#3 Public hearing on Janesville Comprehensive Plan (File Ord. #2009-431)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
March 3, 2009
TO: City Council
FROM: Bradley A. Cantrell, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and action on an ordinance adopting the City of
Janesville Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance No. 2009-431)
RECOMMENDATION
Following the public hearing and review of the Janesville Comprehensive Plan,
the Community Development Department recommends that the City Council
support the following motions:
1. A motion to approve the following text changes including:
a. Changes to Volume 2 as listed in Exhibit A as recommended by the
Plan Commission,
b. Incorporating the guiding principles of the Eco-municipality in the
Plan,
c. Changing policy on Page 73 to read “Work with neighboring towns
and Rock County to consider implementing a Purchase or Transfer
of Development Rights program in areas appropriate and designed
for long term agricultural uses.”
d. Changes to Volume 1 and 2 as listed in Exhibit B.
2. A motion to remove the urban reserve designation from the Future Land
Use Map.
3. A motion to approve the City of Janesville Comprehensive Plan by
adopting Ordinance 2009-431.
City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager recommends approval. I understand that the changing local
and national economy presents concerns for the plan, however I believe these
changes can be addressed in the future as I see this as a living document.
Overall, there are critical areas that are addressed in ways that present a good
guide to the future. Finally, one area of concern has been farmland preservation.
The plan takes some steps to address farmland preservation and provides policy
alternatives as possible future steps such as whether the City would support
purchase of development rights.
1
If the Council would like to see changes and delay the vote, I request that
specific areas to be reviewed be addressed in any motion to continue the review
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Request
Attached for Council information is the previous memorandum distributed to you
on this matter. Also forwarded to you was an updated copy of Volume 1 of the
Plan. An early draft version was previously submitted to you by mistake. This
version is the most up-to-date and in addition to reformatting adjustments
includes additional narrative on air quality in the area, updated information on the
wastewater and water utility sections which reference long range facility plans
currently under development, and additional information in the Economic
Development section derived from the economic summit.
On February 23 the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed the draft
comprehensive plan. At the hearing individuals spoke in favor and against the
adoption of the plan. The primary concerns raised in opposition included:
employment data and references in the Plan which were no longer relevant in
light of the closure of the General Motors plant, the estimated population
increase and land area projected over the next 20 to 25 years, and the potential
future development of prime farmland.
The following address the concerns raised at the City Council meeting.
Concern about employment data and references in the Plan which are no
longer relevant in light of the closure of the GM plant.
City staff and the consultant have prepared a number of text changes to Volume I
and 2 of the Plan which address the closure of the General Motors plant and its
associated suppliers. (See Exhibit B.) The changes update information in both
sections and recognize the GM closure will affect the percentage of the labor
force employed in manufacturing and the overall labor force participation rates.
At the time of Plan preparation no new information except the 2000 census was
available on local employment distributions. As employment data is obtained in
the 2010 census this information can be utilized to update these forecasts.
Concern about the estimated population increase and land use projected
over the next 20 to 25 years.
The Plan makes population and land use projections based on recent trends and a
set of informed assumptions. Those assumptions take into account what has been
experienced in reality over an extended time period, including economic fluctuations.
The projections serve as guidelines to help ensure that the Plan remains relevant
and that decisions are cost-effective and forward-looking. The Plan is not intended or
designed to make exact predictions about population growth or future land use; this
2
is impossible due to the dynamic nature of the City, the region, and external
influences such as the economy.
The population projections were based on the past 15 year trend data for the city.
We are projecting that the city within the next 20 to 25 years will grow by
approximately 20,000 people or 1.15% per year. Historically the city has gone
through different types of growth cycles with some decades of slow to moderate
growth (1980’s) while other decades have experienced a faster pace (1970’s and
1990’s). If the city does not realize this population projection in 2030 then the life of
the Plan will be extended beyond that horizon. In addition, State law now requires
that all communities update their Plan within 10 years following Plan adoption. Thus,
if necessary, the projections can be revised at that time.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies potential growth areas for the City, along with the
types of land uses that would be appropriate in future growth areas. The Plan does
not compel or mandate that growth to occur or dictate when and if it will ever occur.
In fact, the Plan states that “Not all land shown for development on Map 1 (the Future
Land Use Map) will be immediately appropriate for rezoning and other land use
approvals following the adoption of this plan. Given service demands and other
factors, careful consideration to the amount, mix and timing of development to keep it
manageable and sustainable is essential. The City advocates the phased
development of lands that advance the vision of the community and can be efficiently
served with transportation, utilities, public services, and other community facilities.”
This is the basis upon which future decision making is expected to occur as
advocated in the Plan.
