Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I feel like a spotlight's on me here.

Roll call. Baino? Here.

Van Campen? Here.

Meyer? Here.

Mozan? Here. Nelson? Here. Schnelly?

Here.

Smithback and Polder are out tonight.

Thank you. Next item is approval of minutes of August 6, 2026. Do we have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Second. Do we have a second? Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Moving on to public appearances. This is item 4A. Under this is community input and I will be reading this to you folks. This part of the agenda allows members of the public to provide information to the planning commission including both items on and off the agenda. This agenda item allows a commission to receive information and to ask questions of a presenter to facilitate a better understanding of the information. Commission members may also or may discuss procedural matters relating to the information such as whether the information should be directed to staff or placed on a future commission agenda. However, commission members may not expand their discussion beyond such procedural matters. We're going to allow 15 minutes for that, unless there's a lot of people, then we typically try to accommodate. We'll provide this item and then three minutes, please, per speaker. Otherwise, the agenda will proceed as posted. For the agenda items such as with the public hearing, we request that the public be invited to provide a comment at that time. The plan commission scope includes renewal, review of plans in accordance with the village's comprehensive plan and zoning and subdivision chapters of the municipal code. Plan commission recommendations are limited to compliance with applicable village code and consistency with the comprehensive and other adopted plans. Factors such as impacts on property values or tax rules are policy matters that are best suited for elected officials on the village board to consider. Thank you. We have somebody that wants to speak.

Christine.

Christine. What we need, Christine, is just your name and your address, please. Thank you.

My name is Christine Mankusi. I live at 898 Fox Run Court in Oregon.

I'm sorry. We have this high tech that doesn't work very well.

My name is Christine Mankusi. I live at 898 Fox Run Court in Oregon. Thank you. And I am here just to voice my opinion again. I am not super comfortable public speaking, but this issue is enough to get me up here, even getting out of my comfort zone. And so I know a lot of the people behind me are here for a different cause, but I think it's still joint. And why I'm here is to state, again, in regards to the continued development of the Foxborough or potential development and rezoning it from recreational space to residential. I just feel like Oregon has been flooded with additional housing costs. I concerned about the direction we're going. I'd like the small town field that we've had. I look at, they spent in the bid. I don't know the final result, but based on the website, it looked at $2,779,000 to add an additional pump house. to support the additional homes that have been placed in the last however many years, which concerns me. It concerns me in regards to my property value that I bought a house on Foxboro Golf Course for the very purpose of having green space behind me. And once you give up that green space, it'll never come back. And I just don't think that adding additional homes adds any additional value to Oregon. And I think having this additional Featherwood trail development is the same thing. It's adding additional homes that are so close together that really devalues my property and the property within Oregon itself. Um, I think it's an additional strain because what will happen is the more houses that you guys approve and the development of land. Then you're going to want more police staff. You're going to want more fire staff, and then you'll say we have more police and fire staff. So now I need another firehouse and now I need another police station. I need more police cars. I don't have room for all the police cars in the police station. So now we have to have another structure. And you can see how this goes and how my mind is thinking, how this is going to turn out. And to me it's just more and more and more and more. And I think about the fact my house payment is $811 and my taxes are over $13,000. I'm getting taxed out of my house. Um, it's just ridiculous. I rather see a cut in the services or from a fiscal spending standpoint, which I know is not necessarily your, um, area. But just looking at the fact of it rather cut services, then continue to shove more homes in this very tight space, adding more to our schools, fire police, all the services and all the demands we already spent over, you know, almost $3 million to have another water source put in. Um, and I don't know what are the developers paying for that? I don't know the cost of that. I did leave a message for somebody who never returned my call. from the village asking how was that funded, but we have a wheel tax in Dane County, and now they added the Oregon tax, the wheel tax in Oregon itself. I have to pay for the street light that's in. I just feel like I'm being nickeled and dimed everywhere I turn, and I just feel like these developers get off scot-free of coming in, maybe paying for a little something, and then the residents here are stuck with having these additional costs, and it's just... It's not what I came to Oregon for. I came for the peace and quiet. I backed up to a road in Fitchburg. I moved to my location so I could have the space there to have the wildlife to look at, to have my neighbors and to be free from houses behind me and to have something recreational for kids to do, for adults to do. And people are not going to come to our little town to go for a nine course golf course, nine hole golf course, pardon me. That's so in my humble opinion, I just feel like this additional growth is not serving Oregon. And if you talk to most of the residents, they're not very happy, but there's so many people that are nervous to come up and even speak in front of you guys. But there are so many people that object to this and there is a meeting on Tuesday that obviously I'll be at as well. But I would just plead for you to look at the residents, the people who have been paying the taxes here to really think before you prove any additional development. Thank you.

you do a fine job with public speaking. So don't worry. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay. We'll move on then with the agenda. Um, next item is item five. It's unfinished business. We have none moving on to six, eight, which is a public hearing and consideration of a re of a recommendation to the village board for a general development plan, a GDP for the proposed Featherwood trails. Neighborhood applicant is birdie and homes. We'll put a public hearing. Staff and consultant report, please. We're going to hold a recess just for a moment, please. Okay, thank you for the eruption folks. We'll move on then. When I did open the public hearing, I'm asking for the staff and consultant report.

All right. I'll provide a little bit of background here as we're getting settled and then invite the Veridian team to come up and they have a short presentation for us. But back later this spring, early summer, there was a concept plan that was presented. to Planning Commission for this Featherwood Trails proposed neighborhood just on the north side of West Netherwood Road, kind of across from the Highlands of Netherwood Park. We have, since then, have a lot of coordination with the town of Oregon and residents in the area, a couple of staff meetings with town staff and representatives from their different commissions and board, as well as about two weeks ago, Laura and I attended with some of the Veridian staff a neighborhood meeting at the town hall addressing or just listening really to some of their questions and concerns. I know a lot of those folks are also here tonight, but also wanted to make you aware we're working with the town of Oregon on, we'll be working on a shared maintenance agreement for Netherwood Road, similar to how we handled Lincoln Road as development on that end of the village was getting built out 20, 25 years ago. So that'll cover items like repairs, plowing, kind of jurisdiction and who's responsible for various sections of the road and ongoing cost sharing and things like that. So that'll be a process that we'll be leading with our attorney and working alongside the town to address and it'll be probably some comments about Netherwood Road so I wanted to mention that and then We all are also hopefully gonna be starting a cooperative boundary agreement process with the town to not just only address this particular area, but other areas where there might be potential growth and a lot of similar type questions that are likely to come up. Um, that's a process that probably take a year, year and a half, but we have, um, started meeting with Carpsy and then the town's, um, staff were in attendance. Uh, I believe that was last week too. So those processes are started. Um, we've received some comments from the town board, some questions, Laura and I are kind of coordinating responses, expect to send those back to them tomorrow. Um, but appreciate a lot of conversation back and forth with the town staff and residents and commission and board members, I think, um, It's been helpful to hear their perspective and have certainly been open to listening as well. So I'll turn it over to the Verdean team to introduce themselves and I think Brian has a presentation. We're gonna get his screen switched over here from the packet and then we can jump back into some of the details of the GDP after the public hearing. Looks good, Brian. At least your desktop.

There we go. All right. Well, good evening, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity to be here back tonight. Again, Brian Munson, principal urban designer with Van de Wallen Associates, here on behalf of Veridian Homes. Along with me, of course, Matt Brink from Veridian Homes, Dan Day from Donofrio-Kotki, who's been handling all the civil engineering, as well as Kevin Wiener from KL Engineering, who's been doing the traffic impact analysis. We wanted to make sure to bring the full team here tonight because while we've got a short presentation, of course, there's a lot of details in the application. And so we're happy to take tonight to answer any questions that you might have on the project in terms of the amount of information submitted and the contents of those submittals. So tonight, what we wanted to do was kind of give an overview briefly about what's changed since we were here last. Certainly, as Elise mentioned, there's been a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion in between that meeting that reflects the Featherwood trails, and I'll just kind of show what that timeline looks like. So we were back here, boy, it's been a while. It's been a summer and then some. Hard to believe we're in September, but since then, we've had a submittal, revised submittal neighborhood meeting, Town Plan Commission, and of course back here tonight, but in between rest assured there's been a lot of conversation about the project and we wanted to had to give a brief overview of what that is. But before we do that, of course, we want to start with, again, just kind of reinforcing the basis of the design. And that's a reflection of the adopted comprehensive plan. So here you can see outlined the property. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the outlines of the property itself is a little bit outdated map. My apologies on that. But again, this is based off of the recommendation, the comprehensive plan, and this is the district that it sits in. And the key component is that number one, incorporating traditional neighborhood design principles for new neighborhood development. And so there's a whole scale of housing associated with that and consistent with the conversations we had with this body as well as others earlier. What we are proposing is a continuation of a single family pattern. A couple of things have changed since this is the map that you saw last. And this is the map that's in the submittal. And so I wanted to highlight some of those key changes because they're a reflection of the conversations we've had both with the property owners around us as well as with the village. So first off, as you can notice, if I jump back, you can see along Netherwood Road on the western side, the property, about 2.3 acres, has been added to the site. allowing us to adjust a couple of things. One is, of course, expand the frontage along Netherwood Road, but offers an opportunity to bring an additional road into the concept. So we now have four connection points with Netherwood Road spanning from the extension of Peterson Trail, one way southbound for now, but potentially expandable in the future to offer two-way traffic. But then we have three full intersections spanning to the west to help distribute traffic along Netherwood and give entrance points into the neighborhood. The other component you can see here is, and I'll just go to the summary here, it's an overall net increase of 27 units. And those units are spanned between single family and attached single family. One of the questions that was asked by this body as well as the village board was, was there an opportunity to incorporate some attached twin home product that would further diversify the housing options within the neighborhood? And so jumping back to the proposed concept, you can see along Netherwood Road, two of the three blocks facing Netherwood Road would incorporate some attached product. And again, that offers us the opportunity to just further diversify the type of housing being offered, but more importantly diversify the price points that we're able to offer them in. And we really are excited about the fact that this neighborhood will have the full spectrum of housing in terms of owner-occupied housing from twin home to single family, but a full spectrum of price points spanning from fronting onto Netherwood Road and attached product being the most attainable product up to some of the larger houses that would back towards Lake Barney. A couple other really important things to note is The information submittal, of course, is much more robust from the concept plan to a preliminary plat and a zoning request. So the information in your packet tonight includes a detailed traffic impact analysis that we've had conversations with Village staff about, made refinements and enhancements, and have continued to make sure that that is a comprehensive look at the impacts this project would have on Netherwood Road and the surroundings, and making sure that we're making recommendations on how to adjust those. We anticipate significant improvement along Netherwood Road will be paid for by the project as appropriate to handle some of those traffic impacts, but also gives an opportunity to address some of the regional traffic that's there today and make improvements to the safety of that corridor as this project builds up. The other aspect, of course, is a very detailed stormwater management plan. We've been very diligent in working with Village staff, talking with CARP-C, talking with the DNR to make sure that the stormwater management plan for the site addresses the issues both on-site and off-site and gives detailed recommendations as to how to implement a stormwater management plan for a site that currently doesn't have any stormwater management plan other than it runs off and eventually works its way to Lake Barney. We will have in this a full treatment system throughout the neighborhood that addresses both volume and infiltration and water quality. So we have in that stormwater management report a lot of details, but it is grounded off of a lot of information to make sure that the improvements address the issues before they become issues for offsite. But the upside with the stormwater management plan is it's not a take our word for it. This again is an element that will be reviewed by village staff is going to be reviewed and is in the process of being reviewed by the by Carp C as well as the DNR. So there's many folks that are looking at that and we're confident that this meets and exceeds the standards that are placed on the site so that we're doing a full comprehensive look for stormwater management. So as I said, we have built upon the framework that we talked about last time. We have followed the recommendations of the Village Comprehensive Plan and we are implementing the additional information necessary to make sure that this gets a full vetted review and look forward to answer any questions that the Board may have and look forward to working to continue to implement the project over the coming years. As I said, just as a note, we have everybody from the team here tonight. So if there's any detailed questions that you have, we're more than happy to answer those with detailed responses. So thank you.

