Plan Commission

CITY OF PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN MEETING NOTICE PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, April 6, 2026 6:00 P.M. PRESCOTT CITY HALL 800 BORNER ST., PRESCOTT, WI 54021 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call 3) Approve Plan Commission Minutes – March 2, 2026 4) Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit at 878 E Washington St. a) Hold Public Hearing Regarding Resolution XX-26 Approving CUP for an ADU at 878 E Washington St. b) Consideration and possible action of “A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 878 E Washington St.” 5) The Bluffs – Revised Development Proposals at 1452 Glenridge Dr. a) Review of Three Revised Concept Plans Submitted by Capital Investment Partners LLC. i) 4-Story Building with one (1) principal building consisting of 112 units ii) Three (3) 3-story principal buildings consisting of 106-units and two (2) accessory buildings. b) Consideration And Possible Action on Previously Tabled Items Related to the Proposed Development at 1452 Glenridge Dr. i) Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving a Site Plan for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development at 1452 Glenridge Dr.” ii) Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving the Certified Survey Map (CSM) for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development. iii) Recommendation on Future Proposed Park Development Location 6) Façade Improvement Program – Recommendation of Financing for Preferred Projects to City Council 7) Comprehensive Plan Updates 8) Other Business a) Next Meeting – Monday, May 4 at 6:00 PM 9) Adjourn ACCESS TO THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING FOR THE DISABLED IS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE REAR PARKING LOT ENTRANCE. ALL THOSE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS SHOULD CALL CITY HALL OFFICES (262-5544) IF ASSISTANCE IS REQUIRED. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 2nd, 2026 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Planning Commission was held on March 2nd, 2026, at the Municipal Building, 800 Borner Street, Prescott, Wisconsin 54021. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM Commission Present: Mayor Robert Daugherty, Mike Gerke, Steve Most, Bailey Ruona, Dave Hovel, Josh Gergen, Kate Otto Commission Absent: Staff Present: City Administrator Matt Wolf, City Planner Luke Wiese Others Present: Josh Miller from Cedar Corporation, Trevor Bohland from Capital Investment Partners, Sean Lentz from Ehlers Inc, Louie Filkins from Ogden Engineering, and members of the public. 1. Approve minutes for February 2nd, 2026 Commissioner Ruona motioned to approve the minutes, Gergen seconded; motion passed without a negative voice vote (7-0) 2. Public Hearing – The Bluffs at 1452 Glenridge Drive Commissioner Ruona motioned to open the public hearing, Gerke seconded; motion passed without a negative voice vote (7-0) Planner Wiese presented information regarding the Site Plan, request for rezoning and Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay, CSM, and park dedication related to the proposed Bluffs multi-family development. A Planned Unit Development overlay is requested to allow three principal buildings and four accessory garage buildings. Wiese noted the site plan meets R-4 requirements for setbacks, height, impervious surface, parking, landscaping, stormwater, and lighting. Fire Department comments were addressed through site access and turning radius adjustments. Staff also noted a CSM and utility easements will be required, and that park dedication requirements will be met through a fee in lieu with location options shown to the Plan Commission. Written comments were read from Mark Hei of 1509 Glenridge Dr. and Ron Stanke of 114 Linden Rd. raising concerns about traffic, safety and the requested zoning change. Chris Wandmacher of 1443 Glenridge Dr said he believes this proposal is too dense for the site and would spill into the surrounding neighborhood. His main concerns were overflow parking traffic and setting a precedent for developments violating zoning standards. He requested a lower-density plan with better open space and safety improvements. Mike Johnson of 104 Linden Rd asked whether the City has done a traffic/vehicle impact study for the area and how the added units would affect congestion near Hwy 10 and school/ballfield traffic. He also questioned whether school enrollment impacts from the apartments and other planned housing have been meaningfully studied, and said residents are concerned about changes to the neighborhood. Jill Boris of 1505 Glenridge Dr listed concerns related to traffic and parking impacts around the school and nearby baseball fields, along with general concerns about noise, lighting and the project not fitting the neighborhood. Matt Wolf of 560 Flora St. said his main concern was the precedent of approving a PUD to exceed the zoning limit on the number of buildings, and how that could create expectations for future developments. Wolf also raised concerns about whether City infrastructure and public safety services can keep up with added density. Jane Wandmacher of 1443 Glenridge Dr said a portion of the parking stalls shown are garages, and in her experience garages often get used