|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
January 4, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Paul Beere, Brian Wanasek, Bob Willard, Maureen Eckert and Chris Johnson present.
Betty Novy, Secretary, and John Hotvedt, Town Attorney, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes. Bob Willard moved, 2nd by Maureen Eckert to approve minutes of the December 4, 2006 meeting. Motion carried.
Recommended Updates: “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”
Paul Beere stated the Plan Commission is the body charged with accepting recommended updates to the Land Use Plan, as submitted by the Land Use Plan Committee. Recommended updates can be approved as submitted, rejected or revised at the Plan Commission’s discretion. The Town Board was under the impression they would be charged with approval, but legal research has found the responsibility to lie with the Plan Commission. The Town Board submitted a letter asking for consideration that the open space requirement connected to three-acre densities in rural residential areas be rejected.
Brian Wanasek spoke as chairman of the Land Use Plan Committee. He reported the bulk of the committee’s time was spent on discussing and drafting the recommendation for rural residential density requirements. Time was also spent on re-mapping based on direct requests and development trends present in the community. The existing Land Use Plan requires five-acre average density or four acre average density when utilizing cluster subdivision design in areas designated for development at rural densities. In the new plan, the five-acre density is left unchanged. A compromise was struck between not changing the five acre average density and allowing three-acre average density. The compromise was to maintain five-acre density, but to allow a three-acre average density option when a 50% open space requirement is met. An open space definition was created that stated open space was one or more outlots that have been deed restricted or protected by conservation easement from development. The open space can be one large or several smaller outlots, not one of which is smaller than 10 acres.
Paul Beere stated the Town Board’s concern that this is a mandated cluster subdivision.
Atty. John Hotvedt reported on statutory requirements of approving amendments to the present Land Use Plan. John indicated the current Land Use Plan was adopted under Master Planning statutes. Comprehensive Plans, as required by “Smart Growth” legislation, will go through the Plan Commission, but require ultimate approval from the Town Board. John stated the Master Plan is advisory. The decision regarding Master Plan amendments lies with the Plan Commission. When this plan is adopted into the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Town Board approval will be required.
Paul Beere indicated the letter from the Town Board to the Plan Commission states the Board is in favor of three acre average density and no set aside (open space) requirement. Paul indicates this goes back to being accountable to land owners in the Town. Most large property owners see their land as a retirement nest egg (savings). The Board feels this open space requirement will negatively affect the value of the land.
Bob Willard stated what is written in the Board’s letter is not contradictory to what Land Use Plan has recommended. Bob felt the request of the Town Board needs to be clarified. He did not feel it was clear based on what is written in the letter.
Mike Weinkauf, Town Supervisor #2, spoke regarding his objection to the open space requirement. He objects because those individuals who have preserved Rochester’s green space for as long as they have are now being asked to pick up the bill for preserving it into the future. The recommended open space requirement will have a negative effect on the value of the land, even borrowing against it. Mike stated he is for preserving open space and doing a good job of development. But, the recommended open space requirement goes beyond good development because it affects the value of the land.
Gary Beck, Town Chairman, addressed the Commission. Gary thanked those who served on the Land Use Plan Committee. He indicated Paul and Mike adequately communicated the feelings of the Town Board. Gary stated the Town has seen the effects of five-acre parcels since the last Land Use Plan. Most people do not have the time or know-how to adequately maintain that amount of land. He indicated the Town needs green space, but he does not want to force people to develop in a particular way.
Chris Johnson stated his opinion that five acre parcels will be split again in the future. There is less potential for this with three acre parcels. Three-acre average density has less potential for “hodge-podge” development in the long term. It also does not affect the five acre parcels out there now. They will not be allowed to split again under three acre average density. He feels three acres is fair to the land owners. He does not see five as fair because he believes the parcels will be re-developed down the line.
Bob Willard reported on his involvement with the Land Use Plan committee and discussions that were held regarding three-acre average density. While he felt the current five-acre average density or four-acre average density with cluster design requirements should have been upheld, other committee members felt there were not enough options and this was not fair to land owners wanting to sell. The three-acre average density with open space option forces a developer to look at the land and come up with a plan. This open space option will have a long term benefit to the Town. Bob feels this is a better solution than going back to the old plan and that land value is not negatively affected by this. On an 80 acre parcel, five acre average density allowed 16 lots, under the three-acre average density, 26 lots are allowed. He feels this is an improvement and a workable plan. The plan provides guidelines so that developers know what to expect and what type of the development the Town feels is acceptable. Bob distributed a handout showing development options on an 80 acre parcel with 50% open space and without.
Maureen Eckert reported on her experience with the Land Use Plan when it was originally drafted (as Town Clerk). She feels a plan is critical for the developer. It creates guidelines for the developer to work with the Plan Commission and Town Board. As an individual, she was not in favor of the five-acre or cluster subdivision choices. Proposed revisions to the Plan create another option developers can avail themselves to.
