|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
April 28, 2005 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M.
Brian Wanasek (chairperson) called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Bob Willard, Pat Hurley, Chris Johnson, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Dennis Crombie, Dean Stapleton and Mike Weinkauf present.
Betty Novy, secretary, was also present.
Discussion on the following motions introduced at the March meeting:
a. Mike Weinkauf’s proposal to amend the Land Use Plan as follows:
§ include a statement, or stated goal, in the Land Use Plan that the Plan should be for all property owners and should not lower the value of land or make it worthless,
§ change allowable rural residential and agricultural land density calculations, as applied to new land divisions creating five or more parcels, by subtracting the total acreage of “undevelopable” lands from the parcel proposed for division, and dividing the remaining acreage by three to determine the maximum allowable parcels to be created by the division (three-acre average density);
§ change allowable rural residential and agricultural land density calculations, as applied to new land divisions creating four or less parcels, by dividing the acreage of the parcel proposed for division by three to determine the maximum allowable parcels to be created by the division (three-acre average density);
§ to allow an option for allowable rural residential and agricultural land density calculations, as applied to new land divisions creating five or more parcels, where a high percentage of land is classified as “undevelopable”, where utilization of “cluster design” will allow division of the total acreage of the parcel, proposed for division, by four to determine the maximum allowable parcels (four-acre average density).
§ “undevelopable” lands was further defined as publicly owned land; lands in extractive use; wetlands and water, floodlands, areas of steep slope (exceeding 25% grade), areas of soil with severe limitations or drainage problems; privately owned lands with conservation easements, roads and railroad right of ways; and lands within WDNR project areas.;
b. Bob Willard’s proposal to amend the Land Use Plan as follows:
§ change allowable rural residential and agricultural land density calculations, as applied to all new land divisions, to five-acre average density without clustering, but require 50% open space (to preclude all five acre lot sprawl); or three acre average density with clustering with required 60% open space. Bob noted no constraints made on who owns required open space; and that no subtraction is made for undevelopable lands.
§ insert a definition for “open space” as follows: “Undeveloped land that has been deed restricted or protected by conservation easement from development. It is set aside for the use of residents of a development and/or for the preservation, restoration and management of agricultural, environmental or historical sensitive features. Open space shall not be part of an individual residential lot unless the lot is 25 acres or larger; and the land is protected by conservation easement.
Brian Wanasek began the meeting by asking Mike Weinkauf and Bob Willard to explain their proposals.
Mike Weinkauf stated the Land Use Plan should be for the people who own the land, not developers. He does not want the plan to lower value of land and feels five acre urban sprawl will take up all the land in the Town. He feels five acre parcels are likely to be split again over time. Since 52% of the lands in the Town are not developable, he feels the Town will always be rural. Land that is undevelopable should be subtracted from parcels to be divided and three-acre average density applied to the rest.
Cluster design is still an option under his proposal when a large portion of a parcel cannot be developed, four-acre average density could then be applied. He noted a change to classification in steep slopes as identified in the undevelopable lands list provided by SEWRPC. He updated that to mean lands with slope over 25% and realizes that lowers the acreage of land in that category. On Certified Survey Maps creating four or less lots, a straight three-acre average density would apply.
Bob Willard stated his alternate motion creates an option for three-acre average density with a 60% open space requirement; or five-acre average density with a 50% open space requirement to prevent five acre lots across the town. For minor land divisions, a straight five-acre average density with no open space requirement. The motion stated at the March 31, 2005 meeting was amended to read as follows:
Motion: “Define maximum allowable rural residential and agricultural land density calculations, as applied to new land divisions, as follows:
For subdivisions of land creating 5 or more parcels, either:
Three acre average density with required 60% open space; or
Five acre average density, with required 50% open space (to preclude all five acre lot sprawl);
For any land division, soils and features of the property being divided, including wetlands and waterways, and the potential for drainage problems that could adversely affect surrounding lands must be considered in detail to determine the actual number of houses the land can support.
Open space definition. Open space is defined as one or more out lots (separate tax parcels) in a subdivision, with undeveloped land that has been deed restricted or protected by conservation easement from development. A deed restricted or conservation easement protected outlot may be owned by one person or multiple people in common.
Open space is maintained for the preservation, restoration, and management of agricultural, environmental, or historic features.
Open space shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historic structures and/ or recreation and/or agricultural facilities approved by the municipality.”
At this time the meeting was opened to comments from the floor:
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, stated her understanding of undevelopable lands noting they include swamplands and hills (areas of steep slope). She questioned why some slopes are being subtracted from the undevelopable classification. She thought a straight three acre-density calculation would be easier than trying to identify and subtract undevelopable lands.
