Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the January 21st Village of Mount Pleasant Plan Commission meeting. Um first on is is roll call. Brandy please. Washurn here. Peterson here. Batia here. Risler here. Basil here. Mayor here. Okay. The next item is I need a motion to approve meeting minutes from December 17th, 2025. So moved. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. Nobody.

Okay. There being no old business, we'll start with the new business. Uh the 12023 Durant Avenue site plan review SP25-12. And I'd like to have Nick say a few words for us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm Nick. I am legal counsel for the board today. Um, I just wanted to set some kind of parameters for discussions. Obviously, you are all aware that you are a technical review board. Um, you're created by statute and your job is to review and make decisions based on some of the technical aspects of um, site plans, developments, whatever it may be. I want to identify that the three items in front of you today um are all zoned for their uses um that the application is for. What that means is that you don't have the authority to change or to deny somebody the right to use. Um and so that is not kind of part of this discussion today. Whether or not that use is appropriate um isn't something you have any discretion over right now. The whole purpose of this is for um a technical review of the site plans themselves. Okay. And so to the extent I have no horse in the race whatsoever in terms of what your decision-m process is. Um but that is the only thing that is kind of up for discussion today. Um staff will present to the technical side of things because of the nature of this or because this board in general reports to the common council. So you make your recommendation not the common council I'm sorry village board. Um so in that instance you are not the final deciding body. Um that comes up to the village board. You are making a formal recommendation based on your technical review. There is um an obligation that this meeting is open to the public and the public is here today. Uh but there is not any obligation or necessity for public comment especially because the limited scope of um what's going on here today. That is something you can do if you choose to do it but is not on the agenda today. And so as you're a legal counsel, I'm not going to advise you to do something that's off agenda. Um you should not take public comment if it's

not something that's on the agenda. Okay. Thank you. Questions feel free to let me know. And just so the public knows that this as we as he's stated, we are recommending board and we will be this will be going to the village board on Monday night at six o'clock for their approval of what they want to do with this particular item. Okay. Just so everybody was aware of that. Okay. Sam, are you going to start us off then?

Yes, sir. Um, I can also just wanted to jump in before I jump into this that the staff will generally be around afterwards if anyone Yeah, we can interface with the public if anyone has any concerns or questions that they want to bring up with us. We'll be around and can discuss it afterwards. Um, so for the first item, that's 1203 Durand Avenue, site plan review, SP212. The applicant submitted an updated site plan for plan commission review and recommendation to the village board. Plan commission previously reviewed and approved a preliminary site plan for the subject property in August 2024 which was under SP 2417. The plan commission and village board's approval of SP 2417 and subsequent issuance of a grading permit by the public works department permitted Microsoft Corporation to begin mass grading on the subject property. If you drive out past there now, you can see that they have graded a large portion of the area. If you drive along 11, you can look south and see that. Um, if the village board approves this site plan, Microsoft Corporation may submit final civil engineering plans for review, followed by applications for building permits to start construction on the individual buildings. So, this is not the final step, but it is, you know, kind of midway through the uh building plan approval process. The site plan shows nine data centers with related office space, each 5,700 500,000 79 square feet. 500 just under 600,000 square feet. I apologize.

It's okay. He's going to have a baby any minute. So Sam, we do excuse you today for my brain is a little number a little bit somewhere else. A lot of numbers.

579,000 square feet. Excuse me. It also shows a 96,000 ft office and storage building, a 265T guard house, and narrative mentions additional minor accessory buildings. This equals approximately 5,200,000 square feet of building area across the 791 acre parcel. The applicant narrative contains additional information regarding the project and that was part of your packet. staff recommends the 14 conditions that you see on the plan. You can see on the map the property location, the zoning, and the comprehensive plan. This property has been uh comprehensively planned and zoned for industrial development since 2017. Also, as a little additional background history, um the applicant bought the property between late 2023 and early 2024. That was in the news. Um and some of that was a a land sale from the village um at that time and some of that was through private land sales as well. You can see the buildings as part of the site plan review here. They look um approximately similar to some of the buildings that are in area 3B off of 90th Street. the shorter ones. These are all about 30 feet tall, not the taller ones at that site. Um, we recommend that the plan commission forward the site plan to the village board contingent on the conditions uh outlined in your staff report. Those include uh some regarding architecture as you can see um for transparency standards um submitting additional elevations for some of the minor accessory buildings um and some of those may qualify for staff review but depending on the size of the buildings generally if they're below 5,000 square feet um they shall obtain and comply with all required water sewer and environmental approvals for their water use and

discharge. We know regarding data centers, a lot of the questions is regarding water. Um the applicants um previous public numbers that they've stated of um 8.4 million gallons annually um that they would consume from the rine water utility remain the same. That was an all-encompassing number for all of these sites. So that has not changed um from what they've previously reported. Um and regarding power use, the Mount Pleasant zoning ordinances does not regulate power consumption. So that's not part of our staff review. However, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight that um the village does allow a variety of energy sources by right in its zoning code um should the applicant choose to apply for them. A couple good examples are the wind turbines at SC Johnson's Waxdale campus which are within the village Mount Pleasant and the plan commission and village board approved well over 10 years ago. um as well as the uh uh solar panels that surround um the one of the ponds at Foxcon. You all approved that a couple years ago as well. So those are allowed by right. That is how the zoning contemplates energy generation and that whole discussion is just through use and site planning permissions. Um there are no uh regulations at least at the local level um talking about energy consumption. Generally that is something that an applicant works through the public utility. So that is a conversation that happens outside of this body. Regarding transportation, parking and traffic um we require a traffic impact analysis for the subject parcel um which they are required to submit. They are currently underway um in completing that and that will also have feedback from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation as two of the three surrounding roads on the property are state trunk highways. So the TOT will review those as well. Many of those were constructed um around the time of

Foxcon. So our preliminary staff um report or what we think will happen is not much because those roads were built to a pretty beefy standard at the time they were put in. um intending to carry a lot of traffic. So, we wouldn't expect any major changes to the site plan as uh with feedback for that traffic impact analysis. We're also requiring a multi-use pathway along the south side of Durand Avenue. As we've talked a lot about in the last few months about sidewalks and multi-use pathways, they are required to put one in along that 11 um right of way uh to the north of their site on the south side of 11. Um, regarding outdoor lighting, um, they'll need to comply with our outdoor lighting requirements, which you all approved mid last year. They're largely dark sky compliant lighting requirements. Um, the main, uh, issue that we had with the site plan was to, um, reduce some of the lighting uh, so that it is only above building entrances only, some of the on-building lighting. They may need to shift some of that to poles um, if they work on outdoor if they wish to light outdoor storage and work areas. um and then provide us a little bit of additional information of the exact light levels at property lines. However, there are pretty significant setbacks in there. So, judging based on the location of the poles, we don't expect that it's going to be an issue, but we want to see that before we issue a final building permit. Regarding the electrical permitting, um from a landscaping standard, uh we require all their interior parking lot landscaping looks good for this site. We just would like to know the species of some of the plants that they're putting in and provide us those installation details. Um, we also have a question regarding the areas outside of the parking. So, the kind of non-mandatory screening areas, landscaping plans are a little light on details. Our personal staff recommendation that we put in is um for native plantings wherever possible. If you look at the

pre-settlement conditions for this area, uh around kind of the creek in the southwest portion of the site, it was largely forested. Um and then the remaining site to the northeast and northeast was largely prairie. So our recommendation would be to wherever possible use native landscaping and their buffering and setback areas between buildings and in other non-active areas where they don't expect, you know, a large amount of traffic. Finally, um we would like to see some rules regarding the sound wall that they have currently in the draft plans. Um this is something that took place on both areas 3A and 3B for Microsoft. Um and we uh has been a part of the preliminary site plan in this one. So we just like to see some final details on that. expectation is that if they do include the sound wall, it would be largely similar to the ones on their existing site which are about 30 feet tall um and do kind of double duty in our zoning code to limit noise at the exterior edge of the property per our performance standards and also provide some outdoor mechanical equipment screening which we also require. Uh that is the long and short of my staff report. I can answer any technical questions. Claude, do you have anything else to add at this time? Um, any questions for me as staff? Otherwise, uh, the applicant is here and can answer any, you know, operations questions or things you have for them.

Go ahead, Ram.

Well, Sam, uh, I only have a quick question, but before I do that, I'm very pleased to see the, uh, the site plan. Uh obviously uh you and your staff had done a great job to to uh look into all the all the uh uh important aspect like landscaping and lighting and you know to meet with and and the sound wall across because that's extremely important. So my only quick question is a very quick question. Uh what's the reason to recommend the uh the parking width from 18 ft to 17 ft because you know I like I like the wider parking so the doors don't kind of bump into each other. So so I want to understand what's the uh technical reason for that.

Yes. Um so the village parking standards set specific stall lengths and widths. Ours are on the smaller side and that's generally to reduce imperous surface and kind of downstream storm water effects. Um we did amend the zoning code over last summer uh if you remember to add some additional compliance so they can increase the size of those parking lots under some specific rules including you know provision of things like green infrastructure or other things to mitigate some of those storm water impacts. So they can either they have two options essentially per our condition. They can either reduce the length and width to comply with the village standard or they can file for that alternative compliance uh procedure and we are fine with whichever one they choose. They just need to tell us which one they want to go with.