Brian Wanasek indicated creation of the three-acre average density option was a compromise for people on the committee who were in favor of maintaining the five-four acre average density provisions of the Plan. But, it was bought at a price. Some type of mechanism had to be included that would ensure open space was preserved. If no open space requirement is stated, there is no basis to deny development when a developer does not comply. Without a plan, there is no leverage against “cookie cutter” lots. Brian was upset the Land Use Plan Committee was not notified that the Town Board was discussing recommended changes to the Plan and felt the letter drafted by the Board was inappropriate because of this. The Board did not hear both sides of the issue and were only given Mike’s (Weinkauf) opinion on Plan recommendations. He feels Committee members wasted two and a half years of time if the Board did not give them a fair opportunity to present their recommendations.
Paul explained the Town Board called a meeting with the Town Attorney to discuss the process of amending the Plan. It was only after Town Board members were made aware that they did not have final approval power that a decision was made to send a letter expressing the Board’s opinion on recommended changes.
Chris Johnson suggested a compromise stating a range of 30 to 50% open space requirement with three-acre densities. Gary Beck questioned how the Plan Commission and Board would differentiate properties within that range.
Maureen Eckert indicated a clear direction is needed. If given a choice, developers or land owners will always come in at 30%. Maureen continued. Many years ago, five acre density was considered the answer. Since then, we have found that does not work. We can’t see the future and can only work with the vision we have now. Every time a house goes up, costs go up for all of us. The house will not generate adequate tax revenue to support what it costs in services. Current landowners still have value under this plan.
Mike Weinkauf indicated his objection to the contiguous chunk of open space. He believes the 50% open space should be determined by the geographical features of the land.
Paul believes a three-acre lot subdivision is more attractive than a 1.5 acre lot subdivision.
Bob indicated Camelback Farms is a one-acre lot subdivision and is considered a good development in the Town.
Paul stated he does not feel a developer will go for the three-acre option because of the burden of the 50% set aside (open space). He does not feel association ownership is attractive.
Bob indicated association ownership is not a requirement. The set aside is not valueless. This land could be sold to one owner or retained by the farmer and cropped.
Chuck Haubrich, Land Use Plan Committee member, commented regarding value. Chuck indicated the proposed open space requirement will not stop developers from coming here. In his role with a local land conservation trust organization, he has seen 15 conservation easements requested for recent developments with four to six acre density and 40- 60% open space requirements. All of these have been developed at lower density and capture at least $150,000 per lot. Common space ownership does not affect value, the total number of lots in the development has more of an affect on the value. More lots create less value to the individual lot. Julie Anderson noted at the informational meeting that this is a development trend. Chuck indicated developers will still develop. Proposed amendments to the plan are one of the least restrictive in the area. He does not feel these amendments will deter development.
Patricia Hurley, Land Use Plan Committee member, commented regarding the exclusion of Certified Survey Maps from the three-acre average density option. She feels if a developer chooses to utilize Certified Survey Maps to create a subdivision over a period of time, they should have the same option as developers who create a subdivision all at once.
Bob and Brian indicated they have no issue with extending the three-acre average density under this scenario, but that a long term plan must be presented. The problem they do see is that the overall plan for this type of development could be lost over time as Plan Commission and Board members change.
Edwin Ela addressed the Commission. Ed stated he hasn’t seen the Town change too much over the years, but now much change is coming. The ring of development around Milwaukee has been maxed out and people are moving into this area. With the population increase, there will be an increase in restrictions whether the people here like it or not. When growth happens, there is only one chance to do it right. Major changes are happening. The value of farmland may increase with the use of ethanol fuel. Ed would like to see adequate farmland preserved in case there would be a disruption to transportation, so that food resources in the area are preserved to sustain the population.
Ed continued that the people here now may feel preservation of farmland is an unfair burden, particularly if someone else makes more money on their land. People everywhere are trying to come to grips with development and growth. The density will increase significantly if no controls are in place. We need to focus on community values, so that people who live and work here buy into the area. Right now, we should make use of the open space concept. The scales may tip in ten years. If so, changes may be made to density requirements at that time. In the meantime, we will maintain our values if people have bought into the community and see it as an enjoyable place to live.
Ed stated not all interests are represented here. Some people may feel the need to sell their land and get all that they can get. The side benefits are the people and businesses that will profit when houses are built. But, the future is not represented here. Ed does not feel we will diminish values by setting land aside. He stated farmers have had a great privilege to stay on their land at very low cost while the rest of society subsidizes them in different ways. The costs of development at greater densities are additional restrictions and environmental quality. At a number of Land Use Plan committee meetings, people expressed their desire to maintain open space. However, the density requirement was whittled down over time. Ed asked that the Commission consider other groups not represented at the meeting.
Brian moved, 2nd by Bob to adopt the Land Use Plan amendments as recommended by the Committee. Votes were: Bob: Aye; Brian: Aye; Maureen: Aye; Paul: Naye; Chris: Naye. Motion passed.
Attorney John Hotvedt indicated he will draft the resolution adopting the recommended changes.
Brian moved, 2nd by Bob to adjourn at 7:46 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer
|