|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 1 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Jane Babik, Bob Willard, Brian Wanasek, Ken Dahlstrom and Maureen Eckert present.
Julie Anderson, Racine County Planning and Development, and Betty Novy, Clerk, were also present.
Bob moved, 2nd by Jane to approve minutes of the July 1, 2002 meeting with the following correction:
Conceptual Land Division
creating four parcels out of one: 2433 Maple Rd. Dean Schmidt: Agent for
Larry Teske and Rae Nardi (Owners) (Parcel #014-03-19-04-002-000- 20.4 acres).
Dean explained consultation with Racine County indicated conformance of the
proposed division with zoning and Land Use Plan requirements. There may be a
small wetland area on Lot 1. Verbal comments from Cecil Mehring, Racine County
Public Works, indicated proposed driveways seem to be non-problematic as they
are on a straight-line portion of the road. As presented, Lot 1 would have a
minimum of 210 feet frontage; Lots 2-4 225 feet of frontage. Lot 4 has an
existing house and barns on it and includes a small strip of property across the
road. All lots have gradual slope and butt up against a gravel pit to the east
Motion carried.
Certified Survey Map creating two parcels out of one: southeast corner of English Settlement Ave. (CTH “J” and Plank Rd. (CTH “A”). Owners Donald & Elaine Pizza Family Partnership/ Agent: Gary B. Foat. Parcel #014-03-19-13-005-000 17.38 acres). Julie discussed the following comments with Gary Foat.
1.) The proposed CSM is consistent with the Town and Village of Rochester adopted Land Use Plan. The proposed two lots have a density that is well below the density standard of one unit per five acres as outlined in the plan. 2.) According to Racine County Subdivision Ordinance, which governs land divisions, lots may be created in areas without public sanitary sewer and where accurate flood data is not available provided that at least 50 percent of the lot area is at least five (5) feet above the elevation of the maximum flood of record. If the surveyor is willing to certify on the CSM that this provision is met, and that the elevation of the flood of record is noted on the CSM, then the Racine County Ordinance will have been sufficiently met. 3.) All driveway and road access requests for CTH “A” and CTH “J” must be approved and obtained through the Racine County Public Works Department. 4.) The CTH “A” right of way on this site has a small section (approximately 7.5’ x 100’) which juts into the property midway along the parcel. The Racine County Highway Department Engineer recommends that the entire right of way on this property be illustrated to match the cut out portion, meaning that an additional seven to eight (7-8) feet of right of way would be added to CTH “A”. This will provide a 50-foot half width for the County Highway. Contact Racine County Public Works Department for further information regarding right of way needs in this area. Racine County cannot accept right of way dedication through a CSM, so a different conveying instrument is needed. 5.) The approximated 100-year floodplain and the primary environmental corridor are illustrated on the submitted plan. The wetland boundary, which was field-staked by Murn Environmental, should be verified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to recording of the final CSM. 6.) Eagle Creek is a navigable waterway that traverses the subject property. Any grading, earth disturbance, or construction within 300 feet of the waterway required separate shoreland conditional use permits from the Racine County Code Administration Department. 7.) Any proposed construction on the new parcels must meet all the standards outlined on Chapter 20, Zoning, Racine County Code of Ordinances. 8.) The property is zoned A-2 General Farming and Residential District II. The land divisions appear to conform to the A-2 standards as outlined in the Racine County Zoning Ordinance. 9.) Evidence of acceptable soil tests for the new parcels must be submitted for review by the Racine County Code Administration Department. 10.)Stormwater drainage review is the responsibility of the Town of Rochester. Our staff has not reviewed this land division with respect to drainage.
There was discussion on item #2. After reconsideration of wording in the Racine County Zoning Ordinance, Julie determined only one acre (40,000 square feet) must be above the maximum flood of record. Gary Foat indicated English Settlement Church has requested a drainage easement be placed on Lot 2 in an area where drain tiles exit onto this property. It was determined it would be wise to locate this on the CSM. TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 2 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Brian moved, 2nd by Jane to recommend approval of the CSM with addition of a drainage easement to benefit the property to the south (English Settlement Church) indicated on Lot 2. Motion carried.