The Plan functions as a guide by which the City Council, Plan Commission and staff
will make and advise decisions. In order for the Plan to become realized, the City will
need to take subsequent actions – like updating its zoning and subdivision
ordinances. These ordinances were originally adopted in the late 1970’s, early 1980’s
and have become dated. The Future Land Use Map is not a zoning map, but instead
advises direction on future zoning decisions. The City Council and Plan Commission
will retain the ability to make discretionary decisions that are guided by the Plan, but
also consider other factors mentioned in the Plan such as timing, availability of
services and utilities, and quality of development.
The Plan’s Future Land Use Map illustrates City growth areas derived not only on the
basis of demand projections but also in accordance with understandable, recognized,
and logical boundaries, such as the planned west-side bypass, environmental
corridors on the south and east side of the City, City of Milton, and Henke Road. As
a result, the mapped growth areas do not exactly “match” the land use projections.
Precisely matching land use projections would create boundaries that would be more
arbitrary and less logical, fail to provide the degree of flexibility and/or responsiveness
3
to shifting market demand, and ultimately undermine the City’s ability to grow in a
logical and cost-effective manner.
Concern about the development of prime farmland
The Plan acknowledges the importance of the preservation of agricultural land. The
Plan includes a chapter entitled “Agricultural Resources” that includes a broad range
of policies and programs. The policies are intended to support and preserve the
region’s valued agricultural resources, including:
?
Enhance regional economies – biobased products, food - based on regional
agricultural inputs (thus creating more of a market for ag products and
farmland preservation);
?
Promote compact urban development through encouraging more efficient
development to occur in the City, stimulating urban infill development, limiting
rural sprawl in agricultural areas, and
?
Exploring a TDR or PDR program with the County.
?
Land Use Policies directing city development away from the most productive
soils, and seeking to minimize rural residential development which tends to be
much less efficient than urban development.
The Plan does not advocate for preventing development in the City as a viable
strategy to preserve agricultural land because:
?
This is not realistic, desirable or sustainable. The City is positioned along a
key Midwest growth corridor and proximity to Madison, Milwaukee and
Chicago suggests that the City and region will continue to grow. Communities
that are positioned for growth that try to shut it down tend to have more wild
fluctuations and have a more difficult time sustaining a managed growth
approach.
?
Demand for development in the region will remain regardless of whether it is
City or Town development. If development does not occur in the City and in
the rural area, that development is likely to occur at an overall density of 1
home per every 5 acres (versus the average City density of 4 homes per
acre). The City would be able to accommodate its projected number of new
households on about 2,100 acres (3.3 square miles) whereas if that
development did not occur in the City, but in the Towns that would occupy 43,
780 acres (68 square miles). Therefore, development in the City is 20 times
more efficient, demonstrating that consumption of land for urban development
is significantly less than would otherwise occur in rural settings.
?
There is an uneven commitment among the Towns surrounding Janesville for
farmland preservation. While the Town of LaPrairie is committed to preserving
agricultural land, other towns adjacent to Janesville (Harmony and Janesville)
have planned substantial area for growth and development and have an
active and recent history of approving such development. The Plan
4
recognizes that if future growth on the City’s fringe is to occur, it should be
developed in the City at urban densities.
?
Preventing development will negatively impact the economy of the City. If the
City wants to promote economic growth, it will need to have appropriate
places to accommodate that growth. The Plan does not promote development
at any cost, but it does designate a number of appropriate locations for
residential and business growth, including infill development sites and
redevelopment. For some businesses, redevelopment or infill sites will not be
the best option. The Plan is designed to accommodate appropriate economic
development without requiring Plan Amendments for each new proposal that
comes forth, which would likely be seen as an obstacle to the promotion of
economic development.
?
Landowners who are concerned about preserving their land for uses are not
prevented from taking independent action to preserve their land or to continue
farming by the City’s Plan. Even in areas where the City’s Future Land Use
Map shows development, landowners are not forced to develop or sell their
land. Landowners have tools at their disposal and under their complete
control to permanently preserve agricultural land, including conservation
easements and exclusive agricultural zoning. The City’s seeks to prevent
fragmentation of long-term Agricultural areas by limiting new development in
those locations to a density of 1 new home per every 35 acres, and hopes
that the County, Towns and landowners will help to support this.
The Plan has been in preparation for more than two years and has incorporated
numerous public hearings, vision sessions, open houses and opportunities for
public comment. The Plan Commission guided the Plan preparation process and
made various adjustments to the text and Land Use Map based on public input.
The Plan satisfies the State’s requirement for a Comprehensive Plan as set for in
Section 66.1001, and Community Development staff believes the Plan is ready
for City Council adoption as recommended.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jacob J. Winzenz
5