Well I guess my question was if they are recommending 18 ft why go like a narrower? Yeah, I that's just the standard that the village ordinance sets. So that's what we reviewed the site plan against. As I say, it's not a big deal, but otherwise I like everything I see on the the site plan. Thank you, Nancy.

I just uh Thank you. I um had a question regarding comment nine, and it's really more just a curiosity. This is in regards to restoration of certain areas um and plantings and so forth along the Kilborn Road ditch. I was just wondering if uh Microsoft plans on partnering with Root Pike Win again for that effort to restore some of that. They may not have even thought about it yet, but I was just curious as to whether Root Pike Wind was involved in those native uh area restorations.

I have not received any of those plans. So, from a staff perspective, I don't have an answer for you. knew they were not part of this packet, but I can certainly defer to Microsoft. Yeah. To them when they're up here if you'd like to hear from them. Well, they did such a nice job in the first phase and that restoration effort looks very nice and attracts a lot of people and I see them walking up and down 90th Street like crazy now, like we never have. So, um, again, another great environmental area to restore. Thank you, Frank. Larry, you ready? Good. Michelle, you're okay? I'm good. Okay. Um, just one comment I have, Sam, is to no building permits are going to be approved until all conditions are met. Correct. That is correct.

So, that's one of I want to make that on record. Yes. Everybody understands that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. That being said, um, can I get a motion, Ron? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to approve the uh 12023 Duran Avenue site plan review SP-25-12 with the conditions as presented. Second. Got a motion and a second. Any other comments in regards to this? Anything else? If not,

I think just a quick comment is the enormity of these plans and the detail in these plans. I really commend Microsoft, Deubberry, their engineering firms for being able to provide us such tremendous levels of detail. It does allow us to see the project come off the paper um to a certain degree of course. Um but also to our staff, these are tough reviews and I appreciate all the time and effort that Sam and Robin and and all of our staff put into making sure that all of our codes covered. And I like what I've seen with Microsoft in phase one, their landscaping, the plantings, planting the forest, and so forth. I think that's really admirable. And as I drive now through other areas in the other commercial de developments and districts in the area, I see some of the parks that are 10, 15, 20 years old that started with with smaller trees that now have nice plantings that really do uh pro provide um a buffer from the street view. And and I see that and with Microsoft, they used very mature plantings. they've already replaced some that that uh didn't make it the first round. So, I think they're being very good stewards to us and being very courteous of uh of minding how their their facilities and buildings look to the community. So, I thank them for that. Thank you all.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh call a vote. All in favor? I I opposed. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Second item is 2700 International Drive site plan review SP25-13.

Mr. Chair, the applicant submitted a site plan for plan commission review and recommendation to the village board. If they approve the site plan, they may submit civil engineering plans for review followed by applications for building permits to start construction on the individual buildings. Um, as a note, we broke our conditions into two sections. Um the way that these Microsoft site plans have been going is they've submitted kind of a preliminary site plan um and your approval has allowed them to start grading work property consolidation because these are lie across multiple different parcels um and that whole process um you saw that play out in area 2 right now where they're grading and we just approved them to start moving for the building plans. So this is we split our conditions into two. The first section would if they meet those conditions they would allowed to start grading. The second set of conditions which are more lengthy are those required for building plan review. We expect like the other um applications that they would likely come back with refinements um before to the plan commission and village board on the site plan before they move forward to that building plan review. So I would say really focus on the first three conditions. the other ones we put in to be thorough but um do not expect them to uh move forward uh in that path in this time. The site plan shows six data centers related office space each 568,000 square ft. Also shows a 74,000t office and storage building and a 265 ft guard house and narrative mentions additional minor accessory buildings. uh totals approximately 3.5 million square feet across the approximately 530 acres of subject properties. The applicant narrative contains additional information regarding the project. Those first three important conditions that I uh just mentioned are submitting a certified survey map to merge the subject properties for staff review plan commission recommendation and village board consideration before the village issues any permits for the subject

properties. The second is shall modify the parking and access plan to show a multi-use pathway along the north side of old highway 11 connecting northwards to Louis Sorenson Road along either side of Hoods Creek subject to final engineering plans and southeastwards to the county trail per section 420.70A of the vill's adopted bicycle plan. And three, the applicant shall follow all procedures listed within division 90-490 flood protection. They wish to modify those areas delineated as floodway or flood fringe on the firm panels for the subject properties. As a note, those flood ways and flood fringe areas are you can see on um the zoning map in the top right corner here on the screen where there is that shoreland setback area. The flood plane largely follows that uh similar area. Um, and if they wish to modify it, they need just go through the DNR FEMA approvals. It's quite a lengthy process when you're working with flood planes. So, their engineers can address that at that time. Um, we have many of the same conditions from the previous um application. And again, noting that uh this complies with the comprehensive plan, this area has also been comprehensively planned and zoned for business park style industrial development since 2017. Um and the property owner again purchased these properties a couple years ago. So um while you have not approved that preliminary site plan for this area, um this is following the same kind of step and processes and procedures. Um transportation element of that comp plan mentions some of the bicycle pathways that I uh mentioned earlier. It also discusses a future roadway to the north titled Nation's Drive of the Subject properties that kind of crosses um east to west from International and then heads north to merge into Carrington Boulevard. So that's shown on the very north end of their subject properties and something that the village is

looking into um as part of its you know long range transportation and TID planning. Um we I mentioned the bicycle plans that kind of biseect um the site and follow the natural areas there. The whole idea with the Hoods Creek um flood plane um creek restoration project is very similar um to the villages project over the last 25 30 years along the Pike River um where we did a lot of restoration oftent times the restoration of those what are now kind of farm ditches actually narrows up the flood plane but provides better natural habitat and Microsoft has been a good partner to trusty Washburn's point along the lane parrot creek Um so this area provides the opportunity in their long range site planning to do similar type of work. Um in terms of the land division like I mentioned they'll need to combine all the properties together and the instrument to do that as a certified survey map. They did that for area 2. They would need to do it for this north area as well. Right now Louis Sorenson Road bisects the subject properties. um if they wanted to discontinue that stretch of Louisis Sorenson Road, that is a whole separate legal process that the board would have to consider and would come to the plan commission as part of the discontinuence process. So, we didn't even address that as part of this review because right now the public right of way exists um and um it is there. So, there's a separate process if we would like to amend that. Um in terms of zoning, again, C4 general industrial which permits the uses by right. Um, this meets the strategic plan. I didn't mention it as part of the last application, but a lot of the news articles I read picked it up as we include a fiscal analysis as part of all our site plan reviews, which you are well aware because you read all our packets diligently. Um,

all 214 pages,

all 214 pages. Um but for both of these subjects properties um the the metrics that we used including revenue to cost, private to public, time to repayback, public liabilities all perform very well um and in general far exceed the 1:1 ratios or 40 to1 ratios that we set. So from a fiscal analysis um these perform very well. I should caveat that that we made some assumptions because the fiscal analysis is a 40-year projection. So we're making some assumptions about the tax rate um everything building out in a single phase as opposed to a phased manner. So it's likely and I tried to caveat that in our staff report that some of those numbers might moderate um but that also means some of the service costs and adjacent public infrastructure costs would also moderate depending on their phases. So I think taken as a whole um it's still accurate. Um with that I can answer any other final technical questions. Claude, do you have anything else? Very good. I the Mr. Chairman.

Yeah. Yes, Nancy. Go. The only question I had had and Sam, I think you went over. We've done already some road vacations over in this area and I saw that there were the existing roadways that they're denoting on here subject to per. So, I guess my only question was to confirm that the existing roadways they're showing on this map are not the ones that we've already uh already vacated over in the TID 5 area.

They are not. Um, a lot of that was amending the comprehensive plan to show where future roadways would go as part of the transportation element to the comprehensive plan. Um, so we cleaned that up, but um I think about a year ago now, maybe a little bit over a year ago if I remember correctly. But yes, um all the roadways that are existing are still there. Um and this generally follows the updated comprehensive plan um for this area that you approved. Ram, go ahead.

Well, again, I'd like to add my comments that I'd like to applaud both Microsoft and the staff. Like Nancy said, 214 pages of this. I really enjoyed reading almost you know everything I could and from an engineering point of view from the technical point of view I I believe that both these project and since we're talking about this one is a pretty well balanced growth and development you know from the you know from the environment point of view from the sound the lighting and landscaping and the uh m making sure the the environment is uh taken care of. So again I commend everyone and you know uh I can only imagine how much effort has been put you know to prepare this and plans and and also to review these plans. So I'm very pleased with that. I think it's a these are both great developments in our community and your fiscal analysis shows over a 40-year period the total revenue to cost ratio is 80 to1. The previous one was 100 to1. I wish they both were 100 to1, but I'll take it 80 to1. Again, very well done and I think these are the absolutely great development for our community.

