Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Right. Welcome to the Village of Cottage Grove Plan Commission on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. This is a hybrid meeting occurring virtually online with the Zoom link at the top of the agenda and in person at Village Hall. It's also streamed on our YouTube channel. It is 6:31, so I'll call the meeting to order. We have a quorum and the agenda was properly posted. So, we'll stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Right. We're going to move on to number four. Public appearances. public's opportunity to speak. We'll start with people in the room um with a wish to speak form or just here and are present at the meeting um and then move to any individuals online who'd like to speak. We just ask that you state your name, address, and limit your comment to three minutes. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak? Is there anyone online that would like to speak? You can uh hover over the react button and use the raise hand feature. All right, moving on. Uh, number five, discuss and consider the minutes from the plan commission meeting from April 8th, 2026. Those minutes are linked in the agenda.

Motion to approve as presented. And a second. Motion by Alex, second by Heidi. Any comments or concerns on the uh minutes? All those in favor? I I opposed. Abstain. Motion carries. I'm moving on to discuss and consider a request from Binmar Presbyterian Church um consolidating six parcels into two parcels. And there's um a couple of attachments um the CSM and then also a staff report. And I'll let Erin kind of run us through that. And we do have Dave here.

Yeah. So, basically the church is looking to consolidate uh their parcels. There's what six or seven different parcels there. They're looking to combine them into two. Uh one would have the church and parking lot. the other um has a current home on it that they may keep or may tear down or may do something different with. Um but that's not an immediate concern right now. It's just the CSM to combine the parcels. Um we'd recommend approving that. There is one slight complication that one of the parcels is actually zoned planned industrial because I think it started as a corner of the business park. Um, so we can't combine that with residential parcels because a parcel can only have one kind of zoning. So, um, they will have to join us again next month uh to do the resoning, but we can condition the CSM approval on taking effect when that zoning is straightened out. I don't know if you guys have anything to add.

Not really questions. Okay. Comments or questions from the board? Go ahead, Alex. Is there any uh Oh, hey, Aaron. Way over there. Is there any implications for utilities? A lot of times we go from zero lot line to splits and combining. Is there a utility implication? Uh shouldn't be. There should be utilities on each of the separate lots now already. So,

and I would move approval of the request from Binmar of the CSM to consolidate the existing lots as presented with staff conditions. Second. Motion by Heidi, second by We'll give it to Don. Um, any other comments or questions? All those in favor? I I opposed abstain. Motion carries. Thank you. All right. We have now number seven, discuss and consider the annexation petition from Lindstöm Acres with um a variety of attachments and I think um Steve might be online to be him.

Okay. Otherwise um Cindy, the developer is on. It's just not Steve. Oh, sorry. Erin, I'll let you run run us through. Yeah. So, it's uh Ryan and Brian are online. I don't know if they would like to say anything. Otherwise, we can. We're unmuting.

Okay. I don't know. Can you hear me?

Yep. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. This is Brian with Newman Development. Um, thank you. Uh, this annexation petition is, uh, submitted on behalf of, uh, the owners, uh, unanimous, um, cons, uh, unanimous petition for annexation. So, we brought in this the map that's attached uh, for discussion earlier uh, because uh, we would like to propose this as a like a two-step annexation, if you will. first large parcel will come into the village and you'll see subsequent applications for reszoning preliminary plat uh for a residential for sale neighborhood. So, uh, and then just as a general update, um, the reason for the two-step annexation, uh, we have been working with the neighbor that's kind of surrounded and, uh, happy to report that their attorney has sent over a a final agreement which we've signed. So, uh, all things look, uh, look clear from that perspective.

