|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
September 27, 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, Dean Stapleton, Dennis Crombie, Chris Denman, Mike Weinkauf, Chris Johnson and Lloyd Frye present.
Betty Novy, Clerk, was also present.
Dennis Crombie moved, 2nd by Pat Hurley to approve minutes of the August 26, 2004 meeting with the following sentence being struck from paragraph five:
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:
Lloyd began the discussion by stating the density issue is crucial to all considerations.
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 withdrew the motion.
Chris Denman presented an illustration of a 100-acre land division with five acre parcels. The result was 20 scattered sets of houses and outbuildings spread out over 100 acres. The question was asked whether the committee considered this example to contain adequate green space.
Definitions of green space were discussed. Denman read the following definition obtained from an internet site:
Green Space. Green space means permanently protected land and water, including agricultural and forestry land, that is in its undeveloped, natural state or that has been developed only to the extent consistent with, or is restored to be consistent with, one or more of the following goals:
a.) Water protection for rivers, streams, and lakes: b.) Flood protection c.) Wetlands protection d.) Reduction of erosion through protection of steep slopes, areas with erodible soils, and stream banks e.) Protection of riparian buffers and other areas that serve as natural habitat and corridors for native lant and animal species; f.) Scenic protection g.) Protection of archaeological and historic resources h.) Provision of recreation in the form of boating , hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, running, jogging, biking, walking, and similar outdoor activities; and i.) Connection of existing or planned areas contributing to the goals set out in this paragraph.
Denman simplified the concept by stating green space included any lands set aside where building will not happen.
He then presented another example of a 100-acre clustered subdivision creating 60 two-acre lots with 40% open space. This concept requires that 40% of the land will never be built on. He felt this type of design allows preservation of green space into the future.
Pat Hurley stated a person should have the option to purchase 30 acres (a larger parcel) under this type of scenario.
It was stated something in the plan should provide an incentive to create green space; greater density could be one of the incentives. Options for care of open space are also needed.
It was stated that the current Land Use Plan offers a 25% density bonus if cluster design is utilized.
General consensus of the committee was that the design representing 20 five-acre lots was not desirable. A statement was made that the incentive to cluster design could be to increase the allowable density to three acre (vs. five-acre).
Statements were made regarding how cluster design could affect the value of land. If water and woods were present on the parcel, cluster design will increase its value. If the land is (just) a corn field, this could decrease its value.
Chris Johnson and Pat Hurley reported the State of Wisconsin and Racine County were talking about removing swamps and wetland areas from density calculations. Consensus of the Committee was that these areas would be included in density calculations.
The question arose who will be responsible for green space. Options were stated as: one owner; an association; the municipality; or it could be turned over to a conservation trust for management. It was agreed green space could be utilized for agricultural purposes.
There was a question about whether lands put in conservancy would be taken off the tax roll. Consensus was that tax values generated by new development will offset any loss of value to conservancy.
There was some agreement to change the Land Use Plan from five to three acre density if an open space percentage was required, with percentages stated between 40 – 65%. Consideration should also be given to a minimum acreage where this percentage takes effect- an example was stated as “any development over 20 acres”.
Mike indicated he still feels five acres is too large for a residential lot. The Town needs to ensure that lot sizes are created that people can afford.
It was again clarified a five acre average density does not require five acre lots; that a one-acre lot can still be created under minimum zoning standards. General consensus was that five-acre parcels, as a whole, are hard to maintain.
Pat Hurley stated she still feels three-acre density gives plenty of green space.
It was stated that dropping the average density to three-acres creates a bigger bonus than what is in the Land Use Plan now. It was further stated that if sewer becomes an issue in the future, cluster design will be an advantage due to the closer proximity of homes to each other. This would require less extension of sewer lines.
Dean stated an example of a family member that owns a property in a five-acre average density development. They live on small lots with the minimum frontage, but enjoy sharing a stand of woods as communal space.
Chris Johnson stated he does not agree with homeowner associations. He feels people like to know their own four corners.
Bob stated opinion that the Town could gain by having both private ownership of larger parcels, or association owned. Some people may enjoy the security of knowing land will stay a certain way. He suggested keeping these options open.
Mike stated a five acre density requirement lowers the value of undeveloped land. The Schneider farm was stated as an example. However, it was then noted this land division pre-dated implementation of the Land Use Plan. Mike indicated large land owners paid the bulk of school taxes at one time- over 60%. He stated a mandated five acre average density affects the value of the land for these taxpayers. The three-acre average density increases value for them.
