MULLET RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY

Ornamental 

treeses 

Shade trees 

Public 

restrooms 

Planng 

areas 

New staircase 

Dog park 

Plaza 

Open 

air 

shelter 

Dream park 

Bench 

Swings 

Gateway feature 

Bike 

staon 

Evergreen screenen 

MULLET RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY 

CITY OF PLYMOUTH, WI 

Prepared by MSA Professional Services, Inc. 

in cooperaon with the City of Plymouth 

November, 2015

Contents and Acknowledgements 

Preface 

Preface 

Execuve Summary ................................ iii 

Chapter 1: Regional Context...................................... 1 

1.1 City of Plymouth 

1.2 General Land Use 

1.3 Mullet River 

Chapter 2: Mill Pond................................................ 11 

2.1 History of Mill Pond & Dam 

2.2 Prior Mill Pond & Dam Studies 

2.3 Summary of Key Issues 

2.4 Design Alternaves & Perspecves 

2.5 Design Alternaves - Cost Esmates 

2.6 Potenal Property Impacts 

2.7 PIM Comments 

2.8 Grant Funding Opportunies 

2.9 Study Summary Conclusions 

Chapter 3: Plymouth River Trail............................... 25 

3.1 Plymouth River Trail 

3.2 Exisng Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans 




3.6 Regulatory Perming Processes for 

Pedestrian Bridges over the Mullet River 




Chapter 4: Downtown/Stayer Park.......................... 35 

4.1 Plymouth River Trail 

4.2 Exisng Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans 


4.4 Parking Occupancy Analysis 



4.7 Regulatory Perming Processes affecng 

River Wall Repair or Replacement 




A 

The following people are responsible for the 

creaon, refinement, and adopon of this plan 

Mayor 

Donald Pohlman 

Common Council 

Donald Pohlman, Mayor 

David Williams 

Greg Hildebrand 

John Nelson 

Jim Sedlacek 

Jack Fernsler 

James Faller 

Charles Hansen 

Shawn Marcom 

Study Commiee 

Charlie Hanson, Chairman 

Donald Pohlman 

Jim Sedlacek 

David Williams 

Terry Evans 

Jan Cecka 

Bill Zelm 

Mark Melcher 

Bill Barbieur 

City Staff 

Brian Yerges, AICP/ICMA-CM, City Administrator/ 

Ulies Manager 

William Immich, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer 

Crystal Fieber, City Aorney 

MSA Professional Services, Inc. 

Andrew Bremer, AICP, Project Manager 

Steve Tremle, AICP, Urban Designer 

Sarah McDonald, PLA, Landscape Architect/Planner 

Becky Binz, Associate Planner 

Mike Laue, PE, Senior Project Engineer 

Eric Sorensen, PE, Senior Project Engineer 

Terri Velk, Engineer 

MSA project number: 04047004 

Mullet River Corridor Study 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

P S 

This project studies the Mullet River corridor in the City 

of Plymouth, WI from STH 23, through Downtown, to CTH 

PP, as an aesthec, recreaonal, and economic amenity 

that affects or is enjoyed by all Plymouth residents and 

visitors. The project considers various projects and 

improvements that may enhance the use and health of 

this valuable community resource. The project includes 

three phases, or three sub-studies, connected by a 

common thread, the Mullet River. 

P O 

Phase I, studies Mill Pond, a 41-acre impoundment of the 

Mullet River, to evaluate and present two alternaves 

for the future of the pond. The City is considering 

whether it should proceed with removal of the dam 

and pond or improvements to the dam and removal of 

sediment in some way to improve the pond. Each opon 

will have social, aesthec, environmental, and economic 

Planning Study Area 

impacts. The purpose of this phase of the project 

is to evaluate the impacts and facilitate discussion 

about pond/dam improvement versus dam removal. 

The evaluaon compared these two basic alternaves 

in terms of esmated costs, impact on surrounding 

properes and the community, opportunies for 

public recreaon, and aesthec outcomes. The final 

report does not include a recommendaon regarding 

a parcular course of acon regarding the queson 

of whether to remove the dam or proceed with dam 

improvement and sediment removal to maintain 

the pond. The purpose of the study and report is to 

describe the social, aesthec, environmental, and 

economic impacts of proceeding with these two 

opons, including developing concept plans and 

illustraons or each opon. 

Phase II evaluates alternaves for a connected system 

of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the Mullet River 

from the Old Plank Road Trail on STH 23 to CTH PP. 

The City currently has a network of on- and off-street 


iii

Preface 

Execuve Summary 

bicycle routes and trails, some of which have been 

branded as the “Plymouth River Trail.” The current 

network is incomplete. The purpose of this phase of 

the study is to evaluate the exisng Plymouth River Trail 

network to idenfy gaps in infrastructure and signage 

and to idenfy short and long term improvement 

projects to bring the enre trail off-street to improve 

user experience and safety. 

Phase III evaluates the costs and benefits of implemenng 

a number of infrastructure improvement projects along 

Mullet River in the Downtown, including evaluang 

improvements to exisng retaining walls and pedestrian 

bridges; studying the feasibility of burying overhead 

ulity lines; evaluang removal of a public parking ramp 

(ramp not deck), and improvements to Stayer Park. This 

phase of the study includes conceptual designs, cost 

esmates, and descripons of perming processes. 

K P A P 

C 

The plan is organized into the following chapters: 

Chapter 1, Regional Context: 

• This chapter describes the characteriscs of the 

planning area 

Chapter 2, Mill Pond Planning: 

• Review of exisng plans and studies of the Mill Pond 

and Dam 

• Develop conceptual illustraons for each alternave 

• Study potenal property impacts 

• Evaluate cost esmates for dam removal and 

sediment removal 

Chapter 3, Plymouth River Trail Planning: 

• Map exisng bicycle routes & signage, idenfy key 

community desnaons 

• Map future trail and signage improvements 

• Develop cost esmates for short and long term 

improvement projects 

• Review regulatory perming processes affecng 

pedestrian bridges across the Mullet River 

Chapter 4, Downtown/Stayer Park Planning: 

• Evaluate costs and benefits of parking ramp removal 

• Assessment of traffic flow, parking needs, parking 

space configuraon, etc. 

• Conceptual drawings of future space without 

ramp, including Stayer Park improvements 

• Costs esmates for burial of overhead ulies 


river bank modificaons 

P O 

The City hired MSA Professional Services to assist 

with compleon of the planning study. The City 

formed a temporary ad hoc Mullet River Corridor 

Study Commiee (MRCSC) to work with City Staff 

and MSA on this project. The MRCSC included public 

officials and representaves from stakeholder groups 

including the Mill Pond Lake Associaon, Chamber of 

Commerce, and local service clubs. 

P P 

All MRCSC meengs for this project were open to the 

public. In addion, a public involvement meeng 

was held during the planning process to inform 

cizens about the project objecves and to collect 

input and feedback regarding dra design concepts. 

Approximately 50 people aended the public 

involvement meeng. The majority were property 

owners along Mill Pond. 

P S 

The planning process spanned an eight month period 

in 2015 and included five meengs with the MRCSC 

and one public involvement meeng. 

• MRCSC Meeng #1 – Project Kickoff (March) 

• MRCSC Meeng #2 – Visioning (April) 

• MRCSC Meeng #3 – Concept Plans (May) 

• MRCSC Meeng #4 – Cost Esmang (July) 

• Public Involvement Meeng (August) 

• MRCSC Meeng #5 – Dra Plan Review (October) 

• City Council - Final Report Acceptance (November) 

P P O 

The report will serve to inform future decisions by 

the City Council regarding a course of acon with 

dam or pond improvements, Plymouth River Trail 

improvements, Downtown/Stayer Park improvements, 

and other Mullet River corridor improvement projects. 

iv 

Village of Cross Plains, WI

CHAPTER 1 

REGIONAL CONTEXT 

The following chapter broadly summarizes the study 

area. Chapters 2-4 include more specific descripons 

of each sub-planning area. 

1.1 C P 

The City of Plymouth is located in Sheboygan County 

nestled in the gently rolling hills of the Kele Moraine. 

The community is located 15 miles west of the City of 

Sheboygan, 25 miles east of the City of Fond du Lac, 

50 miles north of the City of Milwaukee, and 60 miles 

south of the City of Green Bay. The populaon was 

8,445 at the 2010 US Census. 

Like many other Wisconsin communies, Plymouth 

started as a stagecoach stop on a Nave American trail 

and wilderness road from Sheboygan to the interior of 

the state. Plymouth was surveyed in 1835 by United 

States Engineers. One of whom was named Mullet, 

and the Mullet river was subsequently named aer 

him. The Mullet River was what first aracted selers 

from New England and New York, shortly followed 

by the Germans escaping the social upheaval in their 

homelands. The Smith family had named the area Quit 

Qui Oc, meaning “Crooked River,” while Henry and 

Thomas Davidson named it Plymouth, in reference to 

Plymouth, Massachuses where the English Pilgrims 

landed in 1620. The State Legislature changed the 

name to Quit Qui Oc in 1851, but reversed itself, 

naming the whole selement Plymouth a year later. 

The City was officially incorporated in 1877. 

The arrival of the Sheboygan and Mississippi Railroad 

in 1859, and the Milwaukee and Northern Railroad 

in 1871, made Plymouth a small railroad center with 

an underlying agricultural economy. Local cheese 

factories added to this economy in the 1860’s and 

1870’s, bringing to downtown the Naonal Cheese 

Exchange, unl the late 1950’s. 

Plymouth is known as the “Cheese Capital of the World.” 

Plymouth is home to many dairy and cheese related 

industries including Sargento Foods Inc., Sartori Cheese, 

Masters Gallery, and Great Lakes Cheese to name a 

few. A large Holstein cow named Antoinee is a local 

landmark. Erected in 1977 during the city’s centennial 

celebraon, it stands 20 feet (6.1 m) high and weighs 

over 1,000 pounds (450 kg). The monument observes 

the robust dairy industry in the area. 

Black Earth Creek 

Antoinee cow statue in front of former City Ulity Building 

Mullet River Corridor Study 1

Chapter 1 

Regional Context 

1.2 G L U 

Plymouth is accessed primarily from STH 23, a four 

lane divided expressway running east-west along 

the north side of town from Fond du Lac to Sheboy. 

State highways 57 and 67 also provide access from 

the south and north. 

The Old Plank Road Trail parallels STH 23, a road 

originally built out of wooden planks in the 1800s, 

from the western edge of Sheboygan to the Village 

of Greenbush. The trail was one of the first in the 

country constructed in the same right-of-way as 

a divided 4-lane highway. In Plymouth, there is a 

trailhead at the intersecon of STH 57 and CTH C. 

Plymouth’s Historic Mill Street is the center of all 

town acvity and is the historic Downtown area of 

the community. The remaining core of the City is 

comprised of tradional single-family development. 

Larger retail businesses and industrial parks are 

found along the major transportaon arterials on 

the outskirts of the Downtown. Refer to the City 

Zoning Map on page 3 for an illustraon of land 

uses by zoning classificaons within the City. 

Figure 1.1 Planning Study Area 

1.3 M R 

The Mullet River bisects the community flowing 

from the north to the south. The river runs parallel 

to Mill Street on the south side (or rear yard) of the 

properes on the south side of Mill Street. The 

Mullet River is a tributary of the Sheboygan River, 40 

miles long, in eastern Wisconsin. Via the Sheboygan, 

it is part of the watershed of Lake Michigan, draining 

an area of 88 square miles in a primarily agricultural 

area of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands region of 

Wisconsin. FEMA designated floodplain areas line 

either side of the Mullet River through the City. Figure 

1.3 illustrates the locaon of floodplains adjacent to 

Mullet River looking north from Youth Center pedestrian bridge 

2 City of Plymouth, WI

3 


Chapter 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 inch = 750 feet 

JANUARY 2013 

by: W. Immich 

ZONING MAP 

City of Plymouth 

LEGEND 

shebco_parcel 

A - Agricultural 

C - Conservancy 

R1 - Single Family - rural 

R2 - Single Family 

R3 - Two Family 

R3A - Two Family - zero setback 

R4 - Multi Family 

PUD - Plan Unit Development 

RMH - Mobile Home 

CB - Central Business 

B1 - Business Office 

B2 - Business General 

B3 - Business Highway 

PO - Planned Office 

LI - Light Industrial 

HI - Heavy Industrail 

F 1.2 C P Z M

SPRING ST 

N MILWAUKEE ST 

874 

CAROLINE ST 

842 

846 

872 

N STAFFORD ST 

DIVISION ST 

872 

874876 

870 

Chapter 1 

Regional Context 

Mill Pond and the Downtown. Note, that most of the 

properes south of Mill Street in the Downtown are 

included within the 100-year floodplain area. The 

floodplain areas do not extend very far to the east of 

the pond or south of the river in the Downtown due 

to the steep topography of these areas. Chapters 2-4 

include more specific descripons of environmental 

features in each sub-planning area. 

Figure 1.3 Environmental Features, Mill Pond and Downtown Plymouth 

KRUMREY ST 

VICTOR CT 

MARSHNER ST 

872 

870 

872 

868 

870 

FOREST AVE 

870 

870 

864 

856 

854 

844 

NORTH ST 

846 

840 

830 

870 

858 

872 

854 

868 

866 

830 

864 

862 

856 

866 

860 

832 

864 

ß O 

872 

868 

862 

874 

872 

EXISTING 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

FEATURES 

LEGEND 

MIDDLE ST 

Parcels 

866 

866 

SMITH ST 

M 

ill Pon d 

850 

852 

870 

Flood Zone Designations 

AE: 1% Annual Chance of Flooding, with BFE 

WESTERN AVE 

862 

860 

858 

848 

850 

852 

ELIZABETH ST 

854 

852 

850 

848 

844 

HOME AVE 

830 

ALFRED ST 

MILL POND CT 

858 

860 

AE: Regulatory Floodway 

X: 0.2% Annual Chance of Flooding 

Contours 

2-Foot 

N PLEASANT ST 

W MAIN ST 

¾% 67 

848 

852 

852 

852 

844 

846 

E MAIN ST 

846 

844 

834 

832 

834 

836 

840 

840 

840 

862 

866 

848 

850 

842 

844 

830 

840 

840 

848 

838 

836 

834 

828 

840 

834 

836 

854 

874 

ß Z ß C ß E 

W MILL ST 

840 

836 

846 

832 

E MILL ST 

834 

832 

ß C 

MILL ST 

838 

840 

842 

828 

838 

858 

862 

866 

876 

872 

FREDERICK ST 

ß E 

818 

826 

824 

824 

844 

842 

THAYER 

ST 

820 

846 

S STAFFORD ST 

872 

852 

870 

Mulle t 

872 

ST 

DIVISION 

Rive r 

856 

878 

824 

834 

COLLINS ST 

882 

842 

850 

874 

878 

MEAD AVE 

826 

822 

872 

840 

860 

868 

876 

868 

870 

844 

848 

EASTERN AVE 

874 

864 

876 

SOUTH ST 

862 

ß O 

874 

872 

870 

876 

DATA SOURCES: 

BASE DATA PROVIDED BY COUNTY. 

AERIAL IMAGERY PROVIDED BY WROC (2010). 

FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATIONS PROVIDED BY FEMA. 

CITY OF PLYMOUTH 

SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WI 

E 

Feet 

75 300 

0 150 

Printed By: abremer, File: P:\4000s\4040s\4047\04047004\GIS\4047004_ExistingEnvironmentalFeatures.mxd 

Print Date: 10/19/2015 


Exisng 

warming 

house 

to remain 

Public 

park 

Proposed 

parking lot 

Stormwater basin/Ice 

Rink 

CHAPTER 2 

MILL POND 

Picnic 

Islan 

land 

Warming house, 

parking 

lot and trail access 

Picnic 

nodes 

Shade 

trees 

es 

Ornamental trees 

Fishing nodes 

Pedestrian bridge 

River 

trail 

River 

trail 

Open lawn/Ice 

Habitat t houses 

The following chapter summarizes the poron of 

the planning study related to Mill Pond, specifically: 

• A summary of the history of Mill Pond 

• A review of exisng plans and studies of the Mill 

Pond and Plymouth Dam. 

• A review of design concepts developed during 

the planning process 

• A summary of cost esmates for dam removal 

and sediment removal alternave concepts 

• A review of potenal property impacts 

• A summary of public input provided at the 

August 19th, 2015 public involvement meeng 

• A summary of potenal grant funding 

opportunies 

2.1 H M P D 

The Plymouth Mill Pond is a 41-acre impoundment 

of the Mullet River. The water body is maintained by 

a dam at the southern end of the pond and it extends 

north to WIS 23. The first dam was constructed 

someme around 1840. The present dam was 

constructed in the 1950s. There is speculaon that 

the Mullet River was rerouted when the mill dam 

was built, but there is no supporng evidence for 

this. The dam and Mill Pond are shown in roughly 

their present configuraon in both the 1875 and 

1889 plat books found in the Plymouth Historical 

Society Museum. The Mill Pond was drained down 

in the late 1950s. During this drawdown the river 

was on the east side of the island. 

to this parcel of land containing the dam in 1949 by 

quit claim deed (Doc. No. 531787). This area comprises 

Anton Park which includes 166 feet of shoreline along 

the pond. The City owns another 0.25 acre parcel along 

the west side of the river just north of where the pond 

starts. This area comprises the City’s Youth Center. 

