Plan Commission reviews Heyday 114‑unit townhouse plan amid traffic, wetlands and communication concerns

The Cottage Grove Plan Commission on an agenda item for CR DevCo (d/b/a Heyday) reviewed a precise implementation plan for a 114‑unit townhouse development at the northeast corner of West Cottage Grove Road and Bus Road. Staff recommended approval with multiple conditions; the developer described a reduced, lower‑density project and residents raised concerns about traffic, wetland and utility impacts.

The plan commission packet and staff memo outlined recommended conditions including: documenting the reasons for using a planned unit development instead of a standard district (green space, building/unit counts), provision of a small tot‑lot playground, retaining the access and library‑site conditions from the previously approved general development plan, an addressing plan reviewed by the village, visible address numbers on front and rear of buildings, public‑standard street signs on the portion of Fundamental Way to be public, park and sewer/water impact fees, driveway relocation coordination (cost to be borne by the developer), separate site plan review for any future commercial building, and a required vacation of a portion of Fundamental Way prior to recording the certified survey map (CSM).

Engineering comments from staff and the village’s consultant noted that a full traffic impact analysis (TIA) was not anticipated for this residential project but that a TIA could be completed and would likely reach similar conclusions. Staff and the developer agreed the site will include right‑turn lanes and two left‑turn basins into the development; the developer indicated willingness to build turn lanes. Staff also described plans for a pedestrian crossing at the Cottage Grove/Bus Road intersection, private internal streets with some public elements (Fundamental Way public in the cul‑de‑sac portion), 12‑inch water main and sewer mains positioned to allow future looping and capacity to the west, and that the sewers through the private streets would be maintained by the village via easements. Stormwater review is also in Dane County’s jurisdiction; staff noted proposed wet and dry stormwater basins and suggested consideration of fencing adjacent to residential units where wet ponds are proposed.

Residents who spoke during public appearances pushed for greater transparency and more environmental and traffic review before approvals proceed. Abby McDonald (homeowner, 208 Heather Drive) asked what “environmental due diligence” mentioned by public works would entail and how it would be funded, noting the developer offer and building plans had been “temporarily tabled.” Pamela Hanson (233 Taylor Street) said Alliant Energy contacted her about equipment on her property and asked why such utility work would be happening while approvals remain uncertain. Nick Euknes, a professional wetland scientist who lives at 245 Heather Drive, listed studies that typically accompany development — wetland delineation, cultural resources Phase I survey, threatened and endangered species review — and that a stormwater permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would be required if the project proceeds; he asked whether and how those studies would be made public and whether the public would be given an opportunity to comment before village decisions.

An opponent who addressed the commission at length urged rejection of the project based on density and impacts to public safety and property values, citing the village’s existing multi‑unit vacancies (the speaker referenced 28 vacant units at one complex and other local vacancies) and noting MR2 zoning can allow up to 12 units per acre and eight units per building as a conditional use. The speaker recommended a comprehensive traffic and public‑safety impact analysis, and said increasing multi‑unit approvals have strained volunteer fire and police resources.

Heyday representatives responded that the project had been reduced from an originally larger approved development to 114 units, that most units would be two‑ and three‑bedrooms with direct‑access two‑car garages and driveways (1,450–1,600 square feet per unit in the company’s materials), and that the product is intended to “feel like a single‑family home” with on‑site maintenance and snow removal provided by management. The developer said rents would range roughly from $2,400 to $2,700 per month and estimated the residential portion’s value at about $40,000,000. The firm also said it had conducted an internal traffic review (Snyder Associates), agreed to install left‑turn lanes the village expects, and has been coordinating with the adjacent school to provide pedestrian connectivity and a crossing to serve Shady Grove and the schools.

Commission discussion touched on several implementation points: utilities along Cottage Grove Road include overhead lines the developer may need to relocate; the village cannot unilaterally require relocation/burial of existing off‑site utilities except as part of negotiated funding (for example, through a TID/TIF). Staff asked the developer to confirm addressing and emergency service circulation; fire and EMS asked for visible rear address numbers and limited on‑street parking on private streets so apparatus can pass. The developer told commissioners trash service will operate like a single‑family home (resident bins stored in garages and rolled out on trash day), and that maintenance staff will access mechanical equipment placed adjacent to garages to reduce in‑unit service calls.

Procedurally, a motion was made to approve the precise implementation plan with the staff and Strand (consultant) conditions in the packet. A separate motion to add a condition requiring stone veneer on the Cottage Grove Road‑facing units was proposed and seconded; that amendment failed on roll call. The transcript does not record an explicit final roll‑call tally for the primary PIP approval in the excerpted record (see actions array for motion text and recorded amendment outcome). The related certified survey map splitting the overall site into a residential lot, a commercial lot and an outlot for stormwater was considered separately and later carried (see separate article on the CSM).

Why it matters: The project would add substantial new rental housing on a primary corridor in the village, with consequences for traffic, stormwater, utility capacity, emergency response and school pedestrian access. Commissioners conditioned review on detailed addressing, accessibility for emergency services, stormwater coordination with Dane County, and coordination of driveway relocations and park/sewer impact fees.

Votes at a glance: the transcript records a failed amendment to add stone veneer (amendment failed on roll call); the final approval status of the precise implementation plan is not recorded in the excerpted transcript and is therefore listed as not specified. The related certified survey map to split the parcels was approved (see separate article).

Ending: Staff will return finalized plans and the CSM recording to the village with required revisions and conditions; several outstanding technical items — stormwater details, final traffic documentation as needed, addressing, and easement language for utilities and sewer ownership/maintenance — must be resolved before final permits are issued.