Certified Survey Map creating three parcels out of one: 2433 Maple Road. Owners: Larry Teske and Rae Nardi/ Agent: Dean Schmidt (Parcel #014-03-19-04-002-000 20.4 acres). Dean Schmidt, Larry Teske and Rae Nardi were present. A revised Certified Survey Map was presented which located septic fields. Soil Evaluation Tests were also presented. It was noted the total number of lots requested has decreased from four to three. Julie presented the following comments:
1.) The proposed land division will result in the creation of three (3) parcels. The overall density of this land division is 6.8 acres per dwelling unit. 2.) The depth of the lots is usually neither recommended nor supported by staff, although in this instance the depth of the lots creates a buffer from the sand and gravel quarry located to the east of this site. Also, there is an apparent drainage area in the eastern portion of the lots, and this area can remain open space for storm water purposes, if the Town Engineer concurs. The drainage area of the lots must be noted as not buildable. 3.) A note must be placed on the CSM that no further land divisions may occur on the parcels. 4.) The Racine County Public Works Department has indicated that driveway permits can be issued for residential drives along Maple Road, which is a rustic road. The applicant must obtain proper driveway approvals from the Racine County Public Works Department. 5.) The existing dwelling on proposed Lot 3 appears to be non-conforming with respect to the setback from Maple Road. The minimum street yard setback in the A-2 zoning district is 75 feet. Existing non-conforming structures are limited to lifetime improvements not to exceed fifty percent of the value of the structure. 6.) Evidence of passing soil tests for lots 1 & 2 must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Racine County Code Administration Office prior to the CSM being recorded. 7.) Any proposed construction on the parcels must meet all the standards outlined in Chapter 20, Zoning, Racine County Code of Ordinances.
Based on these comments, Racine County would recommend approval of this CSM. Correspondence from the Town Engineer concurred to restrict building envelopes to lands lying west of the drainage swale. Plan Commissioners discussed a shared access point for lots 1 and 2. Limiting driveways would help preserve the rural character of the road. It was also noted that the road has several curves and a hill. A shared access point where the two lots meet would create clear sight of oncoming traffic from both directions. This area of the road was described as being relatively straight and level. Property owners expressed concern about a mature tree that exists in that area where the shared access point is being requested.
Brian moved, 2nd by Jane to recommend approval contingent on displaying the following items on the Certified Survey Map:
1.) A shared access point 20 feet long and 25 feet wide shall be placed as close to lot lines 1 & 2 as practical without moving mature vegetation.
2.) A restriction that “No filling shall occur in the Drainage Area” (drainage area defined as the area between two 826’ elevation lines surrounding the drainage swale) shall be indicated.
3.) A restriction that “No Further Land Divisions May Occur” shall be indicated.
Votes were Maureen: Aye; Ken: Aye; Brian: Aye; Bob: Naye; Jane: Aye. Motion passed.
Conceptual Land Division creating seven parcels out of one: south side of Washington Avenue (CTH “D”) between Oak Knoll Road and Heritage Avenue. Owners: Point West LLP/ Agent: Patricia Hurley Parcel #014-03-19-04-007-000 36.15 acres). Pat Hurley explained a conceptual plan had previously been submitted on this parcel for eight lots. They have reduced the number to seven. Ken questioned the possibility of a conservation subdivision plan for this development. Those present agreed the parcel has no significant features which warrant a conservation plan. A topographical map displayed slope of only one foot across the entire 36 acres. Julie presented the following comments:
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 3 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
1.) This site is zoned A-2. The proposed lots appear to be consistent with the zoning requirements. 2.) The proposed land division creates seven (7) parcels on 35.19 acres. The density is one dwelling unit per five acres. 3.) The applicant has met with County Planning and Public Works staff regarding access to the proposed lots. It appears that all access for the lots will be taken off of Heritage Avenue, Oak Knoll Road and Vista View Drive. The Public Works Department has indicated they will likely allow driveways onto Heritage Road, which is a rustic road. Access off CTH “D” will not be allowed and will accordingly be restricted. 4.) There is no information provided regarding soil tests for these lots. 5.) A CSM can have no more than 4 parcels. As illustrated, this land division constitutes more than one CSM. 6.) The design for the lots is similar and consistent with the other land divisions to the south of this site. Large lots of individual ownership are proposed on this site. 7.) It is the understanding of staff that a large storm water drainage area is located to the south of this proposed development. This development should be reviewed by the Town Engineer for storm water drainage issues. 8.) If approved, we recommend that no further land divisions be allowed on the proposed parcels and that language restricting such divisions is incorporated into the recording documents. 9.) There do not appear to be any shoreland, floodplain or wetland issues on this parcel.
· From a design perspective, the site could have a small cul-de-sac that terminates off of Vista View Drive that services all proposed parcels. This would result in pie-shaped parcels that back onto Heritage Avenue, CTH “D” and Oak Knoll Road. The applicant has indicated that they do not wish to construct any interior roads and would like to utilize the existing road frontages as they presently exist.
· We recommend that from a design standpoint, in lieu of a “conservation” type subdivision, it might be appropriate for this development to provide a significant landscaped berm along CTH “D” to screen the lots and residences from the highway.
