|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
February 28, 2005 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M.
Brian Wanasek (chairperson) called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. with Bob Willard, Chris Johnson, Chuck Haubrich, Chris Denman, Dennis Crombie and Mike Weinkauf present. Pat Hurley and Dean Stapleton were absent.
Betty Novy, Secretary, was also present.
Mike Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Dennis Crombie to approve minutes of the January 31, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Continued discussion on proposed language changes and green space requirements to address rural densities in “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020” to include:
· A green space percentage requirement for new development and the size of parcel where such requirement would become effective; · Creating a definition for green space; · Deciding allowable green space management options; and · Rural density requirements
As directed at the close of the January meeting, each member presented a proposal of how they would compromise on density and green space requirements as follows:
Pat Hurley (submitted in writing): “In my opinion, three acre lot divisions are more than adequate. I think there is enough green space with three acre individual lots. If there would be some environmental sensitive areas such as ponds, wetlands or large wooded areas, every effort should be made to address the preservation of those areas in the beginning of the planning process. Clustered housing should be considered using averaging of three acres for those areas.”
Bob Willard: Compromise proposal (as written): “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. This proposal allows for three acre average density which increases the number of houses that can be built on a parcel. This proposal increases the density bonus for clustering from one house per four acres in the present plan; to one house per three acres. At the same time, it requires that open space be maintained in the clustering, which should help maintain some open space in the Town. It also addresses the concern that all have expressed about the negative impact of all five acre lots if a developer is not clustering and using the five acre density. “Open space” (a definition that needs work): 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. (A drawing was submitted illustrating these concepts.)”
Chris Johnson: Chris stated he would like to see a straight across the board change to three-acre density; with 1.5 acres individually owned and one or two larger parcels, also individually owned. He feels clustering will be forced because of economics: septic and road costs. He feels this scenario addresses maintenance concerns and smaller parcels are less likely to be split in the future. He does not want a mandatory open space requirement.
Chuck Haubrich: Compromise proposal (as written): “Four acre density without clustering and 60% open space owned by 10% or fewer of homeowners; open space areas greater than 20 acres protected from further development by a conservation easement; smaller parcels protected by deed restriction; or three acre density with homes clustered and 60% open space owned by a home owners association or one person; open space area would be protected from further development by a conservation easement. Comments: Open space requirements help address Mike’s concern about remnant parcels being too small to farm. The proposed four acre conventional and three acre cluster densities represent a compromise between current LUP five acre conventional and four acre cluster densities and Mike’s proposal for three-acre uniform density. Suggested “open space” definition: Undeveloped land within a subdivision or cluster subdivision that has been restricted in perpetuity from further development and is set aside for the use and enjoyment by residents of the development and for the preservation, restoration and management of historical, agricultural or environmentally sensitive features. It shall be protected from further division by deed restriction and/or conservation easements. It shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historical structures and archaeological sites including Indian mounds and/or such recreational facilities for residents as indicated on the approve development plan. It shall be restored and managed in accordance with a stewardship plan that shall be prepared for the open space.”
Chris Denman: Chris indicated he purposefully did not write down a compromise position as he believes in open space and clustering, but does not want to put the municipality “on the hook” for the difference in land values these restrictions might cause. He wants to see open space and a density requirement but did not define a specific calculation.
Dennis Crombie: Compromise proposal (as written): “In terms of long term development, I would be inclined to feel that five acre density would be more advantageous to the entire community, although there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. It seems obvious that we will never come to a consensus agreement that will not provoke further future concern or agreement. At this time, I would tend to feel that we should be able to live with a three-acre density, considering the amount of undevelopable land in the Town and assuming that the Planning Committee is able to maintain some control to help maintain the rural characteristics which most people seem to want. It would be helpful to have more information, such as public input. I tend to agree with what Chuck Haubrich said earlier, we need some sense of a goal as to where we want to be at the end of this process and what we have to do to get there. Some information as to the cost difference anticipated with three-acre as compared with five-acre density would also be helpful.”
Mike Weinkauf: Compromise proposal (as written): “My proposal is to identify green space area in and out of the sewer district in advance and the balance of the area could be developed at three acre density. According to our land use plan and the report from George Hall of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, the Rochester area has almost 1/3 of its area listed as undevelopable. These areas are mapped and can easily be identified. I am strongly against mandatory cluster development or whatever wording you want to use. Three acre density with 65% open space is the same as mandatory cluster development.”
Chris Denman stated he did not feel the Land Use Plan should penalize large farmers. He noted land annexed to the Village of Waterford or City of Burlington would most likely be developed at one-half to one-third acre lots.