for storage rather than vehicle parking. She said this effectively reduces usable parking and increases the risk of overflow parking, especially after stalls were removed for fire access. Norma McCarthy of 1507 Glenridge Dr. said she moved to her current home so she could live somewhere with grass, trees, and an open feel, not something that feels crowded like a big city. She said the proposed building would hurt the look and feel of the area and asked the Commission to deny the project. Karen Erikson of 2073 Pleasant Dr. raised concerns about traffic and overflow parking near the high school and safety risks for kids. She also questioned whether fire and police services and the schools can keep up with added density. Commissioner Hovel noted the request is to allow multiple principal buildings on the site. The overall unit count is allowed under the current zoning, and the question before the Commission is the building configuration, not the density of the development. Rose Severson of 1517 Glenridge Dr. said ballfield traffic already creates unsafe conditions, with vehicles parking over the curb because the roadway is too tight for normal parking. She said the congestion, along with kids and pets in the area during games, is a safety concern. Commissioner Hovel motioned to close the Public Hearing, Ruona seconded; Motion passed without a negative voice vote (7-0). Trevor Bohland of Capital Investment Partners said the public comments raised common concerns they hear on similar projects. Bohland stated they aim to be self-contained on parking and worked with the Fire Department to address access, turning radii, hydrant, and FDC locations. Bohland also said a third-party traffic study was completed and shared student generation estimates with the School District and noted the site would have a snow storage/removal plan to preserve parking stalls. Ruona made a motion to table the rezoning (PUD overlay) request for 1452 Glenridge Dr. Ruona later withdrew the motion. Hovel motioned to deny the resolution related to the ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to apply a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay at 1452 Glenridge Dr., due to concerns raised during the public hearing. Ruona seconded; Motion carried 5-2, with Commissioner Gergen and Mayor Robert Daugherty voting no. Hovel motioned to table the remaining resolutions for The Bluffs, including the site plan, the CSM, and the park dedication item. Gerke seconded; motion passed without a negative voice vote (7-0). 3. Public Hearing – Tax Incremental District No. 6 Hovel made a motion to table the discussion on TID No. 6. Gergen seconded; Hovel later withdrew the motion. Hovel made a motion to open the public hearing, Ruona seconded; motion passed without a negative voice (7-0). Sean Lentz with Ehlers Inc. gave an overview of how tax increment financing works and explained the proposed amendment to TID No. 6. He described expanding the TID boundary to include the apartment site by creating a contiguous connection through school district property, and updating the project plan to add developer incentive costs and recreational equipment/park improvements. He said the incentive concept was a pay as you go model where the developer fronts eligible costs and is repaid over time from new tax increment, with protections discussed including a look-back provision and no city payment unless the project is completed and generating increment. Karen Erickson of 2073 Pleasant Dr asked what happens if project costs come in higher than expected and whether there is a cutoff if the developer is not fully repaid, and she also asked if city-related infrastructure items like hydrants are included. Lentz explained the TID has a 20-year maximum, and the City’s commitment is capped, with the repayment risk on the developer under the pay as you go model. Matt Wolf of 560 Flora St. asked what the benefit is to the City and taxpayers and whether this would raise taxes since the increment is captured for up to 20 years. Hovel explained the project would be fully taxed at the normal rate, but the new tax increment would be used within the TID to pay eligible costs, Lentz clarified this is a mixed-use TID rather than a blight TID. Jane Wandmacher asked about the City’s existing TIDs and how the TID 6 and TID 5 relate, then questioned whether using one of the limited TID 6 boundary amendments for this apartment project makes sense. She raised concerns about providing TIF assistance to a residential developer and whether the project could proceed without it, and asked clarifying questions about ownership and expected rents. Hovel made a motion to close the public hearing. Ruona seconded; motion passed without a negative voice (7-0). Hovel made a motion to recommend approval of Resolution 01-26 approving the amendment to the project plan and boundaries of Tax Increment District No. 6. Gerke seconded; motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner Otto voting no. 4. Walnut Circle Subdivision City Administrator Wolf reviewed the Walnut Circle preliminary plat and public improvement plans for a nine-lot, low-density single-family subdivision at Walnut St. and Dexter St. Staff noted the lots exceed R-1 minimums and the proposal includes a large park/open space dedication and a multi-use trail connection. Staff