From the Youth Center north there is approximately 

1,000 feet of shoreline on school property including 

a recreaonal trail along the west side of the river. A 

pedestrian foot bridge crosses the river from the Youth 

Center to E. Edna St. 

Mill Pond, Plymouth Dam, and Mullet River, 2015. 

Mill Pond is ulized for non-motorized boang, fishing, 

and public ice skang. The average water elevaon of 

the pond ranges between 831.40 and 831.45 feet and 

the water depth ranges between 1 and 4.3 feet, with 

an average water depth of 1.8 feet. The volume of the 

pond basin is approximately 88,390 cubic yards and 

the flushing rate is approximately 400 mes per year 

(residence me of 0.9 days). 

The City of Plymouth owns approximately 0.75 

acres of property adjacent to the dam on the 

southern end of the pond. The City obtained tle 


Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

F 2.1 M P, P D M R H 

1800 

1900 

1840 Original mill dam was constructed 

1906 Dam washed out in flood 

1950 Present dam constructed 

1950 Mill Pond drained down 

1957 Chemical fish kill to reduce carp in Mill Pond 

1958 Trap netting removed 800-900 lbs. of carp 

1959 Trap netting removed 2,300 lbs. of carp 

1961 Trap netting removed 1,000 lbs. of carp 

1963 Northern Pike restocked in Mill Pond 

1966 Pond lowered and bypass tube installed 

1966 Chemical fish kill to reduce carp in Mill Pond 

1966 Game fish and panfish restocked in Mill Pond 

1967 Pond treated with copper sulfate to kill algae 

2000 

1969 Permit issued to chemically control algae and rooted plants 

1971 First series of permits issued to control algae (and not rooted plants) in Millpond 

1981 Mill Pond called “unsafe” after inspection by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

2006 Mill Pond Future Directions Survey 

2007 Alternatives Analysis completed 

2008 Comprehensive Management Plan created 

2008 Mill Pond draw down and weed harvest 

2011 Sediment Sampling Activities Report 

2012 Plymouth Mill Pond Association formed 

2013 Dam Inspection Report filed 

2014 WDNR memo in response to Dam Inspection Report 

2015 Technical Report for Dam Break Study completed 

2015 July letter from WDNR directing spillway improvement by 2025 

2015 

Dam mudjacking/repairs per WDNR requirements 

2015 Mullet River Corridor Study Completed 

Sources other than reports listed: 

Plymouth Millpond Historical Notes by John Nelson WDNR, June 2005 


Chapter 2 

The impoundment has a so mud boom and there 

is generally very lile rooted aquac vegetaon. 

According to WDNR (WDNR, 1999), the Mill Pond 

supports a populaon of northern pike, largemouth 

bass, carp, and a variety of panfish. The Mill Pond 

aracts a variety of waterfowl and mammals, and 

mulple pair of Canada geese nest on the pond each 

year. Large algal blooms and a growing carp populaon 

have become management concerns for the Mill Pond. 

2.2 P M P D S 

The following secon provides a summary of the 

previous environmental and planning reports that 

have been conducted for Mill Pond and Plymouth Dam 

since 2006. A brief summary of the purpose of each 

prior study and the work completed will be provided in 

chronological order, followed by a summary of findings 

and recommendaons. Copies of these reports are on 

file with the City Administrator. 

M P F D S (2006) 

In 2006, the University of Wisconsin-Extension 

Sheboygan County Office completed this survey to 

obtain opinions from Plymouth residents, property 

owners, and businesses about the Mill Pond’s future. 

The survey sought the community’s input on the topics 

of exisng condions, pond uses, aesthec values, 

management opons, and cost/funding. The following 

is a summary of each of these topics: 

» Exisng Condions – cizens felt the overall quality 

of the Mill Pond is poor with the most crical threat 

to water quality is declining water depth due to silt/ 

sediment build-up. Aquac plant/weed growth in the 

Mill Pond is described as heavy. While most survey 

parcipants have not gone fishing on the Mill Pond, 

those that have note the fishing is poor due to more 

rough fish than game fish. Geese and gulls are also 

considered a problem due to bird droppings. 

» Pond Uses – the Mill Pond is primarily used as scenic 

enjoyment. Its use as a skang arena is considered 

very important to the community. The community 

felt that access to Mill Pond is adequate and safety 

measures around the dam do not need to be improved. 

Enlargement of the island within the Mill Pond is not 

favored. Though most property owners said there is 

a need for stocking game fish in the Mill Pond, the 

general public and business owners didn’t know if 

there is a need. 

» Aesthec Value – the scenic value of the Mill Pond 

is extremely important to the community and they 

consider it important for tourism. The community 

feels dredging removal of weeds/algae would improve 

the Pond’s aesthec value. 

» Management Opons – the long-term management 

opon preferred by the community is the removal of 

accumulated sediment in the Mill Pond (dredging). 

» Cost/Funding – respondents felt grants and other 

government aid programs should fund costs associated 

with the Mill Pond and Dam. Use of tax dollars as 

funding for improvements to the Mill Pond was almost 

evenly split for and against. 

A A: M P (2007) 

In October of 2007, Earth Tech, Inc. performed an 

alternaves analysis to evaluate six different opons 

to improve the water quality of Mill Pond. This report 

included an assessment of the feasibility and costbenefit 

of the six opons to aid the City and Mill 

Pond Commiee in making sound decisions related 

to management of the Pond. This analysis was used 

to inform the City of Plymouth and the Mill Pond 

Commiee’s Mill Pond Comprehensive Planning 

project which was funded by a planning grant from 

the WDNR. 

The six opons evaluated in the analysis are summarized 

in Table 2.1 on page 8. The report suggested that the 

best method to improve the water quality of Mill Pond 

was a combinaon of pond drawdown and shoreline 

and stormwater management. Pond drawdown would 

increase water depth and bind some of the exisng 

nutrients in the sediment, but it would not remove the 

nutrients or keep addional nutrients from entering 

the pond. For this reason, the recommendaon also 

included instung a process, with the assistance of 

the County Extension and the local WDNR offices, 

to educate the public and City employees on how to 

beer manage the nutrients and sediments entering 

the pond in the immediate watershed of the Mill 


7

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

Table 2.1. Summary of Opons for Mill Pond Future 

Alternave 

Short-Term 

Effecveness 

Long-Term 

Effecveness Implementability Public 

Acceptability 

Dam Removal High High High Low $80,000 

Dredging High Medium Medium High $7,000,000 

Aquac Vegetaon 

Removal 

Medium Medium Medium Medium 

Cost 

$125,000/me (3 

mes or more per 

year) 

Pond Drawdown Medium Medium High Medium $500 

Shoreline and 

Stormwater Medium Medium Medium Medium Unknown 

Management 

No Acon Low Low High Medium $0 

Pond. The combinaon of these two alternaves is 

the least costly (with the excepon of no acon) and 

can be implemented fairly quickly. 

P M P: C 

M P (2008) 

Earth Tech, Inc. completed a comprehensive 

management plan in January 2008. The Management 

Plan is a long-term plan to improve the ecological, 

aesthec, and recreaonal value of the Mill Pond. This 

plan is the final step in the City of Plymouth and the Mill 

Pond Commiee’s Mill Pond Comprehensive Planning 

project which was funded by the WDNR grant. The 

Comprehensive Management Plan incorporates the 

Alternaves Analysis from 2007 and informaon from 

the Mill Pond Watershed Assessment, Water Quality 

Assessment, and Macrophyte and Sediment Thickness 

Survey. 

The long-term management plan lays out water quality 

objecves, best management pracces, proposed 

ordinances, and other recommendaons. The plan 

also includes specific implementaon informaon 

such as the agency responsible, details of what is 

needed, a me frame, and whether any acvies are 

eligible for a Lake Protecon Grant. 

Management objecves for Mill Pond are split into 

recommendaons within City of Plymouth, where 

most of the land is residenal and commercial, and 

recommendaons outside of City limits, where most 

of the land is undeveloped and agricultural in nature. 

Management objecves within the City include: 

» Draw down Mill Pond water levels to the baseline 

flow of the Mullet River (suggested every two 

years) ($500/me) 

» Implement an educaonal series for local residents 

in the City of Plymouth to prevent introducon of 

exoc species, promote the establishment of buffer 

strips, and reduce phosphorus inputs. 

» Connue to monitor lake water quality to measure 

progress. 

» Adopt an ordinance to limit phosphorus applicaons 

through reduced lawn ferlizer use in order to 

prevent excess nutrients from entering the Mill 

Pond and the Mullet River. 

» Consider ulizing alternaves to road salt to 

improve the water quality of the Mill Pond. Road 

salt alternaves may include Calcium Magnesium 

Acetate (CMA) and Potassium Acetate (KA). 

» Establish un-mowed vegetated buffer strips along 

the public shoreline of the Mill Pond. 

» Ensure that all sepc systems adjacent to the Mill 

Pond are operang correctly. 

Management objecves outside the City include: 

» Encourage local parcipaon in the Sheboygan 

County Land and Water Conservaon (SCLWC) 

Stream Buffer Program. 

» Implement an educaonal series for rural residents 


Chapter 2 

to prevent introducon of exoc species, promote 

nave shoreline planngs as buffers and promote 

sustainable agricultural pracce methods that will 

reduce excess phosphorus, nitrate, and soil erosion 

in the watershed. 

» Coordinate with the WDNR in order to protect 

known threatened and endangered resources 

within the Mill Pond watershed. 

S S A R (2010) 

In January of 2010, Kapur & Associates, Inc. completed 

sediment sampling acvies and prepared a report 

based on their findings. This sediment sampling 

acvity was completed as required by Ch. NR 347 for 

all dredging projects. Sediment sampling acvies 

included advancing sediment cores, collecng 

sediment samples, logging field data collected from 

sediment coring, and subming sediment samples 

for analysis. 

The analysis of the sediment core samples revealed 

the following these inorganic metals were detected 

at above the established Consensus-Based Sediment 

Quality Guidelines Table 1 Threshold Effect 

Concentraon (TEC): 

» Chromium 

» Copper 

» Lead 

Mr. William Barbieur, current President of the 

Plymouth Mill Pond Lake Associaon, discussed the 

sediment analysis results with WDNR staff in 2011. At 

that me, WDNR staff indicated that the contaminants 

listed above were not of great concern, and that the 

dredged material would not need to be placed in a 

landfill, but could instead be land spread or ulized 

as general fill if suitable, nearby disposal sites can be 

idenfied. 

While this is good news, MSA was unable to reach 

WDNR staff who made these comments, and we cauon 

that typically dredging projects require approvals from 

several different programs within WDNR: Waterways 

staff regarding Chapter 30 perming; Wastewater 

staff regarding discharge of carriage water from the 

dredging spoils; and Solid Waste staff regarding the 

final disposal of the dredging spoils. 

W Q M P 

M R W (2010) 

In 2010 the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) completed a Water Quality 

Management Plan for Mullet River Watershed. 

(hp://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/sheboygan/wtplans/ 

sh05/SH05_WTPLAN.PDF) 

According the WDNR report the water quality of the 

Mullet River is considered good from its headwaters 

to Plymouth (approximately 25 miles) and fair from 

Plymouth downstream to its confluence with the 

Sheboygan River (approximately 15 miles). The 

middle of the river, from Glenbeulah to Plymouth, 

has an increase in spring flow that lowers stream 

water temperatures and is classified as a Cold Water 

Community stream (trout). Upstream of Glenbeulah, 

and downstream of STH 67 near Plymouth, the 

Mullet River is classified as a Warm Water Sport Fish 

Community stream. This classificaon difference is 

due primarily to the increase in spring flow between 

Glenbeulah and Plymouth. The Mullet River is unique 

in that it flows from the warm water headwaters into a 

cold water segment. All of the other major tributaries 

in the Sheboygan Basin, including the Sheboygan and 

Onion Rivers, originate as coldwater streams and 

change over to warm water further downstream. 

The WDNR report concludes that the Plymouth Mill 

Pond dam is affecng water quality and impeding fish 

passage and the pond also suffers from poor water 

quality and is over-run with carp and Canada geese. 

The report recommends working with the City to 

remove the dam, or if dams must remain, encourage 

fish passage restoraon, secure funding and 

implemenng projects. The report also recommends 

minimizing urban stormwater runoff to improve water 

quality. 


9

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

P D I R, F F 

N 59.07 (2013) 

In October 2013, M Squared Engineering, LLC 

completed an inspecon of Plymouth Dam. The 

WDNR administers a state-wide dam safety program 

(Chapter 31 of the Wisconsin Statues) which requires 

dam owners to hire a Professional Engineer with 

experience in dams to inspect their dam once every 

two to ten years. Since Plymouth Dam is classified as 

a high-hazard large dam, inspecons must occur every 

two years. This 2013 inspecon is in compliance with 

the Statute and included a visual inspecon of the 

Plymouth Dam and a checklist of short and long-term 

follow-ups for the Dam to remain in good working 

order. 

The visual inspecon of the dam revealed many cracks 

and concrete separaon, which is typical of older 

dams. Since there were some larger cracks (none of 

which were concerning), the report suggested doing 

a laser scan of the dam every two years to idenfy 

any movement of concrete or increases in concrete 

separaon. 

At the me of the report, the dam was found to be 

in overall good condion with the excepon of the 

following items that needed to be addressed: 

Embankment: 

» Remove brush and weeds breaking thought the 

pavement 

» Topsoil, seed and mulch any disturbed areas 

» Per WDNR, remove asphalc pavement and replace 

with compacted material and grass 

Auxiliary Spillway (sprayed concrete seawall): 

» Monitor minor cracks and openings 

» Monitor and remove vegetaon growth on the wall 

P D S I: WDNR 

M (2014) 

In June of 2014, WDNR responded to the 2013 

Plymouth Dam Inspecon Report completed by M 

Squared Engineering, LLC. The WDNR replied that 

the report meets its Chapter 31 requirements but 

also that the inspecon report revealed deficiencies 

in the dam which should be completed so the dam is 

in compliance with code. The following deficiencies 

were to be corrected (the highlighted items were 

given extensions since they were previous direcves 

that at this me had not been completed): 

» Submit Inspecon, Operaon and Maintenance 

Plan for review (by December 1, 2014) 

» Clear vegetaon on auxiliary spillway (by September 

1, 2014) 

» Remove tree from le embankment (by September 

1, 2014) 

» Repair seepage at downstream face of auxiliary 

spillway (by July 1, 2016) 

» Dam failure analysis (by September 1, 2014) 

» Detailed Environmental Acon Plan (by December 

1, 2014) 

» Embankment erosion (ongoing/monitor) 

The WDNR classified the Dam as “Condionally 

Fair” due to previous unmet requirements in the 

Emergency Acon Plan and the Inspecon Operaon 

and Maintenance Plan. The compleon of these 

items could change the classificaon of the Dam to 

“Sasfactory” or “Fair”. 

T R D B S: 

P D (2015) 

In February 2015, Kapur & Associates, Inc. completed 

a technical report which describes and documents the 

elements required by the WDNR to develop a hazard 

rang for a dam. The report is based on data from 

WDNR, NOAA, USDA, USGS, GIS, and FEMA. Kapur 

& Associates submied a revised report dated March 

17, 2015 and July 23, 2015. 

The revised reports found that a dam hazard rang 

of “low” is jusfied because the hydraulic shadow 

of a dam failure (during a 100-yr flood event) would 

not lead to greater downstream flooding than would 

the scenario in which the dam does not fail, or in the 

scenario in which there is no dam at all. 


Chapter 2 

In layman’s terms, the revised report finds the 

dam failure would not lead to increased flooding 

downstream because the dam failure occurs prior to 

the peak condions of the 100-yr flood. There is not 

much water stored behind the dam when compared to 

the rate and volume of water coming down the river, 

so the downstream flooding when the dam breaks is 

less than the downstream flooding due to the 100-yr 

flood itself (dam or no dam). In a regulatory sense, 

there would not be any more land downstream of 

the dam which would be subject to development/ 

redevelopment restricons than currently exists 

within FEMA’s regulatory floodplain. 

The revised reports also found that the dam does not 

meet the hydraulic design and safety requirements of 

NR 333.07 (even with the “low hazard” dam rang). 

WDNR issued a leer on July 7, 2015 which approved 

the dam failure analysis and the low hazard rang. 

