City approves comprehensive plan, official map, development code

By Kim McDarison

The Fort Atkinson City Council recently adopted several ordinances amending the city’s comprehensive plan, official map and land division and development code. 

Third and final readings of the three ordinances were approved during the council’s regular meeting held Feb. 17. 

In a memo to council, City Engineer Andy Selle noted that the city had been making “a concerted effort to revise its suite of planning documents over the last several years.” He cited three documents: the comprehensive plan, zoning code and official map, each of which, he noted, was last updated in 2019, 2020 and 2022, respectively. 

Selle stated that state statutes require land use decisions, including changes made to the city’s official map, “be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.” 

He cited four “major recommended changes,” including: 

• Reevaluating and relocating several proposed future off-street trails, on-street bicycle facilities, wells, parks and roads.

• Removing a few outdated elements regarding future locations of a new hospital and the previously planned U.S. Highway 12 Bypass. 

• Adding a new potential future airport expansion and State Highway 26 overpass.

• Updating the city’s municipal boundary to reflect the existing boundary.

Additionally, Selle provided a schedule of approval steps the initiative had undergone, including: a Jan. 1 newspaper publication of a public hearing scheduled on Feb. 1; introduction of the amendments during a Plan Commission meeting held Jan. 11; introduction of the proposed amendments to the city council during a meeting held Jan. 18; a public hearing held during a joint meeting of the Plan Commission and city council Feb. 1, and a recommendation of final approval of the three documents scheduled for Feb. 17. 

Comprehensive plan 

During the meeting, Selle told council members that the city’s mapping of areas both within and beyond the city’s municipal boundaries for road right of way was developed “to make sure that the comprehensive plan — which is the overriding document of the city in terms of planning — agrees with the official map. We are making changes to the comprehensive plan as well to reflect those transportation facilities that are listed on the official map,” Selle said. 

While Selle said he had received little conversation from members of the public, he was aware, he said, that members of council, earlier that morning, had received an emailed correspondence from a resident and landowner Jim Merriman. 

The letter also was shared by Merriman with Fort Atkinson Online last Thursday morning.  

In his letter to council, Merriman wrote that he did not feel he had received proper notification in advance of decisions made that would affect his land. While writing that he had been told by city officials that letters were sent to affected landowners and officials had “reached out,” he noted: “We feel our land was one of the most affected yet we received none of these notices. We did receive one only after meetings were held.” 

Merriman stated his concern that new ordinances could be “administered on the ground by a single individual.” 

He noted additional concerns about the handling of green space and trails, writing that he believed the proposed documents hindered the development of connecting trails in and around the city. 

He expressed dismay with the city’s handling of a concept he had advanced which would have turned a 9-acre parcel he previously owned into a park. According to Merriman, the project had garnered “significant support” from Jefferson County, which, he said, was “willing to pursue stewardship grants for half the asking price.” Further, he wrote, “our family would donate one-fourth of the price and lead fundraising efforts for the remainder.” 

Of the city, Merriman wrote: “Our growth has slowed. When compared with neighboring communities our industrial park lays empty at the continuing expense. The city now owns 75 acres of land with no timeline or milestones scheduled towards delivery … This needs to be addressed. 

“Greenspace is an important selling point the other communities seem to recognize. They have interconnecting trails and continually new greenspace. Other cities seem to think these features make them more marketable.” 

In his letter, Merriman stated: “Councilperson (Megan) Hartwick should be commended for questioning proposed plans removing greenspace and trails without first completing a plan for their future. She suggested holding off finalizing the ordinance and plans until an in-depth plan can be developed and incorporated into the new planning documents.”

Of green space and trails, Merriman wrote: “When left to developers … they will simply disappear.” 

During discussion, Councilman Mason Becker asked if the city had received feedback other than the letter received from Merriman that morning. 

Selle noted that two members of the public had attended a landowners meeting and he was contacted by phone by a resident on Fox Hill Lane. Changes made to the documents would not affect that individual’s property, Selle said. 

Hartwick asked if the three planning documents on the agenda needed to be approved simultaneously. 

She asked: “Can things be voted on at different times or does that not necessarily make sense for effectiveness purposes?”

Selle responding, noting that the three documents — the comprehensive plan, the zoning code, and the land division and development code — work together to control the planning process.  

“The official map is tied to the comprehensive plan, or the comprehensive plan map, as I mentioned, have to agree. So we can’t make changes to one without making sure that the other is consistent,” Selle said. 

“There’s nothing driving us in terms of the timing on either of these three items,” he added. 

“The official map must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The official map can’t be approved unless and until the comprehensive plan amendments are approved … The comp plan amendment would have to come before, and that’s why they are the way they are on the agenda,” City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire said. 

Council unanimously approved the third and final reading of the city’s comprehensive plan. 

Official map 

During discussion, Selle said: “The official map was something that was laid out in the comprehensive plan as a to-do for the city, I believe, at the end of 2010 … 2009, when the original comprehensive plan was done. 

“It came to my attention when I arrived here in 2015 as a question as to why we had not moved forward on that.” 

Offering some history, Selle said in 2020, the city, working with a contracted firm, advanced a land division ordinance and an official mapping process. In 2021, he said, the city transitioned to Vandewalle and Associates to continue working on the official map, describing the company as “a better fit to finish out the official map,” as compared with the previous company.  