Ed Ela, Washington Avenue, questioned the term of deed restrictions, how long they were enforceable and who can enforce them. Atty. John Hotvedt replied State Statutes allow a maximum 40-year term which can be extended by re-recording. As to who would re-record them, it would be up to the initial homeowner’s association. On a three or four lot CSM, all owners would need to agree to re-record the restrictions.
Kathy North, Maple Road, questioned the open space requirement. Bob replied average three-acre density allows more houses than what is currently allowed. He feels the open space requirement will create better use of the land. Lots will have to be less than three acres in order to accommodate open space, but the requirement will allow the landowner more lots than what is currently in place. It will preserve open space for conservation, recreation or agricultural uses.
Lloyd Frye, Washington Avenue, commented three-acre average density gives the landowner a reasonable return for retirement. He does not feel five-acre average density will provide the same return and most people moving to the area have no clue what it takes to care for five acres.
Ed Stone, Maple Lane, questioned how Bob’s proposal presents any compromise to the cluster option provided under the current Land Use Plan. The cluster option allowed four-acre average density. If creating thirty-three lots on 100 acres, there has always been 67% open space. Bob explained the concept- that three-acre density allows 33 lots vs. 25, but requires 60 contiguous acres to remain open space. Under the five acre option, 20 lots could be created on 100 acres, with 50 acres maintained as open space and the 20 lots placed on 50 acres.
Sheila Webber, Maple Road, questioned what was present previous to the five-acre average density requirement. It was stated there were no density requirements. The 40,000 square foot minimum lot size allowed under zoning prevailed. She noted many surrounding communities have gone to five-acre average density. She enjoys rural open space and would like the community to stay rural. She noted many areas being developed on Academy Road that she never thought would. She would like open space requirements to limit what is developed.
Chuck Haubrich provided a handout on density requirements in surrounding communities. In his handout, the following communities were listed as having five-acre density requirements: Town of Yorkville, Town of Caledonia, Town of Raymond, Town of Waterford, Town of Burlington and those communities falling under Walworth County zoning. Town of Dover has a three-acre density requirement and Town of Norway is working on its Land Use Plan and negotiating a four or five acre density requirement.
Mike Weinkauf stated an opening statement in Chuck’s handout is not accurate because he states Mike’s proposal has no open space requirement. Mike explained his proposal sets aside undevelopable lands as open space.
Ed Ela, Washington Avenue, stated that in 1992 a survey was returned by residents stating they like the open space and rural characteristics of Rochester. He feels this is a historic moment, as the committee is laying down plans future residents will have to live with for better or worse. He would not like the focus to be how many dollars can be gained, but how the committee can be responsible to future residents. Ed likes the concept of cluster development; it promotes self sustainability to have open space and useable agricultural land. There may be a dire need of this land in the future. He feels it should be blocked out with development occurring in controlled spaces. He also stated redevelopment is costly; putting things back is always more expensive than preserving what is here. Ed likes cluster design because it offers the best siting of homes and preserves land for use into the future. He believes rewards and disincentives should be utilized to encourage cluster design and likes the 50% open space requirement. He feels this creates flexibility for the land owner and developer.
Richard Vanszckle, Langmaid Street, stated he feels what is being discussed is a premature compromise on five-acre average density. He spoke with SEWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan Commission) representatives. Their research indicates five-acre average density maintains open space and decreases transportation needs. Increased density means the need for more roads; and fire, police and rescue services. This equates to an increase in taxes for services. To allow three-acre average density means an increase of another 2,000 people from SEWRPC’s projected 8,200 people with five-acre density. He urged the committee to consider the impacts on taxes and the water table. He stated Waterford recently needed to tap a deep well because shallow wells no longer met their needs. His opinion is to maintain the five-acre average density that previous committee recommended. That a good conscious effort should be made to maintain the Land Use Plan as is.
Brian Wanasek stated the current density may be maintained if neither proposal has a majority of votes. However, because some acreage has been withdrawn as undevelopable, the calculation stating 2,000 more people may not be accurate.
Richard Vanszckle stated either proposal will cause the population to increase over what is currently projected.
Chris Denman clarified Waterford has dug deep wells because of radon issues. There is no water shortage.
Jane Willard, Washington Avenue, stated landowners are under the impression they will achieve more dollars if they develop land at a higher density. But the quality issue must also be considered. Lots in a high quality development will sell for more and offset gains created by additional lots.
Bob Schilling, Schneider Lane, stated he loves the Rochester area and currently lives on a five-acre lot. He stated his large lot goes back 100’s of feet. Weeds and thistles grow there and he has a hard time managing the land. He complimented the committee for thinking ahead, but noted it is difficult for the average individual to maintain five acres.
Brian Wanasek clarified the five-acre average density calculation does not require five acre lots.