also reviewed the stormwater plan intended to address existing runoff issues from the Dexter St. corridor, along with proposed water and sanitary service. Staff explained that sanitary sewer would be served by individual grinder pumps for each home to avoid a City-maintained lift station, with agreements placing maintenance responsibility on homeowners. Staff also summarized the development agreement framework, including a letter of credit for public improvements and City participation in select sewer, stormwater, and trail items. Commissioners asked clarifying questions on grinder pump responsibility and what happens if building permits are issued before all improvements are completed. Staff noted the letter of credit and development agreement provisions are intended to protect the City and ensure completion of improvements. Hovel made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat and Erosion Control Plans for Walnut Ct. Gerke seconded; motion passed without a negative voice (7-0). Ruona made a motion to approve the developer’s agreement between the City of Prescott and Walnut Circle Development LLC. Hovel seconded; motion passed without a negative voice (7-0). 5. Façade Improvement Program 2026 Applications Planner Wiese reviewed the City’s Façade Improvement Program funded through TID No.4 which allocates $50,000 per year from 2025 through 2030 for eligible exterior improvements in the C-1 downtown district. Grants are reimbursed after project completion and require a 50% match. Wiese reported that the City received five applications for the 2026 cycle and presented a brief overview for each proposal: 144 Broad St., 206 Broad St., 209 Broad St., 231 Broad St., and 237 Broad St. Commissioners will receive scorings sheets and application materials and return scores to staff by April 1. Final scores and a recommendation will be reviewed at the April 6 Plan Commission meeting and forwarded to City Council for consideration at their April 13 meeting. 6. Comprehensive Plan Updates – Chapter 10 Implementation Josh Miller reviewed the draft Implementation Chapter and how it outlines tools and responsibilities for carrying out the Comprehensive Plan over time. He noted the chapter includes an implementation table that organizes recommendations by priority and identifies likely responsible parties, and he asked the Commission to review the list and flag anything that feels unnecessary or redundant. Miller also noted the April 6 public hearing was paused so the City and Cedar Corp can take another look at housing and utility-related data, including updated population and household estimates. The discussion focused on adjusting projections to better reflect recent growth and pending housing projects before the final plan is scheduled for a public hearing. Commissioner Gergen motioned to adjourn. Most seconded; motion passed without a negative voice vote (7-0). The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM. The next Plan Commission meeting will be held on Monday, April 6th, 2026, at 6:00 PM at Prescott City Hall. Respectfully Submitted, Luke Wiese Planner To: Plan Commission From: Luke Wiese, Planner Date: April 2, 2026 Subject: 878 E Washington St. CUP Background In August of 2023, the City of Prescott adopted regulations allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a conditional use in residential districts. Under City Code § 635-49, an ADU is a residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, on the same lot as the principal structure. The code recognizes multiple ADU forms, including units located within a principal structure and units located in detached accessory structures. The intent of the ADU regulations is to add moderately priced housing units to the City’s housing stock and to meet the needs of older homeowners and smaller moderate-income households, including allowing older homeowners to age in place. The current application involves an existing detached accessory structure at 878 E Washington St. The current owner did not construct the structure in its present form and is seeking Conditional Use Permit approval to formally establish its use as an ADU. The property is zoned R-1 Mixed Residential, where an ADU is allowed as a conditional use in accordance with § 635-49. Because ADUs are reviewed as a conditional use, the request is subject to the public hearing process required under Article IV of Chapter 635. Discussion Because the structure and site layout predate the current ADU standards, this request is being reviewed as a Conditional Use Permit to allow ADU use within the existing structure. Based on available photos, imagery, and information gathered during review, the detached structure has not functioned as a standard vehicle garage for some time. Information provided during review indicates the structure was previously used as a day care; however, City records do not document formal approval of the structure as a dwelling unit. The proposed Conditional Use Permit includes conditions intended to ensure compliance with City Code. These conditions include: • Owner-occupancy of the property • Limitation to one ADU on the lot • Prohibition on short-term rental use • Connection to the City sanitary sewer system • Bedroom limitations • Continuation of the existing structure and site layout without expansion. The detached structure has been reviewed by All-Croix Inspections. Any approval of the Conditional Use Permit would remain subject to completion of required inspection items and final compliance with applicable building and safety codes prior to occupancy. Recommendation 1. Hold the Public Hearing for the Conditional Use Permit on 878 E Washington St. 2. Consider approval of Resolution XX-26 A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 878 E Washington Street. Attachments 1. Resolution XX-26 A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit For an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 878 E Washington Street. 