Erin, do you have anything you'd like to add? Um, not really. We'd recommend approval. Um, we can approve it here at the plan commission, but just so everyone's aware, when it goes to the village board, they can't consider it until we get a letter from the department of administration uh weighing in on um their review of the annexation, but um we can look at it here. Um, I've also had conversations with um the adjacent owners and I think they're I think their concerns are are met. I know you guys had some concerns about the possibility of the rightway expanding which it's not. And um I know Sarah Steel to the south there's a 20 foot strip along the bottom edge. You just wanted to make sure that it wasn't included which it's which it's not. So we would recommend approval. Go ahead.

I got confused. So the they talked about two parts. Are we doing both parts recommending approval for both parts or there is still there? This is a part of 100 acres. There's another part later. I just I got lost. Right. So um there's a residential parcel kind of in the middle of the area that's not part of it and then another little section adjacent to that that's not coming in. So this is the majority of it. This is the base. This is the core. But there's going to be a couple little infills as that get Okay, that that makes more sense.

Does anyone else have comments or questions on this one? There was no staff recommendations, right? There's no letter attached. I just want to make sure there's nothing we're missing.

Okay. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of item number seven on our agenda for the annexation petition from Landstrom Acres LLC for the annexation of 108.482 acres uh with the parcels that are listed in the agenda and I'll second. All right. Motion by Alex, second by Haiti. Any other discussion on this item? All those in favor? I

I opposed abstain. Motion carries. All right. So, at this time, we'll open uh 640, a public hearing and the public's opportunity to provide input regarding potential amendments to chapter 274, the subdivision ordinance. There's a PDF linked in the agenda. um also invite trustee Stowa up to the front um if he'd like to give comments um moving forward. I think that's for

Oh, okay. Never mind. Not inviting trustes up to the front on this one. Um but I'll let Aaron run through um this item just during the open hearing.

You're you're always welcome. Um, so these are items that, um, we looked at late last year. Um, kind of after our field trip that we took out to, um, Grand View Commons. Uh, the one part that was previously part of this that I'm leaving out, at least at this time, is the alleys. I think we'd like to kind of look at dimensions and things like that with the fire department a little bit more. Um but the other sections related to street widths. Um just as a reminder, we're looking at it in terms of uh the components that make up the street, the width of the driving lane, the width of the parking lane, width of the bike lane, as opposed to an overall width like how it's handled in the ordinance. Now, um changing the minimum sidewalk width from four feet to five. Um five has been kind of the common practice, but we just like to have that codified. Um likewise, multi-use paths. Um just that the board has the ability to um ask for a multi-use path in lie of a sidewalk. That's also kind of been in practice, but not necessarily part of the ordinance. Um introducing minimum curb radi at intersections. Um, having smaller curb radi means you have a shorter crossing distance for pedestrians. Um, it also makes it harder to go speeding around the corner, so it's a little bit safer for motorists as well. Um, and then the building setback section was just kind of redundant because that's already handled by the zoning ordinance. We just want to address that a little more clearly. Um, so we'd recommend approval of those items.

There's no one here from the public. Is there anyone online that would like to give comments picked up during the public hearing? All right, hearing none, it's 6:42, so I'll close the public hearing. Um, we'll move on to number nine. Discuss and consider potential amendments to chapter 274. So, open up to discussion from the board from the commission. I just want to thank Erin for arranging the um the field trip tour so we can see some of these things actually in person so they don't seem quite as um I don't know hard to visualize just by reading. So I think that that was really helpful exercise for us to understand what we're uh looking to do. It's

getting warmer. Maybe we'll do another one. I guess page four at the bottom. Nothing specific, but it's about the curb. Um, you have a section at E, I think. Uh, curb radi shall not exceed 20 ft with 15 ft preferred words. Arterial street shall not exceed 25 ft. Do we need should we also specify a minimum? Like if you're going to do a max, do we want a high and a low to to guard guard rail the guard, you know, to prevent any questions or any future issues? I don't know what the number is. I'm just if we're going to stay to maximum, do we want to ensure we don't somebody cuts the corner too tight or anything like that? I don't what you've seen in language around that.

