TOWN OF ROCHESTER
Racine County, Wisconsin
Municipal Office Phone:  (262) 534-5742;  Facsimile:  (262) 534-4084
Mailing Address:  203 W. Main Street, P.O. Box 352, Rochester, WI  53167

Link to Town Board Meetings

 

Link to Town Board Meetings

 

 

November 30, 2005                            LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE                           6:30 P.M.

    

 

Committee members present:   Brian Wanasek (chairperson), Bob Willard, Pat Hurley, Chris Johnson, Chuck Haubrich, Dennis Crombie, Dean Stapleton and Mike Weinkauf.  Chris Denman was absent.  

 

Sandi Swan, secretary, was also present.

 

Minutes.  Chuck Halbrich moved, 2nd by Mike Weinkauf to approve minutes of the October 27, 2005 with the following corrections under:

           

Progress Update and Direction on Requested Amendments to Land Use Plan:  Town of Rochester Board

Paragraph #3, bullet point #4

 

·    the proposed development maintains 50% open space by the use of building

envelopes; deed restrictions or outlots.

 

Motion carried.

 

Brian asked the Committee how they wanted to proceed with the LUP map amendments.

Discussion was held whether to review the whole map at this time or to just act on the requests that are before the committee.

 

Concensus was to review the requests that are before the committee and schedule the general map review at the next meeting.  Haubrich suggested that residents be informed of the LUP map review in the quarterly newsletter.  Swan noted that something will be put in the December newsletter.

 

LUP Map Amendments – Requests on file

 

Jim Kupfer (Riverview Parkway)

 

Discussion started about the Kupfer request.  Bob Willard felt it was not necessary to change.

Mike Weinkauf stated that Mr. Kupfer was the developer of the Fox River Hills Subdivision which abuts the property he is making the request on. 

 

Mike Weinkauf stated that the Developer’s Agreement in that subdivision was broken when they built the lift station on a residential lot instead of the outlot it was intended for. 

 

Discussion was held about the sewer and if it would make sense to extend the sewer in that area.

Chris Johnson stated that if sewer were to be extended this would be the area to do it in.

 

Weinkauf moved, seconded by Stapleton to deny their requests to amend the LUP map in their favor.  Motion carried.

 

 

Rick Reesman (Westwood Ave.) Rural Density Residential to Suburban Residential

 

Brian Wanasek stated Mr. Reesman is a client at his law firm and he would have to abstain from discussion and voting on this issue.   Mike Weinakauf was asked to chair the meeting for this discussion.

 

Mike Weinkauf stated that this property is on Westwood Ave. by Cnty. Hwy. A. When

Wayne Fuller put through his land division to the East of the property, the road needed to be connected to Westwood Ave.  After the road was connected it made this piece of land too small to fit in with Rural Density classification, and gave them more road frontage. 

 

Chris Johnson moved, seconded by Dean Stapleton to approve the amendment from Rural Density Residential to Suburban Residential.  Motion carried.

 

Malsion and Hoyer Properties (Washington Ave) 300 Ft of Road frontage out of Urban Reserve

 

Mike stated that according to the Town Attorney, John Hotvedt, anything classified as Urban Reserve should be sewered.  Since the Town would like to see this developed at rural densities the easiest way to correct this would to be to take the first 300 ft. out of Urban Reserve. The Town Board feels this is preferable to sewered or commercial development in that area.

 

Brian Wanasek stated the he is in favor of this change because to leave it in Urban Reserve would allow for more intense development in that parcel.

 

Motion made by Mike Weinkauf, seconded by Pat Hurley to take 300 ft.of Malison-Hoyer Property out of Urban Reserve.  Motion carried.

 

Clarify the "Urban Reserve" Classification

 

Consensus of the Committee was what is already written is satisfactory.

 

Continued discussion to recommend revisions /updates to Chapter 6

Discussion started with the second paragraph on Page 69.  Mike Weinkauf did not like the wording of this paragraph.

It should be noted, that in addition to maintaining agricultural resources for future generations, the preservation of agricultural land serves a number of other important public purposes. The preservation of farmlands helps prevent the creation of scattered, incomplete urban residential neighborhoods which are difficult to provide with basic public services and facilities, and can thus help to control local public expenditures. The preservation of farmland, helps main­tain the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the Rochester area, and helps avoid creating certain serious and costly development and environmental problems that are often attendant to scattered development.

 

Mike stated he feels that public services are easily provided everywhere as far as electricity, gas,

November 30, 2005                            LAND USE PLAN COMMITTEE                           6:30 P.M.

 

phone, etc.  Bob Willard stated that public services would also include police, fire and roads.  Bob Willard stated that services are easily provided however they are more costly if the subdivisions are scattered.  Discussion was held about the income of new houses compared to the cost of providing services to new houses.  Chuck Haubrich stated studies show the higher populations result in a higher tax burden.

 

Mike stated that the Plan tells people how to maintain agricultural land for future generations, but the plan in no way should try to take value away from people when they develop.  The only value agricultural land has, is its value to be developed. 

 

Brian Wanasek stated he feels those words are in there to give strength to the plan to justify limiting development in agricultural land.

 

Consensus was to change the wording to may be more difficult.

 

Discussion continued to the next paragraph with regards to cluster development.  Mike stated there has not been a cluster development in the Town for seven years.  Discussion was held as to whether or not cluster development should be mandated. Consensus was that it should be mandated where feasible, which is what the paragraph indicates.

 

No changes were made at that time

 

Period for Public Comment:

 

There were none.

 

The next meeting of the committee was set for Wednesday, January 11, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.

 

Dean Stapleton moved, 2nd by Bob Willard to adjourn at 7:57 p.m.  Motion carried.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Sandi Swan

Secretary

 

Return to top of page