Based on the Kapur study and WDNR approval leer, 

the potenal exists for the dam to overtop and fail 

due to storm events smaller than the regulatory 

100-yr storm. Further, Kapur concluded and WDNR 

concurred that the dam is unable to safely pass the 

10-yr flow through its principal spillway; and unable 

to pass the 100-yr flow through its combined spillways 

in compliance with NR 333. WDNR directed that the 

spillway capacity must be brought into compliance 

within 10 years from the date of approval (July 7, 

2025). 

MSA discussed the NR 333 compliance issues with Bill 

Sturtevant at WDNR. Mr. Sturtevant indicated that it 

may be possible to make modificaons to the dam that 

would sasfy NR 333 by providing addional spillway 

capacity. The addional spillway capacity could 

take the form of lowering and enlarging the exisng 

spillway(s) and/or construcng an addional spillway. 

Stated simply, the modified spillway capacity would 

have to be equal to the downstream river channel 

capacity for the flow rate leading to dam submergence 

(which would most likely sll be less than the 10-yr 

flow rate). 

The hydraulic analysis of how this increased capacity 

could be provided is beyond the scope of this report. 

Likewise, without addional hydraulic analysis it 

would not be appropriate to provide an esmate of 

potenal construcon cost. 

That said, MSA believes the only economical way this 

could potenally be achieved would be to ulize the 

park space (i.e. Anton Park) lying east of the dam to 

construct another auxiliary earthen spillway. The 

spillway could possibly be designed in an “L” shape, 

with one leg of the “L” parallel to the river. MSA 

esmates that a majority of the park space would 

have to be lowered in elevaon and then ulized as 

the auxiliary spillway. 

As an aside, it does appear that there is developed 

area upstream of the dam which could be removed 

from the regulatory floodplain if the dam were to be 

removed. 

2.3 S K I 

There are two major issues facing the City: 

1. Whether to keep, repair and improve the spillway 

capacity of Plymouth Dam; and subsequently if 

the dam is maintained, whether to improve the 

water quality of the Mill Pond through some type 

of sediment removal project. 

2. Whether to remove the dam, and if so, what to do 

with the land currently occupied by the pond bed. 

The Plymouth Mill Pond Lake Associaon is 

advocang the City repair the dam and implement 

a sediment removal project to improve the pond. 

Other community members queson whether public 

financing should be used to improve the pond as 

they believe the improvements largely benefit the 

property owners surrounding the pond and not the 

enre community due to the lack of public access to 

and use of the pond. These community members 

also raise concerns that connued public financing 

will be necessary to maintain the dam and that future 

sediment removal projects will also be necessary as 

the pond fills with sediment again. 


11

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

The City has also heard concerns regarding how 

property values adjacent to the pond would be 

affected if the dam and pond were removed? How 

does removal of the dam affect property ownership 

boundaries along the pond? What would happen to 

the area if the pond where removed? 

also no designated boat water access at this locaon; 

however, the school does use the shoreline north of 

the Youth Center for canoe launches for instruconal 

purposes. A pedestrian bridge crosses the river at this 

locaon. 

The following secons explore these issues in more 

detail. 

2.4 D A P 

Two alternaves were developed to visualize the longterm 

use and maintenance of the study area, one 

where the City keeps the dam and another where the 

dam and pond are removed. These two alternaves 

are illustrated on the following pages through design 

concepts developed by MSA and refined by the 

MRCSC. 

P/D I C 

Figure 2.1 illustrates a design improvement concept 

in which the dam and pond are maintained. 

Improvement projects are generally isolated to the 

land area around the pond. As part of the planning 

process, the MRCSC discussed the desire to improve 

public access and use of the pond if the City were to 

proceed with repairing the dam and/or compleng 

sediment removal projects. The consensus discussion 

was that if the City were to contribute financially to 

the improvement of the pond through a sediment 

removal project that they City should seek to increase 

public access and use of the pond as well. 

Anton Park, Veterans Trail and Fishing Deck (above) 

Figure 2.1 idenfies those exisng parcels along the 

river/pond currently owned by the City. This includes 

approximately 0.75 acres of property adjacent to 

the dam on the southern end of the pond. This area 

comprises Anton Park which includes 166 feet of 

shoreline along the pond and a Veteran Memorial 

Trail which is part of the Plymouth River Trail. The 

City currently maintains an ADA fishing deck at this 

locaon; however, there is no boat water access at 

this locaon. 

The City owns another 0.25 acre parcel along the west 

side of the river just north of where the pond starts. 

This area comprises the City’s Youth Center. There is 

Plymouth Youth Center and Pedestrian Bridge 

on Mullet River 


Chapter 2 

F 2.1 P/D I C 


13

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

Two public streets, Alfred and E. Main, also terminate 

along the west side of the pond, neither site includes 

public boat launching facilies. The terminus of E. 

Main St. does include a building which is used for a 

warming house during the winter for ice skang and 

hockey users. 

the pond and picnic/fishing facilies at the water’s 

edge. This site connects the pond to the adjacent 

County fairgrounds and provides public access on 

the east side of the pond where currently none 

exists. 

• Sites 4-6 are located adjacent to the exisng 

warming house at the terminus of E. Main St. 

Potenal improvements include an updated 

warming shelter, picnic/grill areas, fishing facilies 

and a small cra boat landing. 

• Sites 7-9 are on the south side of Alfred Street 

and provide another potenal locaon for picnic/ 

grill areas, fishing facilies and a small cra boat 

landing. 

Warming House at the end of E. Main St. 

Given that there is limited public access and no true 

“Mill Pond Park” the MRCSC idenfied three clusters 

of areas that could potenally be redeveloped into 

a “Mill Pond Park” to improve public access to the 

pond. The three areas comprise nine exisng parcels. 

Addional notes regarding these sites are provided 

below. 

• Sites 1-3 are located at the corner of Riverview 

Drive and Fairview Drive. Potenal improvements 

include a Shelter near the roadways, walkpaths to 

Sites 1-9 were chosen as the most viable sites due to 

factors such as: 

• topography - most of the east bank of the pond 

has steep slopes which makes access to the pond 

more difficult. 

• property values - since all of the parcels are 

privately owned the MRCSC chose to idenfy 

sites that had a lower assessed value as compared 

to other parcels adjacent to the pond. Current 

assessment values and acreages for all parcels are 

highlighted in Table 2.2. 

Table 2.2. Potenal “Mill Pond Park” Acquision Areas 

PROPERTY PARCEL AREA ASSESSED VALUES 

SITE # Address Tax Number Acres Square Feet Land Improvement Total 

1 609 RIVERVIEW DR 59271814600 1.78 77,501 $56,200 $143,900 $200,100 

2 FAIRVIEW DR 59271820420 0.24 10,635 $18,600 $0 $18,600 

3 530 FAIRVIEW DR 59271820393 0.48 20,927 $30,500 $99,100 $129,600 

4 633 E MAIN ST 59271813570 0.32 13,756 $41,900 $98,700 $140,600 

5 629 E MAIN ST 59271813581 0.12 5,016 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

6 640 E MAIN ST 59271812810 0.38 16,497 $36,500 $99,800 $136,300 

7 627 ALFRED ST 59271813820 0.17 7,345 $18,500 $95,600 $114,100 

8 629 ALFRED ST 59271813830 0.23 10,108 $28,000 $85,700 $113,700 

9 619 ALFRED ST 59271813800 0.17133 7,463 $18,500 $116,700 $135,200 


Chapter 2 

• proximity to exisng public infrastructure - 

proximity to the County Fairgrounds, Downtown 

and exisng roadways (i.e. Alfred St. and E. Main 

St.) were also contribung factors. 

It is important to note that none of the Sites 1-9 are 

currently listed for sale. These sites are listed only for 

planning purposes and inclusion of these sites within 

this plan does not compel property owners to sell 

their property to the City nor does it obligate the City 

to purchase these parcels. In addion, other viable 

sites not listed on the map or in Table 2.2 may surface 

in the future as alternaves for the City to consider 

should it decide to develop more parkland along the 

pond. Sites 1-9 are not listed in priority order; and it 

is not assumed that all three parcels within a cluster 

would necessarily need to be purchased to develop 

an adequate public access/park. It is possible that 

land acquision and parkland development could 

be phased. Addional site specific planning should 

be completed prior to any future land acquision 

projects. 

P/D R I C 

Figure 2.2 on page 16 illustrates an alternave 

improvement concept which assumes the City would 

remove the dam and pond and return Mullet River to 

a “pre-dam seng”. 

The concept design illustrates an approximate locaon 

and width for the river with the dam removed. Some 

historical reports indicate that the river may have been 

on the east side of “Picnic Island” prior to the original 

dams construcon. However, in 2009 the pond was 

drawn down as part of an aempt to improve the 

water quality of the pond. At that me the river 

remained on the west side of Picnic Island. 

The dam removal concept includes an assumpon 

that the City would acquire and maintain ownership 

of the land area where the pond formerly belonged. 

This would enable the creaon of new park and 

recreaon facilies along both sides of the river. 

During the planning process the MRCSC idenfied 

that if this alternave were pursued that acve use 

recreaonal facilies (e.g. ball diamonds) should not 

be located within the former pond land area. Figure 

2.2 proposes a number of improvements which were 

deemed more appropriate by the MRCSC including: 

• Extending the Plymouth River Trail along both 

sides of the river (see Chapter 3 for addional 

details) 

• Creang secondary walking paths from the 

Plymouth River Trail 

• Establishing fishing and picnic nodes 

• Installaon of nave prairie planngs, trees and 

habitat houses 

• Construcon of an addional pedestrian bridge a 

few hundred feet north of the exisng dam 

• Maintaining locaons for ice skang and hockey 

acvies 

This concept is further illustrated in the perspecve 

image, Figure 2.3, on page 17. 

Mullet River looking north from Youth Center pedestrian 

during 2009 draw down 

Example proposed fishing node 


15

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

F 2.2 D R/R I C 


Chapter 2 

F 2.3 D R/R I P 

Stormwater basin/Ice Rink 

Picnic Island 

Warming house, parking 

lot and trail access 

Exisng warming 

house to remain 

Public park 

Proposed parking lot 

Picnic nodes 

Shade trees 


Fishing nodes 

River trail 

Open lawn/Ice 

Pedestrian bridge 

River trail 

Habitat houses 


MILL POND IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE SHEBOYGAN COUNTY, WI 

Mullet River Planning 

July 22, 2015 


17

Chapter 2 Mill Pond 

Chapter 2 

2.5 D A - C E 

As part of the planning project MSA developed cost 

esmates for each alternave. These are planning 

level cost esmates. These esmates would be 

updated during final design of any project approved to 

move forward by the City Council. 

P/D I C 

The January 2008 Comprehensive Management Plan 

prepared by Earth Tech included costs esmates for 

a number of water quality improvement alternaves 

(refer to Table 2.1). At the me the report was 

completed, Earth Tech esmated that the cost to dredge 

the enre 180,000 cubic yards of so sediment in the 

Mill Pond by hydraulic methods was esmated to be 

between $3.5 and $5.2 million not including disposal 

costs, which was esmated to be as much as $3.2 to 

$5.4 million, for a total cost of $6.7 to $10.6 million. 

This planning process did not include updang field 

measurements collected for the 2008 study. However, 

in MSA’s opinion if the dredging spoils did not have to 

be land filled but instead could be spread on nearby 

undeveloped land (i.e. reduced disposal costs) the 

esmated costs for dredging, on a conceptual level, 

could be reduced by as much as perhaps $2 million 

depending on the idenficaon of a suitable locaon 

for disposal and its proximity to Mill Pond (i.e. reduced 

transit costs). Due to the lack of public land around 

the pond the cost esmates from the 2008 report 

assumed that hydraulic dredging would be necessary 

as opposed to mechanical dredging. 

These cost esmates in Table 2.1 do not include the 

cost to improve the dam to meet NR 333 compliance 

standards. MSA esmates that the costs to complete 

the dam repairs and increase the spillway capacity 

could be several hundred thousand dollars and would 

likely impact Anton Park and Veterans Memorial Trail. 

This planning process did not include developing cost 

esmates or concept illustraons for the dam repair 

and spillway capacity improvements. 

The cost esmates in Table 2.1 also do not include 

potenal land acquision and park development 

costs to acquire and develop a “Mill Pond Park.” The 

costs esmates also do not include addional longterm 

maintenance costs to maintain the dam or other 

future dredging projects as may be necessary. 

P/D R I C 

Table 2.2 provides a detailed summary of the cost 

esmates to remove the dam and improve the pond 

area into a passive public park. Cost esmates were 

provided for the following site features: 

• Bio-retenon facilies. There are eight storm 

sewer oualls that drain into Mill Pond. These 

oualls would need to be addressed if the pond 

were removed. MSA has envisioned construcon 

of a series of bio-retenon facilies that would aid 

in treang the stormwater runoff prior to entering 

the Mullet River. 

• Plants. Most of the area would be restored with 

low maintenance restoraon seeding. 

• Site Furnishings. The cost esmates include 

installaon of a number of picnic tables, benches, 

and educaonal signage along the trails. Some 

tensile shade structures are also envisioned. 

These have the ability to be placed within 

floodplain areas. 

• Miscellaneous. Includes a prefabricated 

pedestrian bridge near the exisng dam, habitat 

and fishing habitat areas. 

• Concrete. Includes public park plaza and walkways 

(decorave pao). Assumed for acquision Site 

4-6. 

Example tensile shade structure 


T 2.2 P/D R I C C E 

Chapter 2 

DAM REMOVAL ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATE 

ESTIMATED 

ITEM 

DESCRIPTION 

QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

Bio-retention outfalls 8 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 32,000.00 

PLANTS 

Shade Trees 32 EA $ 600.00 $ 19,200.00 

Ornamental Trees 42 EA $ 350.00 $ 14,700.00 

Evergreen Trees 10 EA $ 300.00 $ 3,000.00 

Shrubs 50 EA $ 50.00 $ 2,500.00 

Perennials 100 EA $ 15.00 $ 1,500.00 

Restoration seeding 30 AC $ 1,250.00 $ 37,500.00 

Shoreline stabilization/erosion control matting 

26,000 SY $ 2.50 $ 65,000.00 

Mulch 110 CY $ 45.00 $ 4,950.00 

SITE FURNISHINGS 

Picnic table 10 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 15,000.00 

Bench 20 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00 

Tensile shade structure 5 EA $ 25,000.00 $ 125,000.00 

Education signage 10 EA $ 250.00 $ 2,500.00 

MISCELANEOUS 

Pedestrian Bridge 75 LF $ 1,500.00 $ 112,500.00 

Habitat Houses/Nest Boxes 20 EA $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 

Fishing Habitat Areas 5 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 12,500.00 

CONCRETE 

Public Park Plaza and walks (Decorative patio) 10,000 SF $ 25.00 $ 250,000.00 

TRAILS* 

Trails (8' wide asphalt) 10,400 LF $ 23.50 $ 244,400.00 

Trails (8' wide limestone) 2,500 LF $ 12.25 $ 30,625.00 

EARTHWORK 

Land Shaping 40,000 CY $ 6.00 $ 240,000.00 

DAM REMOVAL 

1 EA $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 

Subtotal $ 1,313,875.00 

Contingency (20%) $ 262,775.00 

TOTAL $ 1,576,650.00 

• Trails. Includes both eight-foot wide asphalt and 

limestone trails. The asphalt poron includes 

those segments of the Plymouth River Trail. 

• Earthwork. Includes land shaping along the final 

river bank. 

The total esmated costs, including a 20% conngency, 

is approximately $1.6 million. This includes an 

esmated $80,000 to remove the dam as reported in 

the January 2008 Comprehensive Management Plan. 

The cost esmates do not include land acquision 

expenditures to purchase addional public property 

along the river. In addion, the cost esmates 

do not include potenal land acquision costs for 

the land area currently occupied by the pond bed 

which may revert to private ownership if the dam 

were removed. Refer to Secon 2.6 for addional 

details. Long-term maintainence costs for the area 

are also not included; however, the intent of the 

park design is to choose planngs and furishings 

that require minimal annual maintenance. 


19

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

2.6 P P I 

Having addressed in concept how the area currently 

occupied by the pond could be used if the dam were 

removed the MRCSC wanted to explore two issues 

related to potenal property impacts. The first is what 

effect, if any, there would be on adjacent property 

assessment values if the dam is removed. The second, 

who retains ownership of the land from the current 

high water mark of the pond to the high water mark of 

the river once the dam is removed. 

P A I 

In 2006, Professor Bill Provencher from the 

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics 

from the University of Wisconsin and Helen Sarakinos 

from the River Alliance of Wisconsin completed a study 

tled Does Small Dam Removal Affect Local Property 

Values? An Empirical Analysis. The properes that 

were analyzed in the report were all located in the 

same general area, south-central Wisconsin, to help 

control the number of variables which affect property 

value. Three categories of sites were examined in the 

paper: sites with an intact dam, sites where a dam was 

recently removed and sites where a stream had been 

free-flowing for at least 20 years. 

