|
December 7, 2004
Call to Order
Chairman Beimborn called the meeting to order at 5:35
P.M.
Members Present:
Angie Cope, Cathy Stern, Curt Rutkowski, Dave Verley,
Ed Beimborn, Eric Rathke, Jerry Voigt, Jill Hewitt, John Treffert, Kit
Keller, Lila Mueller, Nina Look, Pat Marchese, Phil Beitz, Roger Strohm
and Ronald Stadler.
Members Excused:
Syl Weyker
Members Absent:
Alfred Schlecht, Barbara Jobs, Bob Rathsack, Brian
Biernat, Cathi Miller, Francis Kleckner, Geoff Hurtado, Randy Tetzlaff,
Rod Mayer, Scott Heatwole, Susan Nelson and Tim Vertz.
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck - Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources
and Land Management Department
Paul Roback - UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Ben McKay - Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC)
Staff Excused:
Andy Holschbach – Ozaukee County – Planning, Resources
and Land Management Department
Nancy Anderson - Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
General Public and Invited Guests Present
LeRoy Haeuser
Welcome & Introductions
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan: Ozaukee
County Public Participation Plan adopted by the Ozaukee County Board
December 1, 2004
Memorandum to Andrew Struck from Travis Olson (DOA)
regarding the new Coastal Communities Planning guide
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Pat Marchese and seconded by Eric
Rathke to approve the minutes as written of the October 5, 2004 meeting of
the Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee. All
present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Update / Report of County Smart Growth Committee and
Ozaukee County Board
Andrew reported that the Ozaukee Board formally adopted
the full Ozaukee County Public Participation Plan at the December 1, 2004
meeting.
Andrew mentioned that the minutes from the Smart Growth
Committee meetings of October 19, 2004 and November 3, 2004 would be
mailed out as soon as they become available.
The Smart Growth Committee approved the proposal
(Option A) with the UW-Milwaukee Center for Urban Initiatives and Research
for implementing the Ozaukee County countywide and participating local
communities comprehensive planning survey.
Update/Report on the Multi-Jurisdictional
Compreshensive Planning Process and Grant
City of Cedarburg – Official Withdrawal
Andrew referred to the Comprehensive Planning Grant
2005 Cycle Report prepared by Joanna Schumann, Planning Grant
Administrator (included in packet). Andrew summarized the report for the
Committee. Secretary Marotta, at the meeting with City and County
officials, had said the City of Cedarburg had to officially notify the
County of its intentions to withdraw from the process and then apply as a
single jurisdiction in the 2005 grant cycle if they desired comprehensive
planning grant dollars. The City of Cedarburg has complied and has applied
for a single jurisdictional comprehensive planning grant in 2005. The
report cites that four other single jurisdictional applications were
received, even though preference is heavily weighted toward
multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning grant applications.
Update on the Public Participation Plans (PPP) for
Ozaukee County and Participating local governments
Full County Public Participation Plan
Summary County Public Participation Plan
Status Participating Local Governments PPPs
Andrew noted that a summary of the full Ozaukee County
PPP was included in the packet. Andrew explained that this summary is not
the "official summary", but assists in covering the highlights of the full
Public Participation Plan and has a general timeline and key dates. Andrew
noted that the official summary of the PPP, the 4-page color version of
the PPP, would be available for the next meeting for review and approval.
Timetables and charts need to be tweaked before this can be finalized.
Ed Beimborn questioned if any revisions had been made
to the full PPP before the County Board adopted it. Andrew responding by
saying that the County Board had made no changes; however, there was a
substantial amount of discussion on the County Board floor.
Andrew turned the discussion over to Ben McKay (SEWRPC)
to update the Committee on his efforts to work with the local communities
on developing local Public Participation Plans. Ben has been working with
local communities and has told them that they have three basic options
Utilize the full PPP as adopted by Ozaukee County
Modify the full PPP as adopted by Ozaukee County
Develop an individual PPP with assistance from
SEWRPC and County staff (staff is currently in the process of
developing a local community model PPP for this purpose).
Andrew has also been meeting and working with local
communities to finalize timelines and work on developing local PPPs.
Andrew and Ben gave a status report for each of the participating
communities as to developing a local PPP.
Update on the 2004 WDOA - Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program- Coastal Resources and Community Planning Grant for Ozaukee County
Countywide/Local Government Planning Survey –
Contract with UWM – Center for Urban Initiatives and Research (CUIR)
The Smart Growth Committee reviewed both contract
proposals and decided to go with a revised version of UW-Milwaukee Center
for Urban Initiatives and Research. Andrew noted that the target date for
the design of the survey is January 2005 and February 2005 for conducting
the actual survey.
Discussion, questions and comments from the CAC members
followed:
Cathy Stern asked if a survey would be conducted anyway
other than telephone polling?
Andrew Struck responded that this survey is one of many
public participation tools that will be utilized during the comprehensive
planning process. A paper version of the survey will be made available at
public locations and possibly on the County comprehensive planning website
(e.g. libraries). However, these surveys will be tabulated separately from
the telephone survey. This is to ensure that the telephone survey will
have statistical significance and not be bias.
Angie Cope questioned where the surveys would be
available?
Andrew Struck responded that they would be made
available at public places throughout the county. We can work with local
communities to identify additional locations in addition to libraries. An
on-line version could also be developed.
Cathy Stern was concerned about the integrity of the
surveys.
Andrew explained that these statistics of these
modalities would be dealt with completely separately.
Roger Strohm asked if each person in the County would
have an equal chance of getting a phone call?
Andrew Struck responded that each person would have an
equal chance, but the City of Cedarburg will only be asked countywide
questions. A minimum of 50 households will be contacted per municipality
for the local community questions; whereas, approximately 1030 surveys
will be completed for the countywide questions. Andrew noted that the
local community survey questions will not be statistically significant,
but can assist the local communities in targeting additional surveys or
other public participation tools throughout the planning process. Andrew
noted that the countywide questions will be a statistical sample and
should have relevance for all the participating communities. Andrew
explained that the cap limit is 19,500 completed calls per our contract.
Andrew noted that all the details of the survey could be found in the
UW-Milwaukee proposal in the Committee packet. In addition, Andrew
mentioned that Peter Maier, Associate Director, would be present at the
next CAC meeting to discuss the survey in detail and start to shape the
survey questions.
Jill Hewitt asked if the survey is going to be
advertised?
Andrew Struck responded that the survey would be
advertised during the month of January-February 2005.
Kit Keller commented that the survey will not be
perfect by any means, but it will be a good tool in our many efforts to
develop public participation in the planning process.
Ed Beimborn commented that the local communities would
have an opportunity to "piggyback" with the County if funds were
available.
Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
Workshop – CAC Members and Invited Guests
The Committee unanimously agreed to move the SWOT
Workshop up on the agenda to allow enough time as possible to complete it.
Andrew explained to the Committee how this "brainstorming" process would
work and the timeframes. Andrew also referenced the SWOT direction summary
and SWOT examples provided in the Committee packets. After all the
participants wrote down their ideas, comments, etc. on note pads, the
members broke out into 3 individual groups. Each group prioritized and
summarized their results and shared them with the Committee. Staff will
synthesize the SWOT’s and prepare a draft summary to be reviewed at the
next CAC meeting.
Discussion on the Development of the Three
Comprehensive Planning Ad-Hoc Work Groups
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Land Use, Transportation, and Community Facilities &
Utilities
Economics Development, Housing, abd Cultural
Resources
Andrew commented that anyone interested in
participating in any of the Ad Hoc groups outlined should contact him in
writing, so that he can update the lists for each group. He believes the
agricultural/natural resource work group might start meeting as early as
February 2005. Staff will continue to collect the names of interested
persons until these groups are formed; however, members may join after
the groups are formed as well.
Planning News/Update on Educational and Outreach
Resources
This was provided in the Committee packets. Paul and
Andrew briefly summarized the items in the packet.
Public Comment
No public comment.
Written Communications
There were no written communications to report.
Other Business as Allowed by Law
Andrew thanked the Committee for their on-going
participation and interest and expressed his appreciation for all the time
and efforts of the group. He then referred to memorandum to "Current
Members of the Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee", which was included in the packet and asked the members to try
and find a replacement if they are not able to attend a CAC meeting.
The 2005 CAC Meeting Schedule is as follows at 5:30
P.M. at the County Administration Center – Auditorium unless otherwise
posted:
January 4, 2005
March 1, 2005
May 3, 2005
July 12, 2005
September 6, 2005
November 1, 2005
Andrew also mentioned that he had a few copies of the Ozaukee County –
Planning, Resources, and Land Management Department’s latest newsletter,
the "Ozaukee Dirt", if anyone was interested in a copy.
Next Meeting Dates: Schedule 2005 Meeting Dates
The next meeting date is Tuesday, January 4, 2005 at
5:30 PM at the County Administration Center - Auditorium.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Angie Cope and seconded by Dave
Verley to adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting
adjourned at 7:30 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Rosie Steinert,
Paul Roback, Ben McKay and Andrew Struck as proofed by Angie Cope,
Secretary.
Table of Contents
October 5, 2004
Call to Order
Chairman Beimborn called the meeting to order at 5:40PM
Members Present:
Alfred Schlecht, Dave Verley, Ed Beimborn, Kit Keller,
Phil Beitz, Ronald Stadler, John Treffert, Geoff Hurtado, Pat Marchese,
Francis Kleckner, Nina Look and Randy Tetzlaff
Members Excused:
Jerry Voigt, Jill Hewitt, Tim Vertz, Susan Nelson,
Angie Cope, Roger Strohm, Andy Holschbach and Nancy Anderson
Members Absent:
Barbara Jobs, Lila Mueller, Brian Biernat, Cathi
Miller, Curt Rutkowski, Jon Censky, Rod Mayer, Scott Heatwole, Syl Weyker,
Eric Rathke, Bob Rathsack, and Cathy Stern
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Ben McKay- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC)
Welcome & Introductions
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Public
Participation Plan Sample Survey Questions as drafted by CAC members
E-mail communication from Roger Strohm to Andrew
Struck regarding Sample Survey Questions
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Pat Marchese and seconded by Phil
Beitz to approve the minutes, as written, of the August 10, 2004 meeting
of the Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee.
All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Update / Report of County Smart Growth Committee and
Ozaukee County Board
Andrew asked the members to refer the Smart Growth
Committee meeting minutes from July 27, 2004 in their packets regarding
the City of Cedarburg concerns with the multi-jurisdictional comprehensive
planning process. Andrew noted that this discussion is on going and there
is no resolution that all parties have agreed to at this point.
