September 21, 2000
Land Use Committee
Strategic Land Use Planning Task Force
Present: Dean
Culbertson, Paul Tassoul, Roger Weihing, Ken Zilisch, John Julius, Shirlee
Schuette, Barry Witthuhn, Town Administrator Dave Tebo, Facilitator Dave Muench
and Eric Fowle from East Central. Stan
Buman and Randy Strey came and left early.
Shirley Solem was excused. Jason
Weis has resigned from the committee due to other commitments.
Keep our vision in mind.
v
Maintain Rural Character
v
Open Space & Recreation
v
Managed Growth
Growth Management Strategies
1.
Regulatory Strategies & Design
§
Zoning, Density (80/20)
§
East Central requirement for Comprehensive Plan
§
Town Board expectation
2.
Conservation Subdivision
3.
PDR/TDR/Farmland
4.
Environmental Corridors
******************************************************************************
1.
Letters to Stakeholders – helping to organize action,
appointing chairpersons
The parameters must meet
somewhere in the middle.
a. Town Board
Expectations – (political)
OK'd process based on certain assumptions (Sept. – Direction),
(Oct-Nov.
-
staff develop policy/ordinance for (Nov. - Planning Commission ),
(Dec. –
Board).
b.
East Central Recommendations in order to approve Comprehensive Plan.
(Practical)
1. Our recommendations
of response fairly simple.
2. Text which
recognizes trade-offs if development occurs in a certain way.
a.
Text explaining further defining planning area
Rural area
b.
Conservation Subdivisions – where – density
c.
Future – sewered – un-sewered – Planning area?
d.
General densities of
residential development.
e.
Identify on map (overlays for Comprehensive Plan)
- sewer service area – Sanitary District – Planning Area
(overlays)
- Environmentally sensitive corridors (overlay)
- Housing densities (overlay)
f.
Text explaining potential negative impacts of implementation.
c.
Stakeholder Expectations
Ideals, vision, long term –
******************************************************************************
Current Plan Implementation
Strategy
(What
is in our Plan right now)
(Do
we have it?)
1. Maintain (rural atmosphere) Strategy
- Rural
areas – maximum density – 1 unit per two acres.
-
Conservation Subdivisions in rural areas – to preserve open space,
overall density requirements
-
Minimum of 50% greenspace in subdivisions.
2. Residential Development Strategy
-
80% of new development in Sanitary District – based on lot creation
-
Major problem when no lot creation in Sanitary District – or glut of
lots in Sanitary District. – Some better form?
******************************************************************************
Possibilities Mentioned in
Comprehensive Plan
- Besides conservation subdivisions, create rural
residential district for low density development.
- Maximum lot size designation to discourage waste of
open space.
- Driveway access control regulations
- good
******************************************************************************
Purpose of Sub-Group
Recommend General direction
(strategy) to stakeholders group (Sept. 21st)
Purpose of Stakeholder Group
Recommend General
direction (strategy) to Planning Commission (consensus)
Purpose of Planning
Commission
Recommend General
direction and strategy to staff to create formal policies and ordinances (back
to Planning Commission – Town Board)
******************************************************************************
Regulatory Committe
Recommend General direction
and strategy based on input during education process.
Land Use
Stakeholders - Sept. 21st
Review and refine
General direction and strategy if necessary.
Send to Staff
Staff
- Develop specific ordinances for General strategy
- Amend Comprehensive Plan to meet East Central
requiremen
Plan Commission and Stakeholders
- Review and refine ordinances
- Recommend to Town Board
Town Board
On-going work in small committees to support regulatory
effort
- PDR/TDR/Farmland Preservation
- Environmental Corridors
- Conservation Subdivisions (part of Regulatory)
******************************************************************************
3 Recommendations from the
Regulatory Committee
1. Create a Smart Growth Development Zone
- CSM – 4 splits, 2 acre maximum allowed as special use
governed by ordinance
- Conservation Subdivisions as special uses
- Driveway access ordinance
- Review for total lots, possible incentives, rural
character
2. Create a Rural Residential Development Zone
- CSM's – 4 lot splits as special uses.
1 acre maximum.