2. 878 E Washington St. ADU Site Plan 3. 878 E Washington St. Picture RESOLUTION XX-26 CITY OF PRESCOTT, WISCONSIN A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) AT 878 WASHINGTON STREET WHEREAS, the property located at 878 Washington Street, Prescott, Wisconsin, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within an existing detached accessory structure; and WHEREAS, Accessory Dwelling Units are regulated under § 635-49 of the City of Prescott Municipal Code, which allows ADUs as a conditional use in residential zoning districts subject to specific standards and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission reviewed the request at its meeting on April 6, 2026, and determined that the proposed conditional use satisfies the required standards for approval; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission found that the proposed conditional use meets the general standards for conditional uses, including that: • The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. • The use, value, and enjoyment of surrounding properties will not be substantially impaired and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. • The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. • Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other site improvements are provided. • Adequate ingress and egress will minimize traffic congestion on public streets. • The conditional use conforms to all applicable regulations of the zoning district. • The proposed use does not violate floodplain regulations governing the site; and WHEREAS, the Plan Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with City ordinances and to maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Prescott, Wisconsin, as follows: The City Council hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit allowing the establishment of one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within the existing detached accessory structure located at 878 Washington Street, subject to the conditions outlined below. Conditions of Approval • Use Authorized. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within the existing detached accessory structure on the subject property as it exists on the date of approval. • Owner Occupancy Required. The premises shall remain owner-occupied in accordance with City Code § 635-49. The owner shall reside in either the principal dwelling or the ADU for at least six months of the year. • No Separate Sale. The ADU shall not be sold separately from the principal dwelling. • Rental Limitations. The ADU may be rented; however, it shall not be used, rented, or leased as a short-term vacation rental. Any rental or lease agreement shall be for a minimum term of 30 days. • Bedroom Limit. The ADU shall contain no more than two bedrooms. • Sanitary Sewer Connection. The ADU shall remain connected to the City sanitary sewer system. • Existing Nonconformities. Any lawful nonconforming setbacks or site conditions associated with the detached accessory structure may continue as they currently exist; however, this approval does not authorize any expansion, enlargement, footprint increase, or increase in impervious surface. Any future additions or site changes must comply with all applicable City codes. • Building inspection. Prior to occupancy of the ADU, the structure shall be inspected by the City’s Building Inspector to verify compliance with applicable building and safety codes. • Compliance with Codes. The ADU shall comply with all applicable City ordinances, State statutes, and building code requirements. This Conditional Use Permit shall remain in effect so long as the conditions of approval are maintained and the use remains in compliance with all applicable City regulations. Approved this XX rd day of March 2026. ______________________________ Robert Daugherty, Mayor Attest: ________________________________ Rashel Temmers, City Clerk To: Plan Commission From: Matt Wolf, City Administrator Date: April 2, 2026 Subject: 1452 Glenridge Drive Concept Plans and Tabled Items Background At its February 2, 2026 meeting, the Plan Commission approved a concept plan for a three- building apartment development consisting of 106 units. The concept plan was subsequently approved by the City Council at its February 9, 2026 meeting. Pursuant to City Code § 635-19.1 (R-4 High-Density Residential District), a lot is limited to one principal building and a maximum of two accessory structures. The approved concept plan for The Bluffs included three principal buildings and four accessory garage structures. As a result, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zoning amendment was required to accommodate the additional principal