|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
January 31, 2005 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M.
Brian Wanasek (chairperson) called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. with Chuck Haubrich, Dean Stapleton, Chris Denman, Dennis Crombie, Mike Weinkauf, Pat Hurley, Chris Johnson and Bob Willard present.
Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Brian introduced himself as the newly appointed chairperson of the committee. He reported on review of meeting minutes to date and his intention to maintain the same meeting format as the previous Chairman unless there were objections. Consensus of the committee was to continue the meeting format as established.
Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Chris Johnson to approve minutes of the September 27 and October 26, 2004 meetings contingent that the following paragraphs be corrected:
Page one, September 27th minutes:
Mike Weinkauf then made a motion, seconded by Pat Hurley, to take the issue off the table and change every reference in the Land Use Plan from five acre density to three acre density.
The majority of committee members identified need for more discussion on a green space definition and calculation before voting on density calculations.
Mike
Page three, September 27th minutes:
There was
agreement that growth in schools and associated costs are impacting Rochester.
In addition, agricultural values are not being taxed at such a high rate any
more. The farmers are getting tax breaks for agricultural use
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:
Brian requested each committee member to state goals in updating the Land Use Plan. Goals were as follows:
Mike Weinkauf stated a goal to address density requirements applied to agricultural areas. He feels five-acre (average) density requirements:
Dennis Crombie stated he agrees one of the primary goals of the committee is to address density requirements.
Chris Denman agreed there is a need to address five acre vs. three acre density. He would like to add another layer which is to maintain open space areas throughout the community and to define open space requirements for new development.
Dean Stapleton
stated he feels there is a need to compromise on density requirements but that
it should not solely be based on what members of the committee want, but be
expanded to what people in the community want. Chuck Haubrich stated he would like to see the committee form a common vision of where the community wants to be at the end of this process. If rural space is identified as an end result, the question needs to be formed “What do we have to do to get there?”.
Pat Hurley stated a goal to protect the value of land for those with large parcels. She feels five-acre lots are too large. She stated two and three acre subdivisions are attractive.
Chris Johnson stated he feels five acre lots create problems for the future in that they will encourage future divisions of land; the end result being poorly planned urban sprawl.
Bob Willard stated his goal to preserve rural open space. Higher densities cause an increase to costs of services and the need for more government. At this stage, he feels one of the goals should be to minimize the future costs development will impose on government. He feels three-acre density, across the board, will create more of a problem than five-acre density.
Brian Wanasek identified a common thread through previous meeting minutes and stated goals. He feels a compromise to increase allowable density for agricultural areas to three-acre (average) is possible if the landowner commits to open space preservation, at some percentage requirement, through clustering or some other method.
Chris Denman stated the incentive to the developer or owner is to create 33 clustered smaller lots, requiring less infrastructure improvements- or 20 postage stamp lots.
Mike Weinkauf presented aerial maps showing a five-acre lot subdivision (known as the Schneider farm development). He indicated the subdivision has very long parcels. In addition, other long parcels have been divided out along Academy Road. He stated every individual parcel has acreage that should be designated for farm use. But the ability to farm this land has been lost because individual owners have different preferences on how excess acreage should be used. This makes it impractical to farm. He feels a step is needed in this process that identifies where green space areas should be before land is divided. These areas should be identified- and the rest of the land designated for smaller, three-acre, manageable lots. He feels this reduces the possibility of these parcels being divided in the future. Three-acre parcels are harder to divide again (than five-acre parcels). This will preserve open space. He presented an aerial map of another land division on Washington Avenue (known as the Wanasek division). He feels a swampy area of this land should have been designated as communal open space. Right now, two property owners have a dispute because one home was built blocking the other property owner’s view of the marsh.
Bob sought clarification of areas to be identified and what types of restrictions should apply. Some examples of marshland, waterways, and woodlands were stated. He questioned whether Mike thought homes should be built in woodlands.
Mike indicated he would like property owners to be able to build a house in woodland areas, but that there should be restrictions on where trees could be removed.
A concern was stated that cluster design requirements (50% open space was stated as an example) may result in the open space area becoming a burden on a homeowner’s association in the future. Large individual parcel owners (ten-acre parcel was stated as example) may also experience this. When maintenance of open space areas becomes a burden, land owners will find a way to divide it and sell it off. It was suggested the Land Use Plan not insist on association management for open space areas.
Brian Wanasek commented that, as an attorney, he has seen some problems occur with homeowner’s associations over time. He also stated a general understanding that deed restrictions and homeowner association’s typically expire within 30 years unless other protective covenants are written into them. However, if development rights are deeded to a third party, such as the Town or a Land Trust, it is his understanding they do not lapse. The Town Attorney should be consulted on this and asked to attend a future meeting for discussion.
Pat Hurley stated she does not want association management; she would rather see a private landowner be responsible for mandated open space.
Chris Denman indicated he wants to create options instead of limiting to one type of open space management or another. However, the open space percentage requirement needs to be determined. Some examples were a 65% open space requirement with three-acre average density; or a 50% open space requirement with three-acre average density.
A comment was made that it is difficult to apply a percentage because every piece of land is unique in character. Flat farmland may not have significant features that make it obvious where to designate open space, yet the plan will mandate a percentage. The developer will need to identify what area is most beneficial.
When discussing how open space percentage requirements and density calculations relate, Brian clarified average density acreage does not specify the size of individual parcels, but the number of parcels that can be created.
