Planning commission recommends Village of Cross Plains adopt 2025–2029 parks and open-space master plan

The Village of Cross Plains Planning Commission on May 20 recommended that the Village Board adopt the village’s 2025–2029 Parks and Open Space Master Plan following a public hearing and discussion.

Commissioners and staff reviewed the plan chapter by chapter, raised editorial and policy concerns and asked staff to clarify language on slope calculations, the use of the word "shall" in capital‑planning provisions, inclusion of a proposed pool, and how park impact fees were evaluated for housing affordability.

The plan moved into and out of a public hearing with a roll call vote before discussion. After the chapter review, a motion to recommend adoption passed on a voice vote.

Why it matters: the document sets the village’s parks policy and provides the technical analysis needed if the village chooses to impose or increase park impact fees. Staff and commissioners discussed how national acreage standards (commonly expressed as acres per 1,000 residents) relate to the village’s existing parkland inventory and to recommended future acquisitions.

Discussion details: commissioners asked staff to correct clerical issues (page numbering and an updated Table 12), to confirm population and acreage projections used in chapters 2 and 5, and to reconcile wording in policy provisions. Commissioners questioned a draft policy that excludes land with slopes of 12 percent or greater from counting toward parkland dedication. Staff explained the distinction: slope thresholds in the plan affect how land counts toward required acreage for active recreation, not whether a parcel could be accepted for passive uses.

Commissioners also pressed for softer language where the draft uses the mandatory word "shall" in capital planning and maintenance items so the village board retains budgeting discretion. Commissioners asked that the plan explicitly mention the village’s current capital priorities (including discussion of a future pool) or remove prescriptive language that could constrain board budgeting choices.

On impact fees and housing affordability, staff told the commission that the parks chapter analyzes only the park‑related portion of impact fees and that a statement could be added clarifying that other fees (water, sewer, inspection, connection fees) also affect housing affordability. Planning staff said that a parks impact‑fee study is a statutory requirement for imposing a fee; as staff put it, "this is a required component by statute to, be able to justify imposing an impact fee." Commissioners asked staff to add clarifying language to the plan to reflect the broader affordability context.

Outcome and next steps: the commission voted to recommend adoption and asked staff to provide a clean copy that implements the agreed edits (corrected page numbers, revised table headings, softened policy language where appropriate, and a clarifying sentence about impact‑fee limits and other fees). The recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for final action.