Update / Report on the Multi-Jurisdictional
Comprehensive Planning Process and Grant
LOGIN report
Andrew reported that at the last LOGIN meeting the
members present discussed opportunities for improving the communication
between the County, SEWRPC, and the local governments, particularly the
elected officials. There were several suggestions proposed to improve
this communication. The LOGIN members arrived at the following four
items to improve the communication:
All mailings (e.g. draft documents, updates,
minutes) should go not only to the specified municipal contact, but
also a copy be sent to the top elected official
o Highlight
(e.g. colored paper) relevant information specific to that community
o Provide
regular (monthly or as needed) E-mail updates as to status of the
Comprehensive Plan
o The CAC
would continue to receive copies through the CAC packets, which go
the local government specified representative.
Ed Beimborn commented there was a virus problem with
the CAC email distribution list. Andrew remarked that this problem would
be looked into and addressed.
Review, Discussion and Possible Action on the Draft
Public Participation Plan (PPP) for Ozaukee County
Full Public Participation Plan
Andrew noted that the staff had responded to several
comments and suggestions on the PPP. Notably, Andrew said that Chairman
Beimborn had some suggestions for improved participation during the
element-drafting phase of the comprehensive plan. Andrew noted that all
comments submitted or discussed were addressed and/or incorporated into
the PPP. He mentioned that the changes are reflected with an underline
on the black and white copies that were part of the packet.
Andrew then turned the discussion over to Ben McKay
to review the changes made to the draft PPP for Ozaukee County.
Ben McKay reviewed the revisions to the PPP dated
September 28, 2004
The comprehensive planning survey will include a
number of questions specific to local governments as well as
Countywide questions and issues.
On Page 12 – The Local Design Workshops were added
to provide more input at the local government level
The revised PPP will generate more feedback as
elements are drafted
The targeted dates for the local design workshops
will be April through September of 2006.
The fourth informational meetings has been moved
from summer of 2006 to November of
2006.
The review of all seven key planning elements will
take place during the four
informational meetings.
Discussion, questions and comments from the CAC members
followed:
How do we get the public to attend the various
workshops?
Possibility of E-mail from homes for interactive
workshops
Targeted Invitations to "key" representatives to
participate in the workshops
Placemats for use in areas where the public
frequents, for example: coffee shops and restaurants
Press releases with possible "buzz" words to
intrigue and enlist interest
School officials and younger parents should be
targeted perhaps through the "backpack information program"
A booth on the various stage of the comprehensive
plan could be located at the schools during parent teacher conferences
An information booth at the County Fair to reach
the general public
Andrew commented that the appendix also has the
addition of key terms, phrases and definition section.
CAC members and local municipal officials have a
deadline of October 15, 2004 to submit their additions and/or
corrections for the PPP for Ozaukee County.
Motion made by Mr. Pat Marchese to recommend the
Public Participation Plan for Ozaukee County dated September 28, 2004 to
the Ozaukee County Smart Growth Committee, seconded by Ms. Nina Look.
All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
The CAC recommended PPP for Ozaukee County will be on
the Smart Growth Committee agenda for their meeting on October 19, 2004
at 1:00 p.m. at the Ozaukee County Administration Center. If the Smart
Growth Committee approves the PPP for Ozaukee County, they will make a
recommendation to the full County Board.
The PPP will then go to the full
County Board for adoption on November 3, 2004 at
9:00 a.m.
Summary Public Participation Plan
A summary PPP was distributed to the CAC at the
August 10, 2004 meeting. This summary will be update once the final
version of the full PPP is approved by the Smart Growth Committee.
Discussion on the 2004 WDOA - Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program- Coastal Resources and Community Planning Grant for
Ozaukee County
Countywide/Local Government Planning Survey
Andrew noted that the Smart Growth Committee would be
meeting at 8:30 a.m. on October 6, 2004 to discuss the County/local
government planning survey. Andrew requested that the CAC consider a
recommendation to the Smart Growth Committee for the use of an outside
consultant to conduct the survey and provide expertise. Andrew noted
that the planning survey quotes included in the packet of information
would need to be re-quoted to account for the new survey structure that
includes questions specific to each municipality.
The timeline for the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program (WCMP) Grant and the Public Participation Plan is to have the
survey conducted by January 2005.
Andrew reiterated the fact that there is a line item
in the grant budget for a professional services contract. Also, Andrew
noted that the WCMP grant requires an emphasis on questions related to
coastal and natural resources.
Discussion, questions and comments from the staff and
CAC members followed:
Staff noted that County and UWEX staff alone do
not have expertise in survey design and implementation and a
consultant would provide this expertise in question formulation,
survey design, etc.
The CAC felt as though UW-Madison could be ruled
out due to cost
The CAC felt that UW-River Falls could be ruled
out due to distance from County
The CAC noted that UW-Milwaukee has experience
working in Ozaukee County with the City of Mequon
Staff noted that all survey centers preferred
telephone surveys to mail surveys. Members of the CAC agreed that a
telephone survey was preferred to all others.
The CAC members suggested a quote from a private
consultant might be appropriate in order to make a comparison with
existing quotes from the universities and colleges.
Al Schlecht noted that a follow-up thank you card
with information on public hearing date for survey results might
encourage further participation. It was noted by Geoff Hurtado;
however, that this may be difficult because it could compromise the
confidentiality of survey.
CAC members felt very strongly that it is
preferred that the organization conducting the survey have
experience working in Ozaukee County
CAC members and staff noted that need for the
initial quotes to be revised to determine cost of having
statistically significant surveys for the local communities
CAC members noted that survey organization will
assist in structuring question topics, but they should follow the
nine elements of a comprehensive plan
CAC members felt that the survey e-mailed from
Wisconsin Realtors is a good staring point
A motion was made by Geoff Hurtado to research
refined quotes from UW-Milwaukee, St. Norbert’s College and a private
company to conduct a telephone survey as part of the Ozaukee County
Comprehensive Planning Public Participation Plan. Phil Beitz seconded
the motion. All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion on the Development of the Three
Comprehensive Planning Ad-Hoc Work Groups
Paul referred to the minutes of the last CAC meeting to
remind everyone where each member had expressed interest. Paul read the
CAC members who are currently listed under each one of the Ad Hoc Work
Groups. Paul and Andrew both noted that we are still looking for CAC
members on each of the Ad Hoc Work Groups as well as additional
recommendations on organizations, groups or individuals to contact.
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Andrew noted that work has begun on forming a sub-Ad
Hoc Work Group to address the Agriculture aspect of the Agricultural,
Natural and Cultural Resources element. Staff is still looking for
recommendations for additions to the initial membership on this
subcommittee. Andrew noted that he has had discussions with several
organizations and individuals interested in this Ad Hoc Work Group,
particularly the natural resources component.
Economics Development, Housing, and Cultural
Resources
Andrew noted that the Wisconsin Builders Association
and Habitat for Humanity – Ozaukee Chapter expressed a desire to have a
representative on this Ad Hoc Work Group.
Land Use, Transportation, and Community Facilities &
Utilities
Paul noted the CAC members signed on for this Ad Hoc
Work Group.
Planning News
Provided in the packet of information.
Update on Educational and Outreach Resources
An email notice was circulated in regard to a Workshop
on Low Impact Development planned for October 26, 2004 at 8:30 a.m. – 4:00
p.m. in Waukesha, WI at the Country Inn Hotel. The Wisconsin Counties
Association (WCA) is teaming up with the Wisconsin Builders Association to
coordinate this workshop regarding Low Impact Development (LID). Andrew
mentioned that Paul Roback would forward this email regarding the workshop
to the CAC and SGC members as well as the local participating governments.
Andrew also announced and presented a brochure for a
"Citizen Forum: Integrating Conservation Resources into Land Use Planning"
sponsored by the Ozaukee Washington Land Trust, the Land Conservation
Partnership of Washington County, and Gathering Waters Conservancy, Inc.
for this Saturday, October 9, 2004 from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Andrew noted
that he was one of the presenters and would be talking about Ozaukee
County’s Comprehensive Planning process, the draft public participation
plan, and examples of planning work in Ozaukee County. Andrew noted that
there were also speakers from the Washington County Planning and Parks
Department, the Town of Grafton, and Ozaukee Washington Land Trust.
Public Comment
No comments were made.
Written Communications
Andrew read a letter received by Jim Meinert of
Saukville.
Other Business
Randy Tetzlaff addressed the attendance issue at the
recent CAC meetings. It was discussed that a letter could be sent out to
re-confirm the interest of parties who have missed 3 or 4 meetings
consecutively.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is Tuesday, December 7, 2004 at
5:30 PM.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Phil Betiz and seconded by Randy
Tetlaff to adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting
adjourned at 7:40 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Rosie Steinert,
Paul Roback, Ben McKay and Andrew Struck as proofed by Ed Beimborn,
Chairman.
Table of Contents
June 1, 2004
Call to Order
Vice-Chairman Pat Marchese called the meeting to order
at 5:35 p.m.
Members Present:
Alfred Schlecht, Angie Cope, Curt Rutkowski, Dave
Verley, Ellie Doyle, Francis Kleckner, Geoff Hurtado, Jerry Voigt, Jill
Hewitt, John Treffert, Kit Keller, Mary Sprader, Pat Marchese, Phil Beitz,
Randy Tetzlaff, Roger Strohm, Ronald Stadler Scott Heatwole, Susan Nelson
and Tim Vertz
Members Excused:
Cathi Miller
Members Absent:
Barbara Jobs, Bob Rathsack, Brian Biernat, Ed Beimborn,
Eric Rathke, Jon Censky, Mike Rambousek, Nina Look, Rod Mayer, and Syl
Weyker
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Nancy Anderson- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Andy Holschbach- Ozaukee County- Planning, Resources
and Land Management
Welcome & Introductions
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
Generalized Status of Floodplain Mapping in Ozaukee
County
Streams Along with Digital Floodplain and Floodway
Boundaries that are proposed to be mapped
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Phil Beitz and seconded by Susan
Nelson to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2004 meeting of the
Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee. All
present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Presentation: 3d-Visualization of Lake Michigan
Coastal Resources in Ozaukee County by the UW-Madison, Land Information
and Computer Graphics Facility, WI State Cartographer ’s
Office, UW Sea Grant and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Presenting:
Ted Koch, State Cartographer, UW-Madison
Mark Harrower, Professor of Geography, UW-Madison
Jeff Stone, Project GIS Analyst, UW Geography Masters
Program
Others Present:
David Hart, Coastal GIS Specialist, UW Sea Grant
Institute
Alberto Vargas, Natural Hazards Coordinator, WI Coastal
Management Program
AJ Wortley, GIS Outreach Specialist, State
Cartographer’s Office/UW
The above representatives presented their work on
"Coastal Erosion on the Great Lakes using Remote Sensing and
Geovisualization for Public Education". Additional information can be
found at http://www.co.ozaukee.wi.us/SmartGrowth/Index.htm
or www.geography.wisc.edu/coastal
or at the Ozaukee County Planning, Resources, and Land Management
Department.
