Oak Creek approves comprehensive-plan, zoning and subdivision changes for Prairie Wind master development

Oak Creek Common Council on Aug. 27 approved amendments to the city’s 2020 comprehensive plan, an update to the official street map, multiple rezonings, planned-unit-development (PUD) overlays and certified survey maps that together clear the way for a master development on roughly 115 acres along South 20th Street and West Drexel Avenue. The applicants listed on public notices are Mark Lake/OC 27 LLC and Walden OC LLC; developers presenting the project were Matt Maroney of 1 Guard Partners and John Seetman of Seetman Realty.

Why it matters: The approvals reclassify about 87 acres in the northern portion of the site for residential uses and identify the southern 28 acres for commercial use, allow multifamily and attached single-family development and establish a new road alignment (Prairie Wind Boulevard) that connects to IKEA Way. The package included changes to zoning, official mapping and subdivision documents the city required before building permits, plats or site plans can proceed.

The council’s actions - Comprehensive plan: Council approved an amendment to change the land-use designation from “mixed use” to a mix of multifamily, single-family detached and single-family attached for the northern 87 acres, and to commercial for the southern 28 acres. Kristi Lane, the city’s community development director, explained the change was requested because a roughly 15.5-acre third‑party parcel splits the site and prevents a contiguous mixed‑use configuration. - Official map: The council approved removal of portions of the older official street pattern and adoption of the proposed street layout that includes Prairie Wind Boulevard; the approval preserves some existing official alignments where they provide future access to the third‑party parcel. Lane said the dedicated Prairie Wind right‑of‑way will total about four acres. - Rezoning and PUDs: The council adopted multiple ordinances rezoning portions of the property to RS‑4 (single‑family), RD‑1 (two‑family), and RM‑1 (multifamily) and approved PUD overlays for the multifamily areas so the developer can seek specific flexibilities for building form, accessory structures and parking. The plan commission recommended approval at its July 22 meeting.

Project program and changes requested The developers’ filings and the staff presentation described the residential program on the northern 87 acres as follows: 97 single‑family detached lots (Area G); two 48‑unit multifamily buildings in Area C North (96 units) and four 48‑unit buildings in Area C South (192 units); Area D comprising 4 two‑story “stack flat” buildings for 104 units; condos in Areas E and F (about 20 and 30 units respectively). Lane said the comprehensive‑plan amendment is limited to the land‑use map; subsequent legislative items on the agenda addressed zoning and subdivision.

The PUD overlay approvals included specific requests for flexibility: on Area C North the applicants requested a higher multifamily density (16 units per net acre) than the zoning-code limit for a building classification, flexibility to locate building entrances that do not face the primary street, and larger accessory‑building footprints and heights (the request listed accessory sizes up to 5,600 square feet and heights up to 24 feet, rather than the 1,200‑square‑foot/20‑foot accessory limit). For Area D the applicants requested that only 58% of units be required to have enclosed parking (rather than full enclosed‑parking requirements), allowance for two curb cuts on a street frontage maintaining the city minimum 300‑foot separation, and larger accessory structures (the materials referenced up to 8,000 square feet to accommodate covered detached garages plus a roughly 2,000‑square‑foot maintenance building).

Council and public discussion Councilmembers questioned unit counts, parking, building heights and access. Council members asked staff and the developers whether the clubhouse would be available to single‑family homeowners; the developers and staff initially described the clubhouse as a project amenity intended primarily for the multifamily buildings and leasing center, with availability for HOA meetings, but a later exchange in the meeting recorded the developer saying that single‑family homeowners would not have routine access. Councilmembers also questioned parking assumptions; developer statements and project materials indicated an expected parking usage of roughly 1.1 cars per unit on average and a design parking ratio planned to accommodate visitors (developers said they expect to provide about 1.5 spaces per unit overall and to limit above‑ground garage structures because garages are often used for storage, not for vehicles).

Subdivision steps The council approved a series of certified survey maps (CSMs) to subdivide and reconfigure the property in stages so the various multifamily lots, single‑family lots and the public right‑of‑way can be created. Staff described a multi‑step approach: creating initial large lots and then further subdividing them (the presentation named Lot 1 as 0.38 acres, Lot 5 roughly 7 acres for the C North buildings, Lot 6 about 17 acres for future development, and Lot 7 about 13 acres for the remaining multifamily buildings). Staff said the state statutes limit lot creation by CSM and that city staff and the developer’s surveyor vetted the steps.

Formal actions and outcomes Councilmembers moved and seconded the ordinances and resolutions related to the comprehensive plan amendment, official map change, rezoning ordinances, PUD overlays and certified survey maps; the roll calls recorded affirmatives from the council members present and the measures passed. The plan commission had recommended approval at its July 22 meeting for the legislative items that required that referral.

What’s next With the council approvals the applicants may proceed with the technical subdivision filings, preliminary plats, site plans and permit applications required for construction. Staff noted further approvals (plats, engineering review, building permits) are still required before vertical construction can begin.

(Discussion only items vs. formal actions are separated above: the record shows council discussion and requests for clarification; the ordinances, official map amendments and CSMs were approved by roll call votes.)

Speakers quoted or summarized in this article are those who appeared in the council record for these agenda items.