|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 1 October 7, 2002 PLAN 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.
Jane moved, 2nd by Bob to approve minutes of the September 3, 2002 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Adjustment to
Conditional Use Permit: 940 N. Browns Lake Drive
Atty. Dennis Lynch reported Perry Hintz of Hi-Liter Graphics inspected the facility to address chemical use concerns. Perry’s correspondence dated October 4, 2002 indicated “Franciscan Missions, Inc. utilizes normal and safe procedures regarding the solvents used on site. In addition, the printing process utilized at this site poses no air quality problems.” Material Safety Data Sheets were provided to the Plan Commission as well as to Frank Risler, Racine County Planning, for all chemicals used on site. In addition, letters of support were presented from neighbors Bill Monnin, 906 N. Browns Lake Drive; Leland and Diane Buss 736 N. Browns Lake Drive; Russell & Carry Ramel, 820 N. Browns Lake Drive; and Colin & Diana Sandker, 951 N. Browns Lake Drive. Julie Anderson and Frank Risler toured the site last week.
Atty. Lynch continued to describe the type of operation as follows: Bird feeders are assembled as far as pre-cut pieces being put together with a staple gun. At the Racine County hearing there was question as to whether this constitutes manufacturing. Dolls are not made on site; but are stocked and distributed from there. Clocks , originally manufactured in Lake Geneva, have different faces glued on them. There is some t-shirt printing of computer generated graphics. Magnets and buttons are made with a stamp machine. Pictures are also assembled. Mailers are printed to solicit support. Atty. Lynch stated the Franciscan Missions only wish to expand use as specified in their letter dated August 14, 2002. Father Sereno has no intention of expanding operations beyond the current scope in the future.
Bob questioned whether material goods were just sent out to people who have donated. The response was “Yes”, but some goods are supplied to priests and parishes that want to sell them in their gift shops.
Julie showed a map of the area and pointed out the mix of land use, some is conservancy land, there is a quarry, the Missions operation and then residential lands. Julie clarified the question as “Does this use fit?”. No one disputes the value of what the Mission does, but have they reached the maximum of what they can do on this site? During a recent site tour, Julie and Frank noted garages were “floor to ceiling” with merchandise. They appear to have reached the threshold of what they can do. So the question comes back to “Does this fit in a predominantly residential area?”. She did note it is a quiet operation; no sounds are heard outside. But, seeing that the Missions have been so successful in the last 5 – 6 years, what is in their future? They claim this is as big as it gets. Some concerns have been expressed about trucks coming in and out; that visibility is not the best on that stretch of highway and that should be addressed. Julie clarified Racine County’s interest is not so much about personalities involved in this situation, but about proper land use.
Plan Commissioners indicated receipt of information provided by Racine County on the issue, including legal comment made by Matt McVey, Racine County Corporation Counsel. Bob indicated comments made on manufacturing operations were particularly interesting considering there is some light assembly going on at this location.
Julie indicated no surprises during their recent site visit. Everything was as described. Her concern, as stated, is not so much about the manufacturing element of operations; her assessment of the operation was more distribution or warehousing. She stated the decision before the Planning Commission boils down to whether they wish to force the Missions back to conditions set by the original use permit- or to freeze them in time as they are now. Most adjustment requests are to accommodate what is already there.
Attorney Lynch stated no opposition to putting in writing that the Missions would not seek to expand this operation again in the future.
The possibility of moving warehouse and distribution off-site was explored. Father Sereno indicated this would cause hardship to his operations.
Jane questioned whether there had been any accidents involving delivery trucks or semis at the site. The answer was “No”.
Buzz Hurley, 411 N. Browns Lake Drive, reported seeing only two paper trucks go in the site in 20 years. He believes truck traffic is not a concern.
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 2 October 7, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Joanna Storm, 850 N. Browns Lake Drive, stated the issue at hand is whether the Franciscans have outgrown their conditional use permit for a residential area and read her concerns (from submitted correspondence) as follows:
Continual Non-compliance to the permits issued as follows: Sign: they were approved for a two foot sign in 1982; the current sign is 6’6” by 5’4”. Workers: they were approved for 10 workers; they employ 15+ employees, not including volunteers or workers paid in cash. Parking: they were approved for 8 stalls; they established 12. Business Growth: they have added a wood working shop, manufacturing of crafts and operate a tree business. Building Permits: they have constructed buildings without obtaining proper permits.
Also stated as concerns: the conditional use permit request addresses what they need to meet today’s conditions, yet they continue to grow each year; semi-traffic flow has increased considerably to the business; chemical use in a residential district; a request of 15 full-time equivalent employees is equal to 600 hours of paid employment and could mean up to 60 employees working 10-hour weeks; is the septic system designed for this use?; a recent semi-trailer was parked on their property for a length of time (Father Sereno intervened at this time indicating it was only one week). Joanna indicated this is a warehouse distribution center working as manufacturing and mail order in a residential area. She has concerns about how this affects the value of her home. She feels continual non-compliance should be a matter of consideration when deliberating expansion of the conditional use permit.