Summary:
Coastal erosion is a serious and significant issue
affecting coastal communities in Wisconsin. Although scientists have
studied coastal geomorphology for the Great Lakes closely in recent years,
this work often fails to communicate to a larger public audience and
thereby stimulate a deeper understanding of the truly dynamic and unstable
nature of many coastlines.
This project is designed to bridge the gap between scientific
understanding and public perception by utilizing Web-based
geovisualization tools and remotely-sensed data to present integrated and
scientifically informed views of coastal erosion, and to create a decision
support system for analysis of future policies related to land use along
the shoreline.
The presentation focused on using visualization tools
to better assist and educate the public and landowners about the
complexity of the coastal erosion process. The GIS visualization tools
used a comparison of aerial photography over time to demonstrate coastal
erosion in a particular location. Andrew Struck noted that this was one
tool, GIS visualization, which could be incorporated into the
comprehensive planning process to better inform the public.
To effectively communicate coastal dynamics and the
impact that bluff erosion may have on events on or near the bluffs, county
officials and the public need a deeper understanding of how and why the
bluffs are changing due to natural erosion processes, and how these
processes are impacted by local land development decisions. This project
seeks to create better-informed land use and real estate development
practices of lakefront property in Ozaukee County because some of the most
desirable sections of Lake Michigan shoreline in this area are also some
of the least stable.
After the presentation a discussion ensued regarding
whose responsibility it is to protect the bluff/shoreland areas and to
what extent. Some argued that it is not the responsibility of local
government, but the responsibility of the property owner. Others cautioned
of the "buyer-beware" mentality. If zoning requires setback requirements,
doesn’t the municipality have some responsibility? Additionally, there
were several suggestions provided by the CAC members to the presenters to
enhance the public education and outreach of their project over the
long-term.
Update/Discussion on Shoreland/Wetland/Floodplain
Zoning
Revisions to NR 115 (released by WDNR)
The DNR has been working on revisions to Chapter NR
115 of the Administrative Code since 2002. NR 115 establishes the
minimum rules that counties must follow to regulate uses in the
shoreland. The shoreland is defined as the area within 1,000 feet of a
navigable lake or pond, or within 300 feet of a navigable river or
stream. If the floodplain extends more than 300 feet from a river or
stream, the shoreland extends to the landward edge of the floodplain.
The NR 115 rules apply within unincorporated areas, and areas annexed
by cities and villages after May 7, 1982.
The current NR 115 rules restrict uses and
development in wetlands located in the shoreland; require a minimum 75
foot setback for all structures from navigable waters, except
specified water-dependent structures; prohibit vegetation clearing
within 35 feet of navigable waters, except for a view corridor; and
establish minimum lot sizes within the shoreland (10,000 square feet
in sewered areas and 20,000 square feet in unsewered areas).
The DNR has been working with an advisory committee
to develop the new NR 115 rules. Preliminary recommendations were
developed last year, and public "listening sessions" were held in late
2003. Based on public comments, DNR drafted proposed new rules and
presented them to its advisory committee on May 18, 2004. Some key
proposals include:
The requirements for shoreland-wetlands would not
be changed;
A minimum lot area or density of one home per
20,000 square feet would be required for all residential uses;
Additional exemptions to the 75-foot setback from
navigable waters are proposed, subject to certain conditions.
Additional structures proposed to be allowed within the 75-foot
setback include walkways, stairs, signs, erosion control structures,
and parking lots;
The setback would be reduced to 50 feet for
existing non-conforming lots, provided mitigation measures, such as
a limit on impervious surfaces, are provided;
The restriction on vegetation clearing along a
shoreline would be increased from 35 to 50 feet.
Based on the reaction from its advisory committee, the DNR has
pushed back the schedule for the revised rules. Public hearings are
now expected to be held in Spring 2005. More information about the NR
115 revisions can be found at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/dsfm/shore/news.htm
Detailed Floodplain Study for Ozaukee County
Damon Anderson, Ozaukee County Land Information
Office, reported that the County received a State/Federal grant to
assist in the mapping of floodplains in Ozaukee County. Selection
criteria were developed to assist in the prioritization of which
streams were to be mapped in the various watersheds in Ozaukee County.
Previously, the Milwaukee River, Cedar Creek and most of Ulao Creek
have been mapped. The total cost of this project is $250,520; whereby,
the revenue is provided by the following sources: FEMA $179,000,
Ozaukee County LIO $50,000, SEWRPC $5,000, $3,500 Thiensville, $3,500
Grafton, $3,500 Mequon and $6020 Ozaukee County LIO. The areas to be
mapped are:
Ulao Creek and Swamp
Pigeon Creek
The Milwaukee River in the Village of Grafton
Mole Creek
Cedar Creek
Fredonia Creek
The Milwaukee River in Waubeka
Mineral Springs Creek
Milwaukee River in City of Mequon and Village
of Thiensville
Bertram Valley Tributary to Milwaukee River
Pat Marchese inquired if this would meet FEMA
requirements for flood insurance.
Damon Anderson responded that it would and that the
mapping should be completed in May 2005.
Andy Holschbach commented that these maps would
greatly benefit people in Ozaukee County. Currently, builders and
property owners have to pay to have individual properties studied.
Phil Beitz inquired if he could receive a list of
the study areas.
Andrew Struck said that he would have this
information posted on the web page.
Revised Shoreland/Wetland/Floodplain Zoning Maps
for Ozaukee County
Andrew Struck reported that the County currently
has to refer to separate and very dated hardcopy data and map sources
for shoreland/floodplain/wetland determinations. The revised maps will
be digital (GIS) and mesh these to data sources into one map as well
as provide much more current and useful data. The currently used
Shoreland/Floodplain/Wetland maps were completed in April 1985 and
have 1985 aerial photos, which are extremely dated.
Pat Marchese commented that this would be great for
property owners because they will be able to go to one source to get
all of the current information that they need.
Revised Shoreland/Wetland/Floodplain Zoning
Ordinance for Ozaukee County
Andy Holschbach reported that the revisions would
allow for issuance of stipulated permits and better define some of the
gray areas of the current ordinance. The revised ordinance will more
clearly define which projects can be granted a stipulated permit and
move forward. This will save property owners time and money. The
removal of shoreland districts and side yard setbacks from the
ordinance are among the revisions.
Susan Nelson inquired if the County ordinance for
unincorporated areas can be more restrictive that the State Statutes.
Andy Holschbach responded yes.
Andrew Struck commented that the incorporated
municipalities could also be more restrictive than the State.
Update/Discussion on Legislative Changes to Wisconsin ’s
Comprehensive Planning Law (Wis. Stats. 66.1001)
Nancy Anderson stated that two bills had been passed by the Legislature
and signed by the Governor that amend the comprehensive planning statute.
A third bill was approved by the Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor
Doyle.
AB 608
Governor Doyle signed AB 608 on April 13, 2004. AB
608 decreases the number of local ordinances and programs that must be
consistent with a local or county comprehensive plan from 17 to four.
The comprehensive planning law, as amended, now requires that only
general zoning ordinances, shoreland zoning ordinances, subdivision
ordinances, and official mapping ordinances must be consistent with
the comprehensive plan of the local or county government responsible
for implementing the ordinance. AB 608 also clarifies that a
comprehensive plan adopted by a regional planning commission is
advisory to county and local governments.
AB 728
Governor Doyle signed AB 728 on April 22, 2004. AB
728 imposes special notification requirements to owners or
leaseholders of non-metallic mining areas if a comprehensive plan
proposes to change the use or intensity of uses allowed on land they
own or have a registered interest in. The public participation plan
must specify how the required notice will be provided.
Governor ’s
Veto of AB 551
AB 551, as approved by the Legislature, would have provided a
90-day period following adoption of a county development or
comprehensive plan for a town board to approve or disapprove the
county plan. If the town board disapproved the plan, the county plan
would not have taken effect within the town.
Governor Doyle vetoed AB 551 on April 21, 2004. In his veto
message, Governor Doyle stated, “Local
control is an important aspect of Wisconsin government and is
reflected in the Smart Growth law itself. The Smart Growth law does
not alter the relationship between counties and towns. This bill,
however, does alter that relationship and undermines the ability of
counties to make appropriate plans for providing required county
services.”
Update/Report of County Smart Growth Committee and Ozaukee County Board
Andrew Struck reported that draft minutes from the March 26, 2004 Smart
Growth Committee were included in the packet. The County has accepted the
WDOA grant and the contract has been mailed to the State.
Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Planning Grant
Revised Timeline and Work Tasks
Nancy Anderson distributed a timeline developed by Washington
County for their Multi-jurisdictional Comprehensive Planning process.
Washington County is planning on conducting the inventory phase prior
to the issue identification phase in the timeline. Nancy and Andrew
inquired if this Committee thought that this would be appropriate for
Ozaukee County? Nancy and Andrew outlined some of the benefits of the
timing of the newly proposed inventory phase and issue identification
phase with the public participation plan. This revised timeline would
also allow base data to be compiled to frame the issue identification
phase. It was mentioned that there would be few drawbacks to this
revision in the timeline.
Pat Marchese state that this switch was appropriate as long as the
public involvement was encouraged early in the planning process.
Andrew Struck reported that the Public Participation Plan Ad-Hoc
Work Group will have a draft public participation plan prepared for
the August 10th Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC).
It was the consensus of the CAC members present to move forward
with this revised timeline for Ozaukee County similar to Washington
County. Nancy Anderson and Andrew Struck will create a new timeline
for the Scope of Study and pursue approvals from the participating
local governments and the Smart Growth Committee.
Breakout Discussion on the Development of the Three Comprehensive
Planning Ad-Hoc Work Groups
Agricultural and Natural Resources
Land Use, Transportation, and Community Facilities & Utilities
Economic Development, Housing, and Cultural Resources
This agenda item was POSTPONED to the August 10th
Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting.