Concern was expressed that if three-acre average density was adopted without open space requirements, the Plan Commission would not be given the tools necessary to encourage smaller lots; that most likely all developments would have straight three acre lots.
Bob stated a vision or goal to preserve productive farmland so that it exists 20 years from now. He questioned how increasing the density to three-acre average supports that goal.
Chris Johnson indicated his concern that chopping the land into five acre pieces will create more urban sprawl later. Land divisions will occur once and then a second round will sweep through again in the future. He feels three acre lots are less likely to be split in the future.
A statement was made that five-acre average density will cause more tracts of land to be developed. If we assume 100 families wish to locate to Rochester, five acre densities will cut up more land.
It was stated there should be a way to assure open space will be preserved into the future.
Mike presented two-aerial photographs of land tracts in Rochester. On these maps, he illustrated areas where five-acre lots cut up productive farm land; and where the failure to identify and properly deed open space ahead of time caused rifts between neighbors.
His concern is that the Land Use Plan does not lower land values for large property owners in Rochester. From personal experience, he knows farmland is appraised lower because of five-acre average density requirements. This affects the farmers’ ability to borrow money as well as sell their land. Mike described himself as pro- land rights; that a fair share should be available to those people who kept the area green all these years.
He feels three-acre average density will still maintain a very rural character based on the amount of undevelopable land in Rochester. The Plan Commission still has tools. The Plan Commission will continue to work with developers to create attractive developments with open space.
Plan Commission tools were questioned. A concern was stated that changing the density to three-acre across the board will be setting the Town up for urban sprawl; that the standard will become flat three-acre parcels and the Plan Commission’s hands will be tied.
Chuck brought up lot depth to width ratio requirements that were originally proposed for the Land Division Ordinance. If ratios were utilized, this would deter piano key lots developments. Brian thought depth to width ratios could be looked at again as a way to control lot sizes.
Mike indicated he does not want mandatory cluster development. It was noted cluster development was never mandatory under the current Land Use Plan. There was always a choice between five-acre average density or a greater density allowance if the land division utilized cluster design.
Chris Johnson again stated his concern that he only wants to see parcels develop once; he does not want to see a second round of land divisions come about on the same lands in the future.
Brian stated concern that if there is no percentage of open space, or no method to say open space must be set aside, he does not see the Plan Commission being able to make that happen.
Mike stated every piece of land will have areas that are not developable.
Brian indicated if there is a flat acreage requirement, with no incentive to preserve open space, it only stands to reason that every parcel will be developed in the way that is most economical for the developer. It is important that when land is divided, that it be done right the first time. Brian indicated 33 (acre) lots would be netted from a 100 acre parcel, with possibly one or two larger parcels. Those larger parcels will most likely be divided again. Subdivision restrictions generally last 20 years. Redividing will become an option in the future.
Chuck stated open space can be protected with a conservation easement. Brian stated nothing is absolute. However, it does make it less likely that land will be redivided.
Mike stated Rochester is identified as a rapid growth area. He does not feel five-acre lots will make the best use of the land. He still does not feel the average individual is able to adequately maintain a five-acre lot.
Others stated if lot maintenance is the major concern, they know of many three-acre parcels that are not adequately maintained.
Mike clarified his proposal is to subtract the acreage of undevelopable land from total acreage on new developments. A three-acre average density would then be applied to the remaining acreage in order to come up with the number of new lots that would be allowed.
Committee members indicated the current plan counts undevelopable acres before applying average density calculations.
Brian indicated the meeting time was up and discussion was tabled. It was clarified the committee will pick up this discussion at the next meeting and craft language to vote up or down on. It was stated as important that land owners (and everybody else) feel good about the Land Use Plan. 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. Mike was directed to put his motion in writing, to include wording that excludes undevelopable land from density calculations, and defines what “undevelopable” means.
Period for Public Comment:
Kathy North, 528 N. Maple Lane, stated she is in attendance representing the interests of large land owners. She questioned how many 100-acre farms are left in Rochester. She indicated these few individuals are the ones who are going to have to live with these restrictions for the next 20 years.
(Mike Weinkauf left at 7:58 p.m.)
Richard North, 528 N. Maple Lane, was also present representing large land owners. He stated he is against any plan that takes away value for large land owners.
A statement was made that people will get used to houses. Over time, attitudes will change. We don’t want to give people the chance to divide land over again. The more open land there is, the more will be developable later.
The next meeting was set for Thursday, March 31, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. Bob Willard moved, 2nd by Chris Denman to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Secretary
|