Thank you. Anything from anybody else? You guys have any questions?

I've got one question. Dan, maybe you could answer this. Simplistically, high-level stuff. There's a ridge that runs east to west on the property about two-thirds of the way north-ish, roughly. but yet most of the stormwater is on the southern side of this development. How are we getting stormwater from that northern edge over that ridge? Are we flattening the site? What are we doing?

So we have, thank you, Dan Day from Denafrio Cat Keys, sorry. Yeah, we have actually four different, Areas for stormwater management and the area that runs to the northeast corner. We do have facilities up in that northeast corner john Um that span the the roadway that stubs to the east plot line there So up in that northeast corner, we have a wet basin, uh stormwater management basin and then infiltration basins also That handle the area that runs to that northeast corner The center area you see there is a big water holding and handles a good portion of the site. Before then, it drains to the west where we have the major infiltration areas along the west plat line down there in the southwest corner.

So those homes that are along the northern edge, for instance, how do they drain?

Okay, so on the northern edge, the fronts of the yards come out to the street, and then they go to the stormwater managed basins. The rear yards don't go off-site. We have designed a swale along the north plat line. There's kind of a high point in the middle. Part of it goes to the northeast corner, part of it goes to the northwest corner. So there is a small stormwater basin up in the northwest corner that you can see there, way up in that northwest corner. And so, yes, we are taking all the rear yards from those areas and going east and west with them also to the basins that we have and getting it into our system. So we're not direct releasing any water off those rear yards to the north.

Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. Roughly, simplistically, the existing grades, while they're being adjusted, the generic grading is working in your favor with how you're handling the stormwater.

Yeah, there is significant grading here, John. There definitely is, but it where the boundary lines fall in the end are pretty much where they are today. From that standpoint, that ridge that runs from northwest to southeast in the northern third of the site is basically where the ridge line is in the developed state from a profile and lot grading standpoint.

Brian, I'm just going to switch the feedback to our computer since we have the slides, but the OCA media folks just can't pick up your presentation, so I want to make sure the virtual folks can see what we're talking about. Yep.

All right, thank you. Brian, from a density standpoint, in all of your studies that you've got, what is the rough, and I apologize, I don't have this by memory, what is the units per acre on this development? Well, let's see here. So where are we at for total acres now? What are you using for 69?

69 total acres. It's 276 units on the site. So, you know, somewhere in there. Closer to four. Closer to four total across the entire site, which is... You know, very consistent with, if you look at Greenview Preserve as a case study, I think you see the distributions in that neighborhood are fairly close to this. The product on Greenview Preserve is the product that would be built here. And so I think that's a very close comp to look at in terms of just overall density and character of the neighborhood. This will be very comparable to that.

I would say, John, sorry, just to pile onto that just a little bit. In this neighborhood here, you know, the stormwater is a larger percentage than we typically would see in a neighborhood. So that drives the density down just a bit because of the larger stormwater facilities that are required to meet the needs here for the site.

And how will those stormwater be handled? It looks like you've kind of got a park that one of the basins in the center of the development is surrounded by, the one that's in the southwest. Aesthetically, how are they being handled? Visually, how are they being handled? To your point, these are fairly grand areas and they could either look like something decent

Yeah. So with that, you know, we will definitely be doing native restoration. So it'll be native plantings in those basins. We've been working significantly recently with ecological restoration companies, John, to try to make sure that those get know get established that the way they should and we would look with uh you know work with village staff here to see exactly how we want to do that to meet their needs but we definitely want to be doing some sort of uh you know native restoration native plantings here yep the other thing i'd note is that by intent if you look at that central basin it's surrounded by roads and not in the backyards because we want to have that be an extension of the outdoor room

and be a focal point on that primary entrance. You can see coming in off of Netherwood Boulevard that leads right into that view shed over the basin to the park. And that design is intentional because we want that to be something that is a more naturalized setting and would be landscaped appropriately to create a setting where We don't want that to be an eyesore. We want that to be something that the residents cherish, and it's a more naturalized basin design in all the locations and are designed to be spaces that are visible. You can see a lot of street frontage for some of those. I also note that, of course, the trail connection up to the Rory Trail goes right next to the basin in the northeast corner. None of these are placed in a way to try to hide them, and as such, we'll develop landscaping that really celebrates those as part of that open space system within the neighborhood.

One thing that we've really accomplished, I think Brian did with this design, is we've got a lot of front porches that are looking out to those green spaces and will be a tremendous asset to those homes from that standpoint. We've gotten a lot of feedback over the years about that kind of opportunities of front porch viewing to open space kind of things.

The, for simplicity, orange and purple are accessed off of, not accessed off of the highway. That is correct.

Yes. All of those are carriage lane or alley access, single family and twin homes. So the purples are all attached side by side twin homes. Again, for sale products. So there'll be a lot line that would be down the shared wall. But then all of those, all the orange pattern is different size lots of alley product. And that's something we do intentional across all the colors. They're all different lot series, which equate to different lot widths and equate to different housing layouts and floor plans. So even within, when we say single family, there are a full range of different size houses that are being accommodated through here. But yes, as noted, they're designed to front out to Netherwood with the front door and porches. We are working with the village on the northern cross section of Netherwood. There's a lot of things we've got to balance. There's utilities that are going through that corridor and other aspects. So you can notice the lots that all front out to Netherwood are significantly deeper because they're going to have a bigger front yard. that will give us room to have the utility corridors that are adjacent to netherwood we'll be expanding netherwood to include a parking lane across the face of the project so that again there's opportunities we always say you know if you order a pizza or amazon comes to your house how do they get there and so we'll have on-street parking that would deliver that and access for guests but also a traffic calming component of having that opportunity to have have on street parking We also then look from that curb line to the face of the house and make sure that we have room for utility easements room for landscaping in front of the houses a sidewalk across the face of the houses and a typical front yard that you would see throughout the entire neighborhood so that sequencing is already built into that lot depth in anticipation of making sure that we have a unique setting because we really did we want the fronts of the houses to face out the netherworld embrace the street as part of the neighborhood uh rather than you know what it is today which is a kind of a rural rural arterial through the region. And so we want to make sure that that's very clear. You're not in somebody's backyard anymore. You're approaching the village. You've entered into a neighborhood. And, you know, the traffic impact analysis reinforces that with a recommendation to reduce the travel speeds along this corridor as the project is built out as well.

Great.

Anybody else?

Great.

Well, I'm sorry.

I just realized the traffic impact analysis did not make it into the packet. We'll certainly share that with you after the meeting, but I don't know, Kevin, if you wanted to come up and just provide a really high-level overview about some of the things. I know this will, just want to make sure it's addressed. I imagine it'll come up in some of the public comment about some of the speed limit recommendations, some of the look at the intersection and any controls that were recommended and just kind of the the impact to traffic on Netherwood as far as, you know, number of additional cars per minute expected?

Sure.

Thanks, Elise. Kevin Wehner with KL Engineering. Like was mentioned, I completed the traffic impact analysis.

So what we looked at was a study area that included... Again, that's our high-tech stuff, so... Sure.

All right. Is that better? All right. Kevin Wehner with KL Engineering. Completed the traffic impact analysis. We looked at Netherwood Road primarily, kind of... As far as existing intersections go, we look at Alpine Parkway and Peterson Trail, and then we looked at each of the proposed development, the new roadway connections. So as part of this study, we collect existing conditions data, traffic counts, we look at historical traffic counts that are available. So right now, about 1,500 vehicles per day are present on Netherwood. The development is anticipated to generate about 2,500, and then out of those 2,500 trips, and each trip is in one direction. So when you think of a trip to the grocery store, that's actually two trips. So just to get the terminology right, that is distributed in multiple different directions. We anticipate most of the traffic to be headed to and from the east on Netherwood and or from the south on Alpine or Peterson. As far as the trip generation goes, touching back to that, peak hour traffic is anticipated to be about 200 vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and 250 in the p.m. peak hour. Again, those are trips, so each of those numbers is one in or one out. We completed traffic operations analysis to kind of see how that impacts both the existing intersections as well as the proposed public intersections. They all continue to operate pretty efficiently. The only finding was that at the Alpine Parkway, level of service E is present in the proposed conditions, just barely past that threshold. That is a very common condition for a side street at an intersection like that. where you're not really close to meeting signal warrants or warranting any other kind of treatment. And if drivers find that to be unacceptable, they'll find a different route. And a level of service E, to put that into perspective. One moment, I'm sorry. But a level of service E represents about 35 seconds of delay, so that's on average. 35 seconds is the minimum, and we're right around there. And that's on average per vehicle, again, worst case scenario in the peak hour. So does that answer your questions? Or is that adequate?

Yes. Can I ask a question? Absolutely. At Fish Hatchery, and this is some of the town board too, but Fish Hatchery and Netherwood, there, I mean, already is, as you're going and leaving and you have soccer games and you have all the parents and all the things.

Mm-hmm.

Is that something that would be addressed or has been looked at? Because to me, that's really where the biggest traffic is going to be a concern about. So just wondering.

Sure. So we did not include that in the study per the village's requirements. As I mentioned, though, about most of the traffic is anticipated to go to and from the east and the south during the peak hours. About 20%, we estimate, to and from the west. And that's kind of based off of just local destinations. We are primarily looking at peak hours, which I think generally when people are speaking about difficulties in traffic, they're talking about the peak hour. And so we anticipate most of the trip ends to be satisfied using Netherwood to and from the East or primarily Alpine or Peterson Trail. And that's because it's trips in town or access to the MM interchange with Highway 14, which then connects you along the Beltline to a myriad of destinations in the Madison area.

Is that something that could be looked at?