All right, I do have one more question in regards to the bike path along Hutch Creek. Um because if they in fact expand that way, are we going to be losing the access to that bike path uh the option? because obviously they could be putting buildings on each side of that path or that creek. So not as a part of this application. Um in their draft site plans they show um proposed bicycle pathway but it is still identified on our comp plan and our bike plans. So we wanted to call it out as a condition. Um but no as as of now the plans they've submitted that still exists would have public access.

Okay. because otherwise I would want to make sure that I don't believe we have anything correct right now along international drive. Correct. Off streetet we do have a good amount um not close to state trunk highway 20 but as you move south they do pick up um and when you reach the Louis Sorenson Road intersection there are bike paths there um and they reach all the way south to 11. Okay. Because that's important because obviously when we they put that pathway along Old Highway 11, that connector will then be there. That's my main concern.

Yes. It would open up kind of ability to go west and then north and then line in with the hood. So it kind of create a big general loop if you look at our plans, but they are in there. They're in the village's adopted plans. So you would review any request to remove those from the plans. So they exist now and unless you say otherwise in the future which um we would have a whole separate conversation but they are part of these plans. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me Frank. Yeah. Concerning condition one of your first three. How many parcels are they going to combine with the CSM? If you look at the the zoning thing there were all kinds of little lines all over everywhere. Yes.

That many parcels into one via CSM. Yes. That's what we've done for some of the other ones. Um, it would likely be at least two large parcels north and south of Louis Sorenson Road, but could be more depending on the creek and how they choose to address that and their surveyors and everything. But at a minimum, I would say two. I don't know the exact number of parcels out there. I think it's somewhere in the vicinity of like 20ish, 20, 25, somewhere in there. I can get the commission a count. We would review that obviously separately with a separate certified survey map application and at that time we would apply all our shoreland setbacks and things that we review as part of land divisions.

I do remember that we did we did a previous certified survey map for Microsoft that contained a number of parcels. It was a very interesting certified survey map. It was a it was really a surveying uh exercise for sure, but we have done that before and it it has worked out just fine.

I think that's important um because many of these are uh lots that were platted pre-land division ordinance. So like pre970s oftentimes by deed only at the register of deeds. So many of the lots that are existing um are not they're legal non-conforming, right? they can stay the way they are and have been platted for 70 years, but we wouldn't allow lots to be created like that now under our current rules where we have um stricter lot size regulations and things like that. So, this helps us clean up some of those very old rurally platted lots into something that meets modern standards. Okay, no other comments at this point. I would entertain a motion.

I just have quick question again. You know, I I wonder if uh Microsoft can add maybe uh uh I I do understand it's a site plan approval. There's a lot to be done uh uh more in the engineing and the and the construction. But what's the approximate again General Bar Park of the uh commencement of you know like start of construction and the and the end you know give us a ballpark please.

I don't have an end date for you. Clauswise, project director for the village of Mount Pleasant for tit five. So they will start the first phase at area two later this year. So again mid to late summer somewhere around there is the projected goal right now today. And again for the north area right now it's just grading. It's just a grading plan is what's on there that you'll be moving forward if you approve that back to to the village board. And the other comment uh chairman to your point we do keep a 75 ft buffer around all of our creeks. So the village does maintain a 75 foot buffer easement along those creeks. Would it be publicly accessible though if they

So yes, so again, we're working and Microsoft been great to partner with us on improving them as well as working with us with their fence and then the public part of it as well. So we're we're in that process right now area 3A and 3B. So So Lamperica will be accessible to them.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there further comments? I entertain them for a motion. Uh chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the site plan review for 2700 International Drive SP25-13 subject to the conditions as reviewed by planner Schultz and attached to the executive summary. Second. Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any other further comments from the commission? If not, I call a roll call, please, for um all in favor. Washburn I.

Peterson I. Batia. Hi. Resler. I. Basil. I. Meer here. Hi. Okay. Thank you very much. The last item on our agenda is for 5714 Brown Road Preliminary Plat PSP 25-02. That's not the right that's not the right slide. So, we can take a second and refresh that one. Do we want to, Mr. Chairman, do we want to take five minutes to let the press pack up? And I don't know if they're staying. It looks like they're we should that that would be good. I need to refresh this anyway. So,

okay. Just I'm just saying you know moved. Yes. As long as break

We are back in session. So, uh, back to item number three, 5714 Brown Road, Preliminary Plant, PSP25-02.

Mr. Chair, if I could. Thank you. um to amend and kind of jump in and set the tone for this one instead. So, one and two were um plan reviews. This is a preliminary plat review. That being said, this is still a matter that is zoned um by right in this capacity. So, it's going to be there's two considerations here. One, the zoning isn't something we get to discuss or evaluate. The other side of it is there's going to be subsequent reviews both by the village board and as a since this is preliminary, there's a subsequent um final plat review. So at this point, uh my advice to the board is that it's not on the agenda to take public comment. Um I don't think we should add something that's not agendaized. Any public comment would be best served directed towards staff and so they can vet that adjust it um from this preliminary plan and provide input on what that final plan could or should look like. Um, and then also kind of process that so it's not a fire hose coming at and and limiting your ability to take that technical review today of this preliminary plan. That's my legal advice. Proceed as you see fit.

Thank you.

Okay, Robin. Okay. Hi. Um, so this is for 574 Bronn Road. um that addressing has always been uh kind of an issue because it should be in the 7,000 block. But anyway, it is um directly south of the Oaks Road, you know, where that is serves Menard's and Walmart and uh adjacent to the Pike River on the eastern side of it. um about a mile or so from the intersection of Bronn Road and uh Highway 31. So, uh Bear Development um applied for a preliminary plat approval for the 68 acre property. Um the developers proposed 348 unit residential plat comprising of lots intended for detached homes, two unit houses, and town home buildings. Um this plat integrates the public extension of Vokes Road to facilitate regional connectivity. Um that's that connection has been identified on the 2050 um sort of regional plan the the WHIS sewer pack and WISD dot regional comp plan the vision 2050. um village board amended the zoning map for the subject property in 2025 to RN that's neighborhood residential to accommodate the proposed use. The preliminary plat is largely similar to the concept plan that applicants submitted with the previous zoning map amendment application. Um and the standards for the RN zoning district um is ideally has about a minimum of six units per acre. Um, this proposal comes in a little bit north of seven units per acre. So it's it's within the exact target range that this zoning district was made for. Um,

so and you can it's kind of hard to see with the the map there without being able to blow it up. I made the presentation. I probably should have done some zoomed in images, but it's in your packet. Um the basically the Oaks Road comes in and curves down to the side and then back around. The reason for this is there's a sort of a large wetland in the middle of the property that has been accommodated. Um, for the most part, if you wanted to break down how the units are comprised, um, the, uh, single family detached lots and structures are to the western edge of the property and the town home structures are along Oaks Road and to the south of the property. And then the twin home structures are in the norththeast corridor or corner. Um the Oh, I wanted to also say we passed out the uh a revision that um Bear Development has provided based on early staff comments. So there's always been there's already been one round of comments and stuff back from staff to the developer. So that the one that was in the packet was their initial submission. So um okay. And then generally this follows the the multi-jurisdictional comp plan. Um notably the the southward extension of Oaks Road on the comp plan is a straight north south north south jump. Um and some of the other offshoot roads are not identified on the comp plan. So for this and other reasons that they will have to come for an amendment of the comprehensive plan between now and the approval of the final plat. Um staff has the kind of the the leeway to decide

whether or not a comp plan it's in the spirit of the comp plan. It's always got to match, right? But if it's like close enough with some notable exceptions like say this one has a bridge crossing the Pike River obvious or the comp plan has a proposed bridge crossing the Pike River that was we have no idea where that came from but um obviously that's ludicrous um at that particular point. So, we're not requiring anybody to build that and not necessarily penalizing the developer for not having that on their uh plans. However, when we go to the amend the comp plan, we're going to remove that from there. Um, let me go ahead and just kind of go towards the a couple of the main things that you guys will have to think about and issue today. So, one of the kind of problems um or issues that came up during the approval was the road two or the western road. So, um we have an ordinance that limits overall block length to 1,200 ft. Um this is to prevent super corridors like super blocks from being too long. Um breaks up vision, all that sort of stuff. It prevents access, all that sort of stuff. it's accessibility and all all the other different reasons why that ordinance exists. Um, and the road two is does not meet that. So, I basically kind of read into a couple different ways that you could break up that that block. And one of them was basically having any kind of public dedication, whether it be a public park or um any kind of outlot that broke up the block from if not a road road standpoint, a thematic