buildings and accessory structures. At its March 2, 2026 meeting, following a public hearing, the Plan Commission recommended denial of the proposed PUD. As a result, the City Council tabled consideration of the PUD to allow the Plan Commission additional time to review three updated concept plans. Discussion Capital Investment Partners (CapVest) has submitted a new concept plans and updated the original concept plan. The new concept plan meets the requirements of the City of Prescott’s R- 4 High-Density Residential Zoning District. A presentation (see attached) will be provided by CapVest outlining the two concept options: • Concept 1: 1 four-story principal building (112 units) and 2 accessory structures • Concept 2: 3 three-story principal buildings (106 units) and 2 accessory structures Following the presentation, the Plan Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on its preferred concept. The City Council will then consider both the previously tabled Planned Unit Development (PUD) request and the preferred concept plan. The new concept plan will require CapVest to submit a revised site plan, which will be brought before the Plan Commission for review once completed. Per City Code 635-120 a Site Plan Review consists of the following: 1. The appropriateness of the site plan and buildings in relation to the physical character of the site and the usage of adjoining land areas. 2. The layout of the site with regard to entrances and exits to public streets; the arrangement and improvement of interior roadways; the location, adequacy and improvement of areas for parking and for loading and unloading and shall, in this connection, satisfy itself that the traffic pattern generated by the proposed construction or use shall be developed in a manner consistent with the safety of residents and the community, and the applicant shall so design the construction or use as to minimize any traffic hazard created thereby. 3. The adequacy of the proposed water supply, drainage facilities and sanitary waste disposal. 4. The landscaping and appearance of the completed site. The Plan Commission may require that those portions of all front, rear and side yards not used for off-street parking shall be attractively planted with trees, shrubs, plants or grass lawns and that the site be effectively screened so as not to impair the value of adjacent properties nor impair the intent or purposes of this section. The Plan Commission may not arbitrarily deny a site plan that complies with applicable zoning regulations; however, it may impose reasonable and relevant conditions of approval. Traffic Analysis The developer has retained SEH Engineering, which has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed development. The analysis is attached for review. Josh Woller of SEH will provide an overview of the findings to the Plan Commission. Park Dedication Pursuant to City Code § 510-47, the development is required to dedicate 10% of the total acreage for parks, playgrounds, recreation, and open space. At the discretion of the Plan Commission, the developer may provide a fee in lieu of land dedication. The City owns approximately one acre of land north of the proposed development, which could serve as a neighborhood park for both the new development and the surrounding area. In lieu of dedicating land, the developer has proposed contributing $75,000 toward park improvements. The Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed a concept to relocate Shane Park Circle to this location and supported the idea, including the addition of an 8-foot-wide asphalt trail connecting Dexter Street to Borner Street (see image below). Public Water Main Concept Plan #1 proposes a single principal building that would be located over an existing water main running through the center of the property within a City easement. The water main is 12 inches in diameter and was installed in 1975 in conjunction with the construction of the water tower. As a result, the water main would need to be relocated. Additionally, the connection (tee) on Glenridge Drive would also need to be replaced (see image to the right). Further review of the easement agreement will be necessary, along with discussion regarding responsibility for the cost of relocation. Concept Plan #2 includes a 20-foot utility easement located between two buildings, which would allow the existing water main to remain in place and eliminate the need for relocation. Tabled Items from March 2, 2026 Plan Commission At the meeting on March 2, 2026 the Plan Commission tabled the following items: 1. Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving a Site Plan for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development at 1452 Glenridge Dr.” 2. Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving the Certified Survey Map (CSM) for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development. 3. Recommendation on Future Proposed Park Development Location These items are not included in this memo but can be found from last month’s meeting at the following link: https://www.prescottwi.