Do you want to address that, Lauren? Yes, so this has been, as you can imagine, a topic that's been discussed quite a bit. The considerations to take into account are that this Intersection is not in the villages jurisdiction. It's well outside of it and Dane County actually has jurisdiction over fish hatchery road. That is a county highway and so Whether or not to do anything really rests in Dane County's hands So it is a policy choice and it's something that this body or the village board could consider Looking further into but that's the reason that that was omitted from the original analysis. I

Okay. Anybody else? Patrick, anything?

Yeah. Can you talk about the logic of the single southbound lane that basically dies into Peterson Trail?

Yeah. On the east side where it comes into Peterson there, that's – The way the property, where Peterson Trail was platted coming from the south, kind of is halfway across the property line to the north of the neighbor to the north there. So we really don't have room to put in a full intersection unless it's offset intersection. And you don't want that, obviously, to have the offset intersection because that would create a traffic issue. We do have room, though, to be able to have a one-way out. And that one way out would go then directly south to the southbound lane going on Peterson We don't have room to put an inbound there at this point in time If if the neighbor ever decides to develop something at some point in time It certainly could be expanded to include the other half so it would be a full full roadway So we've set it up to be able to do that in the future if that option ever presents itself So that's the explanation for that

all right Scott anything curious if you planned at all what the phasing of this project would look like as far as you know what all of the grading and all the stormwater structures happen in phase one or would they kind of come in various other phases or

Yeah, you know, we have a pretty good idea what we want to do with phase one. We've come up with a phase map for the whole thing. We'll concentrate on the phase one. From there, it's really going to be kind of market demand, to be honest with you. But it's a good idea of what we've got on the paper here. But all of these... Likely gonna have to do all of the mass grading for the site at the beginning We generally don't like to do that But in this case, I think we need to so that we can balance the stormwater and the earth work on the site So I would say that you know, we'll go out there and probably grade everything in Everything that we don't improve with streets in that phase one area will see down and it will sit until we You know have it have the demand to be able to go to the next phase Does that answer your question Okay

I'm sorry. Go back to the stormwater. Where does the overflow drain to on these basins?

So the vast majority of the water gets infiltrated into that pond in the southwest corner. There's infiltration in the northeast corner, and there's a little bit of infiltration in the northwest corner also. In the very large events, when, because in this, since we were an enclosed basin, required to double, to store the back-to-back 100-year events. So you could have two 6.7 inches of rain, two of those, two days in a row, get 13, 14 inches of rain. We could store all that water and not flood anybody. Um, but there is a slow release that would go Northwest, um, that matches the existing release, um, of what goes there today.

So that would flow into that Lake Barney watershed. And so my question then for the village, we had issues about a decade ago. Netherwood was shut down. I know there was some work done. There was a new culvert put in. How much extra capacity do we have before? a similar situation could occur.

So to Dan's point, it really depends not on this development, but it depends on the level in Lake Barney. So this is such a small component, and the fact that they are being required to capture and store these large events actually will reduce the impact of this chunk of land in a large event. The reason that 2018 in particular was so bad on Netherwood was that Lake Barney was already at historic high levels by the time we started getting a lot of very intense events very close together. Right now it's lower, but it certainly could rise again. That's something that the village and the city of Fitchburg have had conversations about in the past, like Barney is. entirely under their jurisdiction and they have not indicated an interest in addressing anything in this area at any time soon. one thing that we have looked at is in the future should other areas north of netherwood in that cusick parkway area wish to develop there are some real opportunities for detention especially in the low-lying areas that we as a village would be very interested in pursuing it is already wet land and as folks know during even smaller rain events you tend to see a lot of ponding in that area. So that's something that's high on our wish list of something that we'd like to look at should those neighbors ever be interested in selling.

One more question. the traffic study. It's always been sort of a fuzzy math sort of thing to me. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of it. But it's sort of like one of these. So what, do you ever go back and double check the validity of the numbers that you just told us for the traffic studies that you're professing. Does that make sense?

Yeah, no, that's a good question. I would say we look at travel patterns in general, but we don't do a lot of follow-up studies, to be perfectly frank with you. These are based off of our judgment just from our studies of traffic and work in traffic in general. I will say some things that influence this one is kind of looking at like what Google Maps will tell you to do because everyone uses that now to get around. So, if you look at... basically kind of expanding on what we used to do is just kind of look at potential trip-ins, large population centers or large employment centers. Now we have the ability to say, well, how does Google route someone if they were to say, well, I just moved into this new house and I work in the east side or I work in Middleton or I work on the Isthmus or I'm going to Stoughton. How would I go there? How would I get there? And so we can have a pretty good idea of just looking at the potential for trip-ins. This is residential land use. During peak hours, they're going to

school drop-off they're going to employment centers you know typical things that are during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours I have a question couple lot sizes as you all know I'm not a real fan of five-foot side yard setbacks okay your lots that front to the north on Is that Millstone Drive? Is that correct? Yep. Some of those are going to be 31-foot lots. Some of them are going to be, what, 45-foot lots. Is that correct? When you have a 31-foot lot, and I've seen some of your documentation here, what is the square footage of those lots, number one? Now, not the ones that are facing on, so you've got those deeper, but the ones that are to the north. What is the square footage of those lots on the 31 foot? And then what is the square footage of a normal home that you put on there, including the driveway?

Sure. So a couple things on these lots. So they are 100 feet deep and 31 feet wide. So the minimum lot size per the zoning application is 3,100 square feet. From a housing standpoint, again, these are all alley loaded. So the garage is pushed towards the alley unless the resident desires to have a parking stall bringing the garage closer to the house. There's kind of a flex connector between the garage and the house so that what you see in practice, like what we have in Greenview Preserve, is we'll have the standard front yard setback that's consistent across the entire property of 20 feet. So that's your front yard. You then have the livable space of the house, and I'm kind of walking through this, and then we can talk square footages. The livable space of the house then spans back approximately around 40 feet. There's the connector, there's the garage, there's the alley. All the houses will have a small yard space adjacent to them in the inset of that connector on one side of the lot. And that's typical of all alley-loaded single-family. Of course, opposite to a front load where you have a traditional rear yard. As far as house sizes go, Matt, you can kind of jump in with square footages, but these will have a full spectrum of house configurations on them. So two-, three-, and four-bedroom options exist in all of these houses. And so you have, in essence, your living space on the first floor spanning back to the connector to the garage. You have bedrooms up above on all of them. In all cases, they would have a minimum of five yard. In practice, that's a five and a half foot side yard, just to give a little bit of construction room. But Matt, if you want to talk about square footages, you can touch on that.

Yeah, so again, Matt Brink with Verdean Homes. Nice to see everybody again. So even on the 31-foot wide lots, we are still putting up homes with finished square footage at completion in anywhere from the mid-1500s into the 1700s. Again, the nice thing here, given that we have Greenview Preserve, if anyone would like to go through any of our MERS, as we call them, move-in ready or spec homes and see it, because when you say it out loud, it is different. It's a different product type than a lot of us grew up with. But it's a very proven concept. Again, Greenview Preserve is one of our more successful neighborhoods. Phase four out there, which is all but completed now, is 55 lots. It's one of the biggest phases that we're doing in all of Virginia's portfolio this year. We do have one little twin out there, but we do have a lot of alley in this coming up phase four, and it is being received very well. So just to help give context, anytime someone from the body would like to walk through the home, we're happy to extend that option. But again, from a square footage perspective, you're in the kind of mid-1500s to the 1700s, and that's with the lower level not finished. If there was a built contract that a client wanted versus a spec home and they wanted to finish the lower level out, that would add several hundred more square feet. So from a first-time home buyer, which the vast majority of the buyers are in this product type, It's a really great option for them. They're just starting to get going in life. They don't have the lawnmowers and things of that nature. So from a maintenance perspective, in our surveys that we do with our buyers, that's one of the things that they actually really appreciate. There isn't a lot of maintenance, and for the most part, for these homes. So again, it's kind of that balance of where you are in your life and buying cycle. We designed these neighborhoods, so hopefully you move in, maybe a twin home, then do a first time move up to a carriage lane or a terrace product, one of the smaller front load options and then hopefully you stay long enough and maybe move up to the manor or estate option where you have your traditional backyard, front-loaded garage, kind of the more typical home that we of our generation envision. So it is a pretty good bang for the buck.

The other aspect is the question of why. Why do we incorporate the spectrum of housing that we do? And as Matt said, one is it appeals to buyers at different segments of their lifecycle of housing. But it's also an opportunity to incorporate attainable housing into the neighborhood. By having the smaller lot widths, smaller side yards, it allows us to incorporate home ownership opportunities at the lowest price point possible, absent additional subsidy from the municipalities. This allows us to deliver choices for folks. And to answer the earlier comment, yeah, these aren't going to appeal to everybody. And that's intentional because we recognize that people are going to be approaching these slots differently and may be looking at it from a very price sensitive of, hey, this is my choice. I could either continue renting or I could buy a house and get into a neighborhood, begin into that ladder of homeownership. or absent that, I have to continue to rent. The other thing that we've seen in these neighborhoods, and again, these are not just in Greenview Preserves. We've been building these neighborhoods going on almost, geez, I'll update myself, almost 30 years to where we have these built environments where folks make choices based off of their lifestyle needs. It's a recognition that not everyone needs four bedrooms or wants the full backyard, but by giving them options, you find ways for residents to find a home in the community, set down roots, and then they can look at other options. And again, it's an opportunity to deliver housing at the most attainable price point possible. If we were to step out and say, okay, I understand we'd like to have wider side yards throughout the neighborhood. And again, that's both a choice for buyers to make because there are houses elsewhere in the community that offer different choices, both existing and new. And so we recognize that there are buyers that will make that choice, and we welcome that. But we also know that there are buyers that are very price sensitive. If we were to say, okay, we've got to go to seven feet side yard, for example, four feet, maybe the width of this table, maybe a little bit more. We've done some of the numbers. And the challenge is to build the neighborhood, say we take out a house per block face, maybe a little less, say 10% of the total units of this neighborhood, so 27 some odd houses. The street lake hasn't changed. The stormwater hasn't changed. The street trees, the street lights, the cost to buy the lots, to buy the parcels, to do all the work that has to go into just on the construction side. I'm not talking about profit margin on houses or those things at all. If we took out that 10% and then all the other houses have to make that differential up because that cost didn't go away, we're now asking those residents to make a choice for about $10,000 to $20,000 per house. And that is a substantial hurdle for some buyers. Some buyers may say, yeah, we'll make that choice. And again, they have that choice elsewhere in the community. But we recognize that housing affordability is a nationwide issue. And this is a mechanism that gives us as best a response as the market can do. I would also note that right across the site along Peterson Trail, you can see alley-loaded single family with slightly wider side yards. Those are assessed starting in the 500s. What we're trying to do is to bring housing starting in the 400s, a sizable decrease in price. Um, and I know that doesn't sound attainable. I've been at this long enough when they were 200 to start and I wish we could get back to that. But the reality is the construction costs of everything has more than doubled and tripled in anywhere you look in the last 30 years. And so this is a vehicle to try to offer folks choices and again, diversify the offerings of housing within the entire community. Okay.