Planning News
Andrew Struck mentioned a few of the handouts in the packet, including
the Milwaukee River Basin Partnership and the Washington/Sheboygan County
Land Use Digest.
Kit Keller distributed brochures for a workshop on Active Living.
Public Comment
No comments
Written Communications
No comments
Next Meeting Date: August 10, 2004
Adjournment
A motion was made by Angie Cope and seconded by Alfred Schlecht to
adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting adjourned at
8:45 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Paul Roback,
Nancy Anderson and Andrew Struck as proofed by Angie Cope, Secretary.
Table of Contents
February 17, 2004
Call to Order
Chairman Beimborn called the meeting to order at 5:36
p.m.
Members Present:
Angie Cope, Cathi Miller, Curt Rutkowski, Dave Verley,
Dave Valentine for Jerry Voigt, Ed Beimborn, Ellie Doyle, Eric Rathke,
Geoff Hurtado, Jill Hewitt, John Treffert, Kit Keller, Nina Look, Pat
Marchese, Phil Beitz, Randy Tetzlaff, Rod Mayer, Roger Strohm, Ronald
Stadler and Tim Vertz
Members Excused:
Lila Mueller and Susan Nelson
Members Absent:
Barbara Jobs, Bob Rathsack, Brian Biernat, Francis
Kleckner, Jon Censky, Mike Rambousek, Scott Heatwole, and Syl Weyker
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Nancy Anderson- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Welcome & Introductions
Chairman Beimborn welcomed John Treffert from the
Village of Thiensville. John will represent the Village and replace Don
Molyneux on the CAC. Chairman Beimborn also welcomed Dave Valentine from
the Town of Cedarburg who is attending tonight’s meeting in Jerry Voigt’s
absence. Introductions of all that were present were given.
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen
Advisory Committee 2004 Meeting Dates
Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Ad-Hoc Work
Group Structure (Draft)
Folder of Information from the "Changing Landscapes
II" Conference – public participation tools
Folder of Information on "What If?" – a GIS-based
software visualization tool that was presented at the Changing
Landscapes II conference
"The Land Use Digest" newsletter (Summer 2003
Volume 3, Issue 3) prepared by the UW-Extension Washington/Sheboygan
County Smart Growth Educator
"Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional
Comprehensive Planning Newsletter" (Issue 1, November 2003)
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Dave Verley and seconded by Nina
Look to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2003 meeting of the Ozaukee
County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee. All present
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Update/Report of County Smart Growth Committee
The Smart Growth Committee had a general consensus
that it is not the appropriate time to merge the Smart Growth
Committee with any other County committee; namely the Land
Conservation Committee and Zoning Committee.
County Staff continue to meet with local
communities in order to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/
Cooperative Agreement as part of the Multi-Jurisdictional
Comprehensive Planning Grant process. To date, all local input has
been incorporated in the MOU/Cooperative Agreement.
The Wisconsin Department of Administration
Comprehensive Planning Grants are to be awarded in February 2004 and
the Wisconsin Coastal Management Grants are to be awarded in March
2004.
Update/Discussion on the Multi-Jurisdictional
Comprehensive Planning Grant for Ozaukee County and Participating
Communities
WDOA Grant Application / Awards
Ozaukee County has been awarded a $408,000.00 grant
from the WDOA. The Ozaukee County application scored very high in the
review process. The WDOA awarded $1.8 million in grant funds in 2004.
Ozaukee County’s grant award was the largest in this grant cycle and
the first award for the seven-county Southeastern Wisconsin region.
Sheboygan County submitted an application, but did not receive grant
funding. Chairman Beimborn and the CAC members congratulated staff for
their hard work.
Revised Draft "Scope of Study and Work Plan"
To date, the City of Port Washington, Town of
Cedarburg and City of Mequon have asked for changes in the MOU/Cooperative
Agreement. All of these suggested changes have been incorporated into
the document. Specifically, it was noted that cities, villages and
towns have complete approval authority of their local comprehensive
plans and all such local comprehensive plans will be "incorporated"
into the County plan upon consideration to the County’s area-wide
responsibilities and State mandates, the role of the Citizen Advisory
Committee was emphasized as being advisory to the County plan and not
the local municipal plans, the local comprehensive plans need to
comply with Wisconsin State Statutes, Administrative Rules and the
executed Cooperative Agreements, and each local unit of government is
required to adopt a comprehensive plan compliant with 66.1001 by the
end of the grant contract.
Geoff Hurtado asked if this addresses the City of
Cedarburg’s concerns.
Andrew Struck responded that the City of
Cedarburg’s Plan Commission recommended withdrawing from the
multi-jurisdictional planning process. Mayor Myers agreed not to
address this at the next Common Council meeting until further
discussion and potential revisions between the City and the County
could occur. The changes that have been made in the MOU/Cooperative
Agreement have not changed the intent of the planning process.
Language changes have occurred to ensure that the intent is accurately
stated in the documents. It is hoped that the changes that have
already occurred would begin to address the concerns of the City of
Cedarburg and that after further meetings and revisions; all of their
concerns would be addressed.
Eric Rathke asked if Cedarburg dropped out, would
we loose a portion of the grant funding.
Andrew Struck responded that the grant award would
be reduced based on the base funding allocated for their population,
which would be $36,000.00.
Phil Beitz inquired if the MOU/Cooperative
Agreement had to be passed by each community 30 days after the County
received notice of the grant award.
Andrew Struck responded that typically the County
would have anywhere from 30-60 days to sign the grant contract after
the County receives the contract from the WDOA. The County has not
received the grant contract and the WDOA has not yet stated if it
would be 30 or 60 days. We should know more by next week.
Phil Beitz then asked when the final draft of the
MOU/cooperative agreements would be finished.
Andrew Struck responded that the County feels that
we have a final draft. The only community that currently has any
concerns is the City of Cedarburg. Since no other community has
contacted the County, we assume that no one else has questions or
concerns. However, he noted that not all of the agreements have to be
identical. It is important that local communities pass the MOU/cooperative
agreements as soon as possible, but definitely by the end of March.
Phil Beitz commented that it is hard to pass a
document without knowing that it is the final draft.
Geoff Hurtado suggested that the local communities
might want to add a "me-too" clause that would allow them to
incorporate the changes other communities have made to their
agreements.
Phil Beitz inquired if the County is comfortable
with the current draft of these documents.
Andrew Struck responded that the County Smart
Growth Committee has approved these revised documents and the Town of
Fredonia and City of Port Washington have passed the MOU/cooperative
agreement already.
Randy Tetzlaff commented that it was crucial to
have the City’s municipal attorney review the documents and recommend
changes. The City’s attorney also reviewed the documents at the common
council meeting and was a proponent for the Council to adopt the MOU/Cooperative
Agreement. He suggested that other communities should also utilize
their municipal attorneys to review the documents and make any
suggested changes.
Pat Marchese commented that the County should start
contacting local communities as soon as possible to get this process
completed.
Andrew Struck responded that the County has been
actively at the table with each community for passing the Cooperative
Agreements.
Geoff Hurtado suggested that we should start with
the good news that we have received the largest grant in the State
this year.
Rod Mayer asked what the next step is for the City
of Cedarburg.
Andrew Struck responded that the Common Council has
received the recommendation from the Plan Commission to not approve
the Cooperative Agreement. As this is a recommendation of the Plan
Commission, the Common Council will have the final say and will be
deciding at their next Common Council meeting how to proceed.
Basically, they could postpone a decision in order to gather more
information or make changes, disapprove the Cooperative Agreement or
approve the Cooperative Agreement. As this issue has been before the
Plan Commission and Common Council before, it is likely that the City
will act on the Cooperative Agreement.
Rod Mayer inquired if the Plan Commission could
reverse its decision.
Andrew Struck responded that at this point he has
been advised to work with the Common Council and the upcoming Common
Council meeting.
Rod Mayer volunteered to assist with the City of
Cedarburg if necessary.
Participating Communities- "Cooperative Agreements"
Covered in previous discussion
Update on Local Government Meetings
Covered in previous discussion
Update/Discussion on the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program (WCMP) - Coastal Resource and Community Planning Grant for Ozaukee
County
Grant Review- Staff and Selection Committee
Andrew Struck informed the CAC members that WCMP staff have
recommended the Ozaukee County grant for funding. In addition, Andrew
presented to the WCMP Grant Selection Committee in Madison on
Thursday, January 29, 2004 and received a favorable response. The
Grant Selection Committee made up of WCMP Board members has since also
recommended the Ozaukee County grant for funding.
Next Steps
Final decisions on the grant awards should be made in March 2004 by
the full WCMP Board and the project contract would then be forwarded
in July 2004 for a July 2004 project start date.
Public Participation in the Planning Process and
Drafting a Public Participation Plan
Report of the Public Participation Planning Ad Hoc
Work Group
Nancy Anderson informed the Committee that the work group met on
January 26, 2004. Nancy reviewed the statutory requirements for public
participation in the planning process. Each local unit of government
must adopt a written Public Participation Plan as well as the County.
The Work Group believed that public participation should occur at
every stage of the process and allow for written comments that are
addressed by the local governing body. An advisory committee may be
established at the local level. The statute details who should receive
copies of the public participation plan. A minimum of one public
hearing must be held prior to the adoption of the comprehensive plan.
Kit Keller recognized the members of the work group. The discussion
from the January meeting focused on ways to engage people in the
planning process, which produces better decision-making. Although it
may be difficult to reach all Ozaukee households, various outreach
methods could be used, including posting at public libraries, banks,
fish fries and through local elementary school backpack programs.
Andrew Struck distributed a copy of Washington County ’s
Comprehensive Planning newsletter that they have developed. Something
similar could be developed for Ozaukee County. This newsletter could
be made available on the County’s
web page.
Andrew also distributed information from the
“Changing Landscapes I & II
Workshop”
that he attended. A number of different software programs ranging from
free access via the web to GIS extension software at a cost are
available to guide people through the decision making process as part
of a public participation plan. These software programs and websites
are geared at helping people visualize planning decisions. Andrew will
contact one of these companies/agencies to present at a future
committee meeting.
Geoff Hurtado commented that people have an easier time
understanding these concepts when they can visualize them through
maps, pictures, and diagrams.
Jill Hewitt inquired if these GIS computer simulations were based
on local community data, resources, and input. She believed that they
would be more useful with specific local data and resources.
Andrew Struck responded that the different resources range from
web-based simulations and more regional data to specific GIS extension
software that requires and builds off of local data input and GIS
databases. Andrew mentioned a few specific GIS-based programs that
assist in visualization and also complex economic calculations. Andrew
noted that he would continue to investigate these software programs.