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_03022026-1116 If the Plan Commission recommends concept plan #1 then it is recommended that the Plan Commission vote to recommend denial of these items. If the Plan Commission votes to recommend concept plan #2 then it is recommended that the Plan Commission, consider approval of these items. Recommendation 1. Consider the Concept Plans Proposed by Capital Investment Partners and Make a Recommendation to City Council for Consideration 2. Based on the decision above consider the Tabled Items for the March 2, 2026 Meeting: a. Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving a Site Plan for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development at 1452 Glenridge Dr.” b. Consideration and possible action of “A resolution Approving the Certified Survey Map (CSM) for The Bluffs Multi-Family Development. c. Recommendation on Future Proposed Park Development Location Attachments 1. Capital Investment Partners Presentation 2. SEH Engineering Traffic Analysis The Bluffs Pine Meadows Bike Path Skate Park High School Middle School The Bluffs The Bluffs Cross walk Zoning & Setbacks Prescott, WI • The property is zoned R-4 – High Density Residential, which is intended to accommodate multi- family developments of nine or more units and provide opportunities for flexible housing development while maintaining a high standard of design and neighborhood compatibility. • Per City Code § 635-19.1 (R-4 High- Density Residential District), a lot is limited to one principal building and a maximum of two accessory structures. Design Concepts Prescott, WI • Concept 1 • 1 principal building • 4 stories • 112 units • 0 accessory structures • Concept 2 • 3 principal buildings • 3 stories • 106 units • 2 accessory structures • 1 building • 4 stories • 112 units & 168 beds • 0 accessory structures • 206 open parking stalls • No PUD required Concept 1 Concept 1 • 1 building • 4 stories • 112 units & 168 beds • 0 accessory structures • 206 open parking stalls • No PUD required Concept 1 • 1 building • 4 stories • 112 units & 168 beds • 0 accessory structures • 206 open parking stalls • No PUD required Concept 2 • 3 buildings • 3 stories • 106 units & 154 beds • 2 accessory structures • 156 open parking stalls • Only variance to PUD required is # of bldgs • Crosswalk on Dexter St. • No water main relocation • Modified garage leases • Signs indicating no off - street parking Concept 2 1.6 GARAGE USE RESTRICTIONS The garage shall be used exclusively for the parking of a personal, operable vehicle and/or the storage of non - hazardous, nonperishable personal property. All items stored must be in compliance with applicable health, safety, and fire codes. No one may sleep, cook, barbeque or live in a garage, carport or storage unit. • 3 buildings • 3 stories • 106 units & 154 beds • 2 accessory structures • 156 open parking stalls • Only variance to PUD required is # of bldgs • Crosswalk on Dexter St. • No water main relocation • Modified garage leases • Signs indicating no off - street parking Mill City @ 6:00pm • 3 buildings • 3 stories • 88 units • 2 accessory structures • 100% occupied Mill City @ 6:00pm • 3 buildings • 3 stories • 88 units • 2 accessory structures • 100% occupied The Current @ 6:00pm • 4 buildings • 3 stories • 106 units • 2 accessory structures • 100% occupied The Current @ 6:00pm • 4 buildings • 3 stories • 106 units • 2 accessory structures • 100% occupied Traffic Study Prescott, WI Joshua Waller from SEH will discuss traffic study findings Why Prescott? Prescott, WI • Estimated Population Growth: 10% in next 5 years • Proximity to: • Downtown St. Paul: 21 Miles • Downtown Minneapolis: 30 Miles • Hastings: 5 miles (20,000 population) • Cottage Grove: 9 miles (30,000 population) • River Falls: 14 miles (16,000 population) • Large investments made to upgrade 3 of the 4 school buildings completed in 2024 as community continues to grow • Schools consistently rank in top 20% state-wide with a 14:1 ratio of students to teachers, but per superintendent, enrollment is declining Why Prescott? Prescott, WI • Owners vs Renters • Prescott: 71% owners / 29% renters • Eau Claire: 53% owners / 47% renters • Chippewa: 54% owners / 46% renters • Building Permits in City of Prescott • 2025: 24 • 2024: 9 • 2023: 5 • 2022: 44 • First met with City in Aug 2023 when this lot was mentioned to us • 2021: 74 • 2020: 12 • 2019: 25 • 2018: 11 The Housing Need Prescott, WI Per the 2022 City of Prescott Housing Analysis there is a housing need in the community as demonstrated in numerous sections of the report: • Per page 9, Existing Housing Stock: “The City of Prescott does not have any housing units with 10-19 units. It was later identified on page 21, Housing Observations and Recommendations, Observation #2, “..this type of missing middle housing is vital to ensuring overall affordability and availability.” • “With housing prices rising everywhere, Prescott may be able attract new residents through affordable, and denser, rental housing.” • “There is an extreme lack of available and easily developable land within city limits.” • “The city must carefully consider ways to maximize the land that is currently available through various means like densification.” The Housing Need Prescott, WI • Developing infill lots: • Building on vacant, abandoned, or underutilized land within existing urban areas is a strategic priority for municipalities because it offers cost savings, environmental benefits, and community revitalization while avoiding the pitfalls of urban sprawl. • Housing study identified need for total housing demand between 2022-2027 of 263 units. • Through 2025, only 31% have been constructed, leaving a deficit of 181 units. Q&A Engineers | Architects | Planners | Sci entists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 6808 Odana Road, Suite 200, Madison, WI 53719-1137 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 608.620.6199 | 800.732.4362 | 888.90 8.