|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
Town of Rochester 12-2002 (1) December 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Ken Dahlstrom, Jane Babik, Maureen Eckert, Brian Wanasek and Bob Willard present.
Julie Anderson, Racine County Planning and Development, and Betty Novy, Secretary, were also present.
Jane moved, 2nd by Maureen to approve minutes of the November 12, 2002 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Conceptual Land Division creating seven parcels out of one: south side of Washington Avenue (CTH “D”) between Oak Knoll Road and Heritage Avenue. Owners: Pointe West LLP/ Agent: Patricia Hurley (Parcel #014-03-19-04-007-000: 36.15 acres)
Pat presented a map updated to show no lots having access off of CTH “D”. She reported that lines of lot four and five will have to be shifted to accommodate frontage and access off of Vista View. Lot six and seven might also pie a little depending on what distance is mandated from the corner to allow driveway access. She acknowledged the two lots may have to share a driveway.
Ken indicated disappointment that no attempt had been made to present a cluster subdivision design. Pat stated she does not feel this land division warrants a cluster design. The parcel already has 3,000 feet of existing road frontage. It would cost approximately $200,000 to put in a road. Pat pointed out lots are already double the width than they have to be. She feels this is a situation where a cluster design doesn’t make sense.
Julie commented whatever is approved, a restriction requiring no further land divisions should be noted.
Bob remembered when Vista View Drive was approved, it was with the idea that another road would be connected to it when adjacent parcels developed. The road exceeded recommended length for termination in a cul de sac, but was allowed to go in because of the idea another road would someday connect and “U” back onto Heritage.
Pat stated that was when 32 1-acre lots were being proposed. Only ten lots were ultimately created.
Brian stated he would like to have seen a cluster design, but does not see lack of that type of design as a reason to deny the land division. This layout meets the demands of the ordinance and Land Use Plan.
Maureen commented lots one through three are very similar to what is already in place along Heritage Avenue.
Ken stated an attempt is being made by the Plan Commission not to have piano key development. He stated opinion that this land division ignores recommendations of the Land Use Plan. He indicated no matter what the character of land being divided, a cluster design is always a benefit.
Brian commented the ordinance does not yet mandate cluster design.
Bob indicated it may not be mandated, but can certainly be asked of any developer. However, if the developer says it is not worth it, there isn’t much the Plan Commission can do.
Brian again stated the proposed land division meets the terms of the ordinance. He could see being more insistent on a cluster type design if the parcel had some unique features; if it was beneficial to preserve
Town of Rochester 12-2002 (2) December 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION (Cont.) 6:30 p.m.
one area of the land versus another. However, he did not feel the parcel had a lot going for it in terms of having something unique to preserve. He continued that the Plan Commission can certainly ask for a cluster design, but if the developer states it meets the terms of the ordinance there isn’t much they can do. It just becomes a stand-off between the Plan Commission and the developer.
Pat stated if she had to put a road in, it would be a different story. She would then be glad to implement a cluster design. But, this parcel already has double the road frontage needed for proposed lots. Pat asked for conceptual approval of the land division so she could move forward.
Maureen stated agreement with Brian; she would like to see clustering, but in this case sees nothing intrinsic to save.
Bob indicated opinion that agricultural land is worth saving, but the question of whether there is enough on this parcel is legitimate.
Maureen stated the proposed land division is similar in form to what is already in the area.
Bob stated the proposed seven lots meet minimum Land Use Plan requirements.
Jane stated it meets the requirements of the ordinance.
Brian summarized that Pat should go forward with the concept, but to be aware the Plan Commission has some concerns about how drainage will play out on the property and how that will affect lay out.
Discussion on placement of road for Conceptual Land Division creating six parcels out of one: 32800 (Block) Washington Avenue (CTH “D”). Owners: Earl & Beverly Squire (Parcel #014-03-19-04-009-007; 29.68 acres) and Thomas Jung, owner of abutting parcel (#014-03-19-04-009-000)
Earl Squire reported he had no new map to show the Plan Commission, but had had further conversation with Cecil Mehring (Racine County Public Works) on road access. Cecil confirmed only one road will be allowed in the area between Heritage and Maple Roads. Earl approached Tom Jung because an ideal location for this new road was identified as the driveway leading out of Tom’s gravel pit. This driveway exists straight across CTH “D” from Heritage Road.