Roger Strohm asked what the cost of this might be.
Andrew Struck responded that the idea of the workshop was to have
resources available a many cost points from free web-based information
such as the ATRI website sponsored by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to more advanced GIS software or extensions that
could cost around $3,000.00. Andrew also noted that some of the more
advanced equipment such as the "touch table" GIS equipment could cost
substantially more ($10,000.00 or more). Andrew did also mention that
the Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility in Madison has
this "touch table" and perhaps Ozaukee County could do a public
participation program with them using this equipment. Andrew noted
that he would look into this possibility.
Angie Cope also discussed some of this GIS software and also some
information from an individual at the Land Information and Computer
Graphics Facility (LICGF).
Chairman Beimborn asked the Committee if they supported a more
active or a more passive public participation process.
Pat Marchese commented that there should be a common ground between
these extreme outliers of public participation that the local
communities and the County would be comfortable with. He noted that
there might be staff time concerns with an overly aggressive public
participation process.
Dave Verley inquired if this Committee is developing a public
participation plan for the County and/or the local communities.
Chairman Beimborn responded that this Committee will draft a public
participation plan for the County and the local communities could use
it as a template for their local community public participation plans
or develop their own public participation plans. The County public
participation plan could also be used as a menu of methods to choose
from for the local municipalities. In addition, some joint efforts
will be undertaken as part of the multi-jurisdictional planning
process.
Roger Strohm commented that if the local communities have
aggressive public participation plans, then perhaps the County would
not need to be as aggressive.
Geoff Hurtado commented that County staff would have to let the
Committee know what is possible with the resources that are available.
Discussion on the Structure Development and
Establishment of Additional Ad-Hoc Work Groups/Subcommittees
Per the Committee’s request at the last meeting,
Andrew Struck presented a draft organizational chart of potential
additional Ad-Hoc Work Groups. Staff made an attempt at grouping
similar comprehensive planning elements to create three additional
ad-hoc work groups, in addition to the Public Participation Planning
Ad-Hoc Work Group.
Pat Marchese inquired if there were overlapping
issues in all of these groups. For example, land use may be an element
for all of these groups.
Chairman Beimborn responded that there would be
some overlap; however, these work groups would begin the process of
developing the elements. Each of these elements would also be
presented to the full CAC and local governments.
Andrew Struck echoed that each of these work groups
would report to this Committee as well as presenting this information
to the local units of government.
A motion was made by Geoff Hurtado and seconded by
Nina Look to approve the draft structure for additional ad-hoc work
groups. All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Other (New/Old) Business
Jill Hewitt inquired if a part-time individual
could be hired to assist the County during the planning process. She
asked if any monies from the grant could be used for this purpose.
Rod Mayer commented that perhaps an intern could be
hired to assist staff and save on expense.
Nancy Anderson commented that the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission would be hiring a person to
work on the Ozaukee County plan for the next four years as part of the
WDOA grant funding.
Nina Look reported that the May 7, 2004 First
Friday Forum will focus on Ozaukee County’s Comprehensive Planning
Process. The First Friday Forum’s are a partnership between MATC and
the Ozaukee County Board to facilitate discussion on countywide
issues.
Kit Keller commented that it would be important to
have the State Representatives at this forum.
Andrew Struck reported that the February 6th
forum on transportation and April 2nd forum on economic
development would also be informative for this Committee. Committee
members are encouraged to attend these forums to gather additional
information.
Kit Keller has been in contact with 1,000 Friends
of Wisconsin, who assisted in the development of Wisconsin’s
Comprehensive Planning Legislation. Kit is currently working with them
on a walkable community initiative and would like to include Committee
members on a mailing list for this initiative.
Chairman Beimborn asked if there were any
objections to distributing the CAC members contact information for
this purpose. None of the members present objected.
Rod Mayer commented that Kit could provide the
Committee with a copy of this newsletter and the Committee members
could decide for themselves if they would like to receive it in the
future. It was decided by consensus to approach the request in this
manner.
Planning News
No news reported.
Public Comment
No public in attendance.
Communications
No written communications at this time.
Next Meeting
The next meeting date was set for Tuesday April
20, 2004 at 5:30 PM at the Ozaukee County Administration Center
Auditorium.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Kit Keller and seconded by Roger
Strohm to adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting adjourned at
7:30 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Paul Roback and
Andrew Struck as proofed by Angie Cope, Secretary.
Table of Contents
December 2, 2003
Call to Order
Chairman Beimborn called the meeting to order at 5:37
p.m.
Members Present:
Angie Cope, Bob Rathsack, Curt Rutkowski, Dave Verley,
Dianne Robertson, Ed Beimborn, Ellie Doyle, Jerry Voigt, Jill Hewitt, Jon
Censky, Kit Keller, Mary Sparder, Pat Marchese, Phil Beitz, Roger Strohm,
Syl Weyker and Tim Vertz
Members Excused:
Eric Rathke, Nina Look, Geoff Hurtado, Ron Stadler and
Randy Tetzlaff
Members Absent:
Barbara Jobs, Brian Biernat, Cathi Miller, Don Molyneux,
Francis Kleckner, Lila Mueller, Mike Rambousek, Rod Mayer, Scott Heatwole
and Susan Nelson
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Nancy Anderson- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Others Present:
Gus "Sandy" Wirth- Chairman, Ozaukee County Board and
Member of the Smart Growth Committee
Welcome & Introductions
Chairman Beimborn welcomed the members of the
Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee and thanked them for
their service. Introductions of all that were present were given.
The following handout was made available or passed out
to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee at
the meeting:
Cooperative Agreement between the (City/Village/Town of
____), Ozaukee County, and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission for the Preparation of County and Local Comprehensive Plans.
Approval of Minutes
Andrew Struck noted two corrections to the minutes.
A motion was made by
Pat Marchese and seconded by Angie Cope to approve the minutes of the
October 14, 2003 meeting of the Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning
Citizen Advisory Committee with the amendments presented. All present
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Discussion on Scheduling Presentations to this
Committee on Various Planning Topics (E.G. 9 Elements, 14 Goals) By
Outside Agencies/Groups
Ed Beimborn asked if the Committee would like guest
presentations on special topics regarding comprehensive planning
Andrew Struck mentioned that several people/groups have
expressed an interest in presenting to this Committee. This includes the
State Historical Society (cultural resource guide), the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (NR115 & NR116) and the consultant that
prepared the Winnebago County Comprehensive Plan.
Jill Hewitt asked that these presentations be kept to a
minimum, about 20 minutes each.
Bob Rathsack suggested that the Committee work on one
element at a time and have a presenter for each element. The consultant
for the Winnebago plan should present first because it would be a nice
overview of their planning process and provide lessons that we could learn
from.
Dave Verley suggested that the Winnebago presentation
could be longer because it would provide an overview of the entire
planning process.
Angie Cope asked if these presentations could be
incorporated with the public participation plan.
Pat Marchese asked if SEWRPC had plans completed for
each of the nine comprehensive planning elements?
Nancy Anderson responded that SEWRPC has some of the
element plans completed, such as transportation, but the others will be
completed during the comprehensive planning process.
Pat Marchese asked if SEWRPC could present the plans
that have already been completed and also have local communities present
on the plans that they have completed.
Nancy Anderson said that these presentations could be
arranged.
Kit Keller also commented that she thought it would be
appropriate to incorporate these presentations into a public participation
plan.
Andrew Struck commented that Washington County held a
series of public information meetings on each element of a comprehensive
plan. The public, local government officials and planners were invited to
these presentations.
Ed Beimborn asked that Andrew work on developing a list
of presenters and that the AD-Hoc Work Group may want to incorporate these
into the public participation plan.
Update/Discussion on Regional Water Supply Plan
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Article: November 23, 2003
Ed Beimborn commented that this article is part one of a three part
series. Although all of Ozaukee County is within the Greats Lake Basin,
many communities use municipal wells. This may need to be addressed in
the future in the natural resource element of the comprehensive plan.
Discussion on the Structure Development and
Establishment of Additional Ad-Hoc Work Groups/Subcommittees
Ed Beinborn asked if the committee had any suggestions regarding
creating future Ad-Hoc Work Groups.
Andrew Struck referenced the Comprehensive Planning Committee Structure
flow chart that illustrates how the Ad-Hoc Work Groups fit in with the
overall comprehensive planning process.
Kit Keller commented that she liked the Ad-Hoc Work group model because
it engages people with specific expertise that may not want to work on all
of the elements of a comprehensive plan.
Ellie Doyle asked if the citizens that were not selected for this
committee could be asked to sit on an Ad-Hoc Work Group.
Andrew Struck replied that they would be asked once it is decided which
groups would be formed. Andrew commented that due to limited staff
resources for scheduling, preparing for and organizing these groups, it
might be best to cluster the elements into similar groups. He suggested:
Agriculture, Natural and Cultural Resources
Issues & Opportunities, Intergovernmental Cooperation and
Implementation
Land use, Housing and Economic Development
Transportation, Community Facilities and Utilities
Ed Beimborn commented that the main committee could meet less often and
that the Work Groups could provide updates and report and committee
meetings. He also asked if it would make sense to develop Work Groups
based on geography. Northern communities have similar land use issues that
are different than Southern communities.
Ellie Doyle expressed concern over geographic work groups. The
comprehensive plan is a countywide document and should be developed as
such.
Roger Strohm was interested on the mix of individuals in each work
group.
Pat Marchese agreed that there does not need to be a work group for
each element. He thought that this committee should handle some elements,
such as issues & opportunities and implementation.
Jon Censky commented that fewer work groups with more individuals on
each ensures a better representation of individuals on each committee.
Ed Beimborn agreed that it would be best to develop work groups by
element and not by geography.
Kit Keller expressed concern about separating land use and
transportation into different work groups.
Angie Cope expressed concern about separating housing from cultural
resources into different work groups.
Jill Hewitt suggested that county staff could develop the work groups
and then these groups could decide for themselves if this works.
Andrew Struck said that staff would develop a draft of the work groups
and present at the next committee meeting.
Update/Discussion on Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive
Planning Grant for Ozaukee County and Participating Communities
Grant Submittal
Andrew Struck reported that the grant was submitted
on time. Copies are available upon request. All communities in Ozaukee
County passed multi-jurisdictional grant resolutions except for the
Village of Bayside. The grant reflects what this committee has
discussed, what was presented to the local communities and what was
developed in the work plan. The grant base funding is for $680,000.
