|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
March 31, 2005 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M.
Forward to motions scheduled for action at the April meeting
Brian Wanasek (chairperson) called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Bob Willard, Chris Johnson, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Dennis Crombie, Dean Stapleton and Mike Weinkauf present. Pat Hurley was absent.
Betty Novy, secretary, was also present.
Chris Johnson moved, 2nd by Mike Weinkauf to approve minutes of the February 24, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried. (Refer to “Period for Public Comment” for a correction stated later in the minutes.)
Continued discussion on proposed language changes affecting allowable rural densities in “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”, to include crafting language for a motion affecting possible changes to rural density requirements and defining the terms “undevelopable lands” and “green space”
Brian explained adopted procedure does not allow action on a motion until a subsequent meeting. It was felt language Mike presented at a previous meeting for action needed some clarification before it could be properly posted and acted on.
Mike reiterated his preference for three-acre average density on new land divisions, with undevelopable land subtracted before three-acre density calculations are applied. According to a SEWRPC analysis of undevelopable lands in the Town of Rochester, 52% of the land cannot be built on. He feels those lands should be subtracted and a three acre density applied to lands that can be developed. He showed aerial maps previously presented at the February meeting. He does not want land developed in bowling alley lots that destroy the ability to farm the land. Undevelopable lands should be identified in the Land Use Plan. The three-acre average density would then be applied to remaining acreage.
Mike was asked to define undevelopable lands. From the SEWRPC analysis, Mike stated floodplain; wetlands; areas of unsuitable soils; marshes; areas with steep slopes; etc. These areas should be delineated before a land division applicant comes before the Plan Commission.
There was a question on whether prime agricultural lands or environmental corridor should be included as undevelopable. Mike stated the SEWRPC list is well defined and makes up a large portion of the town. He felt the list was sufficient for a definition.
It was stated smaller lot sizes would prevent infilling on five-acre lots in the future.
Bob questioned areas with soil limitations. The SEWRPC list states 1,000+ acres of land with this limitation. He questioned which map in the Land Use Plan shows these areas. This needs to be clarified.
Areas of steep slope were identified as being represented on (existing) Map No. 12 of the Land Use Plan. It was noted these include areas with greater than a 12% slope. The restriction for developing these areas was pulled out of the plan in April of 2004 at the request of Pat Hurley.
Brian indicated his desire to identify undevelopable lands in terms of floodplain or wetland; to use common terms that are easy to delineate.
Chris Denman stated his opinion that subtracting undevelopable land may give the impression of treating land owners differently. He prefers a straight calculation, such as 100 acres nets 33 lots. He feels the proposal lacks an incentive for the “perfect farm” (without undevelopable lands) to utilize cluster design.
Brian noted there did not appear to be much resistance to the three-acre average density and applied different density concepts to three examples:
Carini parcel: 150 acres: ½ wetland; under current five-acre density: 30 houses; under cluster design with density bonus: 37 houses; under Mike’s proposal: 25 houses (excludes undevelopable lands)
Kossow parcel: 88 acres: all developable land under current five-acre density: 17 houses; under cluster design with density bonus: 22 houses; under Mike’s proposal: 28 houses
Hoyer parcel: 82 acres: all developable land under current five-acre density: 16 houses; under cluster design with density bonus: 20 cluster; under Mike’s proposal: 27 houses
Bob requested the committee step back to look at the goals of the Land Use Plan. The goal of preserving agricultural land is one reason why we are still talking about open space. He feels agricultural lands should be defined as agricultural; not prime developable land.
Conservation was another stated goal. Agricultural lands should be named as a resource to protect, as well as gravel and woodlands. He would like the plan to address preservation of these resources and their importance to the Town.
Mike stated use of land is governed by zoning and the Plan must remain in accordance with it.
A statement was made that Land Use should be equivalent to its best value.
An additional statement was made that three acre parcels make the best use of land because it is developed all at once instead of in two phases. Developments like the Schneider farm; preserve open space but do not preserve the best use of the land.
Chris Denman stated all agree five acre residential parcels are not the best use of land.
Chuck Haubrich stated he does not like the concept of large lots being forced on people. He has a preference for cluster design; whether it is three or five acre average density. The larger lots do not have to be commonly owned. Some land should be kept open and rural; keeping open rural space was noted as an objective of the Land Use Plan. If the objective has become to maximize the value of land, these objectives should be revised. He feels controlling growth as stated in the existing Land Use Plan will keep the population from tripling. If cluster development is a goal; a developer will only cluster when developing imperfect lands under this proposal.
Brian Wanasek stated the Land Use Plan, as written, has an incentive for developer’s to cluster (a bonus from five-acre average density to four-acre average density). However, he noted the bonus has not worked.
Bob Willard noted his proposal, stated at the February meeting, offers an incentive. Density would be dropped to three-acre average when utilizing cluster design.