It's usually been handled as a as a maximum. Um, yeah. I mean, we we would have the leeway to kind of ask for what we want. It's just as long as they're not exceeding this. Any other comments or questions on the subdivision ordinance changes?

And I would move approval of the amendments to chapter 274 subdivision ordinances presented. Second Heidi, second by Jared. Any other comments? All those in favor? I I opposed abstain. Motion carries. All right. Now, is it time for inviting Trusty Stow? I jumped the gun. All the edits I feel come from you. All right. We've got discuss and consider directing staff to review and draft amended language for purpose statements. um for multiple things.

Uh so, thank you for having me. Um the state legislature passed and the governor signed late last year uh Wisconsin Act 68 um which updated the zoning purpose statements to sort of modify some of the um reasons for having a zoning code. And it took out some language like preventing overcrowding in land and lessening congestion in the streets and replaced it with um similar but a little bit different language. And this is just to reflect the changes in state law comments or questions for trustees still otherwise Erin what do you have to add?

So we'd be looking for direction for me to draft this up and bring it back. we wouldn't be, you know, approving it in a final format today, but we'd have to do the public hearing for amending zoning just like we did for the last item. But it does make sense to do all this. I agree with it. Do you need a motion for that or is it just a direction to stay? I mean, it says discuss, consider, but it's not like we're defer to Larry on that one. Yeah, you can make the motion. You're just directing. The motion is just to direct staff to proceed.

I'll make a motion to direct staff to review and draft amendment language in the listed in item 10 of our agenda. And I'll second. All right. Motion by Alex, second by Heidi. Any other? I just want to thank Chris for bringing this over to us. Thanks, Chris. Right. Hearing no other discussion. All those in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries. All right. Number 11 is an overview of the 2025 Wisconsin Act 173 truth and planning law and 235.

Yeah. Um some more statutory changes that affect uh what we're doing here at the plan commission. Um first one, act 173. It's being called the truth and planning law. Um basically it requires uh the land use element of a comprehensive plan to specifically describe phasing and density of future residential development. Um, and when a developer developer comes forward requesting zoning for uh a project that is consistent with that density and phasing that you have in your plan, you're now obligated to approve that with v various exceptions that um related to just if the village would be unable to supply utilities or or things like that. Um, I think there's some confusion about this that it just applies to everything, but it's really just residential uh development. Uh, the other act is act 235. Um, this one creates a new kind of tax increment district called an RTID or residential tax increment district. Uh, it's intended to promote uh workforce housing. Um any housing that is created in one of these TIDs has to meet specific requirements. Uh specifically it has to be owner occupied single family or duplex. Lot sizes cannot exceed 7500 square ft uh for a single family or 12,500 for a duplex. Uh the maximum width is 70 ft uh for a single family or 80 ft for a duplex. Um 10ft setbacks maximum. Um, and then a singlestory unit cannot exceed 1500 square ft and a two-story structure cannot exceed 2,000. Um, just to put that in context

and all of those kind of maximum dimensions that would fit within our SR6 single family residential zoning which has a maximum of 7500. Uh so anything you know above this would not work but we or anything below you know someone came in with a 7,000 square foot lot that would work for the TID but not for SR6 zoning. Um so I think one thing to consider going forward is potentially either adjusting that SR6 district or potentially creating another one that would give a little more flexibility within the rules of the TID. Um and as we go through the comprehensive planning process um which we'll be starting here shortly I think identifying areas uh through the land use plan there to uh identify places where this kind of uh TID could be utilized in the village would be something to look at too. Um the TIDs that exist now there's a rule called the 12% rule. says you can't create a new TID or adjust an existing TID if more than 12% of your assessed or equalized value is uh within TIF districts. Uh we're over that basically because of Amazon. Uh but the RIDs are not part of that equation. They have their own uh 3% rule that works similar but it's not um combined with the with the other TIDS. Um, I think that covers it unless Larry, you had anything else that you wanted to point out?