Bob Willard also clarified the Schneider Lane development was approved before the Land Use Plan was developed.
Dick North, Maple Lane, stated his concern that open space will have a higher chance of being redeveloped again down the road.
Bob Willard replied the restriction will most likely be in place for at least 40 years. This is a significant amount of time before the land can be divided again. If divided again in 40 years, it will at least be divided in larger blocks, allowing for more orderly development.
Mark Muller, Timberlane Drive, stated he did not think the ability to care for five acres was a major issue. People find ways to do it. He prefers to focus on quality development to make land more valuable. He believes in five-acre average density.
Virginia Vanszckle, Land Maid Street, thanked the committee for their work but doesn’t see the need for a three acre push. Surrounding areas have gone to five-acre average density and SEWRPC recommends five-acre. She questioned why. Do people want to encourage big roads, services, and costs? Do they want increased property taxes? She stated concerns over water supply and noted quarries are tapping into wells. She was told not to worry, but she doesn’t agree. The water table is over burdened. She feels there should be no compromise and five-acre average density should be maintained. However, if there is a compromise, she favors Bob’s proposal as the best use of land.
Dave Thompson, Washington Avenue, stated appreciation for the committee’s time put into this highly contentious issue. He thinks it important that the committee reach a reasonable compromise that is fair to those who own property and maintain property. They need to be allowed a maximum return on their investments. He purchased six acres because he wanted to be in a rural area. He feels the area should be kept rural to be fair to those who live here. He serves on the Burlington School District Board and deals with budgets and funding issues. He sees the impact of increased population. He feels cluster development is a reasonable approach which maintains open space and minimizes the impact of development on rural services. This approach allows both sides to win.
Earl Squire, Abbey Lane, stated for the landowner’s sake, he feels three acre parcels are the best way.
Dave Thompson, Washington Avenue, added cluster design goes towards the quality of homes and will maximize the return on tax dollars because of higher values. This will minimize tax impacts on local levels.
Brian Wanasek indicated nothing in the Land Use Plan addresses building sizes or recommended restrictive covenants.
Beverly Zabler, Maple Lane, questioned the economic impact of the density requirement. She stated if an acre sells at a certain price, what difference does a three or five acre average density make? She also questioned what is undevelopable; who determines this and what compensation is available for those land owners with undevelopable land.
Mike stated 52% of lands included in a list provided from SEWRPC are undevelopable. He believes Rochester will remain rural. Land subtracted from density requirements could either be added to one lot, make one big separate lot, or the farmer could keep it. He also explained values are not determined on a per acre basis.
Pat Hurley stated land values are more dependent on amenities. If all amenities are the same, a three-acre density allows more lots and would yield a higher return. If you are developing flat land, values will not be the same as land with more features. You can’t make broad statements on value.
Ken Dahlstrom, English Settlement Drive, stated in his years of experience on the Plan Commission, no one ever came to the Plan Commission stating they had a problem with the Land Use Plan. This has not been an issue identified to the Town Board. However, some people seem to prefer the three-acre concept. The Land Use Plan has been in affect for five years now and was done with SEWRPC’s and Racine County involvement. Rochester is blessed with natural lands. Many acres have been purchased by Racine County and the State. Ken owns 60 acres and has been able to maintain it. He stated SEWRPC identified some land that is not developable, that is set aside for some reason. That leaves 50% of the land left. Ken stated the problem with the undevelopable concept is that someone will have to be hired to identify these areas. He feels many errors will be made in trying to identify what is undevelopable. He feels it important to maintain open space. If 40 years down the line it is good for the community to develop these areas, let them develop. He does not feels the impact of five or three-acre density is that significant on land value and gave the committee poor marks for taking up nine months discussing this issue.
Sheila Webber, Maple Lane, questioned how three-acre density creates more value in development. It was clarified the property owner is allowed to create and sell more lots.
David Borucki, Academy Road, agrees with Mike’s plan. He stated the land is owned by retired farmers who paid taxes and built schools; Mike’s plan gives the most respect to those people.
Some committee members stated David should study the two proposals and how they affect the Borcuki farm. The land has a significant amount of wetland that would have to be subtracted before the three-acre density would be applied.
Beverly Zabler, Maple Road, stated concerns about habitat. She urged people not to think only of lots or lands. She stated she has lived in many environments in her lifetime, including suburbs, the city and the inner city. She considers habitat a big thing and stated the ecological system is fragile. She values wildlife and the commonalities of what is shared. When land is developed, the ducks and birds go away. She stated she would like to represent the animals. She believes there are water issues: Cedarburg, Grafton, Thiensville; their water sources are depleted. She believes conserving resources will increase value on new development. There are issues above the size of lots such as healthier air and water. She questioned what one would want to buy and believes people will favor an open space cluster design- community conscious living. When communities redevelop, they are always looking for open space. She is in favor of cluster development.