standpoint. So, including a pedestrian or bicycle pathway, which uh this plan commission has discussed as a part of improving the overall transportation plan for the area of a potential desire to have a mirror Pike River pathway on the eastern side of the Pike River um to kind of mirror the western side and people could possibly do loops. Um, so when the the initial subdivision plat did not have an outlet or anything like that towards the uh towards the west, staff brought that up that we need to break that up via a lot block thing. Staff proposed, well, I did. I I had the bright idea of maybe bending the road a little bit um and kind of putting units on the bend there. So instead of the open space going towards the kind of not greatl looking wetland uh you know all wetlands are beautiful but some are more beautiful than others um and instead have that view corridor towards the Pike River which the village has spent considerable time and resources working with the Armored Corp of Engineers to restore that. Um so they the the developer has been great. They took time and resources to kind of draw up my idea which I basically sketched out in MS Paint rather crudely and they propo like they they sent back the diagram on the right. Now this is not their preferred di this is not their preferred option because they figured they would lose four to seven lots out of that. Um so but ultimately it's up to the plan commission to ever to accept any public rightway or public park. um as a part of a preliminary plat. So, it's ultimately

up to you guys which version you like. Um and you know, I I'd say that either version will meet the standards of breaking up the lot so long as you accept the the dedication and a potential pathway extension. The one that's currently on um is on the left and that is a 40 foot wide outlot. So, that would be probably a 10-ft multi-use pathway and then 30 ft on each side. Um, there's a lot to be worked out with that that would be done by the final plat as far as what is going to go there, but those are the two different options. Um, and that is up to you guys. Um, I also suggested that perhaps the unit composition could be made to so that the density on that on the bend side on the other bin side be increased to kind of make up for it. But it's their it's their development, not mine. I'm just the guy to make suggestions. Um, so that is one thing that is to you for you guys specifically to decide um as we are approving this plat. um and we can have the developer come up and answer any questions to that or whatnot. So, there is a lot of lots on the on the plan. So, okay. Uh we're going to go to the kind of the general summary of the conditions. One is that they have to update the comprehensive plan to align with approved preliminary plat before the final plat. A couple of other things that would be um kind of a part of that comp plan amendment discussion would be any kind of uh proposal of a pathway or public parks as well as any

kind of roadway treatments. Um so obviously a t the TIA in here does not recommend any improved facilities along Bronn Road, but we are reconstructing Bronn Road. So that intersection would be something to to think about. If the plan commission and village board want that intersection to be slower um without necessarily the traffic warranting it, they need to put that in the comp plan. Um and that needs so a potential maybe a roundabout alla on 16th Street or something else to make sure that the reconstructed reconstructed Bronn Road is not a drag strip. So, those have been proven to be effective, especially in more rural settings. Um, couple of other conditions. Um, on the actual plat, um, they do have the RN zoning district standards, but they're not necessarily the correct ones, which is totally forgivable because those standards have to be approved by a village board. you approved them and recommended them in December, but they have been in a holding pattern to be approved by the village board next Monday. So, that was one of the things that has to happen beforehand. Um, the they need some to provide some HOA documents clarification. Um, we want them to confirm like the there's a lot of stuff about architectural control that seems to be geared more to the developer. um we prefer if those are intended to be that that they would sunset eventually. Um and to really really enforce what is private matters. Um the way it phrases right now it seems like um it would require the village to know whether or not the HOA is given approval through their architectural control committee. And we don't we want to make sure it specifies that we don't have anything to do with that. you can

do what you want but don't put any extra work on us please. Um so and then uh the river corridor public access um and it says basically revise the preliminary plat for a minimum 60 ft public access by either A or B um and then or C which is the the bend that was over there. street improvements to update the street plans profiles to include street trees and and street lamps. Also, it says currently that vision corridors and other easements will be included on the final plat. They need to be included on the preliminary plat because that's where they're labeled. So, either that has to be explicitly waved or they have to be included. Lastly, um the storm water and other other improvements need to be done before the final plat. And that is it as far as my presentation. So, oh, sorry, fiscal analysis. I forgot about that. Um the uh this actually so we ran through that this at the fiscal analysis and actually comes in at a 37 to1 private to public ratio. Um 41 is a net positive and very very few of our developments have been uh that especially residential. Um so that's pretty darn close. Um and the estimated value per acre is 2.2 million. Our baseline for what we're shooting for in new development is of 1 million per acre. So this is more than basically pulling its own weight as far as public maintenance in the future. Our our idea is always that okay you're getting these roads and stuff like that but are these roads co do they cost us more to maintain than the tax money we're getting by having them. Now there is a

whole other consideration about Oaks Road that is a court like a collector a thoroughare but we're talking about local roads and that's usually what kills like culde-sacs perform really really terrible under that analysis because you're essentially using public money to pave what essentially is is functioning as an extended driveway. But so we performed this analysis to to say yes this is performing very well um for residential and this is what our 2020 code update was intended to do. So um bear development the they've also been doing the uh Park River crossing development and been putting new units out on the market for 325,000 for a new build which has been extraordinary. have not been that is very competitive and um loudable as far as I'm concerned in what we tried to do when we revamped our zoning code. So I've talked too much. Uh I know you're all probably bored. So I'll open the questions and then we can throw it to the developer.

Okay, Mr. Chair, if I could chime in, please. Yes, Sam, go ahead.

Um I just wanted uh two brief updates. I I talked to some people in the crowd before the meeting, so I wanted to report out on that. I think there was a little bit of confusion regarding the traffic impact analysis that was included as part of the development. Um I received a question about whether Biscane would connect fully through to the east. There was much of that conversation when we went through the zoning process for these properties north of Brawn Road. um because the traffic impact analysis is a long-term projection when it's using the 2041 or 2042, I forget their sunset year or horizon year, but um so they do take that connection into account for their traffic long-term projections. However, this plat would only be required per village ordinance to install public uh improvements to the property line. So Biscane would not connect through as a part of this individual site development. Just want to make that very clear because I know we've received a lot of confusion about that in the past. Everyone cares a lot about that. Um we can continue to have those conversations regarding the Biscane connection, traffic calming, all those types of measures when we discuss a comprehensive plan for the area, but as part of this individual site development, it will not connect through. It's just Oaks Road north to south and then kind of the local streets um that are shown on the plat. Um the other thing I wanted to highlight is you all reviewed a concept plan with their original zoning application. Um and this gained about a dozen lots between uh the concept plan and this final plat. Uh we don't hold applicants to a concept plan. They're purely for consideration purposes. Generally, the plat in front of you complies with the zoning district standards for the RN district, which we approved. That's our kind of middle residential density. Um, but the major

change was many of the duplexes on the west side of Oaks Road on the concept plan are now converted to town homes. Um, on the plat in front of you, town home lots. I'll let the applicant speak to why they did that. I just wanted to highlight the the major difference between the concept plan and this final plat for your consideration today. Thank you.

Oh yeah, and the fiscal analysis was actually a conservative estimate. Our our numbers were estimating the single family detached lots at 375, the twin homes at 325 each, and the town homes at 275 each. That's an extremely conservative estimate. And so for it to perform that well with that those estimates is is a good sign. Anybody from the commission have any comments? Questions? Questions to me? Questions? I think a lot of my questions I I guess are for staff. They have to do with the traffic impact study.

So I guess that would be staff as opposed to the developer. I I read through well that was a very very interesting study and I saw how the intersections that they studied were exactly the ones that I was glad to see they went way outside of the site and in fact I have to applaud Bear Development because that had to be a very expensive traffic impact study number one. Number two, it really gave the village a lot of upfront information that we were going to need to know anyway whether this development was here if this development wasn't here as we look at Brown Road and reconfiguring it. And I I thought it was very interesting because it said the traffic study in the summary said that 5% of the traffic would change routes from Highway 11 down Oaks Road to Brown Road. Um, and at first I really questioned that. I I because I drive those routes all the time. And I know also in in terms of the improvements that we've talked about, you know, being part of TID 5 and the whole brown road reconstruction, I still have concerns over the recommendations were for stop sign intersections for the most part. I I just I don't understand how that's going to be successful in the long term at Brown Road and Oaks Road. I can't envision that at all. Um that's definitely just, you know, southbound traffic's going to get stopped by a stop sign. And I I think one of the major reasons that the counts on Brown Road were as they were is because they were doing actual counts. And I don't know about anybody else in this room, but I will do anything I can to avoid going over the railroad tracks on Brown Road. I will do anything to avoid it. I will

drive all the way around Sturdivan. I will I'll go to Summers first, you know, and that's what worries me. Not for the bear development. So, this is really not a criticism of bear develop for bear development. This is something that I think for me as a board member and a trustee and our village president is here to hear this. if somebody wants to elbow him. Um, but again, I'm promoting that we do something very major on Brown Road with those inter with that railroad track. And I'm going to fight for that because I'm very concerned about those tracks and and whatever improvements we make to Brown Road, if we don't do something in in with those tracks, then it's just going to be another traffic jam along the way with the trains and so forth. It's a very active track. So, um, I thought this as and as I thought through the TIA and the 5%, I really was able to to justify it much more clearly in my mind as I thought it through because your main outlets to I 94 are 2011 and KR. Brown Road is not an I94 act direct access. So, people aren't going to be necessarily cutting through Oaks Road to get to 94, which is what my initial thought process was. I see it more as definitely a local cut through uh for people wanting to get up to Walmart and and up to uh Highway 11 or for those wanting to avoid the intersection at 11 and 31 cutting down and moving back east and going down. But I see the rush hour traffic in the morning and you know Green Bay Road's very busy, KR is very busy, 11's very busy, but they're all going out and commuting to I 94. So, and then the north south along Highway 31. So, I I thought that was a very very detailed and uh and tremendous information for the village uh as well to use in that

traffic impact study.