Price point. I'm not going to debate price point. There's two different ways to look at price point. Again, I'm going to ask the same question I started with. You stated 1,500 square feet. I should have stated that question more directly, more properly. The footprint of the building. You've got 3,100 square feet for your lot. The footprint of the building, garage, and driveway. And I was interested when you said, because your development is across the street from where I live, the one that's existing. So I do walk through there. I have a vehicle that probably would not fit in your garages. I have a vehicle that probably wouldn't fit in the driveway, still not be allowed into the alleyway. Okay, that's the people that buy the house have to buy a smaller vehicle. Square footage again. let's just say it is a 1500 is that footprint of the building, the building 1500 plus the hallway. And I've been in your buildings and I've watched them being built and the, and the garage and the paved driveway. I'm looking at grass. Okay. I don't know why anybody want to lawnmower, but okay. Um, That's what I'm asking. What is the percentage of that lot coverage? Of the 3,100 square feet, what's the percentage of that lot that is covered by the footprint of the building, this garage, and the driveway? I think on the 31s it could be 50%. Oh, it better be more than that.

Well, I mean, you're 20 feet wide by 80 feet, so you're 1,600 of the 3,100, so that's slightly over 50%. So, you know, 55%, 60%. Got the garage in there? Yeah. Because that's an 80-foot deep lot, right? And if you have a 31-feet, I mean, it's a 100-foot deep lot. You got 80 feet because the 20-foot's the front setback, right? So your 80 by 20 is 1,600.

Okay.

So in that area, if you covered the whole thing, now not all of them cover the whole thing, but that would be the max on the 30 months.

I haven't looked at the ones on the eastern, most eastern part of what you have developed at this point up where I live. I'm going. Yep, and again, it is trade-offs. I just want the folks to understand what they're getting out there, okay? They need to know that. It wasn't presented necessarily at your community meetings that you had. So I need them to understand that. The next item, I brought this up, I shouldn't say I, we brought this up way back, probably whenever this was, back last spring when you had the presentation. And the question was made, you are going to put in a temporary force main from the northeast corner of this property in a lift station that's temporary until and when alpine, dairy, whatever develops, because at that time, then it'll be gravity flow to the east and to whatever we have for our connections in the village. And I've looked through all your documentation, and maybe it's, I don't think it's there, but the question was, you're going to take a force main, you're going to put it into some interceptor sewers, or a interceptor sewer, in the development to the south. Is that piping, is that interceptor sewer, is that capable of handling that flow, peak flow,

You want to answer that or you want me to?

I can take the first step.

You can answer it for me. We did study that early on. Based on the water usage rates and pumping rates in the village, there's one section of pipe that would be close to being at capacity and that would have capacity to handle it based on the village standard rates of sewer flow.

Of course, you'll put that in writing in your presentation.

I can speak to the broader context as well. So next week there is a CARPSEY hearing on this project. One of CARPSEY's main functions is to assess the capacity of the sewerage system for a community and as part of the application for that package not only did viridian put together some numbers on what they expect to have coming out of this development but the village had our engineers town and country do a sewer capacity analysis of everything downstream including the west side interceptor that was required to be turned into CARB-C with that application. So I would encourage folks that have concerns on that to certainly come to that CARB-C hearing. CARB-C, of course, is a public entity and would make that report available to anyone that asked.

And I guess I'd add that's the beauty of the process. You don't have to trust our word for it. There is a review process that's going to go through and that'll be verified.

That's where I'm going with this. As long as CARB-C is reviewing this and we, in fact, have that documentation, from a company I know very well, Town & Country. Yep. Okay, and I trust their studies. Okay, you people have anything else you want to state?

Available for more questions if you have an answer.

Okay, well, we're going to have some public input. I've seen some people putting some things up here, so we'll... Anything else, folks? Thank you very much. I'm sorry.

I just got one for Lauren, actually. Oh, okay. So is this development... If it happens, Danny had stated that the overflow goes to the northwest corner of the development. Fitchburg has no interest in doing anything with Lake Barney. Worst case scenario, Lake Barney gets to where it was, what, five years ago when it was flooding out really bad, and we're back to square one again with this whole thing. What's the liability on this development then from Village's perspective after approving it?

From the village's perspective, liability always makes me nervous as a term. That would be more of a Larry Konopacky question. But what I can say is that this development is being required to meet all of the village's standards. The village builds on Dane County's stormwater management standards, so ours are above and beyond. Carp C is reviewing that as well, as will Dane County. In addition to those standards, this team has been required by Carp C to analyze two event combinations that are above and beyond even the standards set in Dane County's ordinance. So that's a 500-year event and a back-to-back 100-year event that Dan described. I would say it would be, my gut tells me it would be extremely unlikely that in the apocalypse situation that the village would have. Yep, and I will say that any engineer, certainly my former boss up at Madison will say there will always be an event that will overwhelm any system. It's, especially in the world that we live in today, it's only honest to admit that. This should make the surrounding situation better, and this is a very well-protected development from a stormwater management perspective.

All right, thank you. Okay, thank you, folks. As long as we're getting through this, I'll make one more note. We do have a document or a letter from the town of Oregon with a number of issues that has been shared here. I don't know if the public has seen any of that, or they will be able to see it, I suspect, in our meeting minutes or whatever, right?

Yes, that will be added.

Okay, it has two pages, basically front and back, of concerns that the town of Oregon has stated, and I'm sure that the applicant has seen this and they're looking at it. Okay, public comment, and be perfectly comfortable, just please come up and let us know your name and what you want to talk about. Joy?

Janet.

Hi, my name is Janet Nineman. I live at 773 South Main in Oregon. So I was born and raised in Oregon. I've seen Oregon grow and expand over the years, but we are at the point where we need to stop the growth. We need to stop raising property values. We voted down the referendum, but I feel we are getting hit every chance we can with fees. whether it's we now have to pay for those streetlights. Our water bill is getting outrageous. Right now, I currently pay $100 a month for water for a household of two. So am I going to expect to pay $200 in the next year for a household of two? Sure. So when this subdivision, if it comes in... Where do all the costs come from? Like who's paying the plowing, the water, sewer? I understand we may pay some or share it with the town, but where does that end for the village residents? We are already pricing ourselves out of our homes with the property taxes that we have in Oregon. It's getting out of control. People want to live in Oregon. When I grew up here, it was a bedroom community. I don't feel it's that way anymore. It's too expensive to live in Oregon. We actually don't even have enough to sustain the life that is in Oregon. I can't afford to shop at Hy-Vee. I go to Madison for my grocery shopping because I can't afford to shop in Oregon for what I need to live. And you talked about the affordability of these homes. People can fight on that, but I don't feel $400,000 is affordable for people anymore, especially when you add the property tax of what Oregon will charge. My niece lives in a Viridian home. There is an alley that barely fits one car, and I can't even park in her driveway because my car won't fit. And you're right, you are going to have to buy a smaller car because my car and my sisters wouldn't even fit in their garages. Also, I'm a little concerned about the path that butts up to that. It's quiet now. It's beautiful. You get nature when you're out there, but with these homes, I feel you're going to ruin that. path you you won't be able it'll be noisy now you'll have subdivision noise you'll have kids running around it won't be quiet like it is now i just feel that we really can't afford to build this subdivision in oregon right now we just need to stop the growth so thank you thank you kevin

Kevin Cox, 1550 Woodwell Drive. I've been asked to address some of the traffic concerns that additional traffic is going to put on Netherwood Road. and particularly the town as far as the cost of these improvements that are going to be done now is Viridian. It seems to me they're going to pay for the road work in front of their subdivision, but everything else further down at Alpine and at Fish Hatchery, those are all going to have to be addressed by either the town or the county or the village. And I mean, some of these questions have kind of been answered partially already, but I just think that it's an awful lot of extra traffic. I mean, we don't have the traffic study here, but it is, I believe they said, adding 2,500 trips a day to what is now 1,500. That's almost, you know, tripling the traffic through there if you're adding you know, four trips in a minute, well, that's one every 15 seconds. If somebody needs to walk across the street to get their mail, they're not walking across the street in 15 seconds and back, you know. So, I mean, something is going to have to be done to slow down the traffic, whether it be roundabouts or, you know, just speed limits, which are, you know, minimally effective, as we can tell, you know, because they're largely ignored, you know, or pushed to the limit anyhow. So I just, you know, I'm just thinking a little more perhaps a subdivision with density more like the Highland of Netherwood across the street, which I think is much less dense than this would probably make a lot more sense.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Arlen?

Good evening, I'm Arlen Kai. I am wearing many hats tonight. One as a citizen of the town of Oregon, living at 5685 Lincoln Road. Another as a town supervisor. Another as the chair of the plan commission. And you already have the comments from the citizens who have testified before us last week. And I also wear the hat of being on the Road and Traffic Safety Committee. Now with that, as a member of the town board, we have a number of great concerns. The traffic increase is going to be wear and tearing on our little country road of Netherwood. 2,500 increase in traffic. And that great traffic study that was done did not really address the elephant in the room, which is the intersection of Netherwood and Fish Hatchery Road. This is a huge impact. If you are there in the morning, I would invite you to get your lawn chair and sit up there and watch what's happening during the week. Seven to eight o'clock in the morning The traffic is now very stiff in the turning of people to the north and to the south into the south It's quite high So we're and so another 500 cars if we're lucky that that's all it is Coming out that intersection is going to be very and is going to be very taxing to this again a concern Concern that Netherwood had once been a rather bike-friendly road. Check the bikers. We are getting constant, shouldn't say constant, but we're getting more and more comments on that this is not becoming a safer road. It is becoming a more dangerous road. We have concerns from the town that this is actually creating tax islands, road islands, which is going to fragment the service that we can be providing to areas that are still in the town. As a citizen, as an architect, I am concerned about the proximity to the marsh. And I still have great memories of what happened on Florida Avenue. When things were built, when things were nice and dry, and guess what? The old rhythms of water and nature come through. We also have expectations. And the expectations are that we as a town need to be having a... Arlen, you have 15 more seconds. Three more seconds? Okay, we have to execute a boundary agreement for road maintenance. We need to work with, you need to be working with the town and the county to be helping to resolve the fish hatchery issue. Netherwood intersection we can't do it alone We have to work three-part together and the last thing timing What is the timing on all this and what is the financial? Backing that is needed there as we are going to be gaining a great deal of maintenance problems as well as losing some of the tax base and We are not in a, as a town, we are not in a win-win situation here. So we need to be having that expectation of a boundary agreement with the village.

Thank you. Questions? Nice seeing you again.

Bob. Bob Duszak.

Can you hear me? Oh, yeah. But again, I've been warned to get close to the microphone. Get close to it? Yes. Okay. Just pull it to you. You don't have to lean forward.