Chuck Haubrich reiterated Brian’s concern that if undevelopable lands are to be subtracted, the concept should be kept simple- floodplain or wetland delineation. He prefers clearer language to make it easier for plan commissions.
Chris Johnson stated these areas are already delineated under the current land division ordinance.
Dennis Crombie stated whatever proposal is adopted; he wants to see open space encouraged. He feels it is imperative that town and village do not loose track of what people, at public hearings, have said is essential.
Dean Stapleton stated preference for cluster development, but that the three or five acre average density requirement is still a question for him. The Town Plan Commission ultimately has the responsibility to control land divisions. He feels cluster developments represent the best use of land.
Chris Denman indicated cluster is a tool. Three-acre average developments could net several 1 – 1 ½ acre lots and one large landowner. Ultimately this will save a developer on installing roads to service spaced out five to seven acre lots.
Chuck stated his incentive, as proposed, is to drop the four acre density to three acre (average) if clustered. He indicated there will still be a need for people who want space.
Bob stated if cost is the highest priority in the Land Use Plan, the best development will be one-acre lots. The higher the concentration, the less waste of land. He agrees with one-acre lots and an option to purchase a larger parcel.
The question was raised of how to guarantee the land will not be developed again. It was stated the big parcel should have deed restrictions placed on it. It was believed this would be valid for approximately 30 years.
Dennis stated disagreement with mandatory cluster design. He stated some land lends well for this, but others do not. It was again brought up that despite the density bonus offered in the current land use plan for cluster development, only two developer’s even considered the concept. Others felt it was not worth it.
Bob stated his opinion that an incentive is sufficient. He does not feel cluster design has to be mandatory.
Mike again stated his preference for three-acre average density, but something that takes undevelopable areas out of the calculation.
Brian stated he has a problem with defining undevelopable areas of a farm. His comfort level is only to include areas such as floodplain and wetland in this description.
Chris Johnson indicated soil conditions will take care of themselves.
Mike Weinkauf introduced a motion, 2nd by Chris Johnson to amend the Land Use Plan as follows:
Action on the motion was delayed until the April meeting.
Bob introduced a motion, 2nd by Chuck Haubrich to amend the Land Use Plan as follows:
Action on the motion was delayed until the April meeting.
Committee members requested that legal representation be present at the April meeting and that the public comment session be scheduled prior to voting on stated motions, with no time limit, except that at 7:45 p.m. a vote will be scheduled. It was noted motions, as stated, can be amended at the meeting.
Public Comment
Kathy North pointed out a sentence in last month’s minutes, in the paragraph above public comment, that was recorded incorrectly. Consensus of the committee was to correct the sentence “Mike stated his intention to reintroduce his original motion to change every reference in the Land Use Plan from three acre to five acre average density.” was corrected to read “from five-acre to three-acre average density”.
John Harvey questioned the weight of zoning on dividing agricultural lands now. Brian stated A-2 zoning allows one-acre lots; R-2 is also one-acre in non-sewered areas. Bob explained the Land Use Plan is an addition to zoning that creates the density requirement.
Ken Dahlstrom commented land divisions will require roads. With proper planning, it may become impractical to split lots in future. This is a function of layout and the Plan Commission can work to come up with good designs. An ordinance must be created that someone will understand in the future. It can take months for the Plan Commission to work through land divisions.
Brian stated position will have more of an impact on whether a parcel is redivided than five or three acre density. Lots will be less likely to be redivided based on configurations and where buildings are placed, etc.
Ken indicated the present owner is not necessarily the one who develops land. They will sell to developers and the developer will design it only once. To go back and modify designs will be difficult.
Virginia Vanszckle, Langmaid St., thanked the Committee for their efforts. She stated some disagreement about lands now being used as gravel pits not being developable. She stated within months of moving here, there was a Town meeting regarding the Payne and Dolan gravel pit. She stated restoration plans include a lake and luxury homesites. Gravel pits will not stay undeveloped. She stated a need to be creative. Open space needs to be defined and how huge land owners will be limited by wetland and marshes. The term undevelopable also needs to be defined.
Nancy Ochem (associated with the North farm) stated she can understand people’s desire to leave the land agricultural, particularly those with ½ acre lots who would like to leave open space. She prefers Mike and Chris’s track for larger, bigger land owners, but agrees some things need to be defined.
Mike stated he wishes to change the conception that he is for creating 900 more lots. He feels the five acre density will net the same if not more than three acre average density considering 50% of the land in the Town is undevelopable. His only issue is to be fair to everybody and better utilize land. He does not want to see the mistakes of the past where bowling alley lots were created. He instigated these meetings because he felt five acre lots are too big. He felt it important that people in the Town are being asked to give something up and the Plan must be fair.
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Dean Stapleton moved, 2nd by Bob Willard to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Secretary
|