The study examined a number of dam removal projects 

including: 

• Woolen Mills Dam, West Bend, WI 

• LaValle Dam, LaValle, WI 

• Waterworks Dam, Baraboo, WI 

• North Avenue Dam, Milwaukee, WI 

• Willow Am, Willow Falls State Park, Hudson, WI 

Many of these dams had similar characteriscs 

as Plymouth Dam (i.e. built in the mid-1800s, 

impoundments of 40-100 acres, etc.). 

The study concluded that shoreline properes along 

small dams do not have higher property values than 

shoreline properes along free-flowing streams. 

Sarakinos clarified the report’s findings in a 2014 

interview (hp://www.waupaca.com/Content/News/ 

Waupaca-News/Article/Economic-impact-of-dams-removal/7/16/23551) 

stang that dam removal 

typically does not affect property value so long as the 

property retains its stream frontage. A loss of property 

value could occur if water recedes and the newly 

exposed land does not legally belong to the adjacent 

property owner. Moreover, property near a free 

flowing stream can be more valuable than property 

near a small dam. This increase in value occurs because 

as the impoundment is converted to a free-flowing 

state, the adjacent riparian zone also converts back to 

its natural state. The study points out that new open 

space adjacent to the stream oen increases property 

value, parcularly if the open space is used for nature 

preservaon or “passive recreaon” acvies like 

hiking and bird-watching. 

In addion to the review of relevant prior research, 

MSA also completed a cursory comparison analysis 

of property assessment values between properes 

located along Mill Pond with those properes 

located along Meyer Park, were a prior dam was 

removed from the Mullet River. The properes were 

compared based on land value and land value per 

square feet. Improvement values were not including 

in this evaluaon since they can vary greatly from 

one property to another based on condions of the 

structure(s). 

The following provides a comparison of property values 

of similar properes under similar circumstances 

along stretches of the Mullet River in Plymouth. 

Methodology: 

• Single family residenal riverfront parcels on the 

Mullet River were exacted from parcel data along 

both sides of Mill Pond and southern porons of 

the Mullet River adjacent to Meyer Nature Park. 

• Parcels were grouped based on shape area, under 

10,000, 10,001-15,000, 15,001-20,000, 20,001- 

25,000. 25,001-30,000, 30,001-40,000 and above 

40,001 and then evaluated on their land value per 

square foot. One to one comparisons were not 

feasible due to the variaon in parcel sizes. 


Chapter 2 

F 2.4 M P M P L V A S 

Mullet River Properties: Land Value Per Square Foot Calculations by Range 

Average 

(Mill 

Pond) 

Average 

(Mullet 

South) 

Max 

(Mullet 

South) 

Median 

(Mill 

Pond) 

Median 

(Mullet 

South) 

Min 

(Mullet 

South) 

Number 

of 

parcels 

Mullet 

river 

south 

parcels 

Square Foot Average 

Max (Mill 

Median 

Min (Mill 

Range (All) 

Max (All) Pond) 

(All) 

Min (All) Pond) 

under 10,000 $2.79 $2.70 $2.83 $2.97 $2.88 $2.97 $2.82 $2.76 $2.85 $2.52 $2.52 $2.24 12 8 4 

10,001-15,000 $2.45 $2.49 $2.28 $2.77 $2.77 $2.34 $2.47 $2.49 $2.30 $1.75 $1.75 $2.20 27 5 22 

15,001-20,000 $2.08 $2.12 $2.04 $2.77 $2.77 $2.11 $2.04 $2.12 $2.03 $1.67 $1.67 $1.99 13 7 6 

20,001-25,000 $1.81 $1.84 $1.73 $1.89 $1.89 $1.88 $1.84 $1.85 $1.73 $1.59 $1.78 $1.59 11 8 3 

25,001-30,000 $1.55 $1.55 $1.55 $1.67 $1.67 $1.55 $1.55 $1.54 $1.55 $1.34 $1.34 $1.55 8 1 7 

30,001-40,000 $1.31 $1.31 n/a $1.47 $1.47 n/a $1.26 $1.26 n/a $1.21 $1.21 n/a 9 0 9 

40,001 and over $0.88 $0.88 n/a $1.11 $1.11 n/a $0.86 $0.86 n/a $0.67 $0.67 n/a 6 0 6 

Mill 

pond 

parcels 

$3.00 

$2.50 

$2.00 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Average Land Value per sq. ft. comparison 

$3.00 

$2.50 

$2.00 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Median Land Value per sq. ft. comparison 

Average (All) Average (Mill Pond) Average (Mullet South) 

Median (All) Median (Mill Pond) Median (Mullet South) 

$3.50 

$3.00 

$2.50 

$2.00 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Max Land Value per sq. ft. comparison 

$3.00 

$2.50 

$2.00 

$1.50 

$1.00 

$0.50 

$0.00 

Min Land Value per sq. ft. comparison 

Max (All) Max (Mill Pond) Max (Mullet South) 

Min (All) Min (Mill Pond) Min (Mullet South) 

Study Results: 

Figure 2.4 provides a summary of the results of the land 

value assessment comparisons between residenal 

properes along Mill Pond and those found further 

down stream where a prior dam was located. 

Land values per square foot for properes along Mill 

Pond appear to be higher than further south along the 

poron of the river where the dam has been removed 

previously. Overall the land assessment value of 

residenal parcels adjacent to Mill Pond was between 

8 and 28 cents more per square foot than property 

located along the southern poron of the Mullet 

River. However, there was an excepon, for properes 

under 10,000 square feet the average land values of 

properes south along the Mullet River are 13 cents 

more than the Mill Pond Average of $2.70 square foot. 

There are a variety of factors that were not considered 

in this comparison that may impact the value of land. 

The results of this analysis should not be construed 

to indicate that if the dam were removed assessment 

values for residenal properes around the pond 

would correspondingly lower. The sample size for 


21

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

this analysis presents limitaons to the analysis. The 

conclusions from the Provencher and Sarakinos study 

should be considered first. 

R L O R 

The other major queson regarding property impacts 

concerns property ownership in the event of dam 

removal. Given the longevity of the Plymouth Dam, 

coupled with the number of properes implicated 

by the dam’s removal, the property ownership and 

boundary issues are complicated. To address this 

issue the City directed their aorney to review the 

issue, research a sample of deeds, and provide a 

summary memorandum. The memorandums dated 

July 8, 2015 and August 21, 2015 are on file with the 

City Administrator. The following is a summary of 

these memorandums. 

In general, riparian land adjoins a lake or stream, and 

the boundary of the riparian land depends on both 

the type of waterbody to which it is adjacent and the 

language on the deed granng tle. The Mullet River 

would be considered a “natural stream” because it is a 

watercourse which has a direcon of flow or current, a 

defined bed and bank, and a regular flow of water. For 

natural streams, the riparian owner owns the bed to 

the geographic center of the stream, unless limited by 

deed. Mayer v. Grueber, 29 Wis. 2d 168, 138 N.W. 2d 

197 (1965). Natural streams that have been dammed 

retain the same rules of streambed ownership as 

other natural streams. Thus, damming the stream 

does not convert the bed from a streambed to a lake 

bed. Private ownership of the streambed is retained, 

unless limited by the deed of the riparian property. 

If the dam is removed, a riparian property with a deed 

descripon that extends to the OHWM (Ordinary High 

Water Mark) would very likely have ownership rights 

to the land that was previously part of the Mill Pond 

streambed. However, if the tle to the property does 

not extend to the OHWM, riparian rights may belong 

to the adjoining parcel or the parcel from which the 

riparian property was created. To determine whether 

riparian rights exist for a parcular parcel, the City 

would need to conduct an extensive review of the 

property’s tle for each parcel along the Mill Pond. 

The common law doctrine of “relicon” also supports 

the posion that any poron of the riverbed returning 

to dry land would become the property of the 

adjoining riparian owner if the legal descripon of the 

property is described to the edge of the waterbody. 

Relicon is the process whereby land is created when 

water permanently recedes or withdraws from a lake 

or river. Heise v. Village of Pewaukee, 92 Wis. 2d 333, 

336 (1977). 

The City Aorney concluded that the City, as owner 

of the dam, will not be entled to all lands currently 

used for Mill Pond purposes if the City removed the 

dam. Any lands covered by the 1949 deed that gave 

the City ownership of the dam that become exposed 

as a result of dam removal will remain the land of 

the City. In addion, any lands that become exposed 

to the north of the parcel that can be traced back to 

the City parcel will become land of the City. The City 

Aorney also concluded that the 1848 deeds grant an 

easement to benefit the City parcel for use as a Mill 

Pond and for water flowage; however, the 1848 deeds 

do not intend to grant fee simple ownership rights to 

the owner of the dam for lands covered by the Mill 

Pond. 

Addional research is required to determine with any 

specificity which parcels would acquire lands exposed 

through dam removal. The cost of this addional 

research is unknown and therefore was not included 

in the cost esmates for the dam removal concept 

shown in Table 2.2. Likewise the cost to acquire 

any property currently occupied by the pond that 

may become private property aer deed research 

is completed is unknown and not shown in the cost 

esmates in Table 2.2. This could add substanally 

to the cost of this alternave. However, it should be 

noted that the City is not obligated to keep the dam 

and therefore Mill Pond. If the City were to remove 

the dam it may have an obligaon to address land 

ownership issues but is not obligated to purchase the 

property occupied by the pond for construcon of the 

public park envisioned in this plan. Therefore, those 

landowners who retain ownership of the land were the 

pond is located would have to maintain this property 

and pay addional property taxes for any addional 


Chapter 2 

lands they receive. Through the planning process the 

MRCSC discussed how the City would be beer suited 

to develop and maintain this property as a unified 

park as opposed to a consorum of land owners. In 

addion, given the land is in a floodplain it would not 

have any developable value for the property owners 

and could be a nuisance to maintain. Therefore, it 

may be possible to acquire the properes at a reduced 

or no cost in exchange for the City compleng public 

improvements to create a park such as the one 

envisioned in this planning project. 

2.7 PIM C 

A public involvement meeng was held during 

the planning process to inform cizens about the 

project objecves and to collect input and feedback 

regarding dra design concepts. Approximately 50 

people aended the public involvement meeng. 

The majority were property owners along Mill 

Pond. Aer a presentaon by MSA aendees were 

provided an opportunity to ask quesons and submit 

comment forms for each design concept. Twelve of 

the aendees submied wrien comments. Copies 

of these forms are on file with the City Administrator. 

The majority of those who aended the meeng were 

in favor of repairing the dam and dredging the pond. 

A couple of the wrien responses favored removal of 

the dam. The majority of wrien responses can be 

grouped as follows: 

• Quesons or concerns regarding the long-term 

costs of maintaining the proposed park space. 

• Whether it would be possible to keep a reduced 

Mill Pond in some fashion while providing the bike 

paths. 

• Quesons regarding who would own the land 

occupied by the pond if the dam were removed. 

2.8 G F O 

There are a few potenal grant funding programs that 

could assist with the improvement projects discussed 

in this study. 

The WDNR Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant 

program provides 50% matching funds for both the 

acquision and development of nature based outdoor 

park and recreaon facilies. This program could be 

used to help off-set costs related to the development 

of “Mullet River Park”, including recreaonal trail 

development. Several state and federal acquision 

and development programs fall under the same local 

assistance stewardship grant program, including the 

federal Recreaonal Trails Grant Program. Applicaons 

are accepted annually on May 1. 

The WDNR’s Dam Municipal Grant Program provides 

a cost-sharing opportunity to municipalies and lake 

districts to improve the safety of a dam through 

eligible projects including dam maintenance, 

repair, modificaon, or abandonment and removal. 

Applicaons are due in January 21, 2016 for 2013- 

2015 biennial budget funds. The programs covers 

50% of the first $400,000 of eligible project costs and 

25% of the next $800,000 of eligible project costs. 

The program will cover 100% of the first $400,000 of 

eligible project costs for dam removal projects. 

The WDNR also has a Dam Removal Grant Program 

which provides reimbursement for 100% of eligible 

project costs up to a maximum of $50,000 to remove 

a dam. Applicaons are accepted on a connual basis 

and funded on a first come first served basis unl all 

biennial budgeted funds are obligated. 

The WDNR also offers a Surface Water Grant Program, 

including lake management planning, lake protecon 

& classificaon, river protecon, river planning and 

aquac invasive species control. Grant deadlines and 

eligible acvies vary by type of sub-program. These 

programs generally fund planning and engineering 

studies and implementaon of best management 

pracces to improve water quality. However, 

dredging acvies do not appear to be an eligible 

cost. Addional informaon these programs can be 

found at: hp://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/Grants.html 


23

Chapter 2 

Mill Pond 

2.8 S S C 

Phase I, studied Mill Pond, a 41-acre impoundment 

of the Mullet River, to evaluate and present two 

alternaves for the future of the pond. The City is 

considering whether it should proceed with removal 

of the dam and pond or improvements to the dam 

and removal of the sediment in some way to improve 

the pond. Each opon will have social, aesthec, 

environmental, and economic impacts. The purpose 

of this phase of the project was to evaluate the 

impacts and facilitate discussion about pond/dam 

improvement versus dam removal. The evaluaon 

compared these two basic alternaves in terms of 

esmated costs, impact on surrounding properes and 

the community, opportunies for public recreaon, 

and aesthec outcomes. The report does not include 

a recommendaon regarding a parcular course of 

acon regarding the queson of whether to remove the 

dam or proceed with dam improvement and sediment 

removal to maintain the pond. The purpose of the 

study and report is to describe the social, aesthec, 

environmental, and economic impacts of proceeding 

with these two opons, including developing concept 

plans and illustraons for each opon, to aid future 

decisions by the City Council. 

This planning project did not include developing 

cost esmates for the spillway capacity 

improvements or illustraons to document 

the possible impacts to Anton Park. The City 

should consider proceeding with this addional 

study to gain a beer understanding of these 

potenal costs and impacts. In addion, the City 

could consider addional sediment sampling to 

determine updated cost esmates for dredging 

the pond under Chapter NR 347. It would also be 

beneficial to complete research of all deeds for 

properes surrounding the pond to determine 

riparian land ownership configuraons if the dam 

was removed. 

The July 23 2015 Technical Report included a revised 

dam failure analysis which assigned a “low hazard” 

rang to the dam due to the 100 year dam failure 

shadow and the 100 year no dam shadow being the 

same. The WDNR confirmed the low hazard rang. 

The “Low Hazard” rang requires the primary spillway 

to effecvely pass the 10 year flow and the secondary 

spillway to effecvely pass the 100 year flow. The 

exisng dam does not conform to NR 333.07. A 

new or rehabilitated dam will not conform to the 

requirements due to the short length of the dam and 

elevaon constraints. The WDNR may approve a lessor 

spillway capacity in accordance with NR 333.07. The 

WDNR has directed that the dam spillway capacity 

must be brought into compliance within 10 years, 

or by July 7, 2025. This essenally sets the meline 

within which the City Council must decide whether to 

proceed with repair of the dam and spillway capacity 

improvements or removal of the dam. 


D AVE 

ß 

CHAPTER 3 

s 

DR 

PLYMOUTH RIVER TRAIL 

The following chapter summarizes the poron of 

the planning study related to Plymouth River Trail, 

specifically: 

• A summary of the Plymouth River Trail 

• A review of exisng bicycle and pedestrian plans 

and studies within Plymouth. 

• Map exisng bicycle routes & signage, idenfy key 

community desnaons 

• Map future trail and signage improvements 

• Develop cost esmates for short and long term 

improvement projects 


pedestrian bridges across the Mullet River 

• A summary of public input provided at the August 

19th, 2015 public involvement meeng 


opportunies 

3.1 P R T 

Plymouth River Trail (PRT) is a City designated bicycle 

route that connects to the Old Plank Road Trail, which 

parallels STH 23, a road originally built out of wooden 

planks in the 1800s, from the western edge of 

Sheboygan to the Village of Greenbush. The trail was 

one of the first in the country constructed in the same 

right-of-way as a divided 4-lane highway. In Plymouth, 

there is a trailhead at the intersecon of STH 57 and 

CTH C. 