Yep. Okay. My name is Bob Dusek. I'm at 5365 West Netherwood, pretty much right across the street from this development, phase five of it, I think it was. I didn't have any prepared comments when I came, but... I took notes about what they were saying, and it's a good sales pitch, but I really think it's ignoring quite a few things and trying to just dress it all up so it looks better. They said, one of the things they said was the area doesn't currently have a stormwater management plan. It doesn't need a stormwater management plan at this point. It's, even in, at least on my side of the road, it hasn't flooded since I've lived there, which is about 25 years now. Also, their stormwater management plan isn't going to or doesn't seem to take into account what the groundwater situation is in that area. I'm on a well. relatively shallow well from what I've been told and it's certainly at risk when you start removing all the water that's falling on the farm field across the street from my groundwater and probably will cost me twenty plus thousand dollars to replace that well if it ever needs to and not to mention all the other people that are on wells in that property my neighbor All my neighbors, it seems like, around there. The traffic situation is, again, they just looked at the immediate surroundings. They said in one case that... you know, when drivers get fed up with the intersections, they'll just take a different route. Well, that puts pressure on all those other routes and all the rest of that traffic. So increasing the traffic, I got the numbers wrong. I thought it was currently 2,500 trips a day and an increase of 1,500, but I guess that was incorrect and it's 1,500 currently and a 2,500 increase. That's much worse than I anticipated it or was thinking it was going to be. It just, they claim that the intersection at Fish Hatchery, that's a Dane County problem, but that's all of our problems. We live in Dane County. It's gonna increase all of our taxes to deal with that intersection. Again, I agree with that we're already being taxed. They just keep going up every year. Things I thought were gonna disappear in the town didn't disappear. It just, it's insane how much it has gone up in the past years. And I don't seem to get pay increases that go along with that increase. They're also, I'm not sure what the accountability is for the development. So they talk about doing native plantings around the stormwater basins. But five years after, who's there to make sure that that is still native plantings. It's not easy to keep native plantings going. It surprises me that anybody's gonna volunteer to do that, because it seems like a never-ending maintenance cycle. I'm a wildlife biologist by profession. I appreciate it, but I don't know how realistic that is to talk about once. and I don't know where the accountability is. I don't know if developers have to pay bond.

Your time is about up. Pardon? Your time is about up. That's, okay.

Anyway. Wrap up with, yeah. I would like to see some of that accountability built in, and I would like to see considerations on the neighbors. We like the rural community it is. They denigrated the rural look of it and making it look better with the new development tonight, but most of us like the way it looks today and don't need it. So, anyway, just a few thoughts. Thank you for your comments.

Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate it.

Katie?

Hello, I'm Katie Nicholas. I live at 5247 West Netherwood Road. So that's just to the east of Peterson Trail there on the south side of the road. So every single day when I go to get my mail, I cross over that road. My kids get on the bus. We have one stop on Netherwood right there in front of our house. And there's at least 10, 15 cars this morning stopped out there waiting for the bus to go. We have had people just drive right through. They stopped. Oh, kids are starting to get on the bus. Somebody just drove right through one day last year. So we definitely have traffic concerns that we would like the town and the village to be concerned about. Um, I'm curious what they are recommending for reducing speed limits to where we're suggesting everyone in my neighborhood that has those slowdown signs to at least be 25 miles per hour. I think at the last town meeting that we attended, they said 35. It's difficult to cross that road. People flip you off, they honk their horn at you, you're standing next to your mailbox, and we've had people just drive through my neighbor's yard just to narrowly miss hitting my friend trying to turn in my driveway. So it's dangerous as it is, and with adding, I've been here 11 years, with adding more cars, we've seen a huge change in the number of cars coming through there, and it's just gonna continue to increase. So I'm expressing concerns for my children. They can't go in the front yard. We have kids, multiple houses all along there. They do not go in the front yard because we're scared that they're gonna, someone's gonna hit them. Two, this is an internally drained area in the county. So I think there needs definitely like the great questions on stormwater. So I think like, Uh, considerations into this being an internally drained area and how big the stormwater ponds are is really necessary. And all the runoff that could occur, especially on the east side, there's a, the development is budding up right next to town homes. And everyone has their own well and septic there. So just considering how that will overflow into that area, if the small little stormwater pond that's on the east side were to fail. I don't live right over there. We haven't had flooding on the south side of Netherwood, but I definitely think that would be of concern. And then talking about the Greenview Preserve, I'm curious how the traffic numbers compared in that project versus ours. Just curious how much traffic has increased over there as compared to this one. And, uh, I think putting in some of those, like on CC, they did a nice job with having one of those radar stop radar signs telling you how fast you're going, something like that in our area. I was at the park last night and a motorcycle blew through at 7, 10 PM, revving their engine as kids are trying to play soccer through there. So it's just kind of scary. And they're going over 60 and a 35. Um, so just some considerations with speed traffic and then trying to get that slowed down. If they are going to put a crosswalk coming across the roadway, they're trying to get people safely across that road. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

And Maggie.

Hi, my name is Maggie. Can you hear me?

You're doing good, just pull it closer.

Tell them what slaughter I get when I get closer. I chose to live in Oregon and buy my first home here after living in downtown Madison because of the small community feel. I chose my home specifically because of the proximity to the beautiful rural land that is being proposed to be developed. It reminds me of where I grew up. It brings me an immense amount of peace to come home at the end of the day. This development, both the long timeline of construction and just the general existence of it, will greatly impact my quality of life in a negative way. The neighborhoods like the one proposed feel sterile and unwelcoming, and I ask you to please preserve the small-town feel of Oregon, which makes it such a comfortable place to come home to.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That's it? Okay. Any other public comments? Anybody else have anything to say?

There's one hand I see up.

Was there another hand up? No, I guess not. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Anything else from you folks? At this time, then, we will close the public hearing, and then we'll move on to the discussion and deliberation and possible action on the recommendation of the village board.

Okay.

Note that we have here is that this property, it's I know that we've been going this route a little bit with my discussion with Elise. I'm somewhat concerned because a lot of us have been here around for a while for this planning commission. We try to be consistent. We try to not do any precedences. This property has not been annexed, has not even had an application for annexation yet. Yet we're looking at a GDP and SIP and a preliminary plan, which we'll discuss later. This is just the GDP. So, I don't necessarily have a problem with the GDP, because I understand these folks want to have an idea. They still have to go through a public hearing at Village Board for annexation to occur.

Yeah, at a later meeting.

At a later meeting. Well, certainly, yes. Not this meeting. So, discussion.

Yeah.

There's only four, well, five of them, so I'm sorry. I keep forgetting about our village president.

Just in response to Greg's point about the order of operations. The last major neighborhood annexation that occurred was autumn Ridge phase three and the same order of operations here as far as a zoning request rezoning request and a preliminary plat Proceeded the actual annexation. That's typically how it's done as a recent and in other communities around the state, especially in Dane County, but Allows the developer to understand if they can build the project that they need to build, but also for the village city, that would be annexing property and that we're understanding what we would be bringing into the village and making sure that we're kind of getting what we want out of them. Annexation is really at the discretion of the village board and. It's kind of a bargaining chip as well. So I think it's worked. well in recent projects where that annexation happens towards the end, but all of these approvals, obviously we can't officially plat property that's out of our boundaries, can't rezone property, so everything, as it's mentioned in the staff report, is contingent upon that annexation ordinance being put in place, so everything was just, we'll sort of wait in a waiting room should this move forward, and then would go into effect, nothing's getting signed or anything like that until the annexation

Comes into place, but just wanted to let you know this is not the first time that we've done that I realize that and you and I've had this discussion and my comment to that was and I get that you know We got to change a little bit, but again How far do we go with this? Again, we're setting precedents. Let's make sure what direction we're going because we've always had that I shouldn't like an old fart which I am but To me the progression is Annexation etc. I understand now why we consider the GDP. It makes sense. It does make sense that I have no problem with that How far do we go with this beyond this? so again We all have been around for a little while on this plan Commission and we are very sensitive to changing or not being consistent, let's put it that way, not changing, but not being consistent because it's not fair. These folks, they expect a consistency in how we're gonna proceed with our recommendations and how we deal with the planning for the village. That's where I'm standing with it. So you and I do have a little bit of a disagreement, but that's okay.

You had mentioned that The reason for this is so that it's packaged up so that the village knows what we're getting and the developer knows what they're providing simply and then once the annexation happens it all gets sealed with a bolt. If I'm the landowner, what's the upside? Because now if it doesn't go through I'm hamstrung with a GDPS IP that's been approved and I can't do anything unless I come in and start at square one all over again. Right?

Right. I mean the zoning approvals are good for five years, site plan approvals are good for two years, but likely if say a developer gets to the process, maybe they don't get the approvals that they need, walk away. If somebody else is, if they're going to sell to somebody else, they likely have a different you know, product type that they're building or whatever it might be. And so it's likely that they would have to start over from that process anyway. That's kind of a risk that the landowners say, I'm going to have this property under contract for maybe a year or more until the interested buyer knows that they can build what they want to build. And that's part of the contract. There's usually, I mean, that's not the world that I am in, but I know there's usually earnest money that's put down to kind of buy that time for them to do the due diligence on the property to get through some of these initial approvals to know, you know, I can, can do this project that I need to do to obviously you know that was to make the numbers work but also so they know what the expectations are from the village what the infrastructure costs are going to be so again does that work into their overall plan and they still want to sign on the dotted line purchase the property and then be responsible for all of the infrastructure they're committing to I understand that the

Again, I look upon this, and when we do things here, and we've been sensitive, I guess the word I want to use, to this contingency thing. Are we approval contingent upon this, contingent upon that? Sometimes that's very acceptable because the contingencies are relatively minor. Street names, some delineation of something or another, some dimensions you can correct or whatever. In this case, we're dealing with something that I'm not sure, and maybe it is, I don't know, I've never, I don't feel like really going through all statutes, especially state statutes, as to whether or not we can actually approve. In theory, we can approve it, but can we officially approve, and this, when I say approve, this plan commission is doing nothing more than recommending to the village board The village board then does the approval. Can we approve something that is not even in the village of Oregon? And that, I think we need to study. Again, maybe there's an opinion from our village attorney. Good. I'd love to see it.

Yep. We met with him this morning on a variety of different topics, and I shared that question that you and I discussed yesterday with him. There's no concern. Again, we've also done this in some of the multifamily developments, like the Epp and Fink properties here, Thatcher property, where those have actually not been annexed yet. There's zoning that's in place. So, again, this is something new that we've been doing, and it's not – there's no – It's a courtesy that the village can provide to a developer and say, we'll look at this. And again, contingent upon annexation, if and when this gets annexed, this is what we expect. This is what we would require. The village could take a policy and it would be kind of village board, I guess, direction, not necessarily policy. I think, at the purview of the Planning Commission to decide what can and can't be reviewed when. But if that's a tactic that the Village wanted to take and say, you need to annex first before we're even going to review that, some communities do that. But at least as of recent, we've done it in this order. It's your thing.