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, stated she is overwhelmed by the comments made at this meeting and have found many to be helpful. There seems to be a love for the rural community and she hears people’s desire to protect what is here now and to be fair to property owners. People seem to be attracted to our community by the specialty stores and restaurants. These have become a draw. She considers Rochester a luscious area and believes in goals to protect what we have, control growth, and protect the value of land for those who want to sell. She realizes the preciousness of land. She feels five-acre average density with an open space requirement is the answer to everyone’s interest. She feels cheap or crowded housing does not keep values high. Five-acre density will keep property values up, promote quality development, maintain the rural character of the community and keep taxes low.
At this time public comment was closed. Brian Wanasek polled committee members as to their stance.
Dennis Crombie indicated his first desire is to leave the Land Use Plan as it is, but if a proposal had to be chosen from the two presented tonight he would favor Bob Willard’s.
Dean Stapleton stated he feels Bob Willard’s proposal offers the best compromise. He would favor allowing three-acre density if an open space requirement is present.
Chris Denman stated appreciation for the good comments and information residents brought to the meeting. He expressed some hesitation to go with the undevelopable concept because of the difficulty of defining this. His preference is to have the Land Use Plan stay the same with some type of lot width to depth ratio added for five-acre average density developments to prohibit piano key lots; or the increased density to three-acre average with an open space requirement to encourage clustering (Bob Willard’s proposal).
Chris Johnson stated preference for Mike’s proposal. He feels concessions have been made since before the Land Use Plan when one-acre density was allowed. He feels government agencies have not been fair to some farmers and that 52% of land in the Town being identified as undevelopable will help maintain rural character.
Chuck Haubrich stated many people are concerned about rural character. But, there are different ideas about what is rural. He does not feel fence line to fence line homes is rural. He prefers five-acre average density overall because of population concerns. If making a choice, he favors Bob’s proposal.
Chris Johnson stated development calculations may allow a certain number of lots, but after Plan Commission and Town Board consideration of features on a parcel of land that number may be reduced. The Land Use Plan determines a maximum number of parcels; land divisions are still treated on a case by case basis. Projected population can’t be based on the maximum, the Plan Commission can control this.
Atty. Hotvedt was questioned on the Plan Commission and Town Board’s ability to control what happens with development. He stated the Town can not treat one developer differently than another. Whatever restrictions or limitations are made on development, they must be made on a rational basis. The question is whether a restriction or limitation imposed by the Plan Commission is done arbitrarily or without reason.
Pat Hurley stated a preference for Mike’s proposal. She feels three-acre average density is a sufficient use. She stated price tags on five acre parcels are high. The acreage requirement is stopping our children and grandchildren’s ability to purchase land. She stated it will be costly to keep land open. Someone will pay for that open land.
Brian stated there are aspects he likes and doesn’t like about both proposals. He doesn’t like subtraction of undevelopable lands because he has concerns this will help some at the expense of others. Bob’s increased incentive for clustering raises the size of carrot in hopes that developers’ will cluster. But, Brian doesn’t like the 50% open space requirement attached to the three-acre average density. In some cases, this may not have value to anyone. However, at this point Brian stated if he had to choose, would choose Bob’s proposal.
There was some discussion regarding what compromises both parties have made to allow consideration of a reduction to three-acre average density. Mike stated his compromise was to define undevelopable lands. This will result in some parcels getting less lots in the end, but would push development into lands that are going to be developed.
Mike commented that of some of those who voted for 60% open space never owned land. He thought this unfair as large landowners worked to produce crops and paid taxes in the 70’s and 80’s at amounts five times greater than what an average person paid. He feels five acres uses up land too fast. Five acre density has failed in other communities and he believes these properties will be redivided somewhere down the line. He feels a 60% open space requirement is socialistic.
Bob stated he made this proposal but he is not overly happy with it. He prefers the five-acre average density remain the same, but made the proposal to address Mike’s concern about large land owners. Bob stated if some landowner’s feel better, the compromise is worth it. His compromise does allow more lots and has an affect on the potential value of land. He feels it is a compromise to his initial preference.
Pat Hurley stated her concern that a 60% open space requirement is excessive. In some places, she feels it will be hard to achieve 50%. There will be parcels where this requirement can’t be met. The Plan Commission has to look at parcels and be flexible. Open space is a serious part of the proposal, but actual density will be limited by what is actually developable.
Brian stated the majority of the committee was in favor of Bob’s proposal and that the direction of the committee will be to work those concepts into the Land Use Plan.
The next meeting was set for Thursday, May 19th at 6:30 p.m.
Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Christ Johnson to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy Clerk-Treasurer
|