we’re going to find out more about it, but I think that’s the biggest concern that I have as a business owner in that area.”

Larry Kachel said he had recently watched a Planning Commission meeting held earlier this summer. While he believed Binnie might not have been serving on the commission at that time, addressing the other members, he said: “I don’t believe that a lot of your members, maybe all your members, understood the breadth of what it meant when they (the developers) said that they weren’t looking for tax incentives or tax credits, but they did want it to be in a TIF district. I don’t think you understood that meant that it was $5.1 million. That’s a lot of money. And while it is in the TIF (district), paying it off a minimum of 14 years, more likely to be longer than that for a lot of reasons; I’m not going to bore you with the details, all of the resources that have to be used out there for police, for fire, for ambulance, for, you know, city services, things like that, are not — the taxes that will be paid are not going to go toward that. It will have to be paid for by the rest of the taxpayers of this community. That money basically is set aside; it’s a pay-go, they get the money back, what they’re paying in taxes from the increased increment. Let’s just say it’s going to be $450,000 a year, they keep that each year. Most of it — I think you have a 10%, or a 15%, that goes into the city, and the rest, that they keep.” 

In the meantime, Kachel said, “the city doesn’t get that revenue, and the school district doesn’t get that revenue. And I think you’re setting a terrible precedent. You have a great start, with some TIF help, with some single-family housing … I believe, you have 38 units. I believe you now have 19 units going to come in over in Blooming Field Acres. That’s 57 housing units, if my math is right.”

Kachel called the single-family developments “a great start.” 

He continued: “From that report that I saw, and a lot of us saw earlier in the summer, your expert from afar was saying that Whitewater needs 875 apartment units over the next five years.” He asked: “Where are all those people going to come from?”

Kachel described a condition of declining enrollment, which, he said, is predicted by University of Wisconsin officials to last at least four years.

At the UW-Whitewater, he said, “Their freshman class this year is already, they already know that it’s going to be less than what it was the year before, and when you get a lower class, that goes all the way through.”

Kachel said student enrollments across the state are in decline because “there are just fewer kids. They don’t exist. It’s called the high school graduation cliff.” 

He added; “So, you are now tying up taxpayer funds. We have a lot of other needs. We had a speaker at one of our business events that would love to look at doing an urgent care with some city funds and you’ve got $5 million tied up in a luxury apartment. I’ve said, from the very start, they (the developer) can build whatever they want to build on their own, they can do it with a conditional use or within zoning guidelines — go right ahead. But you are asking all the rest of the taxpayers to subsidize, and that has never happened, or, I won’t say never, it’s been a long time since that has happened in this community when it was not either a Section 42 or a Section 8 type of housing.” 

Developer presentation

Following public comments, Krieser was invited to offer comments on the developer’s behalf.

He noted that he would take concerns back to the company, saying that he wanted the development to be “something the community can embrace.”

Said Krieser: “What we are trying to do is build high-quality, workforce, mainstream housing. This is geared to families, skilled and professionals, our other properties, we see a lot of retirees, and people who want to downsize, move into nice accommodations that have less maintenance. All of the units we are proposing do have a private garage and a private entry.”

He said the concept offers “ownership in a sense where you know it’s your own space.”

He stated that the development as proposed was “about 10% less dense” than what would have been allowed by the city’s ordinance.

He said the development will provide 289 parking spaces made available for the 128 units, which includes a private parking space in the unit’s garage, and reserve space in front of the garage, and 33 guest parking spots on site.

Krieser said several factors were used to develop the market rate rents.

Among them, he said, were comparable rents within the market, median incomes in the area, loan covenants and investment criteria used to attract private investors to the project, and costs comparable to those associated with a median income house.

“Generally speaking, you hear the guideline a lot about 30% of the income, and so if you look at our units, if there are two people in there earning $20 an hour, they’re at $75-, $80,000 a year, and we’re below 30% of their income being attributed to housing,” Krieser said. 

Looking at a median income house, he said: “in this area (it) is a little over $300,000. You get a mortgage on that at 7, 7-1/2% today, plus insurance, taxes, it’s well above what we’re asking for rent.” 

He added: “So, we do think that this (development) provides value, and it provides a different type of housing option in the community. We see that … some of the seniors and some of the people looking for a more maintenance-free living situation, they end up selling their house to move in this, which creates another housing option for the community; could be for a young family, could be for someone looking for a house, so we find that this is kind of a part of a healthy housing ecosystem.”

Addressing concerns about screening, Krieser said that the city had a “very comprehensive landscaping code; I think the amount of landscaping that was proposed and was required is probably beyond what we’ve done in other communities.”

He said “several hundred thousand dollars of landscaping” was “being planned for this project.”

Krieser, addressing issues associated with the TIF provisions within the project’s development agreement, said: “not to get into the weeds of the TIF, but this is pay-go, it’s all — the incentive is all repayment, the city, we’re not asking the city to advance any funds, and the incentive that would be paid as part of an annual tax, basically incentive, is based on increment that would be created by this property. It doesn’t exist today. It only exists if this gets built. So it’s not like it’s taking funds from a different part of the city to allocate this. It’s being created by the $28 million that’s being invested in Whitewater, not from some other pot that exists today.

“We’d like to be a partner with the city, and in creating that investment, and that increment.” 

Board discussion

Members of the commission next expressed their views.

Commissioner Brian Schanen, describing himself as a “young professional,” said that he lived for a time in the Bluff Ridge development, which, he said, has about 120 units. He said the area appealed to he and his wife because it was a “quiet neighborhood.”