The Plymouth River Trail connects to the Old Plank 

Road Trail in two locaons, at Sunset Dr. (west of the 

Mullet River) and Fairview Dr./CTH O (east of the Mullet 

River). The two segments unite at the Plymouth Youth 

Center and connue south through the community 

to Meyer Park where the trail terminates at STH 

67/CTH E. The trail consists of a mix of on- and offroad 

segments. The City has branded the trail with 

a signature logo. These signs dot the trail at various 

locaons (refer to Figure 3.3, page 27) 

3.2 E B P P 

MSA reviewed a number of exisng local and regional 

plans as they relate to bicycle and pedestrian planning 

within Plymouth including: 

• 2009 Plymouth Outdoor Recreaon Plan 

• 2011 Plymouth Comprehensive Plan 

• Plymouth Recreaon Trail Map 

• 2007 Sheboygan County Pedestrian & Bicycle 

Comprehensive Plan 

• 2007 Sheboygan County Outdoor Recreaon and 

Open Space Plan 

• 2008 Sheboygan County Comprehensive Plan 

• Sheboygan County Bike Map 

Both the Plymouth Recreaon Trail Map and the 

Sheboygan County Bike Map are available on each 

community’s web site to promote and orient bike/ 

ped users. These maps are displayed on the following 

pages. Copies of the other reports are on file with the 

City Administrator. 


¡© 

¡© 

GR 

! 

IA 

# # # # 

¡© 

IA 

E 

¡© ¡© ¡© 

DR 

# ### # 

DR 

RD. 

¡© 

¡© 

Chapter 3 


F 3.1 E P R T M 

QUIT QU OC 

ATHLETIC 

CENTER 

¡© ¡© ¡©¡© 

SUPERIOR AVE 

¡© ¡© 

¡© ¡© 

¡© ¡© ¡© 

PLANK TRAIL 

STREET ROUTE 

¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ######### 

CITY PAVED TRAIL 

!!!!!!!!!! 

COUNTY 

HIGHWAY 'O' 

¡© ¡© 

! ! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

AIRPARK 

RD 

STATE HIGHWAY '23' 

BRIAN ST. 

JOHNSON 

ST. 

DALE 

SUHRKE 

CHAPLIN 

KARASAN 

CT. 

4 

HARVEY 

WOODLAND 

DR. 

PARKVIEW DR. 

IA 

!O ÆI 

FREMONT 

FRANKLIN 

SUMMIT 

RD 

SOUTH 

WILSON 

RD 

CT 

OAK 

DR 

!O 

IA 

ST 

MAPLE 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

ST 

PL 

PARK 

RIDGE DR 

ASH 

DR 

RUSTIC 

LOEBE DR. 

SUNSET 

KIM CT. 

ST 

RD 

SCHWARTZ 

ST 

PARK 

AVE 

HILLS 

CIR 

ST 

KRUMERY 

FOND DULAC AVE 

PARK PL 

CITY PARK 

IA 

ÆI !O I* 

FACTORY 

ST. 

TERRACE 

CT 

MORNING DR. 

ST 

ST 

PLYMOUTH 

# # 

BEECH 

ST 

OBSERVATORY 

CIR 

! 

! ! ! ! 

! ! ! ! 

ST 

PLEASANT 

FREDERICK 

VIEW 

DALE 

ÆI !O 

IA 

DR 

GROVE 

DR 

KRUMBREY 

FACTORY 

ST 

4 

! ! ! ! ! ! 

BEECH 

CT. 

DR 

VICTOR 

ST 

# ## # # # # 

WILLOWBROOK 

PROSPECT 

RIVERBEND DR. 

! ! 

MIDDLE ST. 

SPRING ST 

CLIFFORD 

ST. 

DR 

ST 

ST 

CT 

! ! 

ST 

MAIN 

MILWAUKEE 

EASTMAN 

##### 

STATE 

ST 

ST 

ELIZABETH 

CAROLINE 

! ! 

RIVERBEND 

! ! 

# # # 

¡© ¡© ¡© 

EDNA 

FOREST 

MARSHNER 

ST 

BRAUN 

DRIVE 

STATE HIGHWAY '67' 

ORCHARD 

LN 

MILL 

ST 

AVE 

PONY 

LN. 

SOUTH 

BILGOS 

ST 

SMITH 

ST 

! ! 

ñ 

+ 

I* 

4 

THAYER ST 

DR 

ANN CT. 

EVERGREEN 

! 

4 

! ! ! 

DEPOT RD 

ST 

APPLETON 

ANN 

! ! ! 

ST 

STAFFORD 

! 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # 

! 

ST 

# # # # 

! 

### 

CLIFFORD 

BETH 

ST 

AVE 

ST 

ST 

DIVISION 

COLLINS 

EGAN 

# # # # # 

DRIVE 

ST 

HILL ST 

COLD 

STORAGE 

ST. 

RIVER 

EVERGREEN 

CT. 

RIVERVIEW 

# # 

! ! ! ! 

# # 

# # ## # # # 

DR 

EDNA 

ST. 

NORTH 

HIGH ST. 

# # 

CIR 

# # # 

# 

### 

BLVD 

COUNTY 

ST 

ST 

ST 

AVE 

MEAD 

McCOLM 

BYRON 

ST 

MEADOW LN 

IA 

I* !O ÆI 

!O 

HUSON 

CT. 

!O 

DR. 

JENNIE 

TORKE TERRACE 

# # 

! ! 

## 

REED 

KARIN 

CIR. 

# # 

! ! 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # 

¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© 

FAIRVIEW 

## # # # # # # # ## # # # 

SHORTCUT 

DR 

CLARK 

ST 

ST 

CARPENTER 

ST 

RD 

FAIRVIEW 

ALFRED ST 

HOME 

AVE 

I- 

MILL 

POND 

CT 

STREET 

SOUTH 

CTH 'OJ' 

DREIFUERST 

CT 

LOLIE 

DRIVE 

CLIFFORD 

CHT 'O' 

RAVEN 

DAVENPORT 

!O ÆI 

VALLEY 

CT. 

RD. 

DOOLEY RD 

ANTON RD 

KENSINGTON 

BONNIE 

EASTERN 

SELMA ST 

ST 

ÆI !O 

I* IA 

HIGHWAY 

RD 

AVE 

HEIN 

COMMERCE 

ST 

MOCKINGBIRD 

RD 

TRIENENS 

AVE 

BISHOP 

CT 

MULBERRY 

DOUGLAS 

DEWEY LN 

BRUNS BRUNS AVE 

ROBERTS 

# # # # # # # # # 

WINDSONG 

CIR. 

ST 

LANE 

SAMUEL 

CIR 

RD 

SALEM DR. 

AVE 

AVE 

BITTERSWEET 

`PP' 

PL 

HIGHWAY `E' 

HILLTOP LN 

AVE 

HUMMINGBIRD 

ORILE LN 

!O 

4 

I* 

KILLDEER LN 

CT 

COUNTY 

ADRIAN 

LN CT. 

LANE 

'E' 

COUNTYHIGHWAY 

I* 

!O 

I- 

ÆI 

IA 

4 

HIGHLAND AVENUE 

! ! ! ! ! 

INDIAN GRASS CT. 

RD 

4 

4 

LARKSPUR 

TALLGRASS LANE 

JUNE GRASS CT. 

TOLIETS 

PARK 

INFORMATION 

PICNIC AREA 

PARKING 

SCHOOL 

CATTAIL CT. 

PRAIRIE 

DAY LILY 

CT 

¡© ¡© ¡©¡© ¡© 

DOUGLAS DR 

PLAZA LANE 

TRAVIS CT 

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 

# ## # # 

###### 

VALLEY ROAD 

!!!!!!!!!!! 

Ī 

RD 

OLLIE 

RYAN AVE 

POCH AVE 

KENSINGTON AVE 

!O I* IA !O 

BUTTERCUP 

SONGBIRD CT 

LN. 

DR. 

LINWOOD LN 

BROOKSIDE LN 

FAIRFIELD LN 

¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© 

PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 

PLEASANT VIEW ROAD 

KILEY 

PICKETT ST 

BABCOCK 

HAZEN ST 

ST 

CARR ROAD 

COUNTY HIGHWAY 'PP' 

COLUMBIADR 

PILGRIM ROAD 

¡© ¡© ¡© 

RECREATION TRAIL MAP 

WAY 

LINDOERFER ROAD 

DRIVE 

WALTON 

¡© ¡© 

¡© 

¡© ¡© 

STATE HIGHWAY 57 

¡© 

¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© ¡© 

¡© 

¡© ¡© 

ÆI 

¡© ¡© 

TRAIL HEAD 

IA I* 

¡© ¡© 

¡© 

F 3.2 S C B M (P ) 

Sunset Dr 

Quit Qui Oc 

Athletic 

") C Complex 

Old Plank Road Trail 

Suhrke Rd 

Est. 2014 

®v 

County 

Fairgrounds 

Nutt Hill 

Historic Downtown, shopping, 

Park 

museum, & Arts Center 

Plymouth Trailhead 

Eastern Ave 

") C 

") PP 

") Z 

H.M. Meyer 

Nature Park 

Milwaukee St 

M u l l e 

Riverbend 

Dr 

t 

R 

^ 

0 0.5 1 

Miles 

i v e r 

Clifford St 

") OJ 

Fairview Dr 

South St 

Highland Ave 

") E 

High 

School 

Valley Rd 

Pleasant View Rd 

Est. 2014 

City of Plymouth 

") O 

!B 

£¤ 57 

3.3 S K I 

The following is a summary of the key 

issues addressed during this phase of the 

study: 

• Incorrect/Out-Dated Mapping. Both 

the City and County exisng bicycle 

maps are out of date and do not 

illustrate accurately the bicycle 

routes, route types, and signage in 

Plymouth. As part of the planning 

process MSA completed a field 

inventory of these exisng features 

which are illustrated in Figure 3.3. 

• Compleng the Plymouth River Trail. 

The Plymouth River Trail currently 

ends abruptly at STH 67 and misses 

several opportunies to link to local 

and regional desnaons such as 

exisng residenal neighborhoods 

and exisng regional bicycle routes. 


CHAPLIN CT 

PLEASANT VIEW RD 

BISHOP AVE 

N HIGHLAND AVE 

PLAZA LN 

DIVISION ST 


MAPLE DR 

E MILL ST 

EASTERN AVE 

DEWEY LN 

REED ST 

S HIGHLAND AVE 

Chapter 3 

F 3.3. E P B T, R, S 

3100 

3500 

!" TH 

EXISTING BICYCLE 

FEATURES 

LEGEND 

Parcels 

Parks 

School Property 

City Property 

County Property 

State Property 

Waterbody 

Existing Bicycle Routes 


City Paved Trail 

City Unpaved Trail 

Street Route (marked pavement and signed bike lane) 

Street Route (unmarked pavement and signed shared lane) 

Street Route (unmarked and unsigned) 

Plymouth River Trail Designated Route 

Existing Bicycle Signs 

ä 1 F 

Bicycle May Use Full Lane 

ä e B 

Bike Lane 

à Plymouth River Trail 

!" 

TH Old Plank Road Trailhead 

Annual average daily traffic counts (2011 and 2014) 

DATA SOURCES: 


ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COUNTS PROVIDED BY WISDOT. 



E 

Feet 

0 375 750 1,500 

Print Date: 11/2/2015 

RIVERVIEW RD 

ß OJ 

¾% 

!( 57 

1 5800 

700 1600 

¾% 23 190 

ß O 

470 

15900 

16000 

640 

12100 

520 

2300 

¾% 67 

16100 

ß E 2400 

4900 

à 

¾% 23 

1900 

à 

!( 3 

Riverview 

4900 

M.S. 

County 

!( 2 GROVE ST 

Fairgrounds 

àà !( 4 

13400 

ß C 900 

!( 5 1600 

4900 

12700 

3600 1000 

2400 

!( 6 2900 2400 

!( 

à à 

12 

2700 

àà !( 18 1200 690 

ä e 3000 

3700 

B 

5900 

880 

4700 5000 

5600 

!( 10 

!( 

ß !( à à 

11 

à 

Z 

800 

1500 

11900 

11700 

12500 

11000 

ß 7 

à !( C 

1100 

8 1500 

1700 

!(9 

1200 

à 

2100 

3700 Plymouth 

4700 

H.S. 

910 

¾% 67 2200 

4200 

!( 13 ß !( O 15 Horizon S. 

4000 

ä e B 

750 

1000 

ß E !( 16 !( 17 

!( 14 2100 

1100 

4900 

ß PP 5200 

5600 

10700 

8600 

KRUMREY ST 

WILSON 

SUNSET DR 

ST 

Mu llet River 

SUHRKE RD 

LAACK 

KILEY 

RIVERVIEW DR 

ST 

Parkview 

S. 

WALTON DR 

W AY 

ä eB 

NORTH ST 

FOREST AVE 

M 


WESTERN AVE 

CARR RD 

ill Pond 

ELIZABETH ST 

W MAIN ST 

E MAIN ST 

ä e B 

ä e B 

ä 1 F 

N PARK 

ä e B 

ä e B 

ä 1 F 

ST 

LN 

ä e B 

COLLINS 

MEA DOW RIDGE 

AVE 

HEIN AVE 

SOUTH ST 

MEAD AVE 

ST 

PICKETT ST 

S BRUNS 

E CLIFFORD ST 

10800 

APPLETON 

DR 

W RIVERB EN D 

VALLEY RD 

TALLGRASS LN 

M u ll e t River 

IRD LN 

MOCKINGB 

BETH CIR 

O AK RIDGE DR 

SHILLS DR 

PILGRIM RD 

RD 

PRAIRIE 

BEECH DR 

SHORT CUT RD 

Num. Park Name Num. Park Name 

1 Quit Qui Oc Athletic Complex 10 Veterans Park 

2 Loebe Field 11 Anton Park 

M ullet River 

BLUEBERRY LN 

3 City Park and Aquatic Center 12 Evergreen Golf Course 

HILL AND DALE RD 

4 Youth Center 13 Meyer Park 

5 Nutt Hill Park 14 South River Park 

6 Roosevelt Park 15 Rotary Park 

7 Utility Park 16 Lions Park 

8 Stayer Park 17 Lone Oak Park 

9 Huson Park 18 Warming House 

Printed By: abremer, File: P:\4000s\4040s\4047\04047004\GIS\4047004_ExistingBicycleFeatures.mxd 


27

Chapter 3 


• Increase User Safety and Wayfinding. The current 

Plymouth River Trail uses a system of on- and offstreet 

trails. The City desires to increase user safety 

and trail enjoyment by gradually transioning the 

trail to a completely off-street facility. In addion, 

exisng trail signage and wayfinding needs to be 

addressed to aid user navigaon. 

3.4 P R T I 

Figures 3.4 and 3.5 illustrates proposed improvements 

to the Plymouth River Trail to address the key 

issues summarized in the previous secon. Trail 

enhancement projects are grouped into short- and 

long-term improvement projects. Short-term is 

generally defined as within the next five years, 

with long-term beyond year 2020. Improvements 

including signage, wayfinding, intersecon markings, 

bridges, and trail roung. These improvements were 

developed by MSA and refined by the MRCSC. 

S-T I 

In general, short-term improvement projects maintain 

the Plymouth River Trail on its current alignment. 

Proposed improvements focus on installing roung 

signage and intersecon markings where there are 

exisng deficiencies and compleng small segments 

of new off-street trail segments mostly in those 

locaons where the City already owns right-of-way or 

easements. The following summarizes those proposed 

short-term improvements shown in Figure 3.4. 

A. Intersecon signage and pavement markings. 

The exisng trail currently crosses STH 67 at 

two busy intersecons (Suhrke Rd. and Mill. St.). 

Both locaons require bicyclists to stop at STH 

67; however, neither locaon requires oncoming 

traffic to stop. In addion, there are no intersecon 

markings or pre-warning signs alerng motorists 

that bicyclists cross at these locaons and there 

are no PRT signs direcng bicyclists in which 

direcon to proceed. Addional locaons for new 

PRT signs are shown on the map. 

B. Off-Street Trail Segment. These improvements 

include two short segments of paved trail 

where gaps currently exist in the off-street trail 

network. The first is on Suhrke Rd. from Sunset 

Dr. to Krumrey St. There is an exisng off-street 

trail from STH 67 to Krumrey St. along the south 

side of the road adjacent to City Park and the 

Plymouth Aquac Center. From Krumrey St. to 

Sunset Dr. the PRT connues on-street. However, 

the south side of the road contains an exisng 

sidewalk which could be transioned into a wider 

mul-use path. The other locaon is between 

CTH O and Torke Terrace. In this locaon the PRT 

follows a dirt two track road to get bicyclists off 

of CTH O and onto the quieter Torke Terrace. This 

small secon should be paved to facilitate saver 

condions for bicyclists, parcularly since many 

bicyclists may be on road bicycles with res not 

designed for the exisng rough trail condions. 