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Sean Bohan, Owner, Advanced Engineering Concept s. FROM: Josh Woller, PE (Lic. WI, FL, IN, & IL) DATE: March 1, 2026 RE: Prescott Initial Review SEH No. XXXXX 14.00 A multi-family residential development is being proposed on the NW quadrant of the Glenridge Drive and Dexter Street intersection in the City of Prescott. The purpose of this initial development review is to determine if additional analysis is needed as a result of this development. This initial review documents the site location, surrounding study area, proposed development plans, existing transportation detail, trip generation and traffic assignment for the proposed development. The proposed development is a 106-unit apartment co mplex, that will consist of 3 buildings. Site access will be provided by two driveways, with one driveway on Glenridge Drive and one driveway on Dexter Street. Study Area This initial review document assumed an area that includes Glenridge Drive and Dexter Street in the immediate vicinity of the development location. The study also reviews potential traffic flows near the Prescott High School and Prescott Middle School, both of which are located within ¼ mile of the propos ed development. The development site is located in the northwest quadrant of the Glenridge Drive & Dexter Street intersection. The surrounding land uses are mostly residential and park uses, with two schools located within ¼ mile of the development. The roadways covered by initial review are described below: Dexter Street is a north/south roadway that is classified as a local street. Dexter Street has a posted speed limit of 25-mph. No turn lanes exist at the Glenridge Drive intersection. Sidewalk exists along one side of the roadway. No existing traffic count data is available for Dexter Street. Glenridge Drive is a east/west roadway that is a local street. Glenridge Drive does not have a curren t AADT count. Glenridge Drive is a 2-lane roadway with a 25-mph speed limit. There are no turn lanes on Glenridge Drive at the Dexter Street intersection. There are no sidewalk facilities along the street. Site Traffic Volumes To address any potential future traffic impacts the adjacent roadways and intersections, it is necessa ry to identify the hourly volume of traffic generated by the anticipated development. The traffic volumes Prescott Initial Review March 1, 2026 Page 2 expected to be generated are based on the size and type of the proposed use and on trip rates as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition . Trip Generation During a typical weekday morning peak hour, the dev elopment is anticipated to generate 43 trips (10 entering / 33 exiting). Of those trips, none are expected to be pass-by trips (discussed below). Dur ing a typical weekday PM peak hour, the development is anticipated to generate 55 trips (34 entering / 21 exiting). Of those trips, none are expected to be pass-by trips. Table 1 Prescott, Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Proposed Size Weekday Daily AM Peak PM Peak In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 220 106 x Dwelling Units 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 6.21 24% 76% 0.41 62% 38% 0.52 Subtotal 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 Total Pass -by Trips (Minus) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Linked Trips (Minus) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total New Trips 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 Mode Split Although some sidewalk facilities exist and provide access to Prescott High School no mode splits were applied for this analysis. Linked and Pass-by Trip Traffic The proposed development does not have any linked ( internal) trips because the site operates as a single land use. In addition to linked trips, pass-by trips were also reviewed. A pass-by trip occurs when motorists already on the roadway system stop at the development site prior to continuing on their intended route. Due to this being a residential only development no pass-by trips are applied. Trip Distribution Trip distribution was based on the existing traffic patterns, the proposed land use, and the location of population centers. Trips were assigned to the study area roadways in accordance with the following trip distribution: • 10% to/from south • 90% to/from north Given the volumes and traffic control it is anticipated that the majority of traffic from the site will travel to the USH 10 & STH 35 / Campbell Street signalized intersection in order to travel to their intended destination. Given the high posted speeds, general free flow conditions and lack of direct access to the south from the proposed development to USH 10, it is anticipated that a significant amount of the 90% of trips traveling north from the development will then travel to the south to cross to Minnesota via the USH 10 bridge. Also, given the unique traffic patterns created