“So it’s been a long time coming to get to this point and I think that was lost a bit perhaps in the various discussions we’ve had that this is something that has been out there for a while on the city’s task list,” Selle said.  

Citing Merriman’s letter and addressing her comments and questions to Selle, Hartwick said: “It is tough when that comes the day of a meeting because that doesn’t necessarily allow us adequate time to have conversations and discussions that we need to. I do appreciate that our city manager took a tremendous amount of time to provide a very thorough update to us on that. But, I guess, from your perspective, do you feel that there is any additional information that needs to be shared or further explained that hasn’t already happened? Or is there still an opportunity to potentially clarify things or provide further details on somethings before a decision would be made?”  

Selle responded: “I don’t think so. I think the comments that Mr. Merriman brought up, I think Manager LeMire responded to those in some detail. I think further Mr. Merriman’s letter indicated that that property has changed hands. So concerns related specifically to that parcel that are still remaining I think are probably best discussed with the future owner.”

Relative to parks, Selle said: “The city is moving ahead with a comprehensive parks plan.” He added: “Just because we put an asterisks on a map that says, here’s a park — I can’t describe exactly what size that is or how it should be configured … It doesn’t however prohibit us from putting such on an official map indicating the intention of the city to try to develop a park in that area. Again the official map is only to allow us to have a seat at the table should development occur outside our borders.” 

The intention, Selle said, when indicating parks and road right-of-ways on a map is to signal to developers what the city’s thoughts are about development in a specific area. 

Selle continued: “I think it’s been fairly straight forward and I think we’ve done a good job of answering the questions that have come before us and reaching out to the town ahead of time as their residents may have turned to them with questions. I haven’t heard from anyone at the town of Koshkonong that they have had any residents reach out to them.”  

Becker said he was in support of “further examination” of parks, adding: “I think some of our existing parks have kind of evolved in the way that they are used over the last several years.”

He cited Ralph Park as one that had become “more youth-oriented” following the addition of the skate park. 

“I think if there’s an opportunity in the future for residents to express what they would like to see in the future with some of these potential future sites, I think that would definitely be a good thing,” Becker said.

Council President Chris Scherer said the city’s official map had been among items discussed, by his recollection, since 2015. 

“It is nice to see we have potentially come to that point where we can truly have an official map and be more precise and considerate in how we expand and how the residents of the townships can understand how we are expanding,” he said. 

He noted his appreciation of the efforts made to advance a map as well as the comments expressed by Merriman.  

The ordinance was approved unanimously. 

Land division, development code 

Presenting the third and final reading of an ordinance to recreate the land division and development code, Selle said: “This really governs two things: number one, it governs how we move through the process of orderly division of land and, number two, it provides a recipe for what our expectations are in development of land in the city.”

That recipe, Selle noted, would include rules governing the creation of sidewalks, “streets of a certain width in certain areas,” the “radius of curvature on those streets to either accommodate quick turns or very slow turns in pedestrian areas,” and street trees. 

The ordinance would also govern “where appropriate development should occur with respect to the soil and underlying conditions of the site,” Selle said.

The new ordinance would “supersede the 1993 subdivision code,” Selle added. He described the previous document as “much smaller.”  

“This is a much more substantial document that I think covers … more, but also brings us into the more common detail of this code among similar peers in the municipal world,” he said.  

Hartwick asked: “So this would assume that we would not build anymore subdivisions without sidewalks in the future?” 

“Correct,” Selle responded.  

Councilman Bruce Johnson asked: “Are sidewalks at the city expense or landowner?”  

“If it’s a new development, it is included in the developer’s expense,” Selle said, adding that within the public right of way, one finds sidewalks, roads, curbs and gutter, and water and sewer pipes. 

“There are various financing negotiations that occur with that. Sometimes the developer pays for the whole thing, sometimes the city pays for a portion of things,” Selle said.

He pointed to work on Rockwell Avenue as an example, saying: “We are doing the water main work this year. We are hoping that we get decent bids back to put new sidewalks on both sides of the road in there and all of those streets we are working on. That part of the city, for whatever reason, did not see (a) developer put in sidewalks when the development was built. So in that situation the city would be paying for that as part of the contract for all of the water main replacement work and road improvements.” 

The ordinance received unanimous approval. 

Suggestions from Merriman 

Within his communication to council, Merriman offered the following suggestions with regard to the city’s planning documents: 

• Correct errors and omissions (property lines, park symbols).

• Include public infrastructure plans on a broad scale, not just parcel specific beyond city limits, out to the 3-mile extraterritorial preview.

• Extend review and approval time to correct and prepare a complete document, correct document (four meetings in 21 days hardly allows for public understanding and involvement).

• Allow for preparation and inclusion of a feasible greenspace and connecting trails plan.

• Allow for more public involvement; be sure to reach out and include all interested parties and government agencies with expertise and funding options to prepare truly feasible plans.

• Once complete and prior to final adoption make hard copies available for review and comment at public offices and libraries at Jefferson County Courthouse, neighboring Town Halls, Fort Atkinson Municipal building, and neighboring cities,  Folks affected may own land within 3 miles of the city boundary. Not all have internet access.  Rural internet will take a very long time to download the current 155-page document with exhibits.

• Prepare an executive summary clearly outlining differences between the old and the new and the effects to landowners residing outside city limits. Detail how building permits will be affected on those properties in the summary.

An earlier story about the planning documents is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/commission-offers-potential-updates-to-citys-official-map-comprehensive-plan/.