Well, I can do it because somebody else did it. Okay. And I get it. I get it. We can talk about this. How far are we going to go? The GDP, I get. You folks, tell me what you feel about it. But I guess that makes sense because it gives them some direction where they're going to go with it. SIP. Plenary plat. And again, I'm getting ahead of us here. So that we'll deal with on the next items here on the agenda. I'm just saying that That is my concern. My concern has always been that as a planning commission, we try to follow the same route. We always follow so that there's consistency. If we have to change something, okay, let's discuss it in a meeting or whatever, and let's get a change so we all understand it all at the same time. That's my speech. Okay, so guys.

My question is, what happens if we take no action on this tonight?

So this would still... move forward to the village board just without a recommendation.

Without a recommendation either for or against. Okay.

But as far as your meeting with Dean Coney, do they need... CARPSEY. CARPSEY. Or CARPSEY. Yeah.

Do they need... No. So the urban service area... It doesn't necessarily matter annexation or the zoning. They have all the information they need as far as proposed density, some of the stormwater information, some of the capacity information. So regardless of, it's often that those processes kind of run in parallel just kind of for efficiency sake, but that process could continue. And again, it would be potentially added to the urban service area if CARPSEA approves that. and then village review and approval would just follow. So yeah, they're not necessarily tied together in that order.

I don't, I look at this as sort of what is my hat that I'm wearing as a plan commission member and we're charged with what was, what Greg read at the beginning is reviewing plans in accordance with the village's comprehensive plan and zoning and subdivision chapters of the municipal code. So it's really, in my opinion, it's not really our job to say that this is not a good development. We can only take a look at this in respect to how it is with what we have provided in a comprehensive plan and a long-range goal. So with that being said, I think that we could make a decision to the Village Board on that. But I'm actually kind of in the same position as Greg in that I'm not comfortable on the SIP for the simple fact that I think there's still a lot of unresolved issues with traffic, cross-access with the highway, agreements that need to be put in place with municipalities and the county and yada, yada, yada. And just frankly, the comments from the town itself. I, my position as a blanket in conversation would be that I'm okay with the GDP to get them moving so that they can get going on anything that needs to be done with their annexation, the legal mumbo jumbo, the purchase agreements in place and those kinds of things. But I'm not comfortable with giving them the full agreement because I still think that there's a lot of unanswered questions. That's my position.

I got this last Friday, started digging into it, and I was like, wow, there's a lot here. And it's kind of, I'm not saying we haven't done a GDP and an SIP and a plan all in one night, but it's not the norm. You know, I'm fine with the GDP on this. It makes total sense to me that if we're going to petition to annex land, we have a clear vision of why and not just bring land in and figure out what happens later. So I'm comfortable with the GDP. I don't know in the timeline of things by slowing things down a little bit with the SIP and the flatting that we're hurting the process at all or slowing down their ability to do this. They meet with CARPSEA. CARPSEA doesn't agree with some of their calculations and wants a bigger stormwater pond. Hey, the flat's going to change. They're very good at this. They've got a team that does this all over. And it's not likely to happen in this case. might get the cart too far in front of the horse is my, my take on it. You know, and there's not really a need to be on that fast track that I can tell.

Yeah, just wanted to clarify for the SIP, for these single-family neighborhoods, it's pretty broad. It just says they're going to meet landscaping requirements for single-family homes. Verdean has their whole plan about how they have homes that look similarly in different colors, and there's kind of a pattern to that. They're not right next to each other, but it's pretty broad, and some of those details about traffic and intersection, those are more engineering plans or maybe the stormwater management plans. So the SIP is pretty minimal as far as requirements, just to make sure you understand what that looks like for a neighborhood. It's kind of wrapped up into the zoning request that was submitted, but there's not a lot of detail that we can require for single and two-family. Obviously, we're not looking at single and two-family new houses every time they're built here. That's a building inspection. review and there's just broad requirements about high quality materials and things like that for those lower density uses.

Another clarification, it was a comment about the maintenance of the stormwater facilities. These would fall under Dane County's review of maintenance like we do on other projects or not?

I can speak a little bit to that so Dane County would review the stormwater management plan which would include the design of these basins that would be constructed and funded by the developer and then after a certain point of build out typically the village does accept those ponds that's usually honestly in the order of years because you do have to reach that certain number of houses within the base and built and then There is a punch list involved, making sure that it is exactly as per plan before we take it on. But then, yes, the village owns and long-term maintains those stormwater facilities.

I think one of the concerns earlier was that we make, and I love the fact we're gonna do some native plantings. Let's make sure they're gonna take, I've seen it on construction sites I've been on before I retired, that it was not so good.

And that's one of the beauties of the process that we do go through is by extending things out to usually about three years on average. We do get time to see how they do the first year, have the developer go out, reseed, try to get them back to snuff. If it doesn't take the second year, they go back and do it again. And this is pretty common for any of our developments.

Well, we have one item before us, and that has to do just simply with the GDP. We have the other items on the next items on the agenda, which we can deal with as we get to them. So the question is to everybody, are you comfortable? And I guess at this point, I'm going to back up a little bit and say, okay, I'm okay with GDP, addressing that GDP. And it makes sense for these folks to give them at least some honest information that they can proceed on. How do you guys feel about that? Do we have a motion to recommend a village board approval of the GDP?

I'd like a little more explanation on what that GDP covers.

Okay.

Sure. So, um, on the staff report, um, kind of summarizes, I did realize the front yard setback isn't listed into these sections, but it's in the submittal from, um, Brilliant, so I'll make sure that's updated before this might move to village board, but this is essentially the zoning flexibilities that they're requesting and there's 3 different districts that were kind of identified on 1 of their plans. But it's essentially the district. 1 is the front loaded kind of traditional. Single family with the front yard in the backyard and the garage coming off the street. So that's based on the 5. Single family zoning district, which is a little bit larger lot. So there's. All the flexibilities that are requested are listed in that. Section B, so there's landscape surface ratio, minimum lot area. So these are all things that are. differences from what the buy right kind of setbacks and lot coverage and things would require for that zoning district. This is actually, all of these are identical to what was approved for Greenview Preserve. So same districts, same setbacks, all of that. Same thing for that District 2, that's the alley-loaded single family that's detached, and the District 3 is that twin home that's alley-loaded as well. So the GDP, for those that don't know, it's General Development Plan. It's the zoning kind of request for What's called sometimes or plan development, um, where you have this overlay of a, and then the underlying zoning district are these. Whether it's single family or 2 family, whatever specific zoning district they're asking for. It's somewhat, you know, not write your own zoning district, but. Based on this base zoning district, what specific. Flexibilities or exceptions are needed so. The big thing here is they have smaller lots than we typically see keep in mind. We have a 20 year old zoning code. And as we've learned from a lot of zoning text amendments, there's a lot of different ways that people are using property and developing property, whether it's chickens or or whatever it is that we're. catching up to kind of how people are currently using their property. And at some point we're going to get to the point where we need a full zoning code rewrite because these zoning districts don't really fit the development. We see every apartment building that we've done in the last seven years that I've been here has had to be a PUD because the most dense zoning district we have, it's only eight dwelling units per acre, eight Units per building, everything is pretty much been higher than that. So it gets really complicated when we have all these, it's hard, difficult to track, but it's the system we have right now that we have to kind of work with. And so the GDP would essentially be allowing. A lot, you know, with and setbacks, um, building separation, everything kind of as it's specifically listed here in the. And there's only request and then the staff report and so saying. this is what would be kind of allowed building envelope and lot size and everything for just this development and just within those districts, the most specific areas that they've identified.

Does this lock us in for the zoning? In other words, it's presented now as shown the zoning. What happens if crazy? I don't like necessarily what else, but I'm going to do it. Carp C, they want to change something. So if you have to change the zoning, then what do we do then? We have another zoning request, another public hearing. Is that what happens?

Likely, if there's enough of an adjustment that's needed, that it would change some of the flexibilities that are required, but yeah.

Because right now, we are studying the zoning by accepting the GDP. Correct. Okay. All right.

All right, thank you. Well, thank you for that explanation, and therein lies my concern. I see. Thank you for all the work you've done. And I read your engineering on the stormwater and tried to digest it as best I could and appreciate that you're 99.9% sure that all the water is contained on the site. The issue I have is, is this the right development for that site? I appreciate what you do and the market you serve. And I appreciate that there's a shortage of housing and somehow we need to address it in this county. But a lot of good questions were brought up tonight that I think need to be answered before we should be proceeding with this. And then again, I'm just not sure that this is the right place for that development. And we have a memo from the town of Oregon that I first saw right before the meeting that I haven't even been able to thoroughly read, so. That's my hesitation on this.

Okay, and I understand what you're saying. One of the problems I see with that is we have a lot of folks talking very passionately about it, and there are concerns, like you said, from the township as well as some of the folks that live on the area. How do we address those, or I shouldn't say how does the applicant address it, or whoever has to address it, how do we get to that point where those questions are answered? Is it going to be accomplished in 30 days? Yeah.

I think the applicant could come back next month and answer those questions.

Also just wanted to add, I think a lot of those questions are not necessarily questions for to answer. There's certainly, you know, their development would impact the road and traffic and water. But I think those are some questions that are for the town and village to work out. Um, whether it's the road maintenance and the wear and tear and the plowing and things like that, or those larger boundary issues, um, working, you know, how can we help advocate Dane County highway department to. improve maybe that intersection or taking a look at it. And maybe down the road there's some cost sharing scheme that's come up with, but those aren't things that we're gonna necessarily have answers to right away or I think could fairly and squarely be put on Veridian to answer. the process to work with the town obviously nothing's going to be done quickly because there's lots of bodies involved and I think there's a lot of good questions that need to be debated and figured out but we've committed to starting those processes and we've already started those conversations with the town and CARPSEY would be kind of moderating I guess that conversation about a larger cooperative boundary agreement so it's a it's a timing issue I think it's the agreement probably would have been helpful to have in the past, but we are where we are now.

Well, so we just go ahead and hope and pray that it's going to be done properly, right?

And there's likely more development to come that will impact town and village.

I know. I'm not trying to slow you folks down. I'm not. I shouldn't speak. I'm going to say for myself personally, I'm not trying to get in the way of you folks. Okay. Okay. You've done a lot of work on this. You've been before us a lot of times. I get it. But now all of a sudden, you start talking about these agreements with the township, and I'm going, oh, my God, we've got more stuff sitting out there that are not contingencies, but they are, although we're not addressing them. How do we avoid this? Because there just seems so much, so many things in the air, so many balls flying in the air, and we're just going to go, oh, yeah, we're going to go ahead and approve this. Or, I shouldn't say, we're recommending to the village board either approval or denial. And even if we approve denial, that doesn't mean they're going to listen to us. More likely not.

I will say, I mean, all the things that I think Viridian could legally, and just based on precedent, be kind of on the hook for as far as infrastructure, road improvements... pedestrian crossing connections, trail connections. It's meeting the goals of the comp plan as far as planned neighborhood for connected streets, traditional neighborhood design, no-call sacks, things like that. I think they have done, I'm not saying that it's necessarily satisfactory to everybody, but I think the annexation, there's kind of two parts to annexation. There's annexation ordinance, which actually moves the land from one body to another, but then there's annexation agreement, which is like a development agreement. So there's fees that are paid upon annexation, um, as well as the commitment to infrastructure that they would be legally held to regardless of wherever the town and village end up on some of these agreements.