Yeah, I I agree. I always uh comment about the the tracks on Brown Road is the my name for them is the most effective traffic calming measure in in Mount Pleasant because uh everybody slows down uh and they slow and it's hard to to see any other place where people actually slow down, but you respect it and that's sort of proof in the pudding that traffic calming can work. Um but you don't want to do it over a train track is probably the the idea. We agree that stop signs the the engineering and the TI is an engineering thing. This is like where they say this is what is the le required at the the very least is going to tell you like this is the minimum what is is good. So one would be an uncontrolled intersection and then there would be stop signs and so on and so forth. from planning POV, we prefer a little bit um more than stop signs because when somebody disregards a stop sign, um bad things happen and things like roundabouts reduce fatal accidents by 90%. Um and we've already seen dividends um on the roundabouts that are within Mount Pleasant and then Rine County overall. And so any kind of intersection where like there's here where could be a chance that somebody kind of caren through at a very high speed a roundabout is something that I would put on high on my recommendation list. So and that is something to be discussed when we talk about the comprehensive plan and what that was saying but the TIA just says this is the minimum that is required based on the traffic counts provided. So,

Mr. Chair, I'd also just like to add one thing and that is um from a very broad scope uh to Trusty Washburn's point um during the development that happened um far to the southeast at Pike River Crossing where Oaks Road will eventually has connected to 31. um in that area. Uh the do required that the village continue to update traffic studies as Oaks Road uh continues to march towards connection in the long run as well as the uh other areas of development in the middle because while many of the intersections are not are all locally controlled like on the plat you see in front of you um in the long term if Oaks Road does connect to 31 obviously that impacts state trunk highways. So, I just wanted to provide you the information that we are required both by local ordinance, but also by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to continue studying this as development happens in this section of the village.

Yeah, that's a good idea. I'm glad that they're I'm glad we're working together with them on that because we estimate traffic counts and we estimate which direction people are going to go in those studies, but until you really lay the lay the the rope down and count cars, you really don't know where they're all really going. So, and it can change with weather. It can change with road construction. And I've seen that, you know, with all the construction we've had, you will have areas where people are taking different routes for a variety of reasons that are not normal or what they would typically do during typical conditions. Yeah, we that was a kind of a discussion point when they were talking about WISD dot was outsourcing opinions on redoing 31 between Duran and 20 and uh I suggested well what about connecting Oaks Road and they said that that would have a negligible impact on the traffic on 31 and I mean I at that point I was like well I'll take that bet. I'll I'll come back in 20 years and and and be like, I told you so and I was right. But it is what it is. They they like to 31 is the state highway in question. So, um but it is it is designed to eventually connect and I think that's another reason why

you want to go more rather than less as far as that intersection because that inter intersection will also encounter traffic from the south eventually. Okay. Oh, you're talking about Oaks Road and Brown Road. Will Yeah. We'll eventually have traffic from the south. Correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, I have no other questions for me. I'll I'll yield the floor. You're good. Are you good, Ron?

No, I just have a quick comment. uh it's not on on anything that you're proposing and uh and uh I tend to agree with the concern with trusty Washburn but anyway my quick comment is maybe mostly for the legal purposes that that the minutes of the meeting should reflect that and I mentioned that earlier to Sam in the traffic analysis letter dated September 24 2025 there's a typo and I I done this thing in all my life and I'm very particular about the typos My point is you should reflect in the minutes of the meeting. He says beer development LLC is proposing a 336 unit residential development on a 60.46 acres on the north side of Brown Road in the village of Westbend. No, it's village of Mon present and I want that to reflect in the document. I'm legally is that correct Mr. Attorney?

Good catch. Yeah, I don't think you have any discretion on directing Westbend what to do. Just want to make sure that we we are not challenged in the future that Ram I knew that one was there. I'm going to give you the award for reading the packet today. Like that is that is a great catch and only an astute reader will be able to pick that up. It's not a big deal. It's a cut and paste but I have experience small things like that can come back to bite you in illegal. Yeah. So I it's not one of the and it didn't affect any of the actual things that were under our review. So, I didn't mention it or whatever, but it it was there and it happens to Sam and I all the time. So, can can staff just make sure that's updated though and and corrected?

Yeah, it was it was in the narrative letter. So, okay. Not in any of the findings. All of those were correct. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Well, if we want to get that picky, there is another one and it's in their cover letter on the second page at the top. It references the village of Paddock Lake. Yeah. Oh, so if we want to go ahead and update typos, that would be a second correction. I mean, how many villages are there in Wisconsin really? Like 246, but who the village? Westband would be here. I would even maybe recommend to annex them, but Westbend is too far from us.

Westb's very nice not to to denigrate Westb. Okay, I'll yield to the developer if you have any questions or one comments from myself now. uh in regards to the the discussion in regards to a roundabout, we can make that recommendation as as this body can do as an addition to it because I mean obviously it's going to be additional lands that are going to need to be either acquired or taken whichever in order to be able to do a

roundabout. Um, so that that's kind of tricky, but like um public health safety, welfare, and access and all that sort of stuff is kind of dur of a site plan or a subdivision plat review. Um, but when the TIA says it warrants stop signs, I think that is kind of very very hard evidence that it is not needed for like traffic purposes like strictly traffic. Where that would come into play would be in the comp plan where you say for traffic calming for beautifification and all that other sort of stuff that isn't exactly traffic counts. That is where that comes into play and that will be before this body. So you can say that it is recommended from you guys but you we can't we wouldn't be able to deny it based on that or impose it. Sam, am I speaking correctly here?

Yeah, I think if you'd like to include a specific condition to investigate that intersection as I've heard a lot of discussion about it specifically, I think you could add a condition to um direct the public village. There we go. village public works department to investigate the opportunity for additional traffic calming measures um at the Brown Road and Oaks Road intersection at the south end of this plat um specifically you know things that might go above and beyond the minimums required by the analysis as Robin said and also with the long-term view that eventually Oaks Road would head southwards in the future. So I think kind of directing them to do further investigation that road um all these roads have not finalized their engineering. So there is still plenty of opportunity um to your point chair uh that will have to validate property impacts, engineering, traffic, storm water, a bunch of considerations that you know start broadening out when you look at that type of thing. So but a specific direction to public works to to investigate that I think is appropriate from this body. Well, especially in the fact that we're looking at expanding, you know, improving Brown Road, now's the time to do it.

Correct. And I think there will be future um opportunities for um public feedback on that process as well. Um you know, or village board feedback as the engineers work towards finalizing more of their designs. So, um I think that recommendation just for investigation at this point is appropriate and then you all can, you know, continue to keep an eye on it as Robin mentioned through the comp plan, final platting process, everything else in the meantime.

Okay. One last comment I'd like to make in regards to the the plat as far as the curve in the road. Was that road number two? What is it? Okay, road number two. Um, I really like that idea of having an access because as we looked, as we discussed before, having a the bike path being added on the east side possibly along the Pike River, that really opens up a spot for a small I'll call it a small public park because the land west of this parcel is owned by the village. Correct. So, we have an opportunity here to make something that would be nice for the neighborhood

to be able to have their families, whatever kids to be able to go down and enjoy the wildlife as well as maybe, you know, a passive park along there with, again, when you're talking about 360 some odd units, that's a lot of people.

Yeah. Um, the passive element is something that I would like to focus in on. That would be the because of our arrangements and agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the restoration of the Pike River. Um passive recreation is all that is allowed. So we wouldn't be able to do like a big a playground or anything like that. So it' be trails and pathways. Um and and I agree having that as a system or and having a loop would be great. Um is very popular the Pike River pathway. So I think we should build upon that. Yeah. and and also any kind of a curve like that in the road helps the calming effect as well for traffic because that is a long stretch. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No problem.

So along those lines, I wanted to make that um observation too. Um a micro park perhaps is something to consider that can be incorporated sometimes. and um as you mentioned the children. So it's really great that you are really looking at the traffic impact studies and and how that will affect the area because the Tracy Cross study that was completed for Ring County Economic Development Corp. in 2025 indicated that the a starter home is 400,000. So this is right in that right in that keeping. So this is going to be filled with children as you mentioned. So the traffic calming measures are will be will be important and and perhaps a micro park. I just wanted to um suggest that I have a comment chairman.

Go ahead, Larry.