Proposed access points were discussed as follows: The most westerly lot has existing access off of Oak Knoll Rd., The next two lots (heading east) have access off Vista View, the fourth lot (again heading east) would require access off of CTH “D”; lots five, six and seven would access off of Heritage Avenue. Pat indicated previous discussions with Racine County Public Works indicated access from CTH “D” would be allowed for one lot. This needs to be confirmed as Julie presented conflicting information. Some drainage issues were discussed; these would have to be analyzed by the Town Engineer. Soil maps indicate a gravel base in the area. There was discussion on process, whether this could be recorded as two separate CSM’s or require a subdivision plat. Pat indicated she has a partner and plans to quit claim half of the parcel to allow two CSM’s. Brian indicated their may be some legal problems encountered in that process due to some new legislation. This issue should be clarified with the Racine County Register of Deeds.
New Land Division Ordinance presented for discussion/ approval. Subdivision Ordinance Committee/ Chairperson: Charles Haubrich. Charles began by explaining seven major differences that this ordinance offers vs. the one currently in place.
Definition of Net Buildable Acres: The committee has adopted the same definition as Racine County: “Gross contiguous acres minus wetlands, floodplain, water, ephemeral ponds, and state county and town roads.” Wetlands, floodplain, etc. “as defined” would be subtracted from density calculations. Net buildable acres would be divided by four for conservation subdivisions to establish allowable density. Development within the sewer district would allow building on 60% of land while retaining 40% as open space.
A maximum depth to width ratio of 2:1 applies to parcels 10 acres or less. This is to prevent what is known as “piano key development”.
Brian commented he does not like piano key development, but does not necessarily like this specified in the ordinance. He does not feel a particular configuration should be specified.
Mike Weinkauf felt creation of only large lots will cause a problem when sewer comes to the Honey Lake area. All agreed there was no way to tell if that would be happening any time in the future. Chuck responded the intent of the TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 4 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
ordinance is to discourage large parcels by concentrating home sites in one area and preserving open spaces that would be commonly owned.
Mike opposes any further restrictions on division of land. Mike is zoned A-1 and contends that the fact his farmland is restricted reduces the value of his property. Additional restrictions will only lower its value more.
Variance procedures are offered to any item of the land division ordinance.
In sewered areas, density would be based on zoning for that area but observe the 40% open space requirement.
A Conceptual Plan is now required for all land divisions; previously some were exempt. Some workable plan must be presented which considers all of the parcel even if only a portion is being developed at one time. All of the parcel should be considered in the plan.
Any development occurring within 200 feet of environmental corridor will require an environmental assessment of how the development will affect plant life, wildlife and habitat. Costs for this (to the developer) were estimated in the $2,500 - $10,000 range. There was question as to whether this was a fair requirement of a developer. When considering individual lots selling as high as $120,000, most were satisfied a developer could afford this type of expense.
Brian offered scenario of an elderly farmer who sells his land for retirement purposes. This would increase his/her “up front” costs tremendously. Buzz Hurley indicated Rochester has high concentrations of environmental corridor and restrictions in place already mean 50% of it will never be developed. Brian indicated potential conflicts could occur when a neighbor who owns abutting environmental corridor may not allow the assessment.
Charles once again mentions ability for variance and that it is the intent of the ordinance to find some mechanism to protect environmental corridor.
80% Water sediments and pollutants must be retained on site. This is new State regulation.
The subject of variances is more thoroughly explained. The concept is that any term of the ordinance can be overridden, but this requires a 2/3 vote (or four out of five) of the Plan Commission and unanimous vote of the Town Board.
Gary and Nancy stated opposition to the unanimous vote concept. The Town Board has always worked on majority. Brian indicated a tremendous amount of power is given to one member when requiring unanimous vote. Wayne indicated he would prefer it stay unanimous, as variances should not be given lightly. It was stated the land division process will be made more complicated by this ordinance. This will, most likely, result in more variance requests. The Plan Commission and Town Board would be wise not to show favoritism and set unwanted precedents.
Brian offered the following comments:
27.103 Intent (g.) “Provide permanently protected open space for public uses and for residents of developments” The term “public uses” may cause problems. People may not want to open up use to the general public.
27.110 Compliance. (e). “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020” . Brian contends the LUP was not written as an ordinance and he is uncomfortable about creating it as one by requiring compliance in this ordinance.
27.115 Land Suitability. “No land shall be subdivided for residential use which is determined to be unsuitable for such use by the Town Board for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, adverse soil or rock formation, unfavorable topography or significant degradation of environmentally sensitive land. Such areas include, but are not limited to the following:“ The term “environmentally sensitive land” needs to be specifically defined as this can be a very broad concept.
27.302 Subdivision Conceptual Map Requirements. (b) “Inventory of existing resources.” (9) “Cultural resources: brief description of historic character of buildings and structures, historically important landscapes, and archeological features. This includes a review of existing inventories, including those the State Historical Society of Wisconsin maintains for historic buildings, archaeological sites, and burial sites.” The “shall” TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 5 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
requirement of providing cultural resources and a brief historic character may create difficulty if this information is not readily known by the subdivider.