The question of property values and how they are affected by density was again raised. Bob Willard stated he does not feel landowners have lost value under the current Land Use Plan (specifying an average five-acre density).
Mike Weinkauf indicated the sale price of Rochester’s farmland, with allowable density of five acres per dwelling unit, averaged $16,400 per acre in 2004. In contrast, land in the sewer district with allowable density of 6,200 to 18,999 square feet per dwelling unit, recently sold for $58,000 per acre (Rochester LLC, “The Settlement” condominiums- 25 acres).
Mike indicated
Rochester’s proximity to Milwaukee and Racine makes land attractive. Whether it
can be divided into five
Brian indicated the financial impact of changing average density from three to five acres is unknown because of the many factors that determine land value. When a parcel is sold for development, the impact of an extra four lots is unknown.
Chuck Haubrich indicated the committee is not here to maximize the value of land sold in Rochester. Rather, it is to identify goals of the Land Use Plan. It is always a balance between the rights of property owners and community rights.
A compromise to three-acre average density was narrowed to two options. Developer’s must agree to cluster style development or to a higher percentage of green space in order to increase average density requirements on any development from five to three acres per dwelling unit. Percentages were suggested as 50% open space if you cluster; 65% if you do not. Benefits of these options were identified as 1) to cut down on future infrastructure costs; and 2) preserve open space and farmland.
Mike Weinkauf repeated an earlier statement that the Land Use Plan should identify green space areas ahead of time; areas where houses shouldn’t be built.
Dennis Crombie indicated the committee’s main objective is to update the Land Use Plan in such a way that it is acceptable to the people of the community, but protects the rights of large landowners. The task was given to revise and update the Plan, but there is a struggle on how to get there. The goals of the original Land Use Plan, to preserve the community’s rural characteristics and control urban sprawl, should be maintained.
Chris Denman stated his preference that when parcels are developed, an open space requirement must be met in order to qualify for three-acre density. A definition for open space is needed with percentage requirements and how open space is to be maintained. A statement is needed.
Dean Stapleton feels a compromise to three-acre average density is possible, but that the Land Use Plan has to deal with the wishes of all land owners. Not just large land owners, but all the people it affects.
Chuck Haubrich stated his feeling that the committee had a good discussion on open space and the need to clarify a percentage. However, he has concerns about density requirements. There is a move in other Racine County communities to stricter density requirements- many of them meeting or exceeding a five-acre average density requirement. Rochester will attract more development if it loosens density requirements.
Pat Hurley clarified whether open space requirements would include acreage utilized for roadways. There was a general consensus by the committee that roadways would not be considered open space.
Chuck identified some calculations should be done that demonstrate the effect of 60% open space and four-acre (average) density requirements. Also, it should be decided whether wetlands are to be included acreage when calculating allowable lots per the density requirement.
Chris Johnson stated a goal of creating manageable lots that were not prone to further divisions in future. The legal aspects must be decided as to how long to set open space aside and how restrictive to be.
Open space requirements must also be defined for urban and sewer service areas.
Bob Willard stated a need to define open space. He could live with a three-acre average density bonus if open space requirements were imposed.
Mike Weinkauf stated his concept of identifying green space areas in sewer and outside of sewer district in advance would leave the balance of lands available for three-acre (average) density development and maintain a rural township.
Brian Wanasek assigned each committee member a task. At the next meeting, each member is to present a compromise to the density issue that they feel they can live with. They should write down two or three proposals including an explanation of how their compromise will work. The submission must be in writing. If anyone fails to bring in a written proposal, the first five minutes will be reserved for that individual to draft a proposal.
Period for Public Comment:
Judy Karweik, alternate committee member, questioned why the density issue is being rehashed. It was explained the assignment of the committee is to review everything in the plan, including density requirements.
Ken Dahlstrom, 1301 N. English Settlement Drive, welcomed Brian Wanasek to the committee. He commented he felt this was a good meeting and felt the suggestion to come up with two or three thoughts was good. He felt committee members should also list pros and cons in their proposals.
Buzz Hurley, 411 N. Browns Lake Drive, commented the Village shouldn’t be involved in open space requirements and should knock down 65% of their existing houses if they want to participate.
Virginia Vanzyckle, Honey Creek, felt it would be less controversial to have green space well defined vs. identifying these areas on all properties. She felt this would be more acceptable to individual landowner rights. She also feels it would be an overwhelming task to identify these areas throughout the whole community. She urged committee members to maintain community based goals. The Plan Commission and community adopted certain areas to be developed with lower or higher densities and she feels these should be maintained. Development has affected the Honey Creek community since she has moved there. She now looks out her window at a cell tower and new house across the street. She feels present neighborhoods should be maintained for people and the environment.
Dave Borucki stated he has lived in this community for forty seven years. His eighty-six year old mother is a large land owner. He explained his stand that he does not feel the Land Use Plan should hurt the value of land.
Mike Weinkauf indicated farmers do not pay Social Security taxes, their farm is their legacy. He is also pro-property rights.
Bob questioned how much Mike looked into value and how it might be affected by what the committee does. Land is worth whatever the market will bear, whether it is growing corn or growing houses.
Consensus of the committee was to wait one more meeting before inviting legal counsel to discuss deed restrictions.
The next meeting was set for Monday, February 28, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Bob Willard moved, 2nd by Dean Stapleton to adjourn at 8:04 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy Clerk-Treasurer
|