Um as I look at the road configuration through the center of the development, um I would I'd like to ask if there might be a possibility to align the road number two and three. It's hard to describe it here, but if those roads align to make a true intersection where um the road to the northeast connects with the uh road number three, let's call it. Um right now they are offset. If you look at the site plan, those roads are offset as they u connect with oaks. I think it'd be a much safer intersection if that uh connector very short street were to be moved to the southeast to connect with the road that um or at least a line with the road that goes from the Oaks Road to the northeast and southwest. I know I'm having a very difficult time describing this and I apologize. supposed to be you want those intersections instead of having the curve in the intersection as you go south from I assume that east the northern east west road is Biscane's future connection is that correct

no that's it's the middle one it's the middle one yeah the northern one would line line up more with Bradley which is the topmost road in the region subdivision okay so so what you're talking about is that that intersection with Bradley Road and South Oaks Road should be more should be squared off as opposed I guess I'm I am having a hard time understanding and and I I drew a sketch of it and it's very clear in my sketch but I don't have a way to project it. Uh the road that runs north south at the northeast corner of the property. Yeah,

that road runs south and it connects to Oaks. Is that so far so good? Yep. Yep. Well, I believe that a road should connect to the center road directly from that rather than having it offset. I'm imagining somebody coming onto Oaks Road and wanting to turn left or turn right. those offset uh intersections I think are uh less safe than having a true four-way intersection where if we needed traffic calming or a stop sign or something that would happen there.

So that area of the plat is the duplexes, right? Are the two unit side by side condos. Um that's like lots 116 through 110. Yes. In in my plan, um the connector road would be at lots 192 193 and those would connect to the road that leads up to Bradley.

You know, I I find this very interesting. We could redraw your whole plat for you. It sounds like right now, Dan, and I don't want to do that. But that dedicated to the public roadway, uh, going in between like, let's say, lots 125 and 112, that's a condo development. That's going to be two unit condos. In my mind, that could be a private road and could be made narrower so that you actually could so they would have a little more land back so they could make those roadways work out a little better. Maybe

that would be up to the developer and I I think that bodess the conversation that that I wanted to was in I'm interested in and that is hearing from them in terms of how they're going to function with these declarations. I think it's going to be similar to Pike River, which has a number of associations that are linked together under a master association. But, you know, in my mind, because we have South Oaks Road, we have roadway number one and roadway number two, the the little roadway number three, I guess you would call it, is just a small street

that um maybe could be used to create more of a intimate situation there. I don't know that it would it it's going to just be a cut through for with people coming west on Bradley instead of going to Oaks they're going to cut through the condos. So anyway, there's a lot of ways of looking at that and I don't want to redraw their plat and that's even with the discussion over what to do with the access to the uh na to the natural resources and the Pike River. You know, in terms of the plan, I think that's really up to the developer. they know what we want them to accomplish in terms of that access. Um, so yeah, it

you can kind of, you know, you you gave us a revised plan that we didn't see until we sat down here. I think the only change was the that little outlot. Well, and they added they added all the build pads, which was a great idea, but you know, that's frustrating. So anyway, I'm I'm not trying to redraw their plan, but Larry, to your example, there may be some ways to tweak it that would be cost savings to the developer and actually allow them to create a couple of better intersections.

There's a couple of different avenues for that. I mean, you can express as a plan commission approving the preliminary plat that some adjustment of those road layouts is is preferable and would be accepted in a final plat. whenever you spell something out when you're approving the preliminary plat that gives them the sort of the authorization to have that materially changed before the final. The other thing is as I said the comp plan amendment during that it can you know you can approve an alternate layout or you know whatever the the layout that is on their draft at that time. So, um, those are the two different approval points that you would have to to do that without making it very fuzzy today.

Well, I think the, you know, this is a big site, so I don't know if the developer intends on final platting the entire thing in one phase in one plat. I would doubt that. It looks like there's going to be some minor plats that'll be under it, either condo plat or site plans. So, you know, we really do the preliminary plat becomes a kind of a bit of a bible and if they were to make significant changes to the preliminary plat at the final plat level, I'd want to make sure we saw how that integrated in back into the preliminary plat. Yeah.

But I'm I understand they have the right to make those tweaks and their engineering is going to be very important as well to make to justify this. Yeah. Yeah. If you ever if you basically call something out as something that they should that should be tweaked between now and the final that makes that okay. Also any sort of engineering or say ADA accessibility or something like that comes up during the civil review process that is also basically automatically like a check you know that that can go forward to a final. So any kind of material change on the final plat they'll have an explanation for. And one of those that are acceptable is well, you asked us to look at us at this.

Yeah. I'm Okay. I one one regards to that question though, I'm assuming that those are the uh the town houses, correct? On on Oaks Road. And if that is the case, the access is going to be from Manali. Correct. Behind there. Yeah, that was specifically discussed and recommended when we were talking about this on the concept plan because we didn't want the curb cuts to go out into Oaks Road into not quite super slow traffic.

So, for the for well, I'm going to get the numbers here if I can get them right. I can't can't read that fine print, but it's like 133 to 150. Those those there's got to be a road coming off of that other road we're talking about to be able to get to the back of them. I think those are supposed to be alley served. It's just not on there. It's a down. I'm just saying Well, they think I think that was in the narrative that those are all anything on Oaks Road is going to be alley served. Correct. Yeah. So, some of the the private there because they'll be private roads. They they are not publicly dedicated. They don't show up on the actual plat itself.

But my but my I'm saying is that they're going to have to come off of that road we're talking about possibly moving. So they got to be able to get access to the back of those parcels and and in this case they would. It's just a taking that north south little road as it hits Oak Oaks Road continuing it on to the internal road that runs south. Oh mean so you then they would lose several more building sites. Well then they g they gain them back where we don't have the road to the north. It's it's a replacement not an addition. Okay. And it sound that sounds like, excuse me, chairman, but that sounds like something, Larry, that you need to show them. Yeah.

If it's a viable idea, you know, for us to make that decision without, you know, you're got it on notes in your front of you. Yes. But I I think that's something you should share with Barrett. It may have value to them. It may be relevant. And I'm happy to do that. Yeah. And I think the other thing that's kind of got me spooked now that we have this revised drawing, it actually shows the accesses to those alleyways.

And in that section along Oaks Road, units 151 through what? 258. Is that what it is? Um there's only two ways in and out of there. And there's a lot of units. In other words, in the in the plan that we were given in our packet, there appeared to be quite a bit of space in between the buildings. And I thought maybe a couple of those were accesses into the alleyway, but based on what I'm seeing, the accesses to the alleyway are on the And again, the fact that it's on one sheet of paper is really even more annoying. um because I can't look at it together,

but you know, the only accesses into the alley that I see um in between Oaks Road and Road One are on the north and the south side. There's only two. Yeah, that's definitely something that you can recommend to improve. I think that needs I think that needs uh road one needs to have more accesses into that into those units. Okay.

All right. So, before I step down and find and finally give it to uh the developer, as far as the the this question up here, there there's basically two questions. One is the question um does a plan commission like recommend acceptance of a park or a public lot at all like the concept of a public park or whatever for that particular one and then which version um those are the basically question 1A and 1B um and and to to go forward and if it's both it's both it doesn't matter um but either one of those would suffice for the block separation metric. Um but other than that they would if neither then they would have to get a different kind of exception. So that is it.

Okay. Yep. Name and address please. Thank you. Uh Dan Shop, Bear Development, 4011 80th Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin. Thank you. Uh thanks for your time today. Um I I do have a lot of questions as far as the discussion on realigning the the streets that were um proposed in our concept plan. So I I need to see some kind of visual to understand this. I have it here.

Okay. Um, I guess just a couple things. You know, there was some talk about a roundabout on Bronn Road and and as a as a private developer, we have no um we have no authority to design uh you know, your public infrastructure. I mean, Broad Road's dedicated road. I believe it's under design right now for reconstruction. Um, all we can do is provide a traffic impact analysis that shows access to the road. Um, a roundabout's going to need quite a bit of land acquisition on the other side of Brun Road that we don't control. So, um, we thought we did our best with the traffic impact analysis by studying the um the the the area intersections and forecasting land use on in the area. But um unfortunately we can't uh we don't control property across Bronn Road. So we couldn't propose a a roundabout nor is it uh recommended by the traffic engineer. So we'd like to move our we'd like to move our plat forward without um that question on the table. Um and then I think there the discussion about the connection to the village owned property to the west. Um, we're in complete agreement with uh staff suggestion of of widening that property to a minimum of 60 ft. Um, there's a couple serious issues with the uh reverse curve roadway design that was shown as an example of how something could could be designed. But I think uh the villages public works uh department may have an issue with that design. if you there's probably six or seven manholes that would be additional manholes that would be required to facilitate that that road alignment. So

what we'd like to do is widen the outlot too as shown on the plat um to a minimum of 60 ft. um this roadway network if if the plan commission will recall and the village board this really hasn't changed since we proposed our concept and we are we have uh started engineering based on some village plans with Bronn Road. Um we're in a kind of a hurry up offense here to uh design this site. So any small tweaks that that may be perceived as small are are extremely major at this point. So we were we were relying on the concept plan that was approved to advance this plan. Um we have no objection to any other conditions uh that that staff has proposed. Um we did not show street trees or street lighting. We're just not that we're just not that far along. But we our plans do accommodate that. Any questions? Nancy.