- Conservation Subdivisions and rural residential
subdivisions as special uses.
- Review based on targets
- Review based on targets for future utilities and area
development.
3. Develop lot creation "targets"
based on past development. 500
building permits – 5 years
Smart Growth
Rural Residential
Sewer
50
+
75
+
375
= 500
10%
+
15%
+
75%
= 100%
This is a proposal for a
concept for what could be. The
committee worked on putting some flexibility into the plan.
A checklist would be used for determining if the land should be allowed
to develop.
Barry Witthuhn feels
comfortable with the proposal as long as there is a little bit of flexibility or
gray area in the plan.
Jim Ecker felt we have made
great progress. He would like to
see targets for CSM's vs. subdivisions. Jim
feels platted is a better means of development.
Jim supports removing the 80/20 ratio but is opposed to removing the
requirement of not requiring conservation subdivisions.
He can understand removing the requirement in the Rural Residential zone
but not in the Smart Growth zone.
Ken Zilisch talked to 6 of the
area farmers representing about 800 acres of land. Many had no plans at this time to develop.
Ken feels we won't have a problem with this proposal as it will allow the
farmers to plan ahead.
Paul Tassoul felt a lot of the
responsibility would be placed on the Planning Commission.
It depends on who is on the Commission and Town Board and how it will be
interpreted.
Dean Culbertson feels it is a
step in the right direction for enforcement.
It allows for planned growth and has some latitude.
Dean stated that conservation subdivisions don't always work well in
every situation. This would allow
for the flexibility based on certain criterion.
John Julius has some
reservations about government and leaving a lot of things up to the judgment of
who is serving at the time. The
plan does allow us to accomplish some things in a polite fashion.
Shirlee Schuette likes the idea
of the 10-15-75% ratio over the 80/20. She
is still opposed to unsewered subdivisions.
Eric Fowle felt we took a giant
step in the right direction. The
discussion addresses many of the concerns of East Central.
It suggests a planning area boundary.
He would like to see this boundary refined and suggested using an
engineer for sewer service extensions. Eric
does not like "Smart Growth" area terminology.
It may become confusing with the State Smart Growth.
We could use Smart Urban or Smart Rural.
The concept of the plan allows for flexibility.
We still need to look more at the sensitive areas.
Public Participation
Steve Nagy likes the
conservation concept. He feels flat
land can also be used for conservation subdivisions.
Fast growing trees can be planted to create what isn't there.
He does not want us to back off conservation subdivisions.
We should look at all ways to make it work.
Steve felt we should be
strategically thinking from the beginning with the end in mind.
Steve feels our efforts are focusing on throttling our development pace.
He feels the sewered area is no longer rural character. If we do not plan our rural area, it will lose its rural
character. Steve feels we need more
detail work to finish the last 5 – 10% of the plan which he feels is the
hardest part to do.
******************************************************************************
Sub Committee Reports
PDR - John Julius
John contacted the American
Farmland Trust, called farmers participating in PDR programs.
A general consensus of PDR participation would be that:
§
Farmers with another generation coming into farming would be interested
in doing something.
§
Those on the way out of farming are not interested in doing anything.
§
As the farmer gets older, he again becomes interested in doing something.
John tried to meet with
area farmers. They are up against
the realities of what the situation is now without
government programs, what has happened to markets, corporate control, world
economy. The freedom to farm has
put farmers into a situation of being beggars at the end of the year.
There is a lot of frustration and disappointment for what is going on.
John felt that if A-1 zoning is required for PDR, there would be little
participation. He felt the farmers
of leery of anything involving government.
Barry Witthuhn stated that
farmers are being backed into a corner with prices being so bad.
They don't want restrictions on their land and this may be their last
hope.
John would like to get more
volunteers for his committee.
******************************************************************************
Environmental Corridors –
Jim Ecker
Jim stated the he and Clarence
Krause met at East Central Planning and got some good ideas.
East Central had put together a series of maps for another areas showing
various environmental areas. Jim
thought this would be a good idea to have this done for Greenville.
The next meeting is October 19th
at 7:30 p.m. The sub-committees
will continue meeting and will give a report on their at the this meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at
9:30 p.m. |