C. Off-Street Trail Segment & Pedestrian Bridge. 

This is a longer off-street trail segment designed 

to alleviate the need for bicyclists to travel 

along STH 67 to Frederick St. to access the 

PRT at Meyer Park. The exisng off-street PRT 

terminates in front of the former City Ulity 

Building/Antoinee Cow Statue. When the City 

sold the former ulity building they maintained 

an easement along the Mullet River around the 

rear of the parking lot to an exisng pedestrian 

bridge that crosses the river. The parcel across 

PRT Extension 

Mullet River 

Former City 

Utility Building 

Mill Street 

Milwaukee Street 

Fredrick Street 

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AE 

Potenal Off-Street PRT Improvement, including bridge 

crosses, behind former City Ulity Building 


WILSON 

ST 

CAROLINE ST 

N STAFFORD ST 

DIVISION ST 

BISHOP AVE 

DEWEY LN 



Chapter 3 

F 3.4. P P R T - S T I 


à 

SUNSET DR 

SUHRKE RD 

CHAPLIN CT 

ä eB 

Parkview 

S. 

LN 

MEA DOW RIDGE 

ß OJ 

¾% 23 ¾% 23 

à 

¾% 67 

ß 

!( E 

B à 

!(B !(A 

à à 

à 

Riverview 

ß O 

M.S. 

à 

County 

GROVE ST 

Fairgrounds 

àà !(E à 

à à 

à 

ß à 

ß Z à 

C 

à 

à !(E à 

!(C !(A !(D à 

à à 

!( ¾% E 67 

ß O 

ß E 

ST 

KRUMREY ST 

WESTERN AVE 

N PARK 

LAACK 

W MAIN ST 

O AK RIDGE DR 

SHILLS DR 

MAPLE DR 


Short Term Improvements 

BEECH DR 

M u ll e t River 

!(E à 

FOREST AVE 

E MILL ST 

NORTH ST 

COLLINS 

REED ST 

BETH CIR 

Printed By: abremer, File: P:\4000s\4040s\4047\04047004\GIS\4047004_PlannedPlymouthRiverTrail.mxd 


DR 


Mullet River 

SMITH ST 

ST 

APPLETON 


M 

ST 

MEAD AVE 

ill Pond 

SOUTH ST 

ä 1F 

E CLIFFORD ST 

SHORT CUT RD 

EASTERN AVE 

MOCKINGB 

ID 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 


HEIN AVE 

IRD LN 

ä 1F 

S BRUNS 

AVE 

VALLEY RD 

ä eB 

ä eB 

ä eB 

Description (Short Term) 

ß 

Intersection Markings 

PP 

Paved Trail 

Paved Trail and Bridge 

Paved Trail 

Kiosk/Trailhead 

BLUEBERRY LN 

Plymouth H.S. 

Horizon S. 

e B 

ä eB 

Parcels 

Parks 


City Property 



Waterbody 








Proposed Bicycle Routes 

Proposed Street route (marked pavement and signed bike lane) 

Proposed City Paved Trail 

Proposed Pedestrian Trail 

Proposed Plymouth River Trail Designated Route 

Bicycle Signs 

ä 1F 

ä eB 

à 

à 

PLANNED 

PLYMOUTH 

RIVER TRAIL 

Bicycle May Use Full Lane 

Bike Lane 


Proposed Plymouth River Trail Sign 

DATA SOURCES: 




E 

Feet 

0 375 750 1,500 

Print Date: 10/16/2015 

the river is owned by the City and used as a ulity 

substaon. There is amble open space along this 

parcel to connue the PRT to Frederick St., thus 

eliminang the need for bicyclists to travel on 

STH 67. This improvement project also includes 

replacing the exisng pedestrian bridge with a 

new bridge that is accessible to bicyclists. Refer 

to Secon 3.6 for addional details. 

D. Off-Street Trail Segment. A poron of the PRT 

travels through an alleyway behind a block of 

Downtown properes from S. Stafford St. to the 

railroad underpass. This improvement aims to 

improve the safety of bicyclists by separang 

bicycle and vehicle travel lanes. This could be 

accomplished by either painng a strip along 

the exisng pavement or by creang a separate 

paved path between the exisng pavement edge 

and the river. Installaon of lighted ballards 

between the path and the alleyway would 

enhance safety and aesthecs along this poron 

of the trail. 

E. Kiosks. This improvement project includes 

installaon of wayfinding kiosks at four key 

desnaons in the community. Three locaon 

are along the PRT at Meyer Park, Stayer Park and 

at the Youth Center. The fourth locaon is at the 


29

WILSON 

ST 

CAROLINE ST 

N STAFFORD ST 

DIVISION ST 

BISHOP AVE 

DEWEY LN 



Chapter 3 


F 3.5. P P R T - L T I 


SUNSET DR 

CHAPLIN CT 

ä eB 

Parkview 

S. 

LN 

MEA DOW RIDGE 

ST 

KRUMREY ST 

WESTERN AVE 

N PARK 

¾%23 ¾% 67 

¾%67 

à 

!(F 

à 

ß E 

!(G ß O 

Riverview 

M.S. 

County 

GROVE ST 

Fairgrounds 

àà 

!(H 

!(I 

ä eB 

ß !(J 

ß à 

C 

Z 

!(K à 

à à 

à !(L 

à à 

!(E !(M 

ß O 

ä eB 

ID Description (Long Term) 

!(N ß E F Paved Trail 

!(Q à 

G Paved Trail 

!(O 

à 

H Paved Trail 

I Paved Trail 

!(P 

J Bridge 

K Bridge 

à 

L Stairs 

ß 

M Paved Trail 

PP 

N Pedestrian Trail 

O Bridge 

P Paved Trail 

Q Paved Trail 

LAACK 

W MAIN ST 

O AK RIDGE DR 

SHILLS DR 

MAPLE DR 


LongTerm Improvements 

SUHRKE RD 

BEECH DR 


Mu llet River 

DR 


FOREST AVE 

SMITH ST 

ST 

APPLETON 

E MILL ST 

COLLINS 

M ullet River 

ST 


BETH CIR 

exisng Old Plank Road Trailhead at STH 57. Kiosk 

informaon should include a map of the bicycle 

routes in the City and key desnaons such as 

parks, schools, and commercial districts. 

NORTHST 

REED ST 

M 

MEAD AVE 

ill Pond 

SOUTH ST 

ä 1F 

E CLIFFORD ST 

SHORT CUT RD 

ß OJ 

EASTERN AVE 

MOCKINGB 


HEIN AVE 

IRD LN 

Example trail kiosk at Plymouth Youth Center 

ä 1F 

S BRUNS 

AVE 

VALLEY RD 

¾% 23 

ä eB 

BLUEBERRY LN 

Plymouth H.S. 

ä eB 

Horizon S. 

PLANNED 

PLYMOUTH 

RIVER TRAIL 

Parcels 

Parks 


City Property 



Waterbody 








Proposed Bicycle Routes 

Proposed Street route (marked pavement and signed bike lane) 

Proposed City Paved Trail 

Proposed Pedestrian Trail 

Proposed Plymouth River Trail Designated Route 

Bicycle Signs 

ä 1F Bicycle May Use Full Lane 

ä eB Bike Lane 

à Plymouth River Trail 

à Proposed Plymouth River Trail Sign 

DATA SOURCES: 




E 

Feet 

0 375 750 1,500 

Print Date: 10/16/2015 

L-T 

I 

Long-term improvement 

projects aim to reroute 

the Plymouth River Trail 

completely off-street and 

extended further south to 

CTH PP and further east 

along the Mullet River. 

The following summarizes 

those proposed long-term 

improvements shown in 

Figure 3.5. 

F. Off-Street Trail 

Segment. Segment F 

proposes roung the PRT 

from the Old Plank Road 

Trail south along the rightof-way 

on the east side of 

STH 67. The trail could then 

turn inward toward the 

Mullet River at a number 

of locaons including north 

of the cemetery, through 

the cemetery, or through 

the driveway to the Middle 

School where the exisng 

trail currently lies. 

G. Off-Street Trail Segment. Segment G would 

connect the Old Plank Road Trail to the exisng 

pedestrian bridge across the Mullet River at E. 

Edna St. This segment would follow the east 

bank of the Mullet River. 

H. Off-Street Trail Segment. Segment H would 

connue along the east bank of the Mullet 

River to Anton Park. This segment is part of the 

proposed improvements to “Mullet River Park” 

if the City were to move forward with removal 

of the dam/pond and creaon of this park as 

described in Chapter 2. 


Chapter 3 

I. Off-Street Trail Segment. Segment I mirrors 

Segment H on the west bank of the Mullet River. 

J. Pedestrian Bridge. Improvement J includes the 

addion of a pedestrian bridge to connect trail 

segments H and I just upstream from the exisng 

dam near Anton Park. 

K. Path Widening. The PRT 

currently passes under the 

south side of the bridge on 

CTH C down stream from 

the dam. The abutment 

under the bridge is narrow 

but passable by single 

bicyclists at a me. Future 

reconstrucon of the bridge 

should consider widening 

the abutment to provide addional width for 

safer two-way cycling. 

L. Stairs/Pedestrian Path. Improvement L includes 

construcon of a trail or stairway to connect 

the PRT at Stayer Park to Huson Park and the 

residenal neighborhood to the north. There 

is a steep embankment at this locaon which 

makes construcon of a hard surface trail more 

difficult. However, a stairway or serpenne wood 

chipped path can connect the neighborhood to 

the Downtown and PRT. 

M. Pave Exisng Trail. Improvement M includes 

paving an exisng grass trail that connects a 

residenal neighborhood to Meyer Park and the 

PRT. 

N. Pedestrian Trail. Improvement N also serves to 

link a residenal neighborhood to Meyer Park and 

the PRT. This neighborhood sits significantly above 

the park and therefore, similar to improvement L, 

a serpenne wood shipped path is envisioned. 

O. Bridge Widening. The long-term improvements 

include connuing the PRT along the Mullet River 

to South River Park. This connecon will require 

the PRT to connue along the right-of-way on 

STH 67 a short distance across an exisng bridge. 

The current bridge has a narrow shoulder. Future 

reconstrucon of the bridge should consider a 

wider shoulder to allow safer ride for bicyclists. 

P. Off-Street Trail Segment. Improvement P 

includes extending the PRT from its current 

terminus at STH 67 along the west right-of-way 

along STH 67 to CTH PP to connect to the regional 

County bike route system. 

Q. Off-Street Trail Segment. This segment would 

connue along the north side of the Mullet River 

to South River Park. 

3.5 P I - C 

E 


esmates for short- and long-term PRT improvement 

concepts, refer to Table 3.1. These are planning level 

cost esmates. These esmates would be updated 

during final design of any project approved to move 

forward by the City Council. Note, there are a couple 

of long-term improvement projects with an esmated 

cost to be determined due to addional or unknown 

design consideraons that were outside of the scope 

of this planning project. 

3.6 R P P 

P B M 

R 

There are a number of exisng pedestrian bridges that 

currently cross the Mullet River. As part of the study 

the City desired to research regulatory perming 

processes for replacing the exisng pedestrian bridge 

behind the old City Ulity Building. The exisng 

bridge is deteriorang, is quite narrow, and contains 

Exisng Pedestrian Bridge behind old City Ulity Building 


31

Chapter 3 


T 3.1 P R T S L T I C C E 

Plymouth River Trail - Short Term Planned Improvement Cost Estimates 

Improvement 

Item Description Length (ft) Unit Cost 

Estimated 

Total Cost 

A Insersection Markings/Signage NA $ 500.00 $ 1,000 

B Paved Trail 425 $ 23.50 $ 9,988 

C Paved Trail 550 $ 23.50 $ 12,925 

C Pedestrain Bridge 65 $ 1,500.00 $ 97,500 

D Paved Trail 525 $ 23.50 $ 12,338 

E Kiosk/Trailhead Facilities NA $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000 

Subtotal $ 148,750 

Contingency (20%) $ 29,750 

TOTAL $ 178,500 

Plymouth River Trail - Long Term Planned Improvement Cost Estimates 

Improvement 

Item Description Length (ft) Unit Cost 

Estimated 

Total Cost 

F Paved Trail 1900 $ 23.50 $ 44,650 

G Paved Trail 2400 $ 23.50 $ 56,400 

H Paved Trail 3300 $ 23.50 $ 77,550 

I Paved Trail 2800 $ 23.50 $ 65,800 

J Pedestrain Bridge 75 $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000 

K Bridge Improvements 65 TBD TBD 

L Stairs 125 TBD TBD 

M Limestone Trail 1000 $ 12.25 $ 12,250 

N Limestone Trail 1000 $ 12.25 $ 12,250 

O Bridge Improvements 100 TBD TBD 

P Paved Trail 1500 $ 23.50 $ 35,250 

Q Paved Trail 1800 $ 23.50 $ 42,300 

Subtotal $ 456,450 

Contingency (20%) $ 91,290 

TOTAL $ 547,740 

steps on either end. All of these features makes the 

exisng bridge essenally unusable for future bicycle 

use as part of the planned improvements to the PRT. 

This pedestrian bridge could be replaced as part 

of a river trail improvement project as long as the 

new replacement construcon does not conflict 

with Secon 13-2-29 of the City’s Floodplain Zoning 

Ordinance. The new bridge structure would be 

considered an accessory to a permanent open space 

use and it must not obstruct flow of flood waters 

or cause any increase (more than 0.01 foot) in the 

regional (base) flood levels. 

Figure 3.6 displays the FEMA FIRM map showing the 

general locaon of the exisng pedestrian bridge. 

The floodway width at this locaon is approximately 

160+ feet and the regulated floodplain appears to 

extend from the high ground at the nearby electrical 

substaon (west bank) to the intersecon of S. 

Milwaukee Street and Thayer Street (east bank), 

including the former ulies building and some 

nearby homes. Due to the extent of the floodplain 

it is not feasible to think that the new bridge would 

completely span the floodplain and thereby not affect 

the base flood elevaon. However, it may be possible 

to span the floodway and not cause an increase in 

the base flood elevaon of more than 0.01 foot. 

In order to design a new bridge structure and provide 

supporng data that the base flood elevaon is not 

substanally affected, a computer flood model of 

the river must be constructed. Depending upon 

available data and the complexity of the proposed 

improvements, an expected range of costs for this 

computer modeling effort might be $5,000 to $8,000 


Chapter 3 

F 3.6. FEMA FIRM P 0301F, C P 

based upon similar past projects. This cost is separate 

from the engineering fees for the bridge design, 

bidding and construcon process. 

If a design soluon is idenfied that will not 

significantly affect the base flood elevaon then the 

perming process is as follows (not including any 

local City permits). 

1. Submit the flood modeling of the newly proposed 

improvements along with a Condional Leer of 

Map Revision (CLOMR) based upon new bridge 

hydrology to FEMA for review. This submial, 

in advance of the actual construcon, allows 

the applicant assurance that if the project is 

constructed according to the submied plans, 

then FEMA will approve the final map revision 

when the actual as-built documentaon 

is received in a follow-up submial aer 

construcon. The current FEMA review fee for a 

CLOMR of this type is $6,750. Applicaon Forms 

& Instrucons: hp://www.fema.gov/naonalflood-insurance-program-flood-hazard-mapping/ 

mt-2-applicaon-forms-and-instrucons. 

2. Submit the improvement plans along with the 

applicable waterway protecon permits (Chapter 

30 permits) to the Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources (WDNR). More than likely the 

associated permits will include: (1) the bridge 

structure; (2) grading more than 10,000 square 

feet on the banks of a navigable waterway; and 

possibly, (3) stream bank protecon. The bridge 

would likely be considered an individual permit 

requiring a 30-day public comment period and 

a fee of $603 (current fee WDNR schedule). The 

grading and stream bank protecon permits 

might be considered general permits (depending 

upon the nature of the work) that would not 

require a public comment period but a fee of 

$303 (current WDNR fee schedule). WDNR 

Waterway Protecon Permit Applicaon: hp:// 

dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waterways/ 


33

Chapter 3 


3. The nature of the exisng site does not appear 

to contain any wetlands, but the process should 

include contact with the Army Corps of Engineers 

to clear the work of any wetland impacts. hp:// 

www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/ 

PermingProcessProcedures.aspx 

4. Assuming receipt of a FEMA approval for the 

CLOMR, the WDNR permits, and clearance from 

the Army Corps of Engineers, construcon of the 

improvements can begin. Note that the CLOMR 

is not a final clearance document from FEMA. 

It is only a “condional” approval that must be 

followed up by a second applicaon to receive the 

final Leer of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR 

applicaon includes the “aer construcon” asbuilt 

informaon. The current FEMA review fee 

for a LOMR of this type is $8,250. At the end of this 

process FEMA will issue a map revision leer that 

formally approves the project in the floodplain. 

The appropriate planning meline for permit 

acvies #1 thru #3 above should be about three 

to four months. Item #4 would be completed aer 

construcon, typically in about four to six weeks. 

3.7 PIM C 






The majority were property owners along Mill Pond. 

Aer a presentaon by MSA aendees were provided 

an opportunity to ask quesons and submit comment 

forms for the short- and long-term PRT improvement 

concepts. Twelve of the aendees submied wrien 

comments. Copies of these forms are on file with the 

City Administrator. 