No, I think that it's it's um something that a lot of these are two are are acts that a lot of uh communities are going to be wrestling with, but it's timed really well right now in Cottage Grove with the planning that's going on um that's already been kicked, you know, process has already begun to get that started. So um it's it's a real challenge and you know that part of it there will be a lot of questions that Aaron will pose along the way about you know to what extent the planning now as as comp plans never had any force of law and you know this new statute says they don't but they do um in that you know you you need to recognize that the sort of the legislative authority in that step is is is sort of allocated to that plan at this point for for following the the adopt or the effective date of this and the first of 2028. So there will be more to discuss in terms of policy choices than normal with a comp plan change. Comments or questions from the commission? I guess when it comes to residential TIDs, Erin, how do you envision that working within the development process? Is this something that a developer would come to us and ask us to create a TID? Do we have or we are we going to, you know, look at our future land use and where we would like to see it?

Um, it could be done either way. Um, you know, the the current types of TIDs work either way. We tend to do them in advance in places where we want development but um certainly there are cases in other places where a developer will come forward with you know this is a site and can you create a tid to help us assuming that has to happen very early on in the process like you can't or I mean are there restrictions on I'm assuming the developer would want to know kind of what they're getting out of it and put it putting that into the math of whether the development's feasible or not. Um, so yeah, I think they would need to know fairly early on.

Yeah. And and to do uh to to reimburse costs associated with a project, you have to have the TID created prior to incurring those costs. So um the way that as you all probably know, the way TIDs work is you got a base value and we we can use the increment from the growth in the assessed value or equalized value to to create incentives. So that has to be done before that work happens. But um tids can also be created relatively quickly, 60 to 90 days.

I should also point out you they can't just use the money for anything. It really is directed towards providing utilities for for the housing. So I think um neighborhoods where that might be a particular challenge for one reason or another um is where this could be particularly useful. How does it work for multifamily or uh mult uh mixed use? So if you were to have commercial, you know, on the bottom, is that Yeah. So that that wouldn't be an R TID because this has to be the owner occupied single family or duplex. Um but there is a mixeduse TID that already exists that um we could use for for that. Other comments or questions?

I guess I just had one followup. Um, I think it's could be a very useful thing because we hear that development costs a lot of money to put all the infrastructure in and that goes directly to the cost of housing. So, um, you know, if we can help reduce those barriers, we can help reduce the the cost for first-time home buyers or um, you know, housing is a lot in general. So, anything we can do to help that infrastructure offset, I think that's helpful legislation that came through. So, thanks for the update on it. Any other discussion? All right, we'll move on to number 12, which is an update on um data centers. So, there's a memo in your packet. Um I serve on the um Dne County Advisory Committee on Data Centers and we've been working we started I think in February. We've been working um once a month to kind of tackle a whole bunch of different topics which I have listed on page one there. Um we actually envision our work taking probably more than a year. I think we're going to probably extend it. Um but the idea is is that we'll have um guidelines from municipalities when evaluating data data center projects because I'm sure you've all you know seen in the news that these are kind of very large scale um high utility burden um developments that can have really big economic impacts but also um have a lot of other considerations that should be taken in into account. Um, and so I guess I, you know, because there's so much information and there aren't really good guidelines or there's not state guidelines and Dean County is still kind of wrestling with this. Um, not that we have anything on the table right now. Um, but I think that kind of just making sure we have a pause in Cottage Grove

kind of sets us up for some success and if there were to be a proposal, we would know exactly how to go about um, evaluating that. And so that's basically what my memo says. I did kind of scan through some of the you had a bunch of presentations at the end.

