Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees approve revised Marchstone water agreement, hear developer’s hillside‑overlay requests
Summary
Board approved a revised water infrastructure agreement with Marchstone — adding a paragraph that frees the developer if future approvals fail — and advanced related land‑use items, including a plan to seek an urban service area amendment and proposed hillside‑overlay reductions.
The Village of Cross Plains board approved a revised water infrastructure agreement on May 11 between the village and Marchstone developers, and spent extended time discussing proposed changes to hillside‑overlay regulations needed for phase 2 of the development.
Under the revised agreement, Marchstone and the village maintain a 57%/43% cost‑share for the identified infrastructure. Marchstone asked to add a paragraph clarifying that if future approvals for later phases do not occur, the developer is not obligated to construct certain village infrastructure (notably a reservoir and booster station) beyond the work already agreed and paid through the existing allocation. Village staff said the clause was intended as a fairness provision so Marchstone would not be forced to build large infrastructure without the development proceeding.
Trustees discussed a related parkland/conservancy dedication fee waiver that had been written to apply to phase 1; one trustee opposed waiving those fees if recreational amenities like a golf course never materialize. On a roll call, the board approved the revised water agreement with one trustee voting no.
In a related discussion, Marchstone representatives presented proposed amendments to the village’s hillside‑overlay ordinance. The developer said a recent map of the hilltop‑edge buffer affected roughly 25 lots and proposed reducing the buffer from 150 feet to 50 feet in many mapped areas. The presentation included maps and a tree‑study showing a high proportion of fair/poor quality trees and a restoration plan that the developer said would restore more acreage than it would disturb.
Trustees raised questions about the tree‑study, the process for enforcing restoration commitments, and the advisability of changing an overlay that applies village‑wide. Staff said the proposed ordinance language includes exceptions for necessary public stormwater facilities, recreational amenities and certain golf‑course elements; they also noted this ordinance change would apply beyond Marchstone and therefore requires careful review at the plan commission public hearing scheduled before coming back to the board.
The board also adopted a resolution recommending an urban service area amendment — a necessary step in the CARPC application for the Marchstone phase‑2 annexation and development — which will be included with plan‑commission materials.
Staff indicated the hillside‑overlay ordinance revisions will go to Plan Commission for public hearing and recommendation; trustees deferred final zoning action pending that review and the public hearing process.