Response to her concerns were heard as follows:
Sign: Attorney Lynch explained the original 2’ x 2’ sign was taken down when Browns Lake Drive (CTH W) was expanded. Father Sereno was reimbursed for the sign by Racine County Public Works. At that time, he replaced it based on the dollar amount he received (vs. matching the exact size).
Parking: If expanded parking was an item of concern, an area of the existing turn around could be utilized for parking.
Wood working shop: The building is primarily used for storage, with some on-site work.
Chemical Use: Environmental concerns have been addressed in the letter from Perry Hintz (Hi-Liter Graphics).
Septic System: The system was sized according to State specifications for a religious institution and is already over-sized for operations.
Unpaid volunteers: Two to three times a week volunteers come out through a Racine County Social Service Agency to perform two hours of community service. This usually consists of sorting mail returns, etc.
Parked Semi-trailer: A trailer of tables and chairs that were going to another country had a brief layover at the Missions because of some trucking problems. They were there for only a week. Father Sereno stated this is the only time that has ever happened.
Bill Monnin, 906 Browns Lake Drive, indicated support of the Missions. He stated Father Sereno has been a good neighbor over the years. He is considerate and the business blends in. It only generates a small amount of traffic; but that is no different from trucks going in and out of the gravel pit. As to drainage, there was a bit of run-off from his site in the past, but recent asphalt work now causes water to flow to the west instead of the south. Pictures shown at the September meeting (by Joanna Storm) were from 1999. They were taken prior to transfer of the property (pictured) to the current owner.
Russell Ramel, current owner of that property (820 N. Browns Lake Dr.), was present. He indicated no water problems and stated support of the permit.
Diane Buss, 736 N. Browns Lake Drive, offered comment that the Franciscans have been good neighbors and referred to the letter written by her husband offering support.
Back to drainage concerns, Bill Monnin indicated the previous owner of 820 N. Browns Lake Drive, Mike Dolge, had a pond but then filled it in. After he trenched and put drainage pipe in leading to the road, there have been no water problems.
Bob indicated the issues raised by Joanna, though not addressed to her satisfaction, have been sensibly answered to his. The majority of neighbors do not see a problem. Willingness by the Franciscans to put in writing that the business will not expand is satisfactory to him.
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 3
October 7, 2002
PLAN COMMISSION
6:30 p.m. Jane concurred. She indicated the operation is “maxxed” out at it current location and does need limitation. The issue of building without permits is not to be repeated. She stated the operation should stay contained to its current size and that if it does not it will certainly loose the good will of its neighbors. She further indicated she travels the road quite frequently and has not encountered any large vehicles. However, landscaping is such that most people don’t know what type of operation exists on site. She feels the Franciscan do good work and she would not like to see it shut down.
Maureen stated the important concerns raised here were answered to her satisfaction. The operation should not be allowed to expand beyond the requested amendments to the conditional use. No more storage or warehouse buildings or employees should be added. If the Missions need to expand down the line, the operation will have to move elsewhere.
Brian commented the majority of neighbors are not complaining. He has no problem with expanding the conditional use permit with the understanding that this establishes final limits to the operation in that location.
Ken felt correspondence on the subject provided by Racine County Planning demonstrated a thorough job had been done in 1982 when the operation was originally defined. However, that operation has grown and is at the limit of where it can grow on this site. He agreed no more storage or warehouse buildings should be added.
Jane moved, 2nd by Brian to recommend approval to adjustment of the Conditional Use Permit as presented (letter dated August 14, 2002) with emphasis to the Town Board and Racine County Planning that, by grant of this adjustment, the operation is at its maximum limit and should not be allowed to expand any further in the future. Motion carried.
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)
Earl Squire approached the Planning Commission having already seen Racine County’s review letter as follows:
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 4 October 7, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Earl indicated concern over road design proposed by Racine County Public Works. The owner of Lot 1 (on the previous CSM) may not want a road on his portion of shared driveway.
Julie questioned the requirement for 55 foot half-width right of way. Previous requirements along this road were only at 50 feet. Earl should check with Racine County Public Works to get requirements clarified.
Earl continued that by changing the layout of the proposed road, lot lines will have to be moved around.
There was discussion on what type of land division process would be required for the land split. Consensus of the group was a subdivision process is required to create the six lots as proposed.
Earl was directed to talk to the neighbor for an indication on whether a road being placed at the shared access point is agreeable.
Conceptual Land Division creating two parcels out of one: 29503 Evergreen Drive Owners: Ronald & Deirdre Fladwood/ Agent: Lu Robbins (Parcel #014-03-19-02-001-002)
Lu Robbins reported zoning as R-3 for this parcel, requiring minimum 100 feet of frontage for a newly created lot. Parcel dimensions are sufficient to divide the lot in two. A Certified Survey Map was approved a few years ago creating two lots out of a similarly sized parcel abutting the parcel in question to the east.
