Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Development Colonial Woods topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press developer over unfinished roads and access as Plan Commission holds Colonial Woods proposal
Summary
Plan Commission delayed action on a proposed 16‑unit multifamily building at Colonial Woods after residents raised unresolved road repairs, lack of communication with owner HomePath, and requests for an easement or agreement protecting the homeowners association.
The Oak Creek Plan Commission on May 27 put on hold a site-plan application for a 16‑unit multifamily building in the Colonial Woods development after lengthy public comment about private roads, unfinished infrastructure and poor communication by the property owner, HomePath Financial Partnerships.
The applicant is proposing one of three remaining 16‑unit buildings on a previously approved RM‑1/PUD site. The developer’s representative and contractor, Mike Dufek, told the commission the project drawings largely match previously approved plans and that the applicant has switched from renting units to selling them as condominiums: “HomePath wanted to comply and said, Yes, we'll move the project to condos instead of rental units,” Dufek said.
Several Colonial Woods residents urged the commission to require a signed agreement before the commission advances the project. Amy Peterselli, who said she represents the Colonial Woods Condominium Association, requested that approval be “contingent on coming to some sort of signed agreement regarding their responsibilities for construction debris, repair of roads due to increased usage, and then also holding them accountable to the landscaping.” Other residents described prior failures to complete landscaping and road surfacing, said HomePath has been difficult to reach and asked the city to require an easement or other formal agreement covering construction impacts and long‑term access.
City staff described a complex ownership and development history, saying earlier development agreements and bonds may have applied but that the private status of the neighborhood’s roads affects how the city enforces improvements. A staff member said the city would need to review past development agreements and any bond that may remain in place.
After public comment and questions from commissioners about outstanding infrastructure and the absence of an owner representative, Commissioner Seifert moved to hold the item; the motion to postpone consideration until June 24 was approved by the commission. The action stores open the issues raised: outstanding road completion and whether future occupants will join the association and share responsibility for private‑road maintenance.
The meeting record shows the applicant has increased parking beyond code (30 underground spaces vs. a required 16 for the proposed building) and proposes mostly two‑bedroom units, some with dens, matching the architectural character of existing buildings. Multiple residents and commissioners requested that staff meet with HomePath and the association and produce documentation (easement or HOA agreement) before the matter returns to the commission.
The commission did not approve the site plan; it was postponed to allow time for staff to confirm the development history, any bonds or development agreements and for the applicant and homeowners association to produce written agreements addressing construction impacts and easement/access terms.