The majority of those who aended the meeng were 

in favor of the proposed improvements to the PRT. 

Concerns generally centered around those segments 

which would be built if the dam were removed, which 

is generally more of a reflecon on their favorability to 

keep the dam in place. A few aendees had concerns 

related to how closely these proposed trails segments 

would be to their exisng property line, preferring 

any future trail to follow closer to the river. 

3.8 G F O 

There are a few potenal grant funding programs 

that could assist with the improvement projects 

discussed in this study. 


program provides 50% matching funds for both 

the acquision and development of nature based 

outdoor park and recreaon facilies. This program 

could be used to help off-set costs related to the 

development of the Plymouth River Trail. Several 

state and federal acquision and development 

programs fall under the same local assistance 

stewardship grant program, including the federal 

Recreaonal Trails Grant Program. Applicaons are 

accepted annually on May 1. 

Addional informaon these programs can be found 

at: hp://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/Grants.html 

3.9 S S C 

Phase II evaluated alternaves for a connected 

system of bicycle and pedestrian trails along the 

Mullet River from the Old Plank Road Trail on STH 

23 to CTH PP. The City currently has a network of 

on- and off-street bicycle routes and trails, some of 

which have been branded as the “Plymouth River 

Trail.” The current network is incomplete. The 

purpose of this phase of the study was to evaluate the 

exisng Plymouth River Trail network to idenfy gaps 

in infrastructure and signage and to idenfy short 

and long term improvement projects to bring the 

enre trail off-street to improve user experience and 

safety. Next project phases include implementaon 

of the short-term improvement projects starng 

with signage/intersecon markings and final designs 

for new off-street trail segments and the pedestrain 

bridge behing the former City Ulity Building. The 

City should also update its on-line bicycle map for 

residents and tourists. 


CHAPTER 4 

DOWNTOWN/STAYER PARK 

The following chapter summarizes the poron of the 

planning study related to the Downtown and Stayer 

Park, specifically: 

• A summary Downtown and Stayer Park features 

• A review of exisng Downtown/Stayer Park plans 

and studies. 

• A parking occupancy analysis 

• A review of design concepts 

• Cost esmates for proposed improvement 

projects 


river wall repair or replacement 

• A summary of public input provided at the August 

19th, 2015 public involvement meeng 


opportunies 

4.1 D P S P 

Plymouth’s Historic Mill Street is the center of all 

town acvity and is the historic Downtown area of 

the community. The Mullet River runs parallel to 

Mill Street on the south side (or rear yard) of the 

properes on the south side of Mill Street. The 

Downtown district extends from the Plymouth Dam 

to STH 67/Milwaukee St., or approximately 0.5 miles, 

and is a very walkable place. In June 2011 a group 

of arsts and mural painters by the name of “The 

Walldogs” converged upon Plymouth to beaufy 

historic downtown Plymouth and to preserve the city’s 

history. Each mural captures the nostalgia and historic 

significance of Plymouth’s rich business history. A 

total of 21 new murals were painted by the Walldogs. 

Plymouth now boasts a total of 23 murals, four within 

the study area. The Plymouth Chamber of Commerce 

maintains a Mural Walking Tour (see Figure 4.1). 

Stayer Junior Park is a two acre park located at 39 

Stafford St. on the north side of the river. The park has 

frontage along the Mullet River and is fenced in with 

playground equipment, sing areas, and a 12,000 

square foot dog park adjacent to the play equipment. 

The park is named aer Ralph F. and Alice Stayer, 

founders of the Johnsville Sausage Food Company. 

Access to the rear businesses and Stayer Park is 

provided from both Stafford St. and Mill St. 

Across from Stayer Park and the Mullet River is Huson 

Park, a 2.4-acre passive park. The Plymouth River 

Trail travels along the south side of the Mullet River 

through Huson Park with a foot bridge crossing the 

river to Stayer Park. Within the park area is a steeply 

wooded hillside along the river. 

Immediately to the east of Stayer Park is a two 

story parking structure. A ramp provides two-way 

access from Stafford Street/Stayer Park to the upper 

parking deck which contains 93 parking stalls. Several 

business surround the upper parking lot, and due to 

the topography of the site, are at grade with the upper 

parking deck. The southeast corner of the upper deck 

actually projects over the Mullet River, including a 

structural support pylon in the river. Access to the 

upper parking deck is also provided from Mill St. 


Chapter 4 

Downtown/Stayer Park Planning 

F 4.1 D M T M 

1 

History of Sargento 

520 E. Mill Street | Plymouth Center, Inc. 

Artist: Ray Guzman 

Sponsor: Sargento Foods, Inc. 

5 10 

6 

Historic Plymouth Public Library 

130 Division Street 

Artist: Nancy Bennett 

Sponsor: Plymouth Public Library Foundation 

Plymouth Post Office 

302 E. Main Street 

This mural is only viewable during Post Office hours. 

8 

Historic Dairy State Bank 

300 E. Mill Street | Advanced Eyecare 

Artist: Noella Cotnam 

Sponsor: Bank First National 

Interurban Car 26 

208 E. Mill Street 

Artist: Dale Knaak 

Sponsor: Plymouth Downtown Revitalization 

2 

Cream of Wheat 

420 E. Mill Street | Plymouth Historical Society 

Artist: Debbie Karr (Lands End ARI) 

Sponsor: Plymouth Historical Society, Jim Stahlman 

Memorial Fund 

7 

Wadham’s Gas Station 

320 E. Main Street | Frontier Communications 

Artist: Scott Lindley 

Sponsor: Van Horn Auto 

9 

Foundations of Faith 

222 N. Stafford Street | St. John Lutheran Church 

Artist: Brad Bandow 

Sponsor: Thrivent Financial, Jerry Thompson, LUTCF, FIC 

Financial Associate 

11 

Hi-Ho Soda 

120 E. Mill Street 

Artist: Ben & Joe Diaz 

Sponsor: Bank First National 

3 

Isaac Thorp 

115 Division Street | Attorney Larry Siegert Law Office 

Artist: Carole Bersin 

Sponsor: Plymouth Historical Society 

16 

St John's 

Lutheran 

School and 

Church 

9 

Main Street 

Post Office 

6 

*The four murals highlighted in blue were not painted 

by “The Walldogs”, but we would like to include them 

for your enjoyment. 

Main Street 

4 

Sheboygan County Fair 

117 Division Street | Edward Jones Building 

Artist: Dave Petri 

Sponsors: Plymouth Rotary Club, Plymouth Lions 

Club, Plymouth Optimist Club, Women’s Civic Society 

of Plymouth, GFWC Plymouth Woman’s Club, 

Sheboygan County Fair Association 

Milwaukee Street 

15 

Fiber 

McGee's 

Caroline Street 

14 13 12 11 

17 

Plymouth 

Review 

Parking 

Smith Street 

10 

Mill Street 

18 

Am. Legion 

Stafford Street 

8 

Library 

Froner 

7 

5 

Division Street 

Parking 

4 

3 

Edward Jones 

Aorney Seigert 

De 

O'Malley's 

Plymouth 

Historical Soc. 

Mill Street 

19 20 21 22 23 24 

Parking access and ramp 

2 

1 

Plymouth 

Medical 

Plaza 

Plymouth 

Art Center 

25 

North Street 

Eastern Ave 

Mill Dam 

Pond 

A central staircase provides access from the upper 

parking deck to the lower parking area. The lower 

poron of the parking structure contains some public 

parking spaces; however, this area primarily serves as 

a loading zone. The concrete on the lower poron of 

the parking structure is showing significant heaving. 

A one-way access drive connects CTH C/Eastern Ave. 

(near the Mill St. intersecon) to the lower parking 

deck. The direcon of flow is east to west. 

The City owns the parking structure; however, the 

land where the structure is located is privately owned. 

Refer to Figure 4.2 for a map of the study area. Areas 

shaded in purple denote parcels owned by the City. 

4.2 E D S P 

P 

MSA reviewed a number of exisng local plans as they 

relate to the Downtown and Stayer Park. Copies of 

these reports are on file with the City Administrator. 

• 1989 Stayer Riverside Park Proposed Design Idea 

• 2002 Plymouth Downtown Revitalizaon Plan 

• 2009 Plymouth Outdoor Recreaon Plan 

• 2011 Plymouth Comprehensive Plan 

• 2015 Plymouth 2020 Downtown Acon Plan 

Downtown/Stayer Park, 2015. 

In 1989, a local arst Alan Pape proposed a design 

idea to complete an upgrade of all the riverside areas 

between the Mill Street bridge and the Stafford Bridge. 

At the me the property was privately owned by the 


Chapter 4 

F 4.2 D/S P S A 

Mill Street 

Lower Parking Deck 

One-Way Access Point 

Eastern Avenue 

Stafford Street 

Lower Parking Deck 

Two-Way Access Point 

Parking Ramp 

Parking Deck 


Stayer Park 

Mullet River 

Bridge 

Huson Park 

Collins Street 

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 

F 4.3 1989 S R P C P 


37

Chapter 4 

Downtown/Stayer Park 

Stayer family and was been considered for donaon 

to the City. The design concept is illustrated in Figure 

4.3 and included an open-air park pavilion, childrens 

play area, restrooms and a brat stand, an homage to 

the famous Johnsville Brat company founded by the 

Stayer family. Addional improvements included 

burial of overhead ulity wires, parking, lighng, and 

landscaping improvements. Pape envisioned the area 

as a potenal main smulus for renewed acvies in 

all of Downtown Plymouth. 

The 2002 Plymouth Downtown Revitalizaon Master 

Plan included a number of redevelopment objecves 

relevant to this planning study including: 

• Maximizing Mullet River views and amenies 

• Enhance and preserve the natural qualies of 

the Mullet River, embracing it as a community 

treasure 

• Create links between the downtown and the 

river that enhance the pedestrian experience and 

bolster business acvity 

• Develop, maintain and promote acvity generators 

to anchor the downtown district 

On March 5, 2015 the City adopted a Downtown Acon 

Plan tled Plymouth 2020 “The Cheese Capital of the 

World.” The Cheese Capital of the World is more than 

a slogan. It is a vision that combines what is important 

and unique about Plymouth and maximizes the value 

those features bring to the community in four specific 

ways: by supporng key economic drivers, especially 

the food industry; nurturing the workforce pipeline to 

extend that vision into the future; developing its most 

visible focal point “the downtown”; and creang more 

desnaon opportunies supporng this vision. One 

of the key objecves of the acon plan is to Upgrade 

the Downtown Experience. 

4.3 S K I 

The 1989 Pape Plan and 2002 Downtown Master Plan 

led to the installaon of a number of improvements 

including the riverwalk, play equipment, and murals. 

However, other recommendaons such as public 

restroom facilies, burying ulies, improving parking 

areas, public shelter and plaza space, and pedestrian 

enhancements remain not yet fully achieved. The 

following is a summary of the key issues addressed 

during this phase of the study: 

• Burying Overhead Ulies. Burying overhead 

ulies that run parallel to the Mullet River 

behind downtown businesses is an on-going 

goal of the City. This planning process includes 

developing costs esmates for this improvement 

project. 

• Remove Parking Ramp. In an effort to improve 

both the aesthecs of the Downtown and 

gain addional park space the City desired to 

conceptually plan for the removal of the parking 

ramp (ramp only, and not the deck). This 

planning process addresses cost esmates for 

removal of the ramp, conceptual illustraons, 

and consideraon of changes to traffic flows. 

Parking Ramp & Ulies, 2015 

• Park Enhancements. The play equipment in 

Stayer Park is older and is being considered for 

replacement. Local service clubs have indicated 

an interest in assisng with fundraising and 

planning in order to create a new ADA accessible 

“Dream Park” in lieu of more tradional play 

equipment. The City also desired to expand the 

park area, develop a river trail on the north side 

of the Mullet River, and consider installaon of 

plaza/event space and public restrooms. 


Chapter 4 

4.4 P O A 

MSA completed a parking occupancy analysis to 

determine the use of exisng parking spaces in the 

study area. MSA completed three inventories on the 

following dates and mes: 

• Wednesday, March 11, Noon-1pm 

• Friday, March 20, 6-7pm 

• Saturday, March 21, Noon-1pm 

Stayer Park, 2015 

• Parking Lot Enhancements. Stayer Park 

withstanding, the exisng study area is considered 

a sea of concrete. Traffic flow and parking spaces 

are not well marked and pedestrian and vehicle 

areas are not well differenated. The City desired 

to study the use of parking spaces, idenfy 

opportunies to enhance pedestrian safety, site 

aesthecs and user experiences. 

Weather condions were clear and seasonable warm 

for all three inventories. The inventory included all 

on-street parking spaces along the east side of S. 

Stafford Street and along the south side of E. Mill 

Street from S. Stafford Street to CTH C/Eastern Ave. 

On-street parking spaces account for 20 total spaces. 

The inventory also included all public and private offstreet 

parking spaces in the same study area. Offstreet 

parking spaces account for 342 parking stalls, 

excluding the approximately 65 spaces under the 

parking deck which are primarily not used due to 

condion of the pavement and availability of other 

parking locaons. 

F 4.4 P O S R 

On Street 20 Total Spaces 

Friday 17/20 = 85% 

Saturday 13/20 = 65% 

Wednesday 16/20 = 80% 

O Street (Mill) 49 Total Spaces 

Friday 5/49 = 10.2% 

Saturday 12/49 = 24.5% 

Wednesday 11/49 = 22.4% 

O Street (rear) 180 Total Spaces 

Friday 143/180 = 79.4% 

Saturday 85/180 = 47.2% 

Wednesday 72/180 = 40% 

Area North of 20 Total Spaces 

Ramp 

Friday 19/20 = 95% 

Saturday 8/20 = 40% 

Wednesday 3/20 = 15% 

Area South of 36 Total Spaces 

Ramp 

Friday 14/36 = 38.9% 

Saturday 11/36 = 30.6% 

Wednesday 7/36 = 19.4% 

Ramp (above) 93 Total Spaces 

Friday 3/93 = 3.2% 

Saturday 7/93 = 7.5% 

Wednesday 32/93 = 34.4% 

Parking Study Map 



Mullet River Planning 

October 14, 2015 


39

Chapter 4 


Figure 4.4 illustrates the results of the parking 

occupancy study, by sub-areas per each of the three 

event counts. In general, MSA found 56% (201 of 

362) of the total parking spaces occupied on Friday 

evening, 39% (141 of 362) of the total parking spaces 

occupied on Wednesday aernoon, and 38% (136 of 

362) of the total parking spaces occupied on Saturday 

aernoon. While certain areas have higher sub-area 

occupancy rates, in general the results indicate that 

there is an over supply of parking in the study area. 

4.5 D A P 

As part of the planning project MSA developed a 

design alternave and several perspecve renders 

that reimagine the Downtown/Stayer Park area. 

Figure 4.5 illustrates the proposed improvements. 

Key aspects of the design concept include: 

• Reroung the Plymouth River Trail. The design 

concept includes construcon of a new off-street 

trail from the exisng pedestrian bridge in Stayer 

Park along the north side of the river to S. Stafford 

Street. This proposed improvement provides 

several benefits to the site including allowing 

for free flowing bicycle travel. The current PRT 

accesses S. Stafford Street on the south side of 

the river via several stairs which require bicyclists 

to carry their bike up or down the stairs. 

• Restrooms. The exisng park and Downtown 

area lack public restrooms. The City currently 

places a port-a-poy next to the park during the 

summer. Construcon of a permanent restroom 

like the one envisioned in the 1989 Pape plan is 

prohibited due to the site being within the 100- 

year floodplain. The concept proposes acquiring 

an exisng small single story commercial building 

for conversion into a public restroom. 

F 4.5 D/S P I C 


Chapter 4 

• Bike Rental Staon. The concept includes an area 

for a bike rental staon. This would allow tourists 

the ability to rent a bike for a specified period of 

me to enjoy a ride on the PRT. The bike rental 

staon could charge a fee or be developed as a free 

ride staon. 

• Dream Park. The concept includes an area for 

construcon of new playground equipment. As 

labeled the MRCSC envisions an ADA accessible 

“Dream Park”. The planning process did not include 

idenfying final equipment design and selecon. As 

shown there is approximately 13,000 square foot 

area for playground equipment. 

• Shelter and Plaza Space. The concept includes an 

outdoor plaza and open air shelter. The plaza is 

designed to mimic a mill wheel as part of developing 

a unified brand for the area consistent with exisng 

markeng and logo efforts of the City. The shelter 

area will provide a space for concerts, picnics and 

special events. It is conceptually located to provide 

views from E. Mill St. Since water can pass freely 

through the structure it is permissible within the 

floodplain. 

• Dog Park. The concept includes maintaining a 9,500 

square foot area for a dog park. The MRCSC desired 

to maintain a dog park in the redesigned park since 

it is used by residents above main street businesses. 

