Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines parkland, reservoir and $951,000 fee-in-lieu example for Marshstone Phase 2
Summary
Developer Jeff Haines described options for satisfying the Village of Cross Plains’ land-dedication requirements for the Marshstone Phase 2 subdivision — including dedicating parkland, reserving 1.25 acres for a 500,000-gallon reservoir, paying a fee-in-lieu, or a hybrid — and presented an illustrative fee total of about $951,000 if fees were chosen instead of land.
Developer Jeff Haines presented the committee with preliminary plans for Marshstone Phase 2, a roughly 400-acre residential subdivision, and asked the Parks, Recreation and Conservancy Committee for early feedback on parkland and fee options. “We will be going planning the remaining lands of Marshstone, about 400 acres,” Haines said, and noted the team is moving toward a preliminary plat if approvals go as expected in June.
Haines said the project reserves approximately 1.25 acres for a planned 500,000-gallon reservoir related to village stormwater and water-storage needs and showed the committee a conceptual 8-acre park area placed at the north–south rectangle of the site. He explained the village land-dedication ordinance basis and walked the members through the arithmetic: with an estimated 263 lots in Phase 2, the ordinance’s per-lot land-dedication factor would require about 8.55 acres of dedication; subtracting the reservoir footprint would leave roughly 7.3 acres for a neighborhood park in that rectangle, if the village required dedication rather than fees.
Haines also presented fee-in-lieu calculations as an alternative to land dedication. Using the ordinance’s square-foot conversion and the committee’s example numbers, he said that if the developer paid fees instead of dedicating that 7.3 acres, the illustrative obligation would total about $951,000. He framed that figure as an example of the two extremes — “all park, no fees” versus “no park, all fees” — and said a hybrid approach would place the final number somewhere between those extremes.
Committee members asked about site access, topography and how the parkland would connect to surrounding trails and roads. One member noted Bur Oak Trail and Stagecoach lie nearby and asked whether the parcel would connect to Highway 14; Haines said the town was strongly against a direct connection to Highway 14 but the developer wanted to leave the option open should future conditions change. Members also raised concerns about the parcel’s steep slopes in places and whether parkland would be practically accessible to residents if adjacent housing cut off direct routes.
Village staff clarified process limits: the Parks and Rec Committee can make recommendations, but final allocations and any formal acceptance of land dedication or fee schedules would be decisions for the planning commission and the village board later in the approval process. Multiple committee members urged more detailed site-specific maps and elevation data and recommended staff follow up with engineering clarifications on access and the practical acreage that would be usable as a neighborhood park.
What happens next: the developer indicated the project team expects to return in June with a preliminary plat and requested the committee consider what mix of parkland and fees it prefers so that later applications to the planning commission and village board reflect the committee’s guidance.