Bob stated he wished there was a way to prove what affect density requirements have on land values. At this time it is unknown.
Dean Stapleton indicated he would like to see persons that were negatively affected by the five-acre average density requirement.
Mike stated only appraisal values will show that. Real estate is worth more if it is dividable.
It was stated there are other impacts of development that need to be considered such as school, environment, utilities, roads, and the costs of providing services.
Pat Hurley stated Camelback Farms subdivision has 43 houses and a total of only 20 kids in the subdivision. Taxes per parcel run $6,000 - $10,000. She feels this development (1 to 1.5 acre lots) meets the costs of services.
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 and woodlands. Residential values are now picking up more of the costs.
Dean stated, at this point, the committee is not taking anything away from property owners if the density requirement stays the same. It has been in effect since 1999.
Mike indicated it is taking away value for large landowners when they decide to sell. In addition, he stated his opinion that only a minority of property owners want five-acre average density; not the majority.
Bob stated disagreement. He indicated that as a community, both small and large property owners, we need to talk about the present and the future. We have to decide what kind of density is agreeable based on what it is going to look like in the future. Bob stated a three-acre density bonus based on open space requirements, or cluster design, is agreeable to him. He feels this would satisfactorily address the community need not to have houses spread all over.
Mike stated this means the only way to divide is to utilize cluster design.
Chris Denman stated he prefers the concept of green space. Five-acre average density would still be available for those who do not want to adhere to green space requirements.
It was decided legal consultation should be obtained on a green space definition once it is formed. A green space formula, and minimum acreage requirements for when it takes affect, need to be decided.
The green space definition should include references to conservation easement and deed restrictions.
Period for Public Comment:
Richard Schwinn, 2529 Langmaid Street, reported on land value being directly tied to land scarcity. He stated examples of land controls put into effect in Lake Geneva that took property rights from the owners. However, they now have lots valued over $1,000,000.
He presented information stating affordable housing creates a $5,000.00 shortfall on the costs of services. Houses need to bring in at least $6,000.00 of taxes to break even on the additional demand they create on services. The average household has one child. Richard cited examples of tax rates increasing with population growth.
Richards stated concerns regarding the costs of development. He stated residential housing is a money loser for the Town and Village of Rochester. He feels policies should be adopted to keep taxes low.
Frank Mayer, 32819 Vista View Drive, feels comfortable that the committee is working with the land owners. He desires to keep a rural appearance for the Town.
Ken Dahlstrom, 1301 N. English Settlement Drive, reported tax parcel information for the Town of Rochester. He stated many parcels are already developed. Parcels five acres or less in size pay most of the taxes. There are 50 land owners with parcels 100 acres or more in size valued at approximately $2,000,000 (approximately 1% of the total assessed value). He requested the Committee look at the big picture; what we have. A lot of land goes up for sale every year and there are over 600 existing parcels that are less than two acres. He urged the Committee to look at the big picture and study all the information.
Dan Menarek, 32813 Vista View Drive, stated his desire to maintain a rural community. He urged the committee to look at the big picture in terms of the affect of three-acre or five-acre densities and decide what the community is prepared to live with. Green space is an issue. The end result could be a population of 10,600 with a three-acre density; assuming all the land is used.
Jane Babik, 29117 Washington Avenue, stated she would like to commend committee members because she knows from experience (serving on the last Land Use Plan Committee), this is not an easy job. She thought the density issue was resolved in 1999. There were a great number of people that ultimately agreed the five-acre average density was appropriate. She recognizes that times change along with the thoughts of the people. She feels participation by the Village of Rochester is important this time around as consolidation of the Village and Town may yet happen. She likes the idea to leave the five-acre average density with initiation of a three-acre incentive for cluster developments. She thinks this is a compromise people should consider. She encourages the committee to explore this and work out the terms. Communities all over have been working on open space management plans, she encourages investigation of what is out there.
Virginia Vanszckle, 2535 Langmaid Street, urged the committee to proceed with legal review of green space definitions. She feels the terminology must be reviewed so the plan holds up to the test of time. She thanked the committee for their efforts.
Kathy North, owner of a 100-acre property, stated her support of the change to three-acre density.
Dennis Crombie moved, 2nd by Chris Johnson to adjourn at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried.
The next meeting was set for Tuesday, October 26th at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Clerk |