I would not vote to amend the current LUP for this one project. I have advocated for an overall rewriting of the LUP to address new goals and new priorities for the village.

We all know Walmart tried in one location and was stopped. So they went to a location that (for the most part) allows for their multi use plan. But that was from 2006. Much has changed, and certainly, a Walmart wasn't the vision of the original authors.

On this revision, I would vote no, while stating my intent for the record, that I believe the LUP is faulty, out of date and needs to be revised so that debacles like this can be avoided in the future. We have much to offer.... I would like to see more than just Walmart knocking on our door.

@Eddie - did you apply to be part of the group that looks specifically at the site in which Walmart is interested? I do think the LUP needs an examination, and, where applicable, revision(s) but this one area has to have use and zoning aligned to properly address the Walmart proposal, which does have a clock ticking on it.

Heather...what clock? Per the Kimley-Horn report given by WM to the the Village, they have a scheduled build year of 2014. Yet they are reported to be soliciting bids now. This must be addressed expeditiously, yet they have submitted no impact studies. So "for balancing the needs of WM and the community" (Janiuk quote) we have to revisit the VC-M. An area targeted (along with 9 others) over a year ago for re-evaluation. No one seemed to concerned about it then. And most likely I envision a re-active approach to review of other areas versus any pro-active action out of the current leadership. I drive on hwy K virtually every day (one of the target areas) and see for sale signs all along I-94 and K. Now water will be available out there (not sure of the timeline). When does the PC intend to look at that? Would not the overall scheme of commercial and other growth within Caledonia be best envisioned by looking at the whole? Ed-I appreciate your response. Because I do concur that revision may be needed. It is too bad WM is the impetus of work that should have been seriously looked at a while back. the reality is the PC could have given a response to WM back in January when they put in thie request: No-it's not an appropriate location nor the intent of the VC-M design. By no means would that have prevented the board or PC to re-convene the LUP committee to revisit their list and maybe act on our terms and not WM's force. Hope to hear from other candidates on this.

I would be against such an obnoxious use of the location. Surely there are better options available. Of not, we need to find out why it would be vacant for so long unless it were a strip joint. Caledonia is better than that.

I think it's a good idea. That's a great location 4 a gentlemens club!

I agree. I think Ed means well, but I don't think he is ready to be making these types of decisions. Thanks for the discussion. I have really enjoyed getting information, and it helped me learn more about this election. Thanks.

@me-

That's ok. I don't think I'm in the minority when I say the club would be wrong for that location. ;) I think Prott would agree, so it looks like you won't be voting?

PB -

I am assuming youre not defending the gentlemans club suggestion? Also. i assure you I am ready to make decisions. Some decisions I've been waiting years for the board to make. Lets get something done!

Honestly, I don't know enough about David Protts position on hwy 38 or village hall. As the head of highways for Racine co, I have a feeling he advocates for a massive rebuild, but I have no evidence of that.

Prott has said to the JT that he is in favor of Walmart. Not sure his position on the location. He appears to be in the same boat as Wanggaard though. Not surprising as they are good friends...

To recap my positions:
We need a new village hall, but I'm leery about building a new building quite yet, without the finances to do it. IMO, the fire station is first priority, but I'd ask Janiuk for his opinion first.

Hwy 38 - I support DOT plan EX-6. This plan would maintain 76% of existing roadways, and simply move the entire 6 mi portion about 1/4 of a mile south, under the village hall/PD. it would widen and improve existing 31, and affect the least number of residents, stay away from Jo-Don farms or the airport, and require the least amount of rework for the train tracks. It is also the plan that affects the least amount of wetlands (out of 21 route variations)

Walmart: the current location is not appropriate for that use. The only net gain to the community would be if Walmart (or another ancho) were the hub for more development. That would not be the case in the current location. I do not approve of the current location, and I believe David Prott has not given an answer on it to date.