With 50% grant funding and incentives, the total grant award would be
$408, 000. The County anticipates hearing from the State in late
January and then the County would have 30 days to get each community
to sign the MOUs.
Roger Strohm asked why the Village of Bayside did
not pass the resolution.
Andrew Struck reported that he has been in contact
with the Village. He reported that the Village is largely in Milwaukee
and that they indicated that they would not be able to meet Ozaukee
County’s timeline for grant submittal. However, they have expressed
interest in having a representative on this committee.
Ed Beinborn asked how much State grant funding is
available for the entire State.
Andrew Struck reported that $2 million is available
statewide.
Phil Beitz asked who our competition is for grant
funding.
Andrew reported that Sheboygan and Calumet Counties
both applied as multi-jurisdictional grants and there are several
single jurisdictional grant applications.
Nancy Anderson reported that all grant applications
are listed on the Wisconsin Department of Administration website.
Grants applications equal $2.5 million.
Syl Wyker asked what can the grant funds can be
used for?
Nancy Anderson replied that they could be used for
staff time, supplies, and data collection, ect.
Revised Draft Work Plan
Nancy Anderson detailed the changes that were made
to the work plan per the suggestions of this committee and the Smart
Growth Committee.
Participating Communities- MOUs
A draft copy of the MOU was distributed to
committee members present.
Dianne Robertson inquired if SEWRPC would be
working with individual communities.
Nancy Anderson replied that SEWRPC would be working
with the County and asking them to pass data on to local communities.
Each municipality can use the data to compile their own plan or have
the county write with local municipal input.
Phil Beitz asked if the local community could use
the county plan as a starting point and then amend to it?
Andrew Struck referenced the Iterative Feedback
Loop flowchart. As information from SWERPC flows from the County down
to local communities, they can make their own decisions regarding
vision and goals and these would feed back up to the County’s plan.
This process is intended to be as flexible as possible.
Nancy Anderson outlined that the MOU is a three
party agreement between the local community, the County and SEWRPC.
The current local municipal plans have to be updated with all nine
comprehensive planning elements, 14 planning goals and a public
participation plan. The County has to develop a countywide
comprehensive plan. All digital files will be made available to local
communities at no charge. The MOU also details the responsibilities of
each party and the penalties for not adopting a comprehensive plan.
Dianne Robertson asked when the plans would be
completed?
Andrew Struck responded that the grant would allow
until 2008 to complete and adopt the plans.
Jerry Voigt asked who would write the local
community plans?
Andrew Struck replied that it would be up to the
local community to decide whom they would like to have write the local
plan. The local community could do it themselves, hire a consultant or
have the County write for free with local municipal input. Regardless
of who writes the plan, the local community would review, revise and
adopt its own local plan.
Jerry Voigt inquired how the public participation
plan would be written if the County wrote the local municipal plan?
Andrew Struck replied that the County would work
with the local community to develop the local public participation
plan.
Phil Beitz inquired if this committee was
responsible for writing the local public participation plans?
Andrew Struck replied that the Public Participation
Plan Ad-How Work Group would draft a county wide public participation
plan. Local communities can review and revise these plans or create
their own.
Roger Strohm asked if the SEWRPC had dates for when
the data would be available?
Nancy replied that data crunching would be ongoing
throughout the planning process.
Andrew Struck referenced the 8-step general work
plan, which is Attachment D in the work plan.
Jon Censky inquired when the MOUs have to be
presented to local boards and councils for adoption?
Andrew Struck responded that if we were awarded the
grant in late January, we would have 30 days to get all of the MOUs
signed. By working on the draft MOU now, it is hoped that we will not
have to rush things through each community at the last minute.
Unfortunately, we will not have the grant contract from the Wisconsin
Department of Administration until they would award us the grant.
Pat Marchese inquired if we could get a draft of
this prior to January to pass along to the local municipal attorneys?
Kit Keller commented that we might want to ask the
DOA to place this information on their web site so that all
communities could benefit from this information.
Ellie Doyle inquired if this information could be
distributed to this evenings Towns Association meeting?
Andrew Struck replied that the information is ready
for staff review and feedback
Bob Rathsack commented that he was concerned about
Section VIII regarding the cost to local municipalities. Would local
communities be charged for services done by the County?
Andrew Struck explained….
Pat Marchese inquired if this section could be
written to say that the cost of participation was limited to in-kind
services.
Ed Beimborn inquired if a community pulls out of
the planning process, are they entitled to the data.
Andrew Struck responded that if a community has
reimbursed the County for the expenses during the planning process,
they would be entitled to the data.
Jon Censky asked if a community pulled out of the
planning process prior to the County expending any funds, the
community would not owe anything.
Andrew Struck said that this would be correct.
Update/Discussion on the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program- Coastal Resource and Community Planning Grant for Ozaukee County
Grant Submittal-
Andrew Struck reported that this grant has been
submitted. He then read the intent of the grant to the committee. The
Grant is for $50,000 and requires a 50% local match of $25,000.
Ed Beimborn asked if the committee had questions
regarding this grant, they could contact Andrew.
Public Participation in the Planning Process and
Drafting a Public Participation Plan
Report of the Public Participation Planning Ad Hoc
Work Group
Kit Keller reported that this Work Group met on
November 11, 2003. Work Group members brought the research that each
had done and a brainstorming session was conducted. Notes from this
session are included in the Committee packets.
Andrew Struck reported that the Work Group set a
deadline of late February to have a draft public participation plan
ready for this committee. He thanked Kit Keller for the research she
prepared for the work group meeting.
Ellie Doyle asked if this committee continues with
this timeframe even if the County is not awarded the grant?
Andrew Struck responded that this Committee should
continue to move forward with the public participation plan because
regardless of the grant, the county is still responsible to develop a
public participation plan by 2010.
Ellie Doyle inquired if the County did not receive
the grant, would they reapply next year?
Andrew Struck replied that it would be up to the
Smart Growth Committee to decide, but there is a strong indication
that we would reapply.
Bob Rathsack commented that it would be to our
advantage to work quicker than the 48-month deadline. His experience
is that people will loose interest if this process is prolonged.
Other (New/Old) Business
Andrew Struck reported that committee member Brandi
Walzer has tendered her resignation to this committee. She has accepted a
new job out of State and will be moving there. He thanked this committee
for allowing her to serve. Andrew commented that the Smart Growth
Committee has made a new appointment.
Dave Verley asked Andrew to meet with this individual
as soon as possible to bring them up to speed on the committee’s progress.
Planning News
Ed Beimborn referenced a number of news articles that
were included in the committee packets.
Andrew Struck mentioned that communities are taking
planning seriously and are even imposing moratoriums on development until
comprehensive plans are completed. The Village of Fredonia also imposed a
moratorium until their plan was complete.
Bob Rathsack commented that the moratorium allowed the
Village the time they needed to complete their plan.
Dave Verley inquired how school boards would be
involved in the planning process.
Andrew Struck referenced the Comprehensive Planning
Committee Structure, in which school boards have been included in the
Technical Staff Work Group. However, individuals to serve on that
committee have not been identified yet.
Pat Marchese inquired if School Boards had strategic
plan?
It was discussed that each school district handles this
differently. Some have land use plans, while other do not.
Kit Keller commented that the State pedestrian plan
encourages pedestrian traffic plans.
Public Comment
No public in attendance.
Communications
No communications at this time.
Next Meeting
The next meeting date was set for Tuesday
February 17, 2003 at 5:30 PM at the Ozaukee County Administration Center
Auditorium based on the input and availability of those members
present. It was asked that staff draft potential meeting dates for
2004.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Dave Verley and seconded by Kit
Keller to adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting adjourned at
7:22 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Paul Roback and
Andrew Struck as proofed by Angie Cope, Secretary.
Table of Contents
October 14, 2003
Call to Order
Chairman Beimborn called the meeting to order at 5:30
p.m.
Members Present:
Angie Cope, Bob Rathsack, Brian Biernat, Curt Rutkowski,
Dave Verley, Ed Beimborn, Ellie Doyle, Eric Rathke, Geoff Hurtado, Jerry
Voigt, Jill Hewitt, Kit Keller, Nina Look, Phil Beitz, Randy Tetzlaff, Rod
Mayer, Roger Strohm, Scott Heatwole, Syl Weyker and Tim Vertz
Members Absent (or not yet appointed):
Barbara Jobs, Brandi Walzer, Cathi Miller, Don Molyneux,
Francis Kleckner, Jon Censky, Lila Mueller, Mike Rambousek, Pat Marchese,
Ronald Stadler and Susan Nelson
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Andy Holschbach- Ozaukee County – Planning, Resources
and Land Management Department
Nancy Anderson- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Others Present:
Katherine L. Smith- Ozaukee County Board Member and
Chair of the Smart Growth Committee
Thomas Richart- Ozaukee County Board Member and
Vice-Chair of the Smart Growth Committee
Gus "Sandy" Wirth- Chairman, Ozaukee County Board and
Member of the Smart Growth Committee
Welcome & Introductions
Chairman Beimborn welcomed the members of the
Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee and thanked them for
their service. Introductions of all that were present were given.
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
Study to test waters in Richfield: Research on private
wells could help protect resource, shape development, September 15
2003, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, by: Don Behm
Complete Listing of the Members of Ozaukee County’s
Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee including names,
addresses, phone numbers and email addresses.
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Kit Keller and seconded by Eric
Rathke to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2003 meeting of the
Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory Committee as
presented. All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Update/Discussion on Ozaukee County Shoreland Zoning
Ordinance Revision and New GIS Shoreland Zoning Maps
Andy Holschbach informed the Committee that the County
Planning, Resources, and Land Management Department (PRLM) administers a
shoreland/floodplain ordinance in the unincorporated areas of the County.
This includes approximately 200 lakes/ponds, 1,000 navigable streams and
floodplains. The County is in the process of revising this ordinance and
they would like the Citizen Advisory Committee to review and comment
during this revision process. Andrew Struck mentioned the new Geographic
Information System (GIS) shoreland mapping that the Planning, Resource,
Land Management Department is working on with the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission. Nancy Anderson detailed the specifics of the
shoreland zoning maps using an example map from the Town of Saukville.
Update/Discussion on Floodplain Determination Studies
in Ozaukee County
Nancy Anderson discussed State Statutes NR115 & NR116
and that Ozaukee County will be required to comply with these revised
legislations. In response to the upcoming legislations, the County is
updating its shoreland zoning maps. In addition, the County has received a
$50,000 grant from the State and other grant funds from FEMA to study and
map the approximate floodplains off a list of priority streams in the
County. The County will be working in conjunction with the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to document and approve these floodplain studies. The detailed
floodplains will then be included on the shoreland zoning maps. Andy
Holschbach provided an example of the importance of studying these
floodplains.
