DCPREZ-0000-04063 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 4,0() September 15, 1987 Mr. Lyman Anderson, Chair Agriculture, Enviornment and Land Records Committee Dane County Room 116, City-County Building Madison, WI 53709 re: Zoning Petition by William Dallman, agent for Michael Wyngaard--Section 31, West 1/2 SE, Town of Springfield Dear Mr. Anderson: It has come to our attention, after receiving notice from Dane County, that you have before you an action to rezone approximately 51 acres in Section 31, West 1/2 SE, Town of Springfield. We, the undersigned, are property owners on or near Pine Cone Circle and have always valued the style of life and services provided by the township and its citizens. Although not all of us have been shown a preliminary plat, it is our understanding that it is intended by the developer, Mr. Dallman, to extend Pine Cone Circle through to the plat. We object to this extension of Pine Cone Circle as it will change the entire nature of what has always been a very quiet cul de sac away from all major developments. This will make the least sensible access to the new development. By far, the most reasonable is to access this area from the south through an adjacent out lot, and on through the Enchanted Valley Estates with which the new plot is contiguous or to access from the east. The alternative access would provide direct entry to Airport Road,with its signal-controlled intersection at US 12. Southern access is consistent with current high density land use in the Enchanted Valley Estates. To the contrary, using the Pine Cone Circle access necessitates an extra 1-1/2 mile travel to Middleton. This creates an unnecessary, and perhaps critical, time delay in getting emergency fire and rescue equipment to the proposed development. Routing traffic through Pine Cone Circle also dumps an extra burden of traffic on Schneider Road,whose oil and gravel surface and grading are not meant to sustain more traffic than now, and forces at least 40 more cars per day through the Schneider-US 12 intersection where control is by stop sign only. Further, it reduces the quality of life for a small group of homes which are not in any way logically associated with the proposed development. By refusing extension of Pine Cone Circle, the Town and County authorities are not denying a property owner's rights. In fact, the land for access to Pine Cone Circle is currently part of a parcel that is more valuable as a 5 acre RH-1 lot on a cul de sac than as a 4 acre lot on a busy throughway. Other access to the development is feasible. SEP 17 1981 Inv