Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell plan commission Airport Road access and safety concerns must be addressed
Summary
At the Aug. 4 meeting, Cross Plains residents warned commissioners that using Airport Road as primary access for nearby development will increase heavy truck traffic and raise risks for children walking to Glacier Creek Middle School.
During public comment at the Aug. 4 Cross Plains Plan Commission meeting, residents urged commissioners to address safety and notice concerns tied to proposed development access on Airport Road.
A resident identifying their address as 3061 Creekside Way asked the commission to consider that Airport Road is the primary access to the development and that construction trucks for nearby work were already creating hazardous conditions. The speaker said the village’s right‑of‑way vacation—described by the speaker as a Chapter 82 discontinuance—did not appear to have had a Class 3 public notice and suggested the village may have needed to follow Chapter 66 procedures instead; the speaker said they “didn’t see” the required newspaper notice. The speaker asked that the commission address connections to State Highway 14 and public‑notice steps before construction moves forward.
Jeff Davis, who identified himself in public comment, raised child‑safety concerns on Airport Road and near Glacier Creek Middle School. Davis said children “will take the shortest route” to the school and warned increased traffic from new housing will raise the risk: “Kids will be kids,” he said, arguing the traffic survey did not adequately account for children cutting through yards or using the shortest walking paths rather than sidewalks. Davis suggested an alternative access to State Highway 14 to reduce traffic on Airport Road.
Commissioners acknowledged the comments during the public‑comment period; President Langfeld noted the development’s traffic impacts would be discussed later on the agenda and subsequently directed the plan commission to form a technical subcommittee to study circulation and safety (see separate article). The public comments were recorded but no formal action was taken that evening to change project approvals or halt construction.
The residents’ references to right‑of‑way vacation procedures and Class 3 public notices were statements made by speakers during public comment and were not independently verified in the meeting record. Staff and the commission did not confirm or deny compliance with notice requirements during the Aug. 4 meeting.