Uh, hi Dan. Um, Nancy Washburn, just curious, um, as you did in Pike River, I thought you did a a very good job of creating multiple associations and so forth. Can in the preliminary plat notes it simply states that the HOA is going to manage the open space and the accesses and the alleys. Can you expand on that? Uh we haven't seen those restrictive covenant documents yet, but I'm anticipating that as a for instance the single family, they might have their own association where they maintain their pond and so forth. And if any of the other uses, are they going to be separated into their own associations or how is that going to function?

Yeah, that that's completely accurate. So, there'll be a master association um because there's elements of this plan that every every property benefits from, mainly the storm water, right? Um so, there's going to be a master association, there'll be a homeowners association for the single family. Um the the two family are actually twin homes on fe simple lots. So that will not be a condominium. Those will be um twin homes up in the norththeast corner.

Oh. So, so they that will probably be um a subset of the HOA and then there'll be a separate and distinct association for the uh urban town homes because there are elements that are that are private unique to those the alleys and so forth which the single family shouldn't have to pay for and so on. Right. and and we'll allocate like on a on a um probably on a area basis on how to allocate dues that each association is is subject to for the storm water basin.

In other words, interest ownership, right? In other words, the each you'll figure out what percentage ownership each townhouse twin home or single family should allocate. Correct. And really the only element that where that'll be applicable is the storm water basin. So the the the the town homes, you know, they're going to have to own and maintain a private alley. That's going to be their, you know, but it's not going to be owned by the association, the private alleys,

correct? How is it going to be owned? Is it going to be owned a percentage interest by the town home owners or is it going to be owned by the homeowners association? Going to be owned by the association. So if the association um fails to maintain it, right? Is that how you did it in Pike River? Correct. All right. We'll have to talk about that. And we we did not submit a I don't believe we sub submitted a declaration but you know if it was it was a template form. It wasn't the you know it was a boiled down declaration just demonstrating how

the common areas are going to be managed. But if if you'd like to see like we'd like to get into a point where we're actually structuring a master association document. I'd really like to see those because my concern is with the alleyways, if the HOA owns them and the unit owners do not own a percentage interest, then what happens when the HOA fails to maintain them and they start to buckle and crack or they aren't plowed and all of a sudden we're going to get the calls. Now, I thought in Pike River when I because I read those, I thought there was percentage ownership that was it was somehow handled in a manner that was not unacceptable to me. So, that'll be, you know,

why don't why don't we just mirror that structure then? I'm thinking it would be reasonable to do that be if it if in fact it you know I'm going to take another look at those um Dan but just to make sure in my mind that they're what I that they are what I saying what I want them to say but but you can understand our concern. Oh absolutely and I know you can we'll um you know if it's working at Pike we'll we'll mirror that document. Mhm.

So I do I do need I mean I would ask for some direction on the you know when I looked over staff comments the only comment that I was really concerned about um that needed any tweaking of the plan whatsoever was outlaw 2. Um, so what we'd like I would like to to to have some feedback and hopefully support on just widening out lot too for a trail connection to the the Pike River corridor and additional amenities that can that could be implemented in that outlot. Uh I I just don't that reverse curve uh option. Um, I don't think it's really an option.

I think you should stick to out lot too and make it 20 ft wider. That makes sense.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. You know, because if it's going to be access to the Pike River corridor, it's really going to be access for that neighborhood. The public is going to use Brown Road because we have a parking lot there. You know, it's kind of a private access. I also am concerned about the conversations we're having over the bike the the trail being built on the east side of the Pike River. It's just that it's an expensive that's a that's a that's an asphalt trail. So, and you know, whoever's going to build it, who's going to maintain it? And and I think the village has to raise their hands for that. So, I think I think the access I would agree with Frank that um going to 60 ft would be it's it's a it's a roadway width and so if that needed to be some kind of emergency access to the Pike River to go, you know, save the swans or whatever. Also, I think if we if we widen the outlot, there is an opportunity to do some amenities in there. In the interim, if it's not going to be a connection to a trail or it's not going to be an emergency access, a 60 foot by 120 foot um piece of property could be enhanced with benches or, you know, a gazebo or some something as an amenity and we'd be open to that.

I just want to iterate the curve to suggest me like was not because I like the curve. It was kind of a way to be able to get the lots on the opposite side of the street so that they wouldn't lose as many like that was the only thing that I was the curve was designed to really shed the river. Yeah. So I think the both options meet the same goal. The thing that I think we and Robin and I talked about this and I appreciate the the time that was been spent,

but you know, we we were contending with this very large wetland on directly to the east side. So, you know, if there was an opportunity, of course, we would do some flip-flopping of of of um you know, development plans, but we really have to respect this 5 acre wetland that's right in the middle of our site. That is also the reason why Oaks Road doesn't meet the transportation plan. And I think it probably benefits it because it there it does calm traffic with the curve. But um every everyone should just um take notice of that that feature that we have to design around. It's been a major challenge. Um another challenge has been trying to align the road connections on the east side of the property to match up with future roads that you know the which seem pretty far off. But that's there there was some thought put onto the location of those three stub roads. So the middle one is absolutely necessary. Um the northern one um staff and I discussed that as a as another connection. Um so there was some thought put into these into this alignment of the roads.

Yeah, I I think your roadways to the east are are fine. Um because you have properties in between your development and the existing roads that they're going to connect to that have had some concepts come in. One is not for sale at this point anyway. And I um I that I'm aware of. So now Pete, you're going to set the bar then. You'll you know everybody else is going to have to plan up to you now. And I think that's fair. I think that's fine. But the the northern two stub roads are, you know, there's a relationship between streets that are farther east. Exactly.

The one to the south, you know, there was a thought of like aligning I don't know what it's not labeled. It's just called road. But if we if we aligned the stub road with uh the road that serves the single family, that stub would go right into a a very small parcel that doesn't have a lot of development potential. So that that doesn't make sense there. So we had to push it up north. Um no, that makes sense. So Dan, what did you think of my comments regarding the accesses to your town homes through those just those two access locations?

The length of that alley is

the length of the alley with only a north side and southside entrance into it. I that concerns me greatly. There's a lot of units there. I would think for the happiness of your unit owners because your blocks aren't that long in Pike River. They're shorter. There's access there's shorter block accesses. Um yeah, we would have to we would have to take a look at that. I you know it's a 25 foot wide alley, so it's a two, you know, there's opportunity for two-way traffic through there. and we positioned the secondary acts. There was also I mean if uh you know from the onset there was also the the challenge given to the to to us to absolutely minimize the cuts curb cuts out onto Oaks Road. So I know that went into the the reasoning of why we don't have multiple access points onto Oaks is because we were specifically told to take that into account during the design. I personally don't have an issue. I I don't think there's going to be an issue here considering the alley is an improved 25 foot wide alley, you know, with two-way traffic. Um,

is there storm sewer in that alley? There will be. Okay. Running down kind of group down the middle so that we can keep the water moving through. Correct. And then out. All right. So, there actually are three accesses. There's the north side, the south side, and outlot seven. Yeah, there's there's so there is a third one. Yeah. So I stand corrected in that regard. I I only saw the first that the north and south side. So there is actually outlot seven is breaking it up in the middle. Oh, for sure. I did not see that before. I apologize. And those alley accesses don't need to enter onto Oaks Road because they can go to the west, let's say, onto the center road,

right? Instead of Oaks. have one access point um well at each end. I would think the fire department would and police department would want to be able to get in somehow off of Oaks Road instead of having to go around. Understood. I mean that to me seems like it's reasonable circulation in there. Yeah. But I apologize. I'm I'm not as worried as I was. I just realized out lot 7 is where it is and that makes sense to me. Okay. And and so the plan commission knows also we we have submitted these plans. Um I believe staff did as well, but independently we we've sent these plans to the u the fire department. Yeah.

I haven't received a response yet. So yeah. No, that as long as they're happy, seeing out lot seven makes a difference. I I again I apologize. I did not catch I did not see that initially. Um okay. So, I think um if I'm understanding, we've we've addressed all the issues that were discussed except for the uh Can I take Can I look at that? I'd like to I'd like to show it to you, Dan.

Instead of having this instead of to line those so you have true intersection there something over that gives us a much safer

much safer um traffic situation. So that would be something that Mr. Chair chairman if that you know if if bare development looks at your plans there Larry and finds something that they can use in it it's not really changing the layout. So in other words, I think what they're trying to avoid is having to come back with a revised preliminary plat, but it seems to me that you're you're not changing the connectivity. You're just changing the configur, you know, the way it angles a little bit, but you're keeping the same connections. Is that correct?

Actually, that the connection that's shown uh between I'm going to call it road three. I I don't know how else to identify these roads. uh the center road that serves the single family homes and the uh twin homes. That road would now intersect with the road at the east northeast corner that runs north south. So Oaks Road would have a true four-way intersection. I It's so difficult for me to to try to explain this. I'm having a hard time understanding here because obviously we're not seeing it. So I have no Yeah. Is there a way to project this rather? No. So, I'm not sure how to handle that in terms of um

one of those old school transparency. Yeah. The overheads. Yeah. So, Joe, the the road that is shown north that would slide south and align with the other road that leads up to Bradley. If I could, I I the only I I get the point. The only issue I have is we were directed from the from the outside not to have to minimize the cuts onto Oaks Road with either roadways or private drives.

