River Falls planning staff presented the Mann Valley Residential general development plan (GDP) — a proposed planned unit development for about 255 multifamily rental units on roughly 10 acres at County Road M and Discovery Drive — and recommended forwarding the GDP to the City Council for review.

Harley Melhorn, senior planner, told the commission that the GDP is the first step in the PUD process and, if approved by council, would be followed by a specific implementation plan (SIP) that must conform substantially to the GDP. Melhorn said the proposal seeks three deviations from city standards: a small, localized setback reduction from 25 feet to 10 feet; a parking ratio reduction from two stalls per unit to 1.5 stalls per unit; and an open‑space reduction from 1,200 square feet per unit to about 837 square feet per unit. He also said the project proposes a blended density of about 24.8 dwelling units per acre and would include 50 income‑based housing units labeled in the plan.

The proposal drew more than an hour of public comment at the planning commission meeting. Dozens of nearby residents told the commission they oppose the density and the requested variances. Common concerns included stormwater runoff and impacts on the Kinney watershed, loss of green space, proximity of trails to existing backyards, increased traffic on County Road M and Powell Avenue, and potential strain on River Falls schools and emergency services.

“Given this 10‑acre plot of land, I feel 255 units is outrageous,” said Linda Foster, a longtime resident on the corner of 80th Street and County Road M. “I would ask that we pause to make sure that this development is reasonable.”

Other commenters described the proposed amenities as insufficient to offset the density, raised questions about the placement and design of the 50 income‑based units and asked whether promised paved trail connections and pedestrian facilities would be completed before new residents move in. A number of speakers said they had circulated a petition opposing the variances and submitted hundreds of signatures to the commission.

Melhorn and other staff repeatedly told the commission that engineering and drainage review are separate from the zoning deviations requested in the GDP and that the SIP phase will include detailed grading, stormwater and drainage plans subject to the city engineer’s standards. “Regardless of the amount of green space or hardscape proposed in the amenities, they will have to meet our drainage requirement flat out,” Melhorn said.

Speakers pressed for specifics on student generation, parking demand and household counts; Melhorn said the applicant’s unit mix was predominantly studios and one‑bedrooms with a smaller number of two‑ and three‑bedroom units and that regional housing studies suggest lower child generation rates for one‑bedroom units. A resident who identified himself as a commercial real‑estate professional estimated school costs associated with new children and contrasted those figures with anticipated property tax revenue from new units.

Staff recommended the planning commission forward a council resolution approving the GDP for City Council consideration on Oct. 28. The commission did not take a formal motion or vote on the GDP at the meeting; the public hearing was closed and the matter will proceed to the City Council docket as staff recommended.

Why it matters: The Mann Valley proposal would add a large number of rental units close to existing low‑density neighborhoods and a named watershed. The planning commission’s decision not to act leaves the policy and technical tradeoffs — density, open‑space standards, parking, trail connections and stormwater design — to City Council review and to the subsequent SIP engineering review if the GDP is approved.

Residents may address the City Council when the item appears on the Oct. 28 agenda; the SIP, if required, will return to the planning commission and council for final PUD approval.