Oconomowoc council hears concerns over proposed Village Green bathrooms, private partnership and sight-line impacts

City of Oconomowoc staff presented updated designs for the Village Green on Oct. 7 and heard more than a dozen public comments pressing for clearer visuals and limits on private use of public space. The plan shared with the committee shows two restroom structures, seating and reconfigured sidewalks; the owners of an adjacent commercial building have proposed enclosing rooftop stairs and adding restrooms that would face the park.

Why it matters: Village Green is a heavily used downtown event space (German Christmas Market, beer gardens and other festivals). Residents and council members said they support year‑round public restrooms but want assurances the design will not reduce public access, block lake views, or create de facto private terraces on city land.

City staff presented renderings and said the team is continuing design work. “This is the park engineering that I’m working with,” said Kevin Herzog, a city staff member, as he walked through overlay images showing a roughly 16‑foot restroom built against the adjacent building that would project partially into the park. Herzog showed options to push sidewalks to the park edge, add seating and add underground electrical connections for events.

Public commenters said the two‑story design and an implied tower on top of the new structure risk blocking views of Fowler Lake. “Are we trying to supply bathrooms for the whole of downtown Oconomowoc? Are we trying to supply a couple bathrooms for people who use the park occasionally?” asked Jean Vanguard, a resident. Laura Gibbs, another resident, urged the council not to grant permanent private access that would limit public overlooks: “We don’t need another lake overlook that is only available to the business that’s running it.”

Chamber of Commerce director Sarah Ninman said most downtown business owners she’s surveyed support public restrooms and want to preserve the village green as an event space. “When I sat down and was able to talk to them about that, they were at ease about it and they very much were appreciative that there would be restrooms,” Ninman said.

Residents and aldermen asked for clearer, to‑scale visualizations before any decision. Several speakers suggested one or more of these low‑cost steps: (1) produce a physical 3‑D model (cardboard or printed) so people can touch and compare scale; (2) mark the proposed footprint on the ground with stakes or spray paint so neighbors can see sight lines; or (3) produce a fly‑through or more complete architect rendering showing eye‑height viewpoints.

Staff said they will investigate the 3‑D option and, if that proves infeasible or costly, will stake out the footprint on site before the next meeting. “We’ll look into it as an option,” Herzog said. He said the design team continues to coordinate with multiple architects and the building owner, and confirmed the private owner remains interested in pursuing a partnership.

Speakers pressed for detail about trash and service access, and whether the proposed dumpsters would remain on public land behind the building. “That whole area…is public land,” said Laura Gibbs, who asked for specifics on where service and garbage would sit. Residents also raised ADA access to any rooftop seating and asked the council to avoid a design that effectively restricts public areas to paying customers.

Council response and next steps: Council members did not vote on the design on Oct. 7. Councilmembers and staff agreed to bring back additional visual aids and clarified that any formal partnership or property‑use agreement would require separate review and board action. Staff said any work that were to proceed would be bid publicly and brought back to the council with cost estimates and contract terms.

The public comment period and staff responses tapered with an agreement to continue outreach: staff will try to obtain 3‑D visuals or stake the footprint and will return with refined plans, cost estimates and clarifications about trash, ADA access and whether any rooftop seating would be designated public or private.

For now, the city’s action is limited to further study and public outreach; no zoning, lease or TIF approvals were requested or granted at this meeting.