|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
July 29, 2004 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE 6:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Pat Hurley, Bob Willard, Dean Stapleton, Chuck Haubrich, Mike Weinkauf, Chris Johnson, Dennis Crombie and Lloyd Frye present. Chris Denman arrived at 6:35 p.m.
Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Amendment of committee rules to allow public comments throughout the meeting (vs. at a specific time)
There was discussion on benefits and disadvantages of the current meeting structure which restricts public comment to the last fifteen minutes of the meeting. Chris Denman rescinded his motion from the June meeting where he requested amending the rules to allow public participation throughout the meeting.
Revision Request #13 submitted by Chuck Haubrich revising several objectives of the Plan
The request was to change Chapter VI, second bullet point and sub points to read:
§ Encourage orderly development which maintains the rural character and small village atmosphere of the community
- Direct development to areas identified for specific land use
-
Where feasible, use mixed residential and
commercial (banks, shops, restaurants, etc.) development to maintain
- Small scale, not big box, commercial development
- Low density rural residential development outside sewer district
- Industry and large scale businesses in an industrial park
- Consider local development in relation to land use plans and patterns of surrounding communities
- Development compatible and integrated with community historic and aesthetic features and infrastructure resources
Bob moved, 2nd by Dean to approve revision request #13. Votes were: Lloyd Frye: Naye; Chris Johnson: Naye; Mike Weinkauf: Naye; Chris Denman: Aye; Dennis Crombie: Aye; Chuck Haubrich: Aye; Dean Stapleton: Aye; Bob Willard: Aye; Patricia Hurley: Naye. Motion passed.
At this time, the clerk requested a motion to approve minutes from the last meeting. Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Bob Willard to approve the minutes as printed. Motion carried.
Presentation of proposed language changes to address rural densities in “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020”
Bob identified the majority of Mike Weinkauf’s revision requests from the June meeting referred to a similar concept; decreasing the average acreage density requirement applied to new land divisions, in non-sewered areas, from five to three acres.
Mike stated five acres is too large for the average residential landowner because of maintenance issues. He does not feel five-acre lots are something the Town wants. In addition, he feels the Town should encourage the highest value of the land for the seller of the parcel. He does not feel mandated five-acre average densities applied to new land divisions maintain value for current land owners. In illustration, he offered comparison of values generated by five one-acre lots vs. one five-acre lot.
There was discussion regarding the five-acre average density concept. It was clarified lots as small as one-acre can still be created. Lots do not have to be five acres in size. Illustration: for a land division affecting forty-acres, eight parcels could be created (40 divided by 5 nets 8 parcels). If the newly created parcels were two-acres in size (8 times 2 nets 16 acres used), twenty-four remaining acres could be deeded as open space commonly owned by virtue of a neighborhood association or land trust agreement. Minimum parcel sizes are regulated by zoning, the most common minimum size applicable to the Town of Rochester is one-acre with 150 feet of road frontage (A-2 zoning). Therefore, new land divisions can offer lots sizes as small as one-acre.
July 29, 2004 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE (Cont.) 6:30 P.M. Mike stated common lands owned by associations often run into problems by the second generation of ownership. There is often friction over shared use of common lands. He feels people get along better when they know where their boundaries are.
Comment was made that under the five-acre average density requirement, a land owner needs at least ten acres to affect a land division.
Lloyd stated it is obvious growth is occurring in the community. If Rochester sticks to a five-acre density, 100 houses will take up 500 acres of land. The inability of property owners to take care of five-acre parcels will result in weeds and fire hazards. Under a one-acre density, 100 homes would take 100 acres. He does not feel the Town should scatter 100 houses over 500 acres. He feels a three-acre density requirement is more reasonable and offers adequate control on how many houses are built.
Chris Johnson stated Plan Commissions and Town Boards ultimately control densities. He noted a recent land division in Wind Lake. The developer started with 35 parcels on 71-acres of land. After input of the Plan Commission and Board, the developer ended up with only 24 parcels. The Land Use Plan should give credence to the fact that ultimately Plan Commissions and Boards will approve what is right for the community based on characteristics of the land being divided.
Chris Denman stated agreement with a rural three-acre average density, but believes the Land Use Plan should incorporate a graduated green space factor based on the number of acres being developed as follows: 10 – 49 acres: 50% open space; 50 – 99 acres: 60% open space; 100+ acres: 65% open space. He believes associations can adequately maintain conservation areas, but noted the responsibility will ultimately fall to Town and Village Boards to determine what is appropriate to manage open space in any particular development.
Bob stated disagreement that the property maintenance argument against the five-acre average density concept holds up; three acres is still a lot of land to manage for the average property owner.
Mike suggested allowing a developer to own required open/green space and that a provision could be stated allowing him to develop it at a later time, but in a controlled way. This would help avoid a large number of homes at one time overwhelming the costs associated with schools and services. A development could feature lots sizes at a minimum of 1.5 acres; and the developer could retain ownership of required green space. Issues such as maintenance of the land and prompt payment of taxes could be used as incentives to help the Town Board determine when and if the land could be developed (development rights).