Comments in a memo from Julie, Racine County Planning & Development, were as follows:
“Our staff has reviewed the proposed land division. Racine County planning staff recommends that the land division be denied, as the western one-half of the parcel has been identified by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) as primary environmental corridor. To further divide this parcel and to construct a residence within the corridor conflicts with the intent of preserving the primary corridor areas. In new subdivisions that are developed within primary environmental corridor areas where public sanitary sewer is available, there are very restrictive building envelopes for single family lots. The recommended density within a primary corridor should not exceed one dwelling unit per five acres.”
Julie showed a map study done 5 years ago illustrating boundaries of the environmental corridor. The western half of this parcel is clearly within it. Boundaries could be revisited with biologists, but that process could take up to a year.
Lu explained the house on the eastern portion of the parcel is a 70’s ranch. In researching the highest and best value of the land for the owners, she recommended dividing and selling off the western portion as a separate, sewered lot. The lot is heavily wooded; but all of the lots on that street were before cleaning out building pads. Houses exist on every lot. A duplex is directly across the street from this parcel. Two new houses were built on the CSM approved to the east of this parcel within the last three years.
Maureen indicated there are some sewer connection issues. Approval of the CSM would mean opening Evergreen up again to have another sewer stubbed in. An agreement could be drafted while both lots are under sole ownership to share sewer access before connecting to the main.
Brian stated environmental corridor is shown clearly on the map; but he somewhat questions the boundary. This parcel is not in the middle of the corridor. Based on the fact there are houses on every lot up and down the street; he would not consider this parcel falling under environmental corridor restrictions when others have not.
Consensus of the Commission was to each individually visit the site, look at what is there and determine whether environmental corridor restrictions should apply by visually taking in layout of homes and lots on the street.
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 5 October 7, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Request for Consideration: Preliminary Adoption of Land Division Ordinance Chuck Haubrich/ Subdivision Ordinance Committee Chairman
Chuck was not present. Bob, speaking on Chuck’s behalf, indicated concern that an influx of land divisions will try to come in before the Ordinance is adopted. He feels it preferable not to grandfather in many pending divisions and requests the Plan Commission consider preliminary adoption of the ordinance.
Brian indicated a desire to have more time to look at the revised copy.
Mike Weinkauf asked if any consideration had been given to new technologies which will eliminate the need for sewer and conventional septic systems. Maureen replied the ordinance adopts State sanitation requirements. By doing so, the Town will accept new technologies as the State approves them.
Julie reported that as of January 1, 2003, Comm 83 will allow many different sewage disposal systems. Basically if a party can demonstrate that a system works to the State; they’ll get a permit. The County currently has 600 lots that will become buildable after January 1 because of loosened restrictions.
Mike reported talking to Rick Stadelman of the Town’s Association. He indicated the 5-acre density requirement and deed restrictions hurt ancestors down the line on any piece of land. He suggested keeping the 5-acre density, but restricting lots to 2-acres in size and zoning the remnant parcel “A-1” to keep it in agricultural use.
It was stated a hearing would be needed to achieve any zoning change. Mike indicated deed restrictions bind the land forever…. and forever is a long time. He contends five acres is too much for an average homeowner to take care and cites Schneider Lane as an example.
Bob indicated this has been a subject of much debate by the Subdivision Ordinance Committee. The question being how to keep lots small, but properly manage the larger chunk.
Mike indicated the developer could own the “A-1” land and rent it to a farmer. In the future, the developer could potentially divide the land again if situations changed. This is preferable versus deed restrictions which will push the value of land down over time.
Bob indicated this too was a subject of debate, whether restrictions would ultimately push values down… or up; it could work either way. The problem is no one can see the future.
Ken stated the ordinance acknowledges conservation subdivisions are not for every piece of land, but the concept should at least be explored for each division.
Earl Squire stated opinion “there has to be a better way; not everyone wants 5 acres”.
The five-acre concept was clarified as not being five-acre squares, but an overall average density of five acres for the whole development.
Pat commented construction of roads for the cluster idea costs the developer as much as a density bonus offers them.
Mike stated the developer could claim agricultural use on a remaining “A-1” parcel and get a tax break. Maureen clarified they would not get a tax break on rezoned land, the farmer must own the land he is farming to qualify for agricultural use value. But, it was admitted, that could change over time. Mike continued concentrating houses on smaller parcels would save farm land.
Brian clarified deed restrictions are not necessarily binding for all time. They are only good as long as the party enforcing them chooses to do so. That party does have the power to turn it around. In this case it would be the Town. Any future Town Board would have the option of reversing deed restrictions they thought they were no longer appropriate.
Zoning larger parcels “A-1”is a concept worth exploring, but deed restrictions may still be more appropriate for smaller land divisions due to the complicated process of rezoning.
Conservancy