Update/Discussion on Regional Water Supply Plan
Andrew Struck referenced the Regional Water Supply
Planning Program Prospectus conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission and its relevance to Ozaukee’s Comprehensive
Planning Process. On page seven, there are eight factors that contribute
to the need for the preparation of a regional water supply plan for the
Southeastern Wisconsin Region. Andrew noted that one of the reasons for
conducting this study was to assist in developing effective comprehensive
plans. This important information will be included in the Natural Resource
element of Ozaukee’s multi-jurisdictional comprehensive plan. Andrew
Struck also asked the committee to review the conclusion section of this
report on page 39. Andrew Struck also emphasized the importance of the
water supply in the comprehensive planning process by referencing the
Study to test waters in Richfield: Research on private wells could help
protect resource, shape development, September 15 2003, Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel, by: Don Behm. Nancy Anderson stated that she would
forward a Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission PowerPoint
presentation on this topic for posting on the County’s website.
Update/Discussion on Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive
Planning Grant for Ozaukee County and Participating Communities
Participating Communities- Resolutions
Andrew Struck commented that as of this meeting
date, 14 Ozaukee Communities have passed the multi-jurisdictional
grant resolution. The City of Mequon will act on the resolution this
evening and attempts to set up a meeting with the Village of Bayside
have not been successful. Geoff Hurtado stated that he would contact
people in the Village whom he has worked with in the past and ask them
to contact and discuss the planning process with Andrew Struck.
Syl Weyker asked what are the penalties if a
community partners with the County, but does not adopt a comprehensive
plan? Andrew Struck explained that the Wisconsin Department of
Administration withholds 25% of the grant funds until each
participating local community adopts a comprehensive plan. If a
community fails to adopt a comprehensive plan, the WDOA will withhold
the grant funds for that community. This will be detailed in the
memorandum of understanding with each community.
Community Planning Document Inventory Sheets
Nancy Anderson stated that each community that has
passed the resolution to date was mailed an inventory detailing that
community’s current plans that SEWRPC has on record. Each community
has been asked to review these inventory sheets and update and correct
them as necessary. These sheets need to be returned to SEWRPC by
October 24, 2003. This inventory is required as part of the grant
application process.
Draft Workplan and Planning Model
Andrew Struck referenced the SEWRPC workplan that
was mailed to each committee member and asked if committee members had
any questions or suggestions regarding this document.
Tim Vertz inquired about the planning model that
would be used throughout the planning process. Andrew struck reported
that the model would be similar to that of Portage County in that it
would be a single planning effort with multiple plans.
Angie Cope inquired if communities would have to
pay additional money for more detailed plans. Andrew Struck reported
that communities would be responsible for the printing and
distribution costs of their local plan. If communities desire details,
such as design guidelines, beyond the scope of the nine elements and
fourteen goals of the comprehensive plan, the County would work with
the community on generating a scope of additional work or incorporate
the provided local community’s existing detailed documents by
reference at no additional cost. Andrew also referenced the detail of
inventories and mapping specified in the work plan (Attachment F). As
will be detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the
information necessary to prepare the multi-jurisdictional County plan
and the parties responsible for providing the information are set
forth in Attachment F of the work plan. SEWRPC will compile all of the
information specified in this Attachment. The City/Village/Town will
be responsible for developing or compiling supplemental information
beyond that specified in Attachment F that the City/Village/Town would
like to be included in the multi-jurisdictional County plan or in the
City/Village/Town comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the
(City/Village/Town) will not be asked for any direct financial
contribution for preparation of the multi-jurisdictional comprehensive
plan. The costs for participating in the multi-jurisdictional planning
effort will be limited to those costs related to gathering and
providing local information needed for developing the plan; local
review of planning materials; travel to and attendance at
comprehensive planning meetings; and notice and related costs
associated with any meetings the local government may hold to review
and discuss the plan at the local level. The cost of producing
supplemental information specific to an individual local government,
beyond the inventory and other data described in the work plan
(Attachment F), will also be the responsibility of the local
government. Local governments will also be responsible for the cost of
printing and distributing local plan documents.
Jill Hewitt inquired about the dynamics of changing
an adopted comprehensive plan. Andrew Struck reported that each local
community has the same "powers" as they did before this legislation.
Therefore, the process for changing the plan would be essentially the
same and would be further detailed in the implementation element.
However, the new legislation requires that a public hearing must be
held prior to changing the comprehensive plan. This would be the same
if a community did not participate in a multi-jurisdictional planning
effort.
Erik Rathke inquired if the County has to approve
changes in local municipal comprehensive plans. Andrew Struck reported
that the County, per the law, must adopt changes in City and Village
plans ‘as is’. The legislation does not state that the County must
adopt changes in Town plans; however, to the extent possible, noting
the extraterritorial areas and the County’s interests, such as
shoreland areas, the County’s intent would be to incorporate the
Town’s plan. In addition, the Town may approve a change in the Town’s
plan without the County’s plan being amended; however, this
inconsistency would be noted. This will have to be worked out in the
memorandums of understanding.
Syl Weyker inquired if the County can change their
plan without the approval of the State of Wisconsin Land Council.
Andrew Struck reported that the County would adopt the changes and
forwarded it to the State. The State would then check to verify that
the general plan guidelines have been followed. These guidelines are
included in the State’s grant closeout form. This form will be
e-mailed to this Committee and posted on the Comprehensive Planning
website.
Syl Weyker inquired about the regional water supply
study that the County is intending to include in its comprehensive
plan. Will local plans also have to include this study? Andrew Struck
reported that the benefit of this multi-jurisdictional process is that
the local communities can draw upon and/or reference information
provided in the water supply plan in their local plans. General
planning including goals, objectives and recommendations specific to
Ozaukee County for the protection and management of the water supply
will be incorporated in the County plan.
Roger Strom inquired if the County would have to
hold a public hearing for local municipal plan changes and/or
amendments. Andrew Struck reported that local changes that require a
change to the County’s plan would require the County to hold a public
hearing. This would be required whether a community participated in
the multi-jurisdictional effort or not.
Jerry Voigt inquired if this was part of the
consistency requirement of a comprehensive plan. Andrew Struck
reported that the law requires that the County accept ‘as is’ changes
as amendments to City or Village plans. However, changes at the local
level that are not incorporated into the County plan and differ from
the County plan must be noted. Andrew also noted that there is still
much discussion about what the ‘consistency’ requirement means in the
legislation; however, generally it refers to the consistency between
the list of land use actions specified in the law and the local
comprehensive plan.
Geoff Hurtado inquired about the long timeframe
outlined on paged 29 & 30 in the workplan. Geoff recommended a more
aggressive time schedule to ensure that enough time would exist if
problems arise during the planning process. Ed Beimborn reported that
more specific milestones should be developed to assist the planning
process in keeping on schedule. Nancy Anderson reported that this
timeframe was developed for the grant process and a more detailed
timeframe would be developed.
Ed Beimborn asked the Committee about the level of
comfort with the Citizen Advisory Committee responsibilities that were
outline in the workplan. The committee did not indicate that they were
uncomfortable with the outlined responsibilities.
Ed Beimborn also inquired how the County would
identify goals. Would these be County goals or local goals? Geoff
Hurtado commented that there needs to be a common understanding from
all communities of what this planning process intends to accomplish.
Andrew Struck reported that local visions and goals would feed-up into
the County plan and then these summarized County visions and goals
would feed back down to the local plans. Andrew also noted that this
needs to be further developed with the assistance of the Citizen
Advisory Committee. Phil Beitz commented that educational materials
need to be developed for the local plan commissions to keep them
informed of the planning process.
Rod Mayer commented that the planning process needs
to allow ample time to address municipal border issues and that these
should be proactively researched and documented. How have other county
plans addressed this issue? Rod also inquired about the cost
associated with the local plans and that there needs to be a detailed
exit strategy for all communities. Andrew Struck reported that this
would be developed and would be a part of a memorandum of
understanding with each community. Andrew also mentioned that he would
research how other counties have addressed these issues.
Jerry Voigt stated that the Towns see the financial
benefit of the multi-jurisdictional planning process, but are
concerned that they might be giving up local control. Andrew Struck
noted that the memorandum of understanding might outline an approval
process for amending comprehensive plans, but that it was hoped that
the Citizen Advisory Committee would assist with developing these
processes over the course of the planning process to allow for
flexibility and incorporation in the implementation element. This
process should address the concerns that the Towns have on local
control.
Geoff Hurtado inquired if there was an example of a
memorandum of understanding that addressed the issues that the Towns
have. Andrew Struck reported that Portage County did not have
memorandums of understanding and he is researching if Sauk County
addressed these issues with their MOUs. Andrew made a request to get a
copy of the MOUs used in Sauk County as well as Sheboygan County. He
will continue to inquire with other counties.
Geoff Hurtado also inquired what the memorandums of
understanding would accomplish. Andrew Struck reported that the
Memorandums would outline the planning process, detail what each
participating party’s responsibilities would be and protect each
partner’s financial liability.
Jill Hewitt inquired if the memorandums were
required as part of the grant process. Andrew reported that they were
not required. He noted that only the resolutions were required for the
grant.
Jerry Voigt, Rob Mayer and Syl Weyker inquired how
the County would address changes in adopted Town comprehensive plans.
Andrew Struck reported that the County hopes to develop a process with
the Towns that would address this issue. The intent is to develop a
plan process that everyone would be comfortable with. Ed Beimborn
commented that these issues would need to be addressed over time.
Public Participation in the Planning Process and
Drafting a Public Participation Plan
Discussion of Public Participation Process
Ed Beimborn referenced page 7 of Portage County’s
Public Participation Plan. This page identifies a range of activities
from passive to aggressive. Ellie Doyle commented that the Village of
Fredonia did an excellent job of including the public and surrounding
communities in their planning process.
Bob Rathsack informed the Committee that the
Village of Fredonia spent two years developing their comprehensive
plan. A committee met almost monthly to work on this plan. A public
information meeting was held early in the process. Participants
learned what the Village hoped to accomplish in the planning process.
Citizen input was gathered at this meeting. Two additional open houses
were held during the planning process. When the plan was presented to
the Planning Commission, another public information meeting was held
where input was gathered. Bob mentioned that not all meetings were
easy, but a lot of information was gathered. This resulted in a better
plan.
