DRAFT - Minutes Town of Cross Plains Planning Commission Meeting

May 21, 2007

THOSE PRESENT

OFFICERS:

                Jim Boland, Chair

                Carl (Pat) Jones; Vice Chair

OTHER MEMBERS:            Mike Coyle, Ken Esser, Wayne Parrell, Amelia Williams

CONSULTANTS:                 Arnold Harris

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:        Vera Riley

OTHERS: approximately 10 citizens.

The Town of Cross Plains Planning Commission met on Monday,  May 21, 2007 from 8 pm to 10:15 pm.

The minutes of the April 16 meeting were read, corrected and approved as corrected (three spelling errors).

 

REZONE PETITION ISSUES

1. Jim Garfoot wants to rezone the homestead on his parcel in Sec 17/Sec 18 (9234 Garfoot Circle, Cross Plains, WI.) His father lived there and has now passed away.  The house was built as the homestead on the 115-acre farm in 1977, thus Garfoot would not lose any splits by rezoning this 7.5 acre parcel.

He is further interested in creating two parcels for his brothers on adjacent farmland.  Jim had been to look over the parcels with Harold Krantz, who said this would be okay.  Boland, Esser, and Jones mentioned that the access route to two parcels (presently on the Certified Survey Map as 80 ft wide) would need to have frontage width of 132 feet (66 feet per house) to conform to County zoning standards.

The Commission voted and agreed unanimously to accept the rezoning of the homestead and one house (with the present map) OR the homestead and two houses with the access portion changed to 132 feet)

Garfoot asked in leaving whether he could create a parcel from the 2-plus acres on the other side of the road.  Most commission members thought this would be fine, as an alternative.

 

2. Jerry & Joyce Howery of 9456 Howery Road, Mt. Horeb, WI asked for initial information on building a house for their daughter in Section 18, off Hwy 78. Boland and Jones advised them to get a Certified Survey Map and a petition number from the County.  They were warned that 66 feet of frontage needed to go with the lot, and told that the driveway could be accepted through an easement.

 

3. Petition 9719. Marty L’Herault spoke for Helen Bahr (also present), who wants to divide her land (8670 Hidden Valley Road, Section 15) to create two RH-3 parcels for two separate houses. Presently the land is mostly zoned RH-4 with spot commercial zoning, B-1, for a business which she and her husband used to have in the house.  According to the amendment to the Land Use Plan made in 2000, substandard parcels (4-35 acres) can be split once, if they were in existence before 1981. Also, there is more than 66 feet of frontage on County Hwy P for each parcel.  L’Herault mentioned that by eliminating the B-1 zoning, they would be helping keep rural character of the area. Esser replied that this was not a “bargaining chip”, but that the use of the land was the determining factor in zoning decisions.

            Bob Arthur,  head of the Hidden Valley Road Maintenance Association, spoke opposing the split, and  Boland read a letter from Jeff Baylis also opposing the plan.  Reasons included the increased water run-off from the property, the fact that the house would have to be built on a slope (Baylis) and possibility that in splitting the property, the way would be opened for all of he residents in the road maintenance organization to split their property (Arthur).  After L’Herault suggested that Baylis recluse himself from both discussion and voting on the matter, Boland decided that Baylis could talk as a citizen, but not vote as a Commission member. (Baylis was absent, but his letter was read into the record.)

The question of whether the road would need to become a public road was then discussed at length. Norbert Scribner of the Dane County Planning and Development office may have said that parcels below 16 acres would require the road to become a public road.  We heard murmurs of amazement that the property owners would be responsible for building a road to county standards if this were the case. (Bob Brunner, experienced in this matter, mentioned that he had needed to do this at huge expense)

            After discussing Scribner’s role and of the desire of the commission to read the entire Maintenance agreement, Amelia made the motion to table the decision until the next meeting.  In the meantime, Schribner would be consulted about the questions which arose in the discussions. 2nd by Jones.

 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROGRESS – the Public Participation Plan

            Harris distributed a draft Public Participation Plan and noted that a change concerned the outside agencies which should see the plan.   He also suggested that we might change the number of surveys from three to two.  Discussion of this issue elicited a closer look at the document, with comments on the café groupings.  Two meetings will give citizens a bigger chance of attending at least one meeting, and the size of the discussion groups can depend upon the attendance. Aaron Otto opined that the survey is a good tool, but must be non-biased and might thus profit from outside consulting help.  He also thought a kick-off meeting was a good idea.  Harris reiterated the many ways in which the meetings would be publicized (see PPP document).

            In speaking about bias, the survey questions and results, Boland and Coyle thought that tabulating should be done by all the commissioners.  He also felt that the PO box of the town should be used for the return address. 

            Harris will re-write portions of the plan to incorporate the suggestions and send it to the members for approval by May 23rd.  Then it will go to the Board of Supervisors, for approval at their next meeting.

 

Harris showed the group the maps he had received and distributed two further documents for review: ”Draft 1 of the Town of Cross Plains Comprehensive Plan” and “Comprehensive planning guidelines”.  There was little time left for discussion of these materials.

 

A SECRETARY QUESTION

            Esser read a letter from Schmidt, the town attorney, which had been read at the previous Town Board meeting. Opinions varied on whether it was proper and legal for a Commission member (Amelia) to also be the secretary. Legal? – the letter stated that a commission had the right to hire a secretary, but the statutes were quiet on whether a member could be secretary.  Proper? Aaron Otto, representing Janice Faga, said that having a board member as the secretary might bias the writings and opinions of the Commission.  Some felt it was “not a crime”.  I’ll have to leave this one up in the air, since I myself was voted secretary at the first meeting, and am hoping to do a worthwhile, unbiased job. There was no resolution or motion on this issue.

 

Amelia distributed the forms and passwords for Commissioners to log on to ACCESS DANE, but there was not time to discuss any particulars.

 

Esser moved to adjourn, seconded by Jones. The meeting ended at 10:15. 

 

Submitted May 22, 2007 by Amelia Williams