I understand. They're going to do what they need to do for their benefit. Okay. I understand that that's reasonable. That's your job as representatives and everything else. As a planning commission, we try to look at the village with what we think is best for the village and make that recommendation to a village board. We can't make all those decisions, but we try to do our best with the experiences that we've had. This thing has opened up a bunch of things for me, and I think we need to have some work with the village and some guidance on how we proceed beyond this. We don't want to put these folks in the middle of all this,

just this whole process how do you i think the listen for me the lesson learned on this is that we need to be more focused on on our comprehensive plan with more layers rather than just sort of blanket statements but that's on us that's not a development i mean this development we need to look at from the standpoint of what we have in our comprehensive plan in our zoning code and let it stand on its own at this point um So whether we agree with it, in my opinion, agree with it or not, we have to look at it from the standpoint of what we're dealt. So that's that. And they've answered the questions. So from the GDP's perspective, in my opinion.

So we are right back to where we started before. So are we in a position where we want to, you know, again, we have to proceed with some degree of trust. And then, like John said, we need some more work on this ourselves internally.

I'll make a motion to approve the GDP. Recommendation of the village board. To the village board for the GDP for the proposed Featherwood Trails neighborhood.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Thank you.

Do we want just a voice vote or do we want a roll call? Try a voice. We'll try a voice. We have a motion, we have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Now, that is just the GDP, folks. Okay. So now we move on to the next item. And again, the GDP, we go before the village board for Annexation etc and you folks are welcome to that We move on to item B, which is review and possible approval of a SIP plan for the proposed Featherwood trails neighborhood applicant again Viridian homes Move to table, okay, we have a motion and we have a second Procedural question. Yes, sir

If if we take no action on this does it just then go to the village board because the Planning Commission has not made a recommendation Sips do not go to the village board.

It's essentially a site plan So it would just be at Planning Commission about a future Planning Commission meeting, but if you do table we do technically need a date that that gets sent to and again just to clarify the The SIP for this is really just these character guidelines for kind of what the neighborhood would look like. So their architectural standards, what their open space, kind of the planting mailboxes, the phasing plan, the HOA, and like kind of how they control architectural review within the neighborhood. That's essentially the content of an SIP for a single family development.

All right. So now we do have a motion. We have a second. And out of sequence here, but you folks want to say something. So we're going to let you talk.

Appreciate that. I guess if we could give a little bit of light on the process that we're going through from our standpoint. I think Elise has done a very good job from the village's standpoint. This is a sequence of events that leads eventually to a construction down the line, but there's a lot of steps between today and there. To focus in on the elements that we've talked about today, the GDP zoning covers the guidance, sets the ground rules for the districts that would be utilized within this project. The preliminary plat is the element that then creates the potential for lots, but even that has a final plat that comes later. The SIP is a vehicle for plan developments that is more tailored towards a typical application around a multifamily, for example, where you go from the GDP zoning that sets the ground rules, you go then to a site plan and a building application that gives you all the details. In this case, as Elise said, the single family elements of this neighborhood don't go through a site plan review process, and that's true for any single family in any district. Because the standards and the review level for single family is a different element than when you'd have for commercial or for multifamily. So there's not going to be a site plan and a building review process in front of the planning commission. Instead, that is delegated down to the staff and the building inspection. It's a building code review more than an aesthetic review, I guess would be the easiest way to say it. That's why typically in a neighborhood like this, and this is a pattern we've done across all of our neighborhoods where we use PD, and different municipalities approach them differently, but in almost every instance, the SIP component for the single family is identical to the general development plan. It is a series of setback rules that say, we've now applied this to these lots, and the setbacks are binding from the GDP. There's not additional information that comes through at an SIP stage. Many of the components that we've talked about tonight, traffic, street cross sections, paths, stormwater, all of those elements are engineering elements, which are more typically addressed through the preliminary plat, final plat process. And again, just like the zoning, every step along the way we get more information, except for the SIP stage here. The SIP is really the document in front of you applied to lots. So as we move forward, the vehicles that we go through to address a lot of the concerns raised tonight are that process. Every step of the way, we get more information. We've submitted a lot of detailed information that's being reviewed. Again, don't take our word for it. You've got to trust staff, CARP-C, the DNR, and others that are the reviewing bodies that will look at these applications for the details. But every step along the way in those other processes, there are vehicles to address the engineering, the utilities, the stormwater. Those are detailed comments that will all go with the primary plat, the final plat. And again, much like the SIP, the zoning is a two-step process. We've combined them here because they are identical in form due to the fact that this is all single family. The preliminary plat will be followed by the final plat. The final plat will have much more construction-level plans. But again, that's not the case with the PIP, the SIP. This really is the vehicle that wraps it all together because of the process the village has adopted for their two-step zoning. We've combined the two because they are, again, they're identical for single-family applications. Okay. Thank you.

What's your concern?

It all goes together. It's all a process. Each step, we get more vested rights, but none of which are vested until it all comes together at the end. As we talked about the annexation question, why do most municipalities, I'll put on my planning hat for representing other municipalities, why do municipalities typically do annexation last? It's because they have the most power at annexation. So everything is contingent upon that final action, but it all comes together. So when we have a layered series of conditional approvals, none of it gets across the finish line until it gets to the finish line and satisfies all of those elements. And again, most municipalities put annexation last because they've got the most power.

Okay, you can speak. Again, that's something we're going to be talking about.

Yeah, just another way to put this is, I guess, If you were to table the and maybe you want to talk about it later and make changes because it is tied so closely with the GDP that you just recommended there might be. Maybe areas of conflict or something between the GDP and the should you make further changes or. I guess I'd want to know what other. Details or information that are missing from the would you want to see if it was delayed to a future date? It sounds like most of your concerns. Again, would be more kind of engineering related and perhaps that's better addressed with the primary plat if that's something that. you all choose to address now or at a later date. I don't know that the SIP procedurally is the right, I mean, you can do whatever you want, but the step, I don't know what it's going to achieve. And again, it could have an impact on now that GDP doesn't function if you guys make changes to the SIP in the future based on...

I sense that there is an uneasiness. Is that a better way to say it? With the folks that are up here? With the whole thing? Bing, bing, bing, bing? I see some heads shaking a little bit up and down, but that's kind of, I think, where we are.

Hitting the brakes. Just tapping them.

We're not hitting them. We're just tapping them. Okay. And I understand you folks want to keep moving, keep moving, keep moving. I get that.

So I want to make sure we understand from a staff perspective and then for the developers, what other information or changes would you want to see?

Well, we don't know right now.

Well, I'm not sure that we're looking for changes, Elise. I think that's the thing. I think what we're looking for is validation in that some of these T's are crossed and I's are dotted. And I understand that it all gets packaged up in a bow in the end. but we don't always get to see the end. So what we're looking to do is sort of insert ourself in the process to verify that some of this stuff is getting done. And we're not, again, I don't think that anything that we have done is slowing up your development as a whole. I think there's nothing that can't be done in the process, There's nothing that can't be done in the process. However, the implementation can't be in place until that final annexation and all that sort of stuff happens. That's not going to happen in the next 60 days. It's not.

Well, and again, I think that is the strength of the process. It is a multi-step process in that I would characterize the SIP as probably step two of four, coupled up with preliminary plat and final plat. and that the process moving forward, we set the ground stages, and then if there are recommendations or things that you're looking for additional engineering discussion on, it would be an appropriate element to be a condition on the preliminary plat to answer those questions. And again, a conditional approval that says you've still got some things you need to address before the final plat can be even reviewed is a very common element in ways to move that forward. But again, every step along the way is somewhat intertwined. And so they kind of go hand in hand.

I get that. But again, you use the word conditional. We keep on doing conditional approvals. We like, we're old school in a way, and I hate to say it that way, but we like to see things, the T's crossed, the I's dotted. We want to see what's happening. And we do that because we think we're trying to do it for the benefit of the village of Oregon and the residents and the taxpayers. That's what our responsibility is. And that's the way I think it will keep going unless you, well, it's going to keep rolling the dice and have fun and see what happens.

Well, again, the conditions placed on an approval state, these have to be dealt with before you move forward.

But we've had a long discussion about conditions years ago. Time goes by very quickly, but we had long discussions about this stuff years ago. A lot of us were involved in that. Okay. So we have a motion. We have a second. Any other discussion by the planning commission?

Well, to clarification, two things. One is at least mentioned, uh, if, if you want to postpone it and that it's actually what we're doing, it's not tabling, but postpone it. Correct. We need to postpone to a certain date. Perfect. Okay.

So that's fine.

And that's for us to determine. Secondly, I still think that, uh, We need to verbalize what additional information we want. Otherwise, we're going to be back here again, and they're going to have four things, and we wanted six.

I understand what you're saying. Can we say that right now?

Yes.

I think you have. Okay, good.

So I'd like some of the questions that were asked tonight answered. The gentleman that talked about the impact on his wells, I'd like to see engineering data. Will they be impacted? I'd like to see a little bit more on the traffic study. I don't know that the traffic study was included in the packet. It wasn't. It wasn't included in the packet, right? I'd like to see a little bit about the impact on the Fish Hatchery-Netherwood intersection, and I'd like to know what Dane County's long-term plan is, if we have any knowledge of that. So I think those are some key questions that deserve answering. I think the first speaker asked about the impact of all these developments financially on the village. I'd like a little bit more information on that as well. What is the cost of this development, and what will their fees cover to the impact on the village?

I'm not sure the Planning Commission wants to be in a finance business.

No, we're not. I don't think so, but he's got a concern, he said, because I think what Patrick, tell me if I'm wrong, he's responding to requests from the public. Right. So we have requests from the public, so do we honor those requests or do what we can?

Well, again, you're talking about precedent, but we want to start evaluating things from a financial standpoint. No, we do not.

We're not saying that. I don't believe we are. Is that what you're doing?

No, but I think that the public deserves answers to their questions.

I do, and I think that the place to answer that question is at the village board level, in my opinion.

I agree with you on that. Yeah, certainly. Okay, I get that.

Another thing I was just going to mention, we have been working with, like I mentioned, the town. There was a list of about 20 questions that were submitted from the town board about two weeks ago. We've been working on responses. So if and when this comes back to a future meeting, and we can kind of copy you on those responses in the meantime, but we can include that in a packet. Those answers address a lot of those questions about financial impact and jurisdiction and the Dane County coordination and things like that, too. So those are almost ready.

So that's the Town of Oregon's comments that came through on the Planning Commission memo that was put on our desk today?

No, we just received that today as well. These were questions we received the day of the neighborhood meeting, I think August 18th, that was held at the Town Hall. They were kind of a collection of questions from the Town Board. I think what was provided to you was a summary of the comments from the public residents of the town.