Tom (Jung) explained when he is done with gravel extraction, restoration plans call for a three house development on his parcel. When Earl approached Tom on the road concept, he considered allowing Earl’s development to come out onto his driveway. But, after further thought, decided he would rather not have a mix of car and gravel truck traffic on the driveway. He offered to purchase Earl’s property with the idea that when he is done mining (stated as approximately four years), he would like to develop the property residentially. However, before he starts final grading, he would like to have an idea of what type of development the Plan Commission is looking for. That is why he was at the meeting that night.
Jane indicated the Plan Commission is re-doing the land division ordinance to require cluster subdivision designs and briefly explained the 5-acre average density requirement.
Tom was encouraged to attend public hearings on the new land division ordinance when they are scheduled.
Town of Rochester 12-2002 (3) December 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION (Cont.) 6:30 p.m.
It was verified Tom is buying the parcel from Earl. It was requested that he receive notice when public hearings are scheduled.
Land Division creating twelve parcels: English Settlement Drive and STH 36. Owners: Daniel and Geraldine Schwabe/ Agent: Atty. Jeff Santaga (Parcels #014-03-19-11-001-000 and 014-03-19-11-021-000; 73.98 acres)
Atty. Santaga indicated that this submitted land division is very similar to the one last submitted for the development. He noted the proposed division preserves the environment and makes for large size lots. He hopes the Plan Commission will reconsider a previously stated sewer hook up requirement.
It was clarified that when the land division last left off, it was conceptually approved by the Plan Commission. However, the Town Board stated it would not be approved unless it was sewered.
Atty. Santaga stated he was not very familiar with Town requirements, but assumed sewer could only be required if there was a reasonable opportunity to hook-up. In this case, costs are prohibitive.
Bob noted a different attorney had presented this in the past and asked if the Attorney was familiar with all the background on this.
Atty. Santaga indicated he is starting fresh, but that the previous attorney was very forthcoming with information on the history of the division. However, he was unable to determine if the sewer question was ever clearly answered. He wants to clarify this so they can proceed one way or another based on a definitive answer.
Ken indicated statements had been made by the Town Board that they would not allow the land division without sewer. He was disappointed by that because he felt the design was exactly the type of development the Plan Commission was looking for. He was pleased when the owner worked cooperatively with the Plan Commission on creating the design. He further noted several individual lots were allowed to be built up in the sewer district without a hook up requirement and he doesn’t understand why this is any different.
Brian indicated he couldn’t disagree more with Town Board statements on this one. By requiring sewer, the development will be forced to have greater density than what is being presented. He could see density on this one development being as great as a whole other Village of Rochester. He feels the cluster design, as presented, is preferential to any sewered development.
Bob recalled an agreement was previously proposed that when sewer came through, these parcels would have to hook up. However, it was noted that this concept was not agreeable to the Town Board.
Brian moved, 2nd by Jane to recommend approval of the cluster design worked out with the developer with requirement that sewer would have to be put in when sewer becomes available. Motion carried.
Brian moved, 2nd by Ken to acknowledge service of Arnold Clement before his retirement. Motion carried.
Dennis Ketterhagen, 502 N. River Road, asked to conceptually discuss division of his parcel into two lots. It was explained he was not on the agenda so no action could be taken. However, the Plan Commission did take an informal look at his proposal. Julie Anderson stated there are several problems with floodplain and
Town of Rochester 12-2002 (4) December 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION (Cont.) 6:30 p.m.
wetlands on the property. She counseled Dennis to have his property surveyed for floodplain and slope before proceeding any further. Septic systems can not be placed in floodplain and this will have a significant impact on whether he can divide the lot. Dennis stated he was having a representative from the DNR come out to view his property next week. Julie stated any opinions from that representative should be put in writing and be submitted to the Plan Commission with any proposal.
Jane moved, 2nd by Maureen to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Novy Planning Secretary |