by school zones and potential delays created by high volume, short duration arrivals/departures it is anticipated that the majority of northbound traffic w ill utilize Borner Street to access Orrin Road. Prescott Initial Review March 1, 2026 Page 3 Additionally, a review of peak hour volumes along USH 10 indicates that the AM peak period is from 6:0 0- 7:00am and from 4:00-5:00pm. These peaks do not co incide with 7:50am school start period and the various school departure times of 2:00pm on Mondays and 3:30pm the remainder of the week. Trip Assignment Traffic generated by the Prescott residential development should be assigned to the existing roadway system based on the trip generation and distribution above with an understanding the travel directions are likely to vary by time-of-day to avoid school traffic. Based on the trip assignment, 30 vehicles are expected to travel north during the AM peak and 31 are expected to travel south during the PM peak. This equates to one vehicle every 2 minutes. jmw Attachments Attachment 1 – Site Plan Attachment 2 – Build Traffic Volumes x:\ae\a\abdom\189780\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\prescott\prescott initial review.docx Attachment 1 Know what'sbelow.before you dig.CallDEXTER ST GLENRIDGE DR Attachment 2 In Out Total In Out Total 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 6.21 24% 76% 0.41 62% 38% 0.52 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 658 10 33 43 34 21 55 NOTES: Total Trip Distribution To/From North 90% 592 9 30 39 31 19 50 To/From South 10% 65 1 3 4 3 2 5 Prescott Apartment Complex City of Prescott Prescott, Wisconsin Land Use ITE Code Proposed Size Weekday Daily PM Peak Subtotal Total Pass-by Trips (Minus) Total Linked Trips (Minus) (0%) Total New Trips Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 106.0 x AM Peak Dwelling Units Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) To: Plan Commission From: Luke Wiese, Planner Date: April 2, 2026 Subject: 2026 Façade Improvement Program Scores Background At the last Plan Commission meeting we reviewed the applications that were submitted as part of the 2026 Program. This included the following projects: 206 Broad St. • Restoring deterioration, character defining façade elements with historic arched windows, historically appropriate entry door systems, and commercial grade lighting and benches • Total project cost is $135,000 for a match request from the program of $50,000 • Applicant has estimated start date of May 2026, and end date of December 2026 209 Broad St. • Update of store front and sides of the exterior to bring the style up to date. • Vertical cedar siding on the front of the building will be updated with white or off white. • Total project cost is $17,243.19 for a matching grant of $8,621.60 • Applicant stated if awarded project would start first part of May and be expected to be completed by July 15, 2026 144 Broad Street • Project has been revised from the previous round to include replacing and selective brick repair on the north side of the building. Additional items include the replacement of windows with custom Bronze historic windows and replacement of the existing roof. • Two quotes were received for the work with sidewalk alterations being proposed for a later date or phase • With the sidewalk being removed from the scope of work and the LP Siding on the northwest side being switched out in favor of brick, the total project bid is $127,602 for a request of $50,000. • Applicant stated project would start in the Spring of 2026 with an estimated completion in the Fall of 2026 231 + 227 Broad Street • Project restores the original front of the building at 227 to red brick, original windows will be repaired. Support beams added. • Total project cost is 65,000 for a match request of $32,500 • Applicant is anticipating a start date after funds are rewarded with an estimated completion date of September 2026 235 + 237 Broad St. • Project includes scraping/glazing of windows in need of repair, scraping of old mortar, water blasting and acid washing of entire building, removing the information sign and painting windows and door. • Total project cost is $24,000 for a match request of $12,000 • Work to begin in April of 2026 with an estimated completion date of December 2026 Discussion Plan Commissioners were given a scoring sheet as part of the project review. At the meeting staff will present the scores for each project given by the Plan Commissioners. Based on those scores and other feedback, Plan Commission will need to make a recommendation to Council for approval. For 2026 the Program has $50,000 to be awarded in projects on a 50% reimbursement basis. Finally, due to the funds left over from the 2025 program, the Plan Commission may choose to allocate an additional $8,710.50 to this year’s program. Recommendation Review the scoring for each project and make a recommendation to Council for approval. To: Plan Commission From: Luke Wiese, Planner Date: April 2nd, 2026 Subject: Comprehensive Plan Updates Discussion At the meeting, we will discuss and review the comprehensive plan vision statement and go through the changes highlighted throughout the comprehensive plan. Attachments 1. https://www.prescottwi.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1106/City-of-Prescott- Comprehensive-Plan-Draft