I I went through, you know, I scanned through a bunch of them and a lot of them are very good. Some of them, you know, they give you the actual facts. There's a lot of there's a lot of blanket statements about the data centers that, you know, you got to look at what specifically they are. But one of the one of the things was when we had, you know, any kind of thing that may be controversial or whatever, uh, and they talk about it is making sure that you have a zoning for that. Some of them Virginia ones, they were putting them in like planned industrial. So, we we almost need to have it, and we've done this with some other controversial businesses where we put them in like an M M1 or a really a heavy industrial type zoning. So, we can't just say we don't want them. We have to have we have to have or accommodate zoning for it. We don't necessarily have to have an abundance of that zoning, but we do need to have it. And so, that's something we should think about is that, okay, it it's it has to be in this zoning that it can't be in like in Virginia where they were able to put it in a lighter industrial zoning. And then that's where some of the problems and issues have came.

Yeah. had the um person who worked on all the data centers in Virginia talk to us yesterday. Okay. Um and gave us you know you know his story on all of those data centers and all of the regulations and um the work that he has done in Virginia and all of that. Um but yeah, they're industrial like he suggested industrial zoning. Yeah, for sure. Um, but there also like a lot of other considerations and Larry left a little too early, but I was just curious.

I was just curious on, you know, on some of the stuff, you know, as far as what type of cooling they they're going to use and all that. I don't know what we can and cannot regulate, you know, or if that has to come from the state or the county or whatever. Um, you know, because it's going to depend upon water use versus electric use. And if yeah, if you have a closed loop system, then you're going to be primarily driven by electrical use. And then that and you also have a there's a lot of generators that are involved. And so that's high noise burden. And there's I mean, it's industrial, so there's light light at night all the time. And I mean, just a lot of different things. But I think the utility impact is probably the biggest that people are most concerned about right off the bat. And think of the generators would mainly be emergency use, but they do run them to make sure they run. So they frequently run them.

Yes. And there's some data centers, we talked yesterday about how they have a con, it depends on the building, too. So, um, there's some data centers that have a constant hum and it might just be a 40 decel hum, but it's pretty consistent. And if it comes right up next to a residential and it's low frequency, so then the, you know, wavelength travels further and that kind of stuff. So

I know the state has a data center you know obviously not ginormous but you know right when along the interstate and femite so that's a big state data center and I know they have a cooling tower but it's I don't think it's it's not that big where it's a big impact on anything but I do know they did feed it they fed it multiple ways electrically so there's there's some backup as far as how that is all powered and everything. So yeah, there's a lot of questions uh to be answered and it' be nice to see some guidelines from someone.

I think like even just defining you know our definition like what a data center is because there's all different categories of data centers. So I mean spec we're kind of focused on like the hypers scale really large ones but there's you know ones that might come along like adjacent to a business because that business might use it and maybe that's something that we would want to permit in the future. Certainly the larger ones um wouldn't fit in our current zoning anyway. So they would apply for a plan unit de a PUD zoning which we would have a lot of discretion on um because they're going to be requesting various variances to our code. So, we're somewhat protected from that standpoint as far as not being bound to move forward with something that if the if the village didn't want to. Um, having said that, it'll be helpful going through the comp plan process to um identify, you know, if there are areas that where it theoretically could work. Um, and then, um, just so you guys all know, and Cindy mentioned it, um, Stafford has a conflict on this topic. So, we've engaged our we have another um council that we use for some other some other things that that's going to help us out possibly pursuing this if the board gives direction to um pursue a potential moratorum or something like that while we work through these um dynamics. So

I think you know we hear a lot at least the last handful of months too about like community character and if you do and something we're starting to focus on a little bit in the in the group too is that if you do put something you know a data center in that takes the place of you know a different type of business or development that could go in there and is there a better fit um and how does that how does a data center like really fit within in the community um and something I'm interested in is happen. I mean technology is rapidly changing and you even saw how data centers have changed you know their chips and the cooling systems and um how do you decommission a data center and what does it become when that technology becomes obsolete. So there's a lot of question we mostly just have a lot of questions the whole time and then people give you know give presentations then we have more questions but hopefully in the next year we have you know a handbook or guidelines or something for municipalities to use

on that decommissioning. I mean, I don't know what what they can do. I know like, you know, with a gravel pit, they have state laws on on putting that back to a certain level. I know a lot of airport leased land has verbiage uh in the event that structures are abandoned or their leases are up where they're, you know, you have to remove buildings or decommission them. It's rarely done, but um and I don't know on the on solar and uh wind stuff if they have decommissioning rules or not because eventually that's going to be a problem, right? You know, other comments?

