Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Development Uphoff Farm topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lenar proposes 162‑home Uphoff Farm development in Cottage Grove; traffic, lift station and affordability flagged

Village of Cottage Grove Plan Commission · April 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lenar Homes presented a concept for 162 single‑family home sites at the Uphoff Farm during the April 8 Plan Commission meeting, highlighting parks, a potential multi‑use path, and a multi‑phase build. Commissioners raised traffic and lot‑width concerns and staff said lift‑station plans are near‑ready; Village Board review is likely in May.

Rick Murphy of Lenar Homes presented a concept on April 8 to the Village of Cottage Grove Plan Commission for a 162‑lot single‑family development on the Uphoff Farm site east of Main Street on Rich Road.

Murphy said the concept includes roughly 124 lots on the north side and the remainder on the south, central parks and a proposed multi‑use path intended to connect to nearby existing trails. "We're contract purchaser on the property at this point," Murphy told the commission, adding that Lenar typically offers several exterior elevations to reduce monotony and standard interior features such as quartz countertops and vinyl plank flooring.

The developer outlined product types and timing: ranch homes of about 1,800–2,200 ft² and two‑story homes up to about 2,900 ft², with an initial pace after entitlement of roughly three homes per month. Murphy estimated a two‑to‑three‑year turnaround from first building permit to full build‑out under typical market conditions.

Why it matters: commissioners said the development could add housing supply but raised traffic and infrastructure questions that affect nearby neighborhoods and school intersections. Commissioner comments repeatedly focused on the Taylor Street corridor as the primary traffic concern and on the school district's pending consolidation, which could increase peak‑period trips near the proposed access points.

Key details and conditions - Infrastructure: Lenar acknowledged a required sewer lift station; staff told the commission that prior lift‑station plans were developed to a near‑ready state and could be used when a developer is prepared to connect. "When the last developer took their swing at this, we developed the lift station plans pretty far along," a staff member stated. - Lot widths and zoning: the plan shows a mix of 65‑foot and 55‑foot lot widths. Commissioners noted that the SR6 zoning district sets a minimum lot width of 70 feet and that 55‑foot lots would likely require a planned unit development (PUD) or ordinance change. The village's housing committee is already auditing ordinance language as part of the upcoming comprehensive plan update. - Affordability: Murphy said projected finished‑home pricing was likely in the low‑to‑mid $400,000s given current infrastructure and land costs; he cited rising site‑development costs and material price pressure as drivers. - Community process: Murphy and staff said neighborhood meetings, traffic studies and a formal referral to the Village Board would follow the concept stage. Staff indicated a Village Board discussion could happen in May, and platting would proceed as preliminary and final plats or as a two‑step PUD process.

Exchanges and concerns Commissioners pressed Lenar on traffic mitigation and connectivity to regional trails. Questions included whether the proposed multi‑use path could be routed toward the Glacial Drumlin connector and whether initial phasing could help provide an additional outlet for the neighborhood. Murphy said Lenar would support village engineering and neighborhood outreach and expected to work with the village on traffic and phasing logistics.

Next steps Staff said the concept would likely be taken to the Village Board for feedback; neighborhood meetings and required traffic and subdivision reviews would be scheduled as part of the entitlement process. Any proposal using 55‑foot lots would need either a PUD or ordinance amendments in line with the comprehensive plan update.