Andrew Struck referenced pages 8-11 of the Portage
County Public Participation Plan. These pages outlined how public
participation would occur at each step of the planning process. Ed
Beimborn inquired if this was the goal for Ozaukee County? Andrew
Struck reported that the County is interested in gathering as much
public input as possible throughout the planning process.
Geoff Hurtado mentioned that these public
information meetings should be engaging and require the public to
participate in a planning activity.
Jill Hewitt inquired if the Committee was
developing a public participation process for the County’s plan, the
local plans or both? Jill stated that the local communities might want
to host these meetings with County assistance.
Kit Keller mentioned that the Committee could learn
a lot about public participation and how planning effects their daily
lives from the material that was developed in conjunction with the
Surface Intermodel Transportation Act.
Formation of a Public Participation Planning Ad Hoc
Work Group-
Ed Beimborn stated that the Citizen Advisory
Committee should form an Ad-Hoc Work Group to begin to work on this
public participation plan. This plan should work in conjunction with
the local communities’ efforts. Andrew Struck reported that the Work
Group could research which public participation techniques might work
best in each community.
Ed Beimborn asked if there were any volunteers to
work on this Ad-Hoc Work Group. Kit Keller, Ellie Doyle, Eric Rathke,
Geoff Hurtado, Bob Rathsack and Randy Tetzlaff all volunteered. It was
mentioned that Jon Censky should also be asked to participate since
the City of Cedarburg has an adopted public participation plan for the
City. It was decided that this group would meet on November 11, 2003
at 7:30AM in room 117 of the Ozaukee County Administration Center.
Other (New/Old) Business
No other business was discussed.
Public Comment
County Board Supervisor Thomas Richart, Vice-Chair of
the Ozaukee County Smart Growth Committee, thanked the Citizen Advisory
Committee members for their service in assisting the County in developing
a Comprehensive Plan.
Communications
Andrew Struck read a letter from the Michels
Corporation. (See attached)
Next Meeting
The next meeting date was set for Tuesday
December 2, 2003 at 5:30 PM at the Ozaukee County Administration Center
Auditorium based on the input and availability of those members
present.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Geoff Hurtado and seconded by Syl
Weyker to adjourn the meeting. All present voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously . The meeting adjourned at
7:30 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Paul Roback and
Andrew Struck as proofed by Angie Cope, Secretary.
Table of Contents
August 13, 2003
Call to Order
County Board Smart Growth Committee Chairperson,
Katherine L. Smith, called the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Members Present:
Angie Cope, Brandi Walzer, Brian Biernat, Curt
Rutkowski, Dave Verley, Ed Beimborn, Ellie Doyle, Eric Rathke, Francis
Kleckner, Geoff Hurtado, Jill Hewitt, Jon Censky, Kit Keller, Nina Look,
Pat Marchese, Phil Beitz, Randy Tetzlaff, Rod Mayer, Scott Heatwole, Syl
Weyker, Tim Vertz
Members Absent (or not yet appointed):
Don Molyneux, Jerry Voigt, Mike Rambousek, Roger Strohm,
Ronald Stadler, Susan Nelson, Cathi Miller
Bob Rathsack
Staff Present:
Andrew Struck- Ozaukee County - Planning, Resources and
Land Management Department
Paul Roback- UW-Extension, Ozaukee County
Andy Holschbach- Ozaukee County – Planning, Resources
and Land Management Department
Nancy Anderson- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Others Present:
Katherine L. Smith- Ozaukee County Board Member and
Chair of the Smart Growth Committee
Donald Dohrwardt- Ozaukee County Board Member and
Member of the Smart Growth Committee
Gus "Sandy" Wirth- Chairman, Ozaukee County Board and
Member of the Smart Growth Committee
Craig Heatwole- Ozaukee County Board Member and Member
of the Smart Growth Committee
Thomas Meaux- Ozaukee County Administrative Coordinator
Welcome & Introductions
County Board Supervisor Katherine L. Smith, Chairperson
of the Ozaukee County Smart Growth Committee, chaired the meeting.
Supervisor Smith welcomed the members of the Comprehensive Planning
Citizen Advisory Committee and thanked them for their service.
Introductions and a brief background of all that were present were given.
The following handouts were made available or passed
out to the members of the Comprehensive Planning Citizen Advisory
Committee at the meeting:
A Guide to Multi-jurisdictional Comprehensive Planning
in Wisconsin, April 2003, Office of Land Information Services
SEWRPC Staff Memorandum, Comprehensive Planning at the
Regional Level in Southeastern Wisconsin: Building a Framework for "Smart
Growth" Planning and Development, February 2003 and Revised March
2003, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Environmental Quality and Community Growth – How to
Avoid Flooding, Traffic Congestion, and Higher Taxes in Your Community,
November 1998, US EPA Region V (EPA 905-F-98-003)
Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Legislation – What
it Means for Wildlife, 2001, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(PUB-WM-366 2001)
Land Use Planning: It All Comes Down To Soil, July
1997, USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service
Groundwater and Its Role in Comprehensive Planning –
Comprehensive Planning and Groundwater Fact Sheet 1-3, July 2002,
Wisconsin Groundwater Coordinating Council and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Brownfields and Comprehensive Planning, March 2002,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (PUB-RR-679) Fact Sheet 15
Ozaukee County’s Comprehensive Planning Effort,
January 2003 Version 1, University of Extension – Wisconsin, Ozaukee
County
Scheduling Framework for the Preparation of County
Comprehensive Plans in Southeastern Wisconsin, #84975 v1 – SCHEDULE
FOR CO COMP PLANS, July 25, 2003, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC)
Potential Ozaukee County Comprehensive Planning Grant
Award, #85040 v1 – OZ CO COMP PLAN GRANT CALC, July 25, 2003,
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Committee Structure for Development of A Comprehensive
Plan for Ozaukee County, Draft 06-20-03, Ozaukee County – Planning,
Resources, and Land Management Department (PRLM)
Local Land Use or Master Plans Adopted by Ozaukee
County Communities, #81482 v1 – OZ CO MASTER PLANS, March 25, 2003,
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Key Points About Wisconsin’s New Comprehensive Planning
and "Smart Growth" Law, 2001, Brian W. Ohm, University of Wisconsin –
Extension (G3750)
Comprehensive Planning Fundamentals, 2001, Mike
Koles, University of Wisconsin – Extension (G3746)
Plan on It! Why Plan? Preparing for Future Decisions, A
Series of Fact Sheets on Regional Planning Issues in Southeastern
Wisconsin, adapted from 1995 Presentation, University of Wisconsin –
Extension and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Model Resolution No. 2003-_, A Resolution Supporting An
Agreement with the (Town/Village/City) of ________ And Ozaukee County for
a Grant Application to the Wisconsin Department of Administration in the
Development of A Multi-jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan, July 2003,
Ozaukee County – Planning, Resources, and Land Management Department (PRLM)
Overview of the Comprehensive Planning Law and the
County’s Committee Structure
Mr. Paul Roback and Mr. Andrew Struck presented an
overview PowerPoint presentation of the State of Wisconsin ’s
Comprehensive Planning Legislation, Ozaukee County’s
strategy for complying with the legislation, educational outreach efforts,
public participation planning, possible funding sources and the committee
structure established for the development of a Comprehensive Plan for
Ozaukee County.
A Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Planning Process
and Application for a Wisconsin Department of Administration Comprehensive
Planning Grant
Ms. Nancy Anderson discussed and provided a brief
overview of SEWRPC’s development of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Anderson provided a handout detailing the regional
planning effort by SEWRPC and mentioned that it was using a planning
horizon of the year 2035.
Mr. Struck discussed the importance of cooperation with
local units of government in developing a County Comprehensive Planning
process in addition to the fact that multi-jurisdictional grants have
historically fared much better in competing for State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration funding. Mr. Struck discussed several
handouts regarding grant funding potentials. The Smart Growth Committee
has directed County Staff to apply for a Wisconsin Department of
Administration Comprehensive Planning Grant in 2003. The deadline for this
grant is October 31, 2003. County staff have started to discuss a joint
application with local governmental units in the County to pursue grant
monies. County staff have presented the PowerPoint presentation and asked
for action on a resolution support a multi-jurisdictional comprehensive
planning approach with local communities.
Public Participation in the Planning Process and
Drafting a Public Participation Plan
The Comprehensive Planning Legislation requires that
the local unit of government adopt written procedures for public
participation in the planning process. This Comprehensive Planning Citizen
Advisory Committee is one method of including public participation into
the planning process. As the County moves forward in the planning process,
this committee will assist in the development of a public participation
plan that may include elements such as: countywide public visioning
sessions, website development, charrettes, public informational meetings,
newsletters, and public hearings. According to the Comprehensive Planning
law, the Ozaukee County Board must adopt a written countywide public
participation plan.
Roundtable Discussion- Questions and Comments
The discussion and questions asked of the Citizen
Advisory Committee members focused on the type of "planning model" that
Ozaukee County intends to follow in the development and implementation of
a countywide comprehensive plan. Committee members cautioned that a single
planning effort with a single plan would not be a preferred model to
follow. Instead, committee members encouraged county staff and SEWRPC
staff to follow the example of Portage County as outlined in the handout
provided, entitled, A Guide to Multi-jurisdictional Comprehensive
Planning in Wisconsin, April 2003 (Office of Land Information Services –
WDOA). This model consists of a single planning effort with multiple
plans. The Committee had identified significant rationale in proceeding
with this type of model. In addition, staff mentioned that most of the
local communities were requesting individual planning documents that
reflected their vision and significant past planning efforts.
Elections of Officers
Chairperson-
A motion was made by Jill
Hewitt and seconded by Kit Keller to appoint Ed Beimborn as Chairperson.
All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Vice-Chairperson-
A motion was made by Geoff
Hurtado and seconded by Syl Weyker to appoint Pat Marchese as
Vice-Chairperson. All present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Secretary-
A motion was made by Geoff
Hurtado and seconded by Syl Weyker to appoint Angie Cope as Secretary. All
present voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Other Business
Citizen Advisory Committee members requested that staff
provide a listing of upcoming meetings and presentations to local units of
government. County staff mentioned that a listing of upcoming meetings and
presentations would be posted on the County’s Comprehensive Planning
website.
Next Meeting
The next meeting date was set for Tuesday October
14, 2003 at 5:30 PM at the Ozaukee County Administration Center Auditorium
based on the input and availability of those members present.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully recorded and submitted by Andrew Struck
and Paul Roback
Table of Contents
|