Opinion was expressed that this concept would eventually use up all the green space.
Chuck presented a chart showing the potential population of the Town and Village of Rochester based on three and five acre densities. At an average five-acre density, the potential increase in the number of homes is 1,595 resulting in a potential population of 8,286 (current population + 4,785 new people). At a three-acre average density, the potential increase in the number of homes is 2,367 resulting in a potential population of 10,602 (current population + 7,101 new people). This was based on an average of three people per home and development of remaining sewered and non-sewered land in the Town and Village of Rochester. Chuck does not feel a population of 10,602 maintains the characteristic of a rural community.
Mike reported talking to Terry McMahon, chairman for the Town of Yorkville. Terry stated an interesting statistic that a five-acre parcel has an 80% greater chance of being split in the future than a three-acre parcel.
It was then stated that some common goals are met with conservation subdivision concepts, those being to have smaller lots but to balance them with green space. Further discussion is needed on green space requirements and how to manage care. The disadvantage of larger lots is that each individual could potentially divide them in the future creating haphazard development. It was agreed controls are needed now to preserve green space for the future.
Period for Public Comment.
Richard Schwinn, 2529 Landmaid Street, indicated he lives in a “cluster development” right now on the west end of the Town of Rochester: Honey Creek. He indicated his primary interest is low taxes and stated residential development is a financial loser for the Town. He noted a 70% increase on his property taxes in the Village of Waterford over the past several years due to residential growth. He again stated his primary stance is anti-tax. He stated voters will express concerns when their taxes increase 20 – 40%. He feels the Town should control growth by maintaining a higher density requirement. Large scale lots and open space requirements keep the cost and size of government to a minimum. Portland Oregon instituted Smart Growth 30 years ago and it has worked well for them. He supports a five-acre density requirement as a tool to control growth and taxes.
July 29, 2004 LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE (Cont.) 6:30 P.M.
Debra Schwinn, 2529 Langmaid Street, stated her service on a Land Use Board in Colorado. She warned the committee to define green space carefully in the plan. She feels property owners do not lose freedoms by participating in a homeowners association. She noted these are voluntary associations; if a potential property owner does not like requirements of the association, they do not buy the piece of land. They need to look at the rules first. She stated an increased number of septic systems will affect the quality of groundwater. Her opinion is that allowable densities should be kept at the five-acre level. Additionally, she feels cluster designs provide a maximum value and quality of life. She urged the committee to preserve the quality of life for the future, but to also consider this as an issue for the people who already live here.
Edwin Ela, 31308 Washington Avenue, stated a direct relationship between population and freedom as follows: “the more people there are, the more freedoms we have to give up to get along”. Additionally, he stated that people should be able to buy a lot now and know what it will look like in the future. He feels land owners should be able to get a decent price for their land, however, we can’t use up all the land now and deny the future.
Wayne Schrader, 32417 Washington Avenue, (former Town Board member) stated that ten years ago the Town talked about preserving green space. He is opposed to the new concept stated tonight of giving a developer the opportunity to develop required green space in the future. He urged committee members to be concerned about the quality of groundwater. He considers water to be the community’s life blood. Development affects the water table with increased wells and septic systems. If the higher densities being stated tonight are approved, he feels there should be more talk about increasing sanitary sewer service throughout the Town.
Chris Johnson commented residential septic systems are only a 1% contributor of nitrates to groundwater. The ground is still the best filter that can be used to purify sewage. Today’s systems clean water up to 99%. A benefit of septic systems is that water goes right down where it belongs rather than being taken away by sewer lines to a river. The biggest problem with water contamination is due to fertilizers. Farms contribute 55% to the nitrate problem.
Mike stated he does not want to be accused of favoring developers. He wants to control growth, but maintain value for current the landowners.
Richard Vanszckle, 2535 Langmaid Street, stated he would like to see the area remain as rural as possible.
Virginia Vanszckle, 2535 Langmaid Street, acknowledged the committee’s need to be concerned with all different facets of development and recognized their attempt to represent the populous as best as they can. She stated her feeling that Rochester is a rural community and that is how she wants it to stay. She prefers its small town character.
Debra Schwinn spoke again. She identified the primary question being the size of parcels. She stated the committee should try to visualize what the community will look like in 20 years under the different scenarios. She feels the committee should decide on what will best preserve agricultural land. They should also identify what they don’t want to see. She does not feel the Land Use Plan will take away any more rights than what zoning laws already have.
Chris Johnson stated each parcel can be controlled individually by Plan Commissions and Boards. He feels there is an assumption that a 200-acre farm would net 200 parcels. That is not the case.
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 26th at 6:30 p.m.
Pat moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Clerk |