27.602 Preliminary Meeting. “It is recommended that the subdivider meet with the Town Plan Commission, prior to submitting a conceptual plan, to learn the objectives of the Land Use Plan and Land Division Ordinance and understand how these will influence the planned development. It is also recommended to meet with Racine County Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee (REDLUP) for information on driveway access, sanitary requirements, floodplains, environmental corridors and wetlands on the site. Lastly, it is recommended that members of the Commission plan a site visit with the developer prior to submission of the conceptual plan.” Brian suggests recommendations not be listed in the ordinance itself, but rather in a coversheet.
27.704 Residential Cluster Siting Standards. (c) “Residential clusters shall avoid encroaching on rare plant communities or rare or endangered species habitat identified by the Department of Natural Resources.” Beyond having concerns that clustering be required.” Brian solicited a definition for rare or endangered species. Julie Anderson indicated there is a known hierarchy. Charles will put that in definitions.
27.706 Ownership and Maintenance of Open Space. (d). “Nonprofit Conservation Organization – If the common open space is to be held by a nonprofit conservation organization, the organization must be acceptable to the Town. The conveyance to the nonprofit conservation organization must contain appropriate provisions for reversion in the event that the organization becomes unwilling or unable to uphold the terms of the conveyance.” Brian offered that the term “reversion” (as indicated) be changed to “succession” of ownership
Brian stated he is personally against taking wetlands, etc. out of density calculations and not counting all of a persons acreage. They pay taxes on all of it.
Chuck responded that elsewhere in the County they do net this type of acreage out, but people often get extra lots because of a bonus system. Julie indicated this concept has not had too many legal tests as of yet.
Julie questioned who would be enforcing such items as impervious surface percentages. As written, the ordinance will require a higher level of analysis for everything that comes through the door.
Chuck indicated special attention was given to the cluster subdivision requirement of 40% green space. It is known to cause problems when joint ownership mechanisms fail and no one provides care for the land. Some communities have created separate documents that bring in another entity to care for land and charges costs of doing this to property owners.
Ken commented none of these concepts are anything different; other communities have used them successfully.
Wayne expressed some concerns about cluster development and potential problems that occur with common lands.
Maureen commented when the Land Use Plan was presented at public hearings, a major sticking point was density calculations. Examples were given at those presentations which lead residents to believe all land would be used in the calculations; that there would be no exclusions. She disagrees with disallowing some lands from the calculations.
Chuck stated he would highly recommend the Town Board utilize the Kenosha-Racine Land Trust organization to develop land management plans for commonly owned open space. The Town Board could then enforce proper care of the lands.
Nancy questioned what the Kenosha-Racine Land Trust is. Charles explains the organization has a board of eight people and membership of over 100 people.
There was question on whether another type of easement might be available which allows property to stay in agricultural use. Wayne indicated farming can cause a problem too with dust and chemicals that could be spread to close to an open house.
Mike Weinfkauf questioned whether the perspective of large land owners were taken into consideration. Ed Stone explained he represented the large land owner on the committee. He commented there simply aren’t enough large land owners available or interested to make an impact on what is happening with this ordinance. He did say he TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 6 August 5, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
managed to get a restriction of excluding lands with a 12% slope from development and/or density calculations removed.
It was suggested education specific to large land owners be presented. Jane explained the Town has always had a land division ordinance and a committee was appointed to go about updating the ordinances. Beyond concerns specific to large land owners, it was the committee’s intent to take concerns of the whole community into account.
Ken indicated the existing ordinance does not have the tools he feels are necessary for the Plan Commission to do their job.
Mike Weinkauf stated he kept his land open and probably paid the most taxes before Land Use Assessments came into play. He stated lands currently used for farming are often retirement and pension plans to the farmers.
When questioned on what kind of restrictions Mike thought should be in place for land divisions, Mike only stated desire for a promise that restrictions would not lower the value of his land. All agreed this was not possible.
Maureen indicated that in order to manage growth, ordinances and engineering requirements must be in place.
Julie Anderson was excused from the meeting at this point. The next Plan Commission meeting was set for Tuesday, September 3rd, because the next regularly scheduled meeting falls on Labor Day.
Plan Commissioners agreed an informational meeting would be a good idea.
Nancy commented she would like to see the ordinance refined with some of the comments heard at this meeting taken into consideration. She offered a general comment that it is a very complicated ordinance.
Committee members indicated a checklist would be developed to simplify the steps of the process.
Committee members were thanked for the effort put into the ordinance. Consensus of the committee was they would meet again and discuss suggested revisions.
Jane moved, 2nd by Brian to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Novy Clerk |