The only really addition to the things that have been suggested, I'd like to see the cross-section that was mentioned for the proposed highway. That's right out front that you were talking about. For another one? Yeah. Some of that information.

So, yeah.

It's in the engineering plan.

All right, so again we're gonna keep on Okay, I see your finances. Okay. Let's take that off the table Yeah, there's other ones we've talked about so there's enough items here that we still feel that we want to know some things Okay, just for the record.

I want to make sure that joy has that list Okay

One other procedural, sorry. That's okay. What we're actually doing is we're postponing not tabling. Okay. Without objection, we'll just change that to postpone. Without objection? Okay.

Okay, that's acceptable.

And then we need to set date.

That's fine. Can we get this accomplished before the next meeting? It's marginal.

We can always postpone it again at the next meeting.

getting ahead of all the public's going to be here. We're going to have an issue in the November meeting because your chair and your vice chair will not be here. Okay?

Laura, did you have something to say about dates?

Yes. The only thing I'll kind of add is, as we mentioned, CARP-C's meeting, their hearing is next week, so that piece, stormwater as well as the sewer, largely will be addressed there. Okay. those will likely fall into place. So it will be apparent very soon if they have issues and they request more information or if they move it ahead. So it does seem like there's a large amount of concern on those issues in particular that may come out there. One area that I will note is for the fish hatchery intersection. As we kind of talked about earlier, it's a bit of a policy question as to whether committees and the board want to direct the village to participate in something like that. So that might be a recommendation or some guidance that you could provide. I'll defer to Phil on the actual procedural part of this, but that might be a concrete step taken towards that particular concern and the traffic issues.

We're learning a lot tonight.

But yeah, I think just looking at this list, I think all of this is pretty easily gathered, if not already put together, but we can just make sure that it's all put together.

Phil's comment is that we can always postpone it again.

If necessary. If necessary. Yeah, like you said, we want to be cognizant of the public.

Right, right. So I don't see a problem necessarily, unless you guys tell me different. Do you want to postpone it until December, or are we comfortable with the October meeting?

I think October is due. We'll have the October 1st.

Let's do that, because we should be able to get to the point where we can feel more comfortable with that.

Yep, and like Lauren said, we'll know a lot more about the CARP-C conversation.

CARP-C is going to answer a lot of these questions.

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second and understand this postponement to postpone to the October 2026 meeting. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, gentlemen. Sorry for the delay, but that's what happens. Okay, we're going to move on then to the next one. Review and postal recommendation of village board for a preliminary plat for the proposed Featherwood Trails, Netherwood in other words, applicant again, Viridian Homes.

Same thing. Same thing. I recommend we postpone until the next meeting.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion. We have a second. Can we? Yeah. You know what? Before we finish that motion, let's have these folks comment. Go ahead and comment before we go into the motion here. Go ahead and comment.

Well, I mean, the preliminary plat obviously goes right with the zoning. So the zoning really doesn't mean anything until the preliminary plat is approved. So they're really kind of a hand-in-hand kind of document. You know, I think with postponing the SIP component, you know, you're going to get your information here that you're asking for. And whether that's tied to the SIP or to the preliminary plat, it doesn't matter. But from a timing standpoint, delaying the preliminary plat is a big deal in the whole timing of trying to get to a finish line of where we need to be with the seller and looking at for next year, too. So it's kind of a big, big step in the process. So just wanted to let you know that. We understand that. Yeah.

Yeah, and just to put color on it, as Dan stated, there's certain steps in the process that we're trying to hit, and we understand public comment and how important that is, and the concerns raised in the SIP, those are absolutely valid, and I'm glad the CARB-C meeting is next week. As Lauren stated, a lot of those concerns will hopefully be addressed then, and we can keep moving forward in kind of a normal order. As Dan said on the preliminary plat, given that it is tied to the zoning, my hope is that there could be, if needed, a little bit more in-depth discussion in regards to that. If there are specific concerns related to the preliminary plat specifically, from our reset, we wouldn't see those. We think it's pretty straightforward there from that perspective. So we would like to move that forward if we can with the GDP, unless there are more specific questions we are certainly here to answer and make everyone comfortable with. impact on our schedule if that was delayed. So that's where I would, the comment I wanted to add there.

And I would add that in essence, the preliminary plat is very similar to GDP, and that is the broad playbook. It is followed up with a final plat in all cases before anything can move forward. So it's not the end of the line by any means for the project. And so echoing what Matt and Dan said, I think the postponement of the SIP allows an opportunity to bring those answers back. But then even beyond that, there's still a final plat, which is a much more detailed mechanism that will come along before even anything can get implemented from the first three approval steps. We understand that.

You had a concern or you had a comment? No, I agree with you. I think that we've pretty much given you the preliminary plat with the GDP. I think it just goes hand in hand. And like you said, there is another step on this. The SIP I think was a valid thing to sort of pump the brakes on, but this one I think we've already approved. I think that we should just move forward with the preliminary plat. Okay.

Patrick, you have a...

I'm going to oppose it just because I don't have a comfort level with this. I think too much is coming at us too quick. There's some unanswered questions on behalf of the public. I'm not sure that this is the right density for that site. I appreciate what you do. I'm just not sure that's the right place in the village to add this many units. And so I don't have that comfort level, so I can't support it.

Okay. Well, we have to have a motion, right? Yes, we do. Yes, we do.

Did you make a motion?

Well, we didn't.

No, I just made an explanation of why I'm not going to support it. I'll try to move this forward then. I will make a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat for the proposed Featherwood Trails neighborhood to the village board, applicant Viridian Hall.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a second. Discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Opposed.

Okay, the motion will carry then.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Moving on to item D, Delta. Review and Pulse Recommendation of the Village Board for Transportation Project Platt for the Planned Challenge Truck Double M Wolf Street Reconstruction Project, applicant Village of Oregon.

Move to recommend.

Okay. We have a motion to recommend. Is there a second, please? Second. We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Item E, echo. What? Well, we, Village President said he made the motion, so.

Yeah, that's a pretty straightforward.

I know, we wanted to have him. I appreciate the difference.

Move on, then. Review and pass recommendation to Village Board for extraterritorial jurisdiction, certified survey map for town, for property in the town of Oregon. Applicant is Eileen Chang. Is she here? OK. I looked at that. What was the map? I didn't see where she's trying to carve out.

So there's a larger 40-acre parcel farmland with a home on it here. I'm not sure why this is just what we received from the county, but it's a carving out of a five-acre parcel from about a 40-acre. So it's just creating a residential lot, and then the rest is still remaining as farmland.

So what they've given us is not properly showing. But then again, our... Typical status on the typical response on this as long as it doesn't look like it's anything Difficult to deal with is that we do not take we do not take a position on it I've been corrected on that.

It's really just like any normal CSL approval. So I just recommend approval to the village board They say yep the veteran approval. We're signing essentially on the CSM, but there goes through Town of Oregon Planning Commission Review and then Dane County Planning Commission Review before it gets to us.

We need a motion to recommend the Village Board approval of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the property in the Town of Oregon, applicant Eileen Chang.

So moved. We have a motion, we have a second. Second.

We have a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. For discussion only, continued conversation regarding proposed changes to Chapter 17 Zoning Code, reason for accessory dwelling units, ADUs, and short-term rentals, STRs.

We're almost there, Jenny.

I swear, I'm tired of talking about it, too.

And actually, you had a... You weren't here for the chickens.

She was here for the chickens. That was a dandy. You had some comments that we talked about briefly yesterday.

Yeah, do you want me to give, like, the reader's digest version? Okay. So long story short, we've been talking about this all year. I wanted to bring kind of what you all were. You all left the conversation to the village board to see where they stood on things. So we had a good conversation. I think that was in late July. And they actually kind of had slightly different policy direction that they gave. To staff, um, and wanted to update you on that. So, for the accessory dwelling units, um, they felt essentially that, um, given the goals of the. Village for housing diversity and affordability as well as restricting factors on. There's a number of neighborhoods that have HOAs that would prohibit these ADUs to be built anyway, taking out kind of a good chunk, especially of newer development within the village, as well as lot size restriction, just given there's not a lot of lots that would be even large enough to build something like this, meet all the setback requirements and really have that space in their backyard to build it. Coupled with the fact that they're expensive to build, it's probably, again, not something that we're gonna see happen in a large, fashion in the short term. The village board was more comfortable having really flexible ordinance here that allows it used to be built in any residential zoning district. And again, knowing that there's a lot of properties where this wouldn't even be physically or legally possible, um, they felt that that would be the approach that they would support. So, um, that's free to use short term rentals. Um, I think last time Larry was here, he presented a really bare bones approach and we didn't really spend a lot of time talking on it. Um, there's a lot of things that legally, can and can't be enforced on short-term rentals like airbnbs but um village board took a slightly more restrictive approach here and they felt that again with the limited tools that we have that there are certain areas of the village that short-term rentals are more to be encouraged such as downtown but in single-family neighborhoods we can't necessarily completely prohibit them but we could impose certain restrictions like limiting their rental to six months out of the year. That's one thing that is a legally sound argument, as well as restricting how often they can be rented. So trying to limit multiple reservations within a given week, but really there's only one kind of party that could rent, whether it's they rent for a weekend or they rent for five days, kind of trying to reduce that turnover in all of the other residential zoning districts. But the recommendation is we should treat central business Differently there are existing airbnbs downtown a couple above like Doc's and Sonny's That are nicely furnished that are pretty frequently used some of my family members I know have actually stayed there and like to be able to walk to coffee and get a cocktail at night and support those businesses downtown and because there is a lot of you know, coming, going to folks downtown, it's a lot less noticeable than, for example, we have a couple of single family homes that have been purchased by property management companies and are being used as, you know, weekend rentals and there's bachelorette parties and there's football weekend groups. And it has a lot more, it's a lot more obvious to those neighborhoods. So in the ways that we can legally enforce that and kind of restrict it, the board was supportive of treating those neighborhoods separately than downtown. So ultimately, you guys are recommending body to village board. We haven't put anything together in ordinance format yet. Of course, there's no public hearing on this, but of course, there would it's easiest when our two governing bodies on this are in agreement with each other. And ultimately at the village board, it's going to have to approve whatever you all recommend. And I think they're prepared to stand up to public, you know, questions and comment. If folks feel that this is too restrictive or not restrictive enough that questions can be kind of, you know, feedback directed to village board and, and staff and planning commission. But if we need to make changes down the road, I think the village board is prepared to kind of own the direction that they've provided on these.

Essentially what you're suggesting is that we proceed with what you've got to this point. Let's see how it works out. If we have to make some modifications to down the road, the village board will address it. Correct. That's what I think we should do. That's for discussion. So there's no motion, no action required.

Just any other feedback or any other things you'd like to incorporate?

So I'm okay with that. It's kind of a laissez-faire approach, you know, and I thought a lot about it this week because I think you and I were both pretty adamant about owner occupancy, and I'm willing to concede that. I just have a couple questions on the short-term rental, and it's the two policies that are written.