Addressing traffic, he said: “I can’t recall maybe more than one time where I had to wait for more than one car at a stop sign to turn out onto Bluff Road. Now I realize that the road capacities are different between them, but having kind of that scale between the Bluff Road property and the number of units there, and these units, helped.”

He said that since he has moved out of the Bluff Ridge complex, which he described as “upscale units,” he has learned that the occupancy rate is 99%. He additionally learned, he said, that “they were getting inquiries on a weekly basis to fill units they didn’t really have because it was full.”

Addressing Krieser, McCormick asked: “Would you be willing to downsize your project?” 

Said Smith: “I do think that those units are going to have a dramatic impact on that neighborhood. I’m thinking about here, like, what can be done about that road? I mean because it is going to increase traffic tremendously, and that’s something we need to talk about.” 

Schwark said that the applicant has provided two means of ingress and egress, which, she added, “not only satisfies our code requirements, but it also satisfies both the police department and fire department.” 

She cited memos from the departments noting, she said, that the egress provided “is adequate.”

Additionally, she said, the development, as presented, was less dense than the city’s zoning ordinance required. She said she did not recommend that the board request of the developers that they consider downsizing their development.

“They could be presenting to you a higher density project this evening, but they are not,” she said.

Addressing the developer, McCormick asked: “Would you have developed this property without TIF funding?”

Said Zeinert: “I’m going to stop you right there. This is something the Community Development Authority, and this is something, the way that, not to get into economic development, but a proforma is issued, it was calculated out, the Community Development Authority had voted on the TIF usage and the common council. At this time, the PARC (Planning Commission) can have, they cannot undo what was previously done. I think, if your concerns, I would urge you to contact the Community Development Authority, you can contact myself, you can contact the city manager, we can have those discussions, but what is on the agenda tonight is specifically the conditional use permit and the site plan review.” 

Said McCormick: “My third concern is there’s another developer that’s thinking of developing that same area, which is a little bit more less dense, single family, duplex, and I don’t know if you would go forward if this project was going to go forward.” 

Said Zeinert: “I would invite that developer to reach out to the office of economic development. I would love to talk to them about their concerns. Housing is something that I eat, dream, sleep, but I would love to get that name and have those conversations.” 

McCormick asked: “I was curious: Why did the previous (2016-approved) development back out?” 

Schwark said she could not say why that decision was made.

“I don’t recall exactly why the developer ceased moving forward. I know that all the approvals were complete … looking back on the minutes from 2016, they got all the approvals they needed and I just think it was a developer choice not to move forward at the time,” she said. 

McCormick noted that the development was smaller, with 96 units.

Schwark agreed it was smaller, but described it as “a very similar development in nature.” She said the former developer was proposing a similar apartment style to the style proposed in the recent proposal.

Commissioner Marjorie Stoneman, participating in the meeting remotely, said: “We really need affordable housing for families in our community. The CDA and the city council have both OK’d it, and pursued it, so, we need to do, my understanding is, is review the architectural conditional use permit, the site plan, and it seems to me all the requirements, including working in what the chief of police and the fire/EMS chief indicated, so, I just think we need to go ahead and approve this, and help our community grow, and bring more families and (she listed a variety of community members, including teachers) into our community.” 

Binnie asked Krieser if the developer would accept language in writing that the apartments would be offered at fair market rate.

Krieser said he believed the developer would be willing to agree to such language as long as it was written is such a way that it did not violate any fair housing stipulations.

Binnie asked McDonell if he had “a view on that subject.”

McDonell said he believed the city was properly zoned to allow the use of Section 8 vouchers in other units within the city, which would make it “fair,” he said, to limit the use of such vouchers within the proposed development.

Said Binnie: “Well I take some comfort in the fact that you’re planning on this being a two-phased development. I’m sure if you discover that there was not the demand initially going forward with the second phase, you would be postponing that. Is that realistic to expect?” 

Krieser said the project’s development phases allowed some ability to “reevaluate” should some assumptions turn out to be incorrect.

Hicks said he agreed with public commenters who were concerned about traffic, calling it a potential “nightmare.”

Binnie asked if a traffic study associated with the project had been created. 

Schwark said the city’s Public Works Director Brad Marquardt had reviewed the project.

Addressing the board, Marquardt gave an overview of the streets in the area.

“Looking at streets, Bluff Road is considered a collector, a two-lane street, currently has 1,300 vehicles a day on there. It’s set up to carry much more. Comparison-wise, Milwaukee Street, also a two-lane road, carries up to 6,500 to 7,100 vehicles a day. So Moraine View, you’re looking at adding 298 stalls, and so if you double that for people coming and going, that’s 600 vehicles. Moraine View Parkway is more than adequate to handle that traffic. The median actually helps with traffic control because it eliminates conflict points, … reducing potential accidents, and it was built to handle that traffic. There is no concern with additional traffic there. Speeding, that speeding is a concern throughout the city, throughout the state, throughout the country, that has nothing really to do with access. It has, it  comes down to enforcement. Traffic going through the other residential streets, yes, I understand that concern; it is a residential street, it is there to move traffic. If somebody elects to use that street to get from A to B they are welcome to do that because it is a public street,” Marquardt said. 

He said the city could look into “what it would take to get an extension out to Howard Road,” should the need arise.

He said Moraine View Parkway, relative to increases in traffic, “can handle a lot more than what is being proposed.”