I think it makes a lot of sense given we're working on the comp plan. We have this Dane County committee that's meeting to help establish guidelines. You know, of course, we're not saying no forever, but we need to figure out what requirements we would need to have in place to to have something go through that would impact that many different areas. So, I think I think it makes sense to have our council draft something for us. And then going in with it was what's the best way to bring a data center in if there is no best way you know what's the best way to say no to. So next steps for this um we're going to talk about it at the village board and the village board can give direction to um for a legal review and then um there'd be a public hearing process and eventually an adoption of the resolution for a moratorum. So

for for this the public hearing needs a it's a a 30 days notice prior. So this will take a little bit of time because the board will have to discuss it and then we'll have to um work through things with the attorney but this summer probably if the board approves. Thanks for bringing this forward and thanks for serving on the Dean County committee too. No problem. It's been interesting. All right. Future agenda items.

Got a few things. Um, Newman is shooting for the June meeting to come back with their preliminary plat and zoning for the land they just annexed. Uh, Bidmar Church will be back for their zoning. As we discussed, uh, we have a MG High School student uh, that wants to come in and, um, talk about bird safety and things you can do with glazing to help protect birds. I think Madison has a new ordinance about that, so she wants to talk to us about that. Um, and then we are in the process of getting a contract finalized for the uh comp plan update. So, we'll have more information on that, but uh you guys are going to be the committee that helps us out with that. So, should be fun. Thanks. I'm also um something to consider. I'm reflecting on number 10, you know, where there's a potential update, you know, update asking staff to look at this updated because of state statute changes. So, do we need a gap analysis of all the changes that we're behind on because we're always behind. It's just the fact of life. We the ordinance committee doesn't exist anymore and shouldn't exist anymore. It was I was on that. It was waste time. It wasn't a waste of time. It was not valuable money spent. Um, so I we move forward on that one. I don't know if when it gets to the board. I don't know if that's a priority for staff. I mean, so there's there's a there's a there's going to be a u so we approved it as an ordinance. There's the not the emotional decision, but there's a you get to make a choice um whether you direct staff to spend time on that. So I don't know if if we should do we need a full comprehensive gap analysis. Is this the most important thing for staff to work on right now? the data center thing sounds important. Um, and then the other thing too is is there any teeth to not being compliant like is there we got two years to get

compliant. I was kind of going through the statute in the state or it it's all loose because there's there's always something later even in our ordinances if you fail to file this ordinance there's something way down here at the bottom that we pull up front. So from a how we want to run things, we shouldn't be just peacemealing necessarily the hot topic that may be important to an individual or a small group. We want to make sure it complies with everything that's going on. So just something to think about at the board level or or maybe it'll be a topic we talk about here about how to analyze the ordinance gaps because there's always gaps. It's we just Okay.

I think there was one of the um comp plan interviews from the board meeting had mentioned that they do. Was it like looking at all of our zoning or ordinance changes and like there was some type of analysis they could do. Maybe that's something we could consider for budget season and next year. It was one of the extras that I think the board did not choose to pursue at at this time. But yeah, definitely something we could do next year. But maybe that's something that we can think about, you know, putting in the budget for next year if we find that there's a lot of, you know, as we start going through the comp plan and, you know, additional zoning changes and that kind of thing. Number 14.

Motion to return. Second. Motion second. Non-debatable. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Thanks.