This does not increase the number. It replaces one. It actually just slides that that access down to meet the other one to provide for a more traditional intersection. Instead of having two T intersections, you have one four-way. But we would need to provide access to all the single family homes on the west side of the property. I think what he's doing is he's coming down. He's it has something to do with this.

It's so I think I think it has something to do. That's

replacing the other one, not not adding to it. So, you're creating a road that goes right through the town homes. Is this is this a road? What is this? What is this? That very short little stub that connects the the roads just aligns the intersections.

See, I don't think you're going to want anybody coming down that road three and crossing Oaks Road to go into the town houses. And that's why I don't like what you're showing here. I I think that's problematic. If I understand your drawing properly, I think and and in addition, you're keeping they're keeping the uses somewhat separated because this is the twin homes here. He's got it marked the town homes. So, this I I are is this is this Larry meant to be a road? Yeah, that's just the connection instead of the other one. instead of the ones to the north of that.

So, it's really instead of the one that's up. Yeah. See, I I don't like the idea of crossover there. I think that would be a really really dangerous. And I can see where you want to create a four-way intersection. But when you look at the distance between Oaks and Bradley down to that, I don't think it meets our I don't think it meets our block standard. I think it's too short. Well, so but I I can appreciate what you're trying to do. Yeah. It was just a thought that occurred to me at the time.

Yeah. I mean, I can appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think there's a couple of things. Number one, I don't like the traffic moving trying to cross Oaks Road. I don't like that at all. I think that's a very setting up a very dangerous situation. And we now have the outlot 7 and we have the access coming in from the north and the south behind the town houses. So I'm satisfied with that. Um knowing more about the restrictive covenants as a final plat issue. Um could I'm just looking at

could outlot seven not connect to Oaks just to the but the other road only? Well, I suppose it could, but you know, again, it needs access behind those town homes for police and fire as well as the community. If you've got everybody coming in just from the two north, the two accesses north and south, and then from the west, I think your traffic flow, I think people will leave the site onto Oaks Road very I think that'll be a definite from the town houses. I think they'll go north or south, right? Um Mr. Chair, if I could. Yeah,

I think there's two things um to consider with this.

Um right now that Outlot 7 connection to Oaks Road is providing a break in the maximum block length. If that didn't connect through, I think you would have issues with that block length along the west side of Oak Road, similar to what we've talked about on the the natural area further west. So, it is pulling double duty in that regard, just to chunk up the property from an access standpoint. Um, we also do review there are in the design standards, please forgive me I'm pulling them up, but when crossing uh street arrangements, there are minimum distances that intersections have to be offset. We did work through some of those. I believe one draft in the beginning, Dan, correct me if I'm wrong, might have had those roads slightly closer together. And we actually pushed them a little bit further away to meet the subdivision standard which requires that when two roads are offset but connecting to a collector or arterial street. Believe they have to be offset at least 150 ft. So, we actually pushed them further away to accomplish that because pushing them closer together created a like a zigzag pattern that the subdivision ordinances do not allow. So, again, it's under your purview to talk about whether they should align or completely separate, but just know that is some of the background in terms of the staff review when we're looking at preliminary drafts of this plaque and how we ended up where we are today. Thank you.

I have one question. So when we talked about the roundabout at Brown Road, I don't as a village trustee, I think that whole Brown Road conversation is is a village conversation because it's it's not your development that's driving the need for its repair and improvement, but it's adding to it. So my question is on the north side of the street of Brown Road, do you own enough land that as part of this we ask you to dedicate what could potentially be a roundabout location? Would you have the land to do that? Not asking you to build it. Not asking you to do anything other than dedicate it. Because what's going to happen when in three years we come back as a village and say, "Okay, Brown Road's getting a roundabout there." and we're going to hear from bear development, well, we already built our road or we don't have enough room and everything puts the onus on the southside. That's not the way a roundabout should work. So, my question, Dan, is do you have the room there that you own and control to be able to dedicate roundabout future space?

No, we don't. We don't. Um, well, I shouldn't say that. this plat doesn't allow for it, right? The way we have this the way we have this platted um so we we had to we had to uh go under contract for additional land to align Oaks Road with the villages plan for Oaks Road to the south. Okay. So now you you're not only dealing with with bare development, but you're dealing with uh the property the improved property directly west, right? I believe that's um

lot one CSM number 1188.

Yep. So imagine I mean drawing a twoacre circle right at in with the midpoint being Braraw Road center line. So, we would have to reserve quite a bit of land out of our plat for a future roundabout, right? You'd have to acquire the bron property and then across the street the same the equal amount of property from two different land owners on the south side. So that was that was the reason why we did the the traffic impact analysis so early in the project was to figure out if if the traffic warranted a roundabout or if it was going to be a traditional intersection. Um, no. I mean, if if the roundabouts on the table, what we would have to do is it would affect the one, two, three, four building the four southern buildings um four town home buildings on the

because of the way you'd have to offset it away from the property to the west. Correct. All right. just because um so in other words, deal with it now or deal with it later. You know, I I hope you're going to make sure we don't have to tear down a building if that happens. Um I mean, I know that sounds like a smart alec comment, but you know, I I think we

hopefully planning will be taking a a hard look at that before you final plat this last south phase. Well, that's why I wanted to go back to my recommended condition, which is there is the middle chunk where we let the engineers be engineers and investigate all the um you know consequences to every decision we have in street design both what bear has proposed and how brawn as an existing platted street interacts with a future proposed street. So, I continue to recommend that. I think expressing traffic calming concerns is warranted at that intersection and directing the public works staff to investigate, you know, what is an appropriate response there. I don't want to go too far down just the roundabout hole because there could be other appropriate traffic calming measures, whether it's curb bumpouts or turn lane design or other types of issues there depending on the intersection that may be warranted. So I think just a broad essentially condition from the plan commission to be like public works staff here's the one intersection here that we would like you to spend a little bit more time double and triple checking. It's completely warranted but then let the engineers do the engineering work that the village has. Um and we can you know we obviously work very closely with public works department. I don't want nor think you all need to solve this problem right with this exact thing, but you can make your concerns noted and warranted and we will communicate that and have a written staff report that will go to village board um as well.

That that is a good idea and I'm happy with I'm satisfied with that with that. An 80 foot rightway that's dedicated right 80 there.

It's an 80 foot rightway currently which is probably the basic amount of cars going through here and that we've solved that that's accepted. The is not going to say are the cars going to go too fast. That is different.

Yeah, I'm not speed is not really what I'm worried about. We want to slow that down. I recommend what Sam does and also

to um for clarification does any of this conversation slow us down? Not in my mind

with the intersection of Ron Road because we I mean when we when we initiated the the TIA we did we did distributed it to the village for scope review to make sure we were on the right track. Um so uh and we can only control what we can control and what we're we're dealing with right now is a traditional collector street and we only control one side of the road. Actually one quarter of what's needed. So, I I I we're we're here to try to help solve any problems and and we can be flexible, but we we at this point we really cannot slow down. And I I don't think

I'm satisfied with sending it to um you know to making sure that that public works is looking out for that intersection because at some point and your your subdivision isn't going to drive it. It's going to be the one to the south. So I I think that really our my concern as a trustee is just understanding what's going on in that general area and Mr. Lys is here and he I have voiced my concerns to him many times as well. So I guess I'm just voicing them again uh upon the presentation of your project. But as far as I'm concerned, you're responsible for building what you've shown us and this is what the traffic impact analysis requires. if that's helpful.

It is. Thank you. Sam, did you have something else you wanted to add? No, I was just gonna reiterate I we're public works will have to review all their single site plans. So, I don't think any consideration regarding that intersection will slow them down because it will need to be reviewed as part of this process. you are purely directing um the village staff to pay special attention to that one intersection as part of the regular process of validating all of the civil engineering plans that they've presented here. Okay.

Okay. I guess that said then I'm looking for a motion to what are they going to do here folks? Chairman, I will make a motion to approve the preliminary plat at 5714 Brown Road, PSP25-02 with the staff's recommended conditions. Adding a note to public works just to make sure that they are paying attention to Brown Road and Oaks Road intersection, but otherwise the comments as the conditions as presented. Can I just make one comment? Do you want to add the 60 foot outlot too?

Oh, yes. I apologize. Yes. And and increasing outlot uh that outlot from 40 to 60 ft. That's condition four. Is it in there? Um yes, it is. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I got lost in my conditions here, but and and amending condition four from 40t to 60 feet. It's actually in there at 60 feet. So, it's in there at 60 feet. So, Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I I will second. I'm losing my papers. Okay, we got a motion in a second. Michelle, did you have something you want to say? No, I we said second at the Oh, okay. Sorry. Okay, we go. Seconds. We got a motion to second. All in favor? I

opposed. Pass unanimous. Good luck. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And on that note, no staff report. No staff reports. I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn. Move to adjurnn. Ajurnn. Second that. All in favor? I opposed. We're out of here.