|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
May 19, 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.
Dean Stapleton moved, 2nd by Chris Johnson to approve minutes of March 31, 2005 and April 28, 2005 meetings of the Land Use Plan Committee with the following corrections:
On March 31, 2005 minutes, page two, Mike’s proposal, stated by Brian Wanasek, was corrected to read as follows:
“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) <ADD> or 37 houses with clustering bonus.”
On April 28, 2005 minutes, page four, Chris Denman’s statement “Waterford has dug deep wells because of radon issues” was corrected to read “Waterford has dug shallow wells because of radon issues.”
Motion carried.
Discussion and
recommended revisions/ updates to Chapter 6
Brian Wanasek began discussion by asking the committee to explore modification to Bob Willard’s motion on rural densities stated at the April meeting (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.”
Brian noted that while a majority of the committee voted in favor of this language, the committee was split. Even those voting in favor did not necessarily agree with all aspects of the proposal. Brian expressed his desire for the committee to work together to develop language they could mutually agree on in order to make a unified recommendation for changes to the Town Board.
Bob indicated he is satisfied with how the current Land Use Plan addresses rural densities. His first preference was not to change the Land Use Plan at all. However, he was open to working with the committee to develop more acceptable language.
The following concepts associated with Bob’s proposal were clarified:
Through discussion, committee members agreed on modifying the open space requirement from 60% to 50% on three-acre average density.
A problem was identified with the outlot concept. A developer could use this vehicle to create four-acre deed restricted outlots attached to one-acre residential lots. This would result in individually owned five-acre lots. To discourage this, two ideas were suggested:
Brian offered to work with Bob on modifying language to incorporate these changes before the next meeting.
There was discussion on how average densities differ between sewered and non-sewered development. It was noted development should be treated the same in the Town and Village based on densities specified in the Plan.
Additionally, there was discussion on whether changing to three-acre average density requirement makes developing in Rochester a deal compared to surrounding communities. Chris Johnson stated personal knowledge of density requirements in municipalities being different than how they were presented in Chuck Haubrich’s research. It was noted there are different density requirements for different areas in each community’s plan. One density requirement does not apply to all lands in a Town. Chris Johnson stated he did not feel a 3-acre average density for Certified Survey Map land divisions would differ much from requirements of surrounding municipalities.
Bob’s proposal, as applied to a Certified Survey Map process, should be clarified as to how density calculations would apply.
The next meeting of the committee was set for Thursday, June 23, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
Period for Public Comment:
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, stated five acre density means fewer people and more valuable land. She was impressed with the number of individuals at the last meeting who requested the Land Use Plan be kept the way it is right now. She feels most people on the committee want to do their best to protect the future and preserve the community we have. She feels each person must look at the motives behind requested changes.
Beverly Zabler, Maple Lane, stated allowable densities affect quality of life issues. She feels Rochester is a gold mine because it is within the magic “45 minute” commute area to Milwaukee. It is a desirable geographic area. People who move here are looking for rural character. She feels Waterford is no longer rural and defined Waterford’s character as suburban. In terms of land value, she believes preserving land by developing at lower densities will keep the land valuable. She feels the committee should try to maintain Rochester’s rural character because it is special and valuable. She stated Rochester’s density requirements should stay in line with what other communities in the area are requiring.
Virginia Vanszckle, Langmaid St, stated she would like the Town to stay with five-acre density. She is concerned about the compromises being made. She stated her opinion that cluster design is where the money is at. If land abuts open space it is valued higher. More development will take away land value. Developers looking to the future will realize the value of open space.
Brian Wanasek stated he feels the Town needs to be flexible and acknowledged cluster development won’t work in all situations.
Chris Denman stated increasing density to three-acre average from the four-acre average allowed under cluster design only adds eight additional houses on a 100-acre development.
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, commented the Town should stay in line with neighboring communities. Many are at five acre density. She feels the Town will be giving more of an incentive for development if increasing allowable lots by adopting the three-acre average density.
The secretary was directed to poll surrounding communities on density classifications and requirements, particularly noting the difference between subdivision and Certified Survey Map processes. Communities to be polled are: Town of Waterford, Town of Dover, Town of Burlington, and Town of Spring Prairie. SEWRPC recommendations should also be researched.
Pat Hurley moved, 2nd by Bob Willard to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy Secretary
|