However, the dog park has been shied to the east 

side of the park to an area that is currently under 

ulized and separated from the playground and 

plaza spaces. There is another 7,600 square feet of 

“flex space” between the dog park and the parking 

lot that could be used for expansion of the dog park 

if use warrants a larger size. 

• Living Wall. Surrounding the north side of the 

dog park is a proposed living wall. The living wall 

consists of vegetaon to screen the ground level of 

the parking structure. 

• Parking Lot Reconstrucon. The design maintains 

all of the exisng access locaons; however, the 

parking areas are reconfigured in several locaons 

to provide clearly delineated parking areas. Most of 

the improvements remain on City-owned property; 

however, some coordinaon with private property 

owners will be necessary. The proposed 6,500 

Potenal Public Restroom Building with exisng mural 

Potenal Open Air Shelter 

Potenal Living Wall Screening Parking Ramp 


41

Chapter 4 


square foot parking lot on the east side of the shelter 

includes the opon for one aisle of parking or expanding 

for two aisles of parking. The enre design is net neutral 

with regards to parking spaces (e.g. the same number 

as currently exist). Since the parking occupancy studied 

indicated there was an over supply of parking, developing 

just the single aisle of parking next to the shelter, or 

no parking at all, would permit addional green space 

next to the shelter. Likewise, the City could remove the 

row of parking perpendicular to the proposed park to 

increase park size by an addional 4,000 square feet. Two 

accommodate two way traffic movements from the E. Mill 

Street access the exisng angled parking is reconfigured 

from 60 degree to 45 degree parking. New curb and guer 

is installed throughout the site to delineate and separate 

parking areas. 

• Ulity Replacement. The site contains exisng 

underground water, sewer and stormwater mains. This 

planning project assumes these ulies would be replaced 

by the City as part of the reconstrucon of the parking lot. 

• Parking Ramp Removal. The concept includes removal of 

the exisng parking ramp and installaon of an exterior 

stairwell at the southwest corner of the parking deck. The 

stairwell could either be open air or enclosed. An enclosed 

stairwell will be more expensive but permit year round 

use. Due to the removal of the parking ramp the southern 

aisle of the upper parking deck would need to change its 

direcon of traffic flow and angle of parking. 

• Burial of Ulies, Landscaping and Public Art Installaons. 

The concept includes several ideas to improve the aesthecs 

and safety of the site including burial of overhead ulies, 

installaon of landscaped medians, decorave lighng and 

crosswalks. The concept also includes several alternave 

locaons to consider public art installaons that celebrate 

Plymouth’s Cheese Capital of the World status. 

• Gateway Entrances. The concept includes installaon of 

gateway arches across the E. Mill St. and S. Stafford St. 

entrances. The arches support the overall branding and 

aesthec improvements to the site. 

Figures 4.6 illustrates a perspecve rendering of the proposed 

concept. Figure 4.7 includes a street level rendering of the 

proposed gateway features from the Mill Street entrance to 

the site. 

Exisng Stormwater Sewer Mains 

Exisng Sanitary Sewer Mains 

Exisng Water Mains 

Exisng Entrance to Stayer Park from Mill St. 


Chapter 4 

F 4.6 D/S P I C - P 


Shade trees 

Public restrooms 

Planng areas 

New staircase 

Dog park 

Plaza 

Open air shelter 

Dream park 

Bench 

Swings 

Gateway feature 

Bike staon 

Evergreen screen 

DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT CONCEPT 



F 4.7 D/S P I C - G P 


43

Chapter 4 


A March 5, 2015 Technical Memorandum completed 

by Kapur & Associates had inially indicated that 

Plymouth Dam could be given a high hazard rang 

under NR 333.06. A high hazard rang could have 

meant that those properes currently within the 

floodway south of the dam, including many properes 

in the Downtown, would become part of the floodway. 

As such, future property sales, renovaons, and 

redevelopment would have been significantly limited. 

A possible opon to remove the subject properes 

from the floodway is the construcon of a levee on 

the river side of the affected property. Levees are 

strictly regulated by NR 116.17 and the Army Corps 

of Engineers. Kapur esmated that a levee would be 

approximately 1,860 in length and 9-12 feet in height, 

with an esmated cost of $2.0 - $2.5 million. As 

part of this planning project the City requested MSA 

complete a grade level perspecve rendering of the 

potenal levee wall to gather public feedback. Figure 

4.8 includes a perspecve rendering of a potenal 

levee wall along the Mullet River through the study 

area. 

The Technical Memorandum was later revised in July 

of 2015 based on a revised dam failure analysis. The 

revised dam failure analysis assigned a hazard rang 

of “low” due to the 100 year dam failure shadow 

and the 100 year no dam shadow being the same. 

The WDNR confirmed the low hazard rang. The 

“Low Hazard” rang requires the primary spillway to 

effecvely pass the 10 year flow and the secondary 

spillway to effecvely pass the 100 year flow. The 

exisng dam does not conform to NR 333.07. A 

new or rehabilitated dam will not conform to the 

requirements due to the short length of the dam 

and elevaon constraints. The WDNR may approve 

a lessor spillway capacity in accordance with NR 

333.07. The levee wall remains a possible opon to 

remove the subject properes from the floodway; 

however, it would greatly impact the aesthecs of 

the Downtown and Stayer Park. In addion, many of 

the improvements proposed in Figure 4.5 would no 

longer be feasible. 

4.6 D A - C E 


esmates for the proposed Downtown/Stayer Park 

improvements, refer to Table 4.1. These are planning 

level cost esmates. These esmates would be 

updated during final design of any project approved 

to move forward by the City Council. 

F 4.8 D/S P L W C - P 

Levee wall 

(approximately 8’ based on 

esmate provided in the Kapur 

Study of total wall height 

between 8’ and 12’) 

LEVEE WALL ILLUSTRATION 




Chapter 4 

T 4.1 D/S P I C C E 

ITEM # 

ITEM DESCRIPTION 

ESTIMATED 

QUANTITY 

ESTIMATED 

TOTAL PRICE 

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 

1. Mobilization/ Bonds/ Insurance 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 

2. Erosion Control 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 

3. Traffic Control 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 

REMOVALS 

4. Removal of Storm Sewer 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 

5. Removal of Sanitary Sewer 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 

6. Abandonment of Water Main 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 

7. Removal of Pavement 10,153 SY $ 2.50 $ 25,382.50 

8. Removal of Concrete Curb & Gutter 2,575 LF $ 5.00 $ 12,875.00 

9. Sawcut Asphaltic Pavement 565 LF $ 2.50 $ 1,412.50 

CONCRETE 

10. Curb & Gutter, 30-Inch 2,515 LF $ 16.00 $ 40,240.00 

11. Concrete Sidewalk, 5-Inch 8,725 SF $ 5.00 $ 43,625.00 

12. Colored Stamped Concrete, 5-Inch 5,060 SF $ 18.00 $ 91,080.00 

13. Concrete Stairs 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 

ASPHALT 

14. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Surface, 3-Inch (Path) 110 TON $ 68.00 $ 7,480.00 

15. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Surface, 3-Inch Binder 1,275 TON $ 65.00 $ 82,875.00 

16. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Surface, 2-Inch Surface 850 TON $ 65.00 $ 55,250.00 

17. Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch 3,210 TON $ 15.00 $ 48,150.00 

18. Base Aggregate Dense 3-Inch 3,210 TON $ 15.00 $ 48,150.00 

19. Pavement Marking Arrow Epoxy, White 16 EA $ 160.00 $ 2,560.00 

20 Pavement Marking ADA Epoxy, White 9 EA $ 160.00 $ 1,440.00 

21. Pavement Marking Epoxy, 4-Inch White 5,110 LF $ 1.25 $ 6,387.50 

SANITARY SEWER 

22. Sanitary Sewer, 8-Inch 375 LF $ 60.00 $ 22,500.00 

23. Sanitary Sewer, 12-Inch 225 LF $ 75.00 $ 16,875.00 

24. Sanitary Manhole Type One, 4-Foot Diameter 3 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 10,500.00 

25. Chimney Seals 3 EA $ 250.00 $ 750.00 

26. Manhole Covers 3 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 

27. Sanitary Sewer Granular Backfill 600 TF $ 4.00 $ 2,400.00 

28. Connection to Existing Sanitary 1 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 

29. Inlets 2x3 Foot 10 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00 

30. Inlet Covers 10 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00 

STORM SEWER 

31. Storm Sewer Pipe Reinforced Concrete, 15-Inch 400 LF $ 52.00 $ 20,800.00 

32. RCP Apron Endwall, 15-Inch 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 

33. Storm Sewer Manhole, 4-Foot Diameter 4 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 7,200.00 

34. Manhole Covers 4 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 

35. Storm Sewer Granular Backfill 400 TF $ 4.00 $ 1,600.00 

36. Storm Connection to Existing 1 EA $ 850.00 $ 850.00 

WATER MAIN 

37. D.I. Water Main, 8-Inch 425 LF $ 60.00 $ 25,500.00 

38. Fire Hydrant 1 EA $ 4,200.00 $ 4,200.00 

39. Valve, 8-Inch 2 EA $ 1,600.00 $ 3,200.00 

40. Water Main Granular Backfill 425 TF $ 4.00 $ 1,700.00 

41. Connection to Existing Water Main 1 EA $ 2,250.00 $ 2,250.00 

BURIAL OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

42. Bury Electric Utilities NA LF NA $ 497,236.00 

RAMP REMOVAL 

UNITS 

ESTIMATED 

UNIT PRICE 


45

Chapter 4 


T 4.1 D/S P I C C E C 

$ , 

RAMP REMOVAL 

43. Ramp Removal NA LF NA $ 40,000.00 

PUBLIC RESTROOM SITE ACQUISITION AND DEMOLITION 

44. Property Acquisition (current assessed value) 1 EA $ 76,000.00 $ 76,000.00 

45. Renovations 1 EA TBD TBD 

STAIRWELL INSTALLATION 

46. Stairwell Installation (Enclosed Structure) 1 EA $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 

PLAYGROUND 

47. Playground Equipment 1 EA $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 

BIKE STATION 

48. Bike Station 1 EA $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 

SHELTER & PATIO 

49. Shelter and Patio 1 EA $ 160,000.00 $ 160,000.00 

SITE LANDSCAPING & FURNISHINGS 

50. Site Landscaping and Furnishings TBD TBD $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 

TRAIL 

51 Trail 570 LF $ 23.50 $ 13,395.00 

ARCH GATEWAY FEATURES 

52 Arch Gateway Features 2 EA $ 70,000.00 $ 140,000.00 

Subtotal Items #1-#52 $ 2,155,563.50 

Contigency (20%) $ 431,112.70 

TOTAL $ 2,586,676.20 

FUTURE PARKING EXPANSION 

53 Removal of Concrete Curb & Gutter 100 LF $ 5.00 $ 500.00 

54 Curb & Gutter, 30-Inch 127 LF $ 16.00 $ 2,032.00 

55 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Surface, 3-Inch Binder 35 TON $ 65.00 $ 2,275.00 

56 Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Surface, 2-Inch Surface 25 TON $ 65.00 $ 1,625.00 

57 Base Aggregate Dense 1 1/4-Inch 80 TON $ 15.00 $ 1,200.00 

58 Base Aggregate Dense 3-Inch 80 TON $ 15.00 $ 1,200.00 

59 Pavement Marking ADA Epoxy, White 1 EA $ 160.00 $ 160.00 

60 Pavement Marking Epoxy, 4-Inch White 235 LF $ 1.25 $ 293.75 

Subtotal Items #51-#60 $ 9,285.75 

Contigency (20%) $ 1,857.15 

TOTAL $ 11,142.90 

Sources: 

Ulity burial esmates, Forster Electrical Engineering 

Ramp removal, Town and Country Ulity Construcon 

All others MSA Professional Services 

Notes: 

Esmated costs for burial of ulies includes from the 

railroad bridge to Eastern Ave. 

The cost esmates in Table 4.1 assume the City would 

replace the water, sewer and stormwater ulies 

as part of the reconstrucon of the study area. 

Note, there are a couple of long-term improvement 

projects with an esmated cost to be determined due 

to addional or unknown design consideraons that 

were outside of the scope of this planning project 

(e.g. restroom renovaons). 


Chapter 4 

4.7 R P P 

A R W R 

R 

Most porons of the Mullet River from the CTH C / 

Eastern Ave. bridge to the old City Ulity Building are 

lined by stone walls. The majority of the walls are 

in good condion; however, there are some areas 

were the stone is crumbling. As part of the study the 

City desired to understand the regulatory processes 

affecng river wall repair and replacement to aid 

potenal future improvement projects. 

Mullet River Stone Walls Downtown Plymouth, 2015 

The perming process for a “like-in-kind” river wall 

repair or replacement is somewhat less involved than 

previously described in Chapter 3 for pedestrian bridge 

replacement as long as the improvement cross secon 

remains relavely unchanged. That is to say, that no 

addional fill or structures or other impediments to 

river flow will be introduced into the floodplain other 

than what generally currently exists. In this case, wall 

repairs or replacements could be undertaken without 

the involvement of FEMA and/or the Army Corps of 

Engineers. 

In the case of an emergency repair of the wall (like a 

sudden collapse of a secon of wall) the local WDNR 

representave should be contacted before undertaking 

any work. The current local Water Regulaons and 

Zoning Specialist is Kathi Kramasz covering Ozaukee, 

Sheboygan and Washington Counes (Telephone: 

920-893-8531 or Email: kathleen.kramasz@ 

wisconsin.gov). WDNR Contact informaon website: 

hp://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Waterways/contacts.html 

In the case of an emergency repair, the DNR would 

probably issue a verbal approval to proceed with the 

repair and depending upon the nature of the work, 

may require a follow-up permit applicaon along 

with construcon documentaon. 

For projects involving a proposed wall replacement 

(non-emergency) an individual permit will likely be 

required because of the nature of the vercal wall 

structure. This permit will require a 30-day public 

noce and comment period and a fee of $603 (current 

fee WDNR schedule). The nature of the exisng site 

and wall structure does not appear to contain any 

wetlands, so the Army Corps of Engineers would not 

be involved. 

4.8 PIM C 






The majority were property owners along Mill 

Pond. Aer a presentaon by MSA aendees 

were provided an opportunity to ask quesons and 

submit comment forms for the design concepts and 

perspecves. Twelve of the aendees submied 

wrien comments. Copies of these forms are on file 

with the City Administrator. 

The majority of those who aended the meeng 

were in favor of the proposed improvements to the 

Downtown. Several individuals submied comments 

that they did not support the construcon of the 

proposed levee. One individual raised a queson 

regarding whether there would sll be access to the 

back of businesses for deliveries. 


47

Chapter 4 


4.9 G F O 

There are a few potenal grant funding programs that 

could assist with the improvement projects discussed 

in this study. 


program provides 50% matching funds for both the 

acquision and development of nature based outdoor 

park and recreaon facilies. This program could be 

used to help off-set costs related to the development 

of the Plymouth River Trail. Several state and federal 

acquision and development programs fall under the 

same local assistance stewardship grant program, 

including the federal Recreaonal Trails Grant 

Program. Applicaons are accepted annually on May 

1. Addional informaon these programs can be 

found at: hp://dnr.wi.gov/Aid/Grants.html. 

Other potenal funding sources include the use 

of Tax Increment Financing, or TIF, which could be 

used to assist with redevelopment of the parking 

lot, burial of ulity lines and removal of the parking 

ramp. The proposed project area is currently within 

the City’s TIF District #5, which was created in 2008 

and has a maximum statutory life of 20 years. Eligible 

TIF expenditures include property acquision for 

development or conservancy (e.g. public restroom), 

Demolion (e.g. parking ramp), Site Grading (e.g. 

parking lot), Ulies (e.g. sanitary sewer, water, 

storwater sewer, electrical), Streets and Streetscaping 

(e.g. sidewalks, landscaping, parking areas, etc.). The 

City has unl January 14, 2023 to complete these TIF 

#5 eligible projects. 

4.10 S S C 

Phase III evaluated the costs and benefits 

of implemenng a number of infrastructure 

improvement projects along Mullet River in the 

Downtown, including evaluang improvements 

to exisng retaining walls and pedestrian bridges; 

studying the feasibility of burying overhead ulity 

lines; evaluang removal of a public parking ramp 

(ramp not deck), and improvements to Stayer Park. 

This phase of the study included conceptual designs, 

cost esmates, and descripons of perming 

processes. 

The next phase in the project would be to acquire the 

parcel proposed for the public restroom and proceed 

with final designs for the site, including coordinaon 

with affected property owners. Once final designs 

are completed the projects can be bid out including 

burial of the ulity lines, removal of the parking 

ramp, restroom renovaons, and park development. 

These projects could also be bid out and constructed 

in phases.

MULLET RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?