Plan commission forms traffic subcommittee to study Mark Stone development impacts

The Cross Plains Plan Commission on Aug. 4 agreed to assemble a subcommittee to study traffic and circulation impacts associated with the Mark Stone development and related connections to adjacent streets and school access.

President Langfeld, chairing the commission, proposed the group and said it would include Commissioner Seth (traffic engineer) as chair, a school‑district representative, police, public safety and transportation stakeholders and a representative from the developer if the developer wished to participate. Langfeld said the group’s purpose is to “get everybody’s view” and return data and options so the commission and village board can make informed decisions about intersections, drop‑off circulation and possible roundabout or signal changes.

Langfeld told commissioners the subcommittee should “hash through all the issues that have been brought up, give us the data we need, and then give some options with pros and cons.” He said he had already discussed the idea with the school district and hoped for participation from the district’s transportation director. Seth and other commissioners supported a technical, evidence‑based approach; Seth indicated earlier in the meeting that traffic data and pavement/setback complexities are matters he regularly reviews.

Commissioners discussed possible membership and timing. Langfeld suggested Seth as chair, Cody (who represents parks and recreation and is also a bus driver) for school transportation perspectives, Matt (the sergeant of police) for law‑enforcement input, Bob Green for school‑district ties and a public safety committee member. The commission discussed four to five meetings as a reasonable timeline and a target of delivering findings by early next year if feasible.

Commissioners and staff clarified scope: the subcommittee will examine circulation from the proposed development to surrounding streets, school drop‑off and pick‑up patterns, potential intersection changes (including roundabout options), and where improvements might be needed. The commission asked the subcommittee to provide data needs and suggested the first meeting be an on‑site visit near the school to observe circulation.

There was no formal recorded vote to create the committee; the commission agreed by consensus and directed staff to coordinate participants and schedule meetings. Commissioners also discussed the timing implications for the developer’s review process and whether recommendations from the subcommittee could become conditions of later plat or phase approvals. Staff and commissioners noted the village may require developers to pay for off‑site improvements demonstrably caused by a development through standard traffic‑impact and mitigation mechanisms, but specific funding or conditions were not set during the Aug. 4 meeting.

The commission instructed staff to prepare a list of data requests (school drop‑off counts, turning‑movement data, signal warrant studies, and circulation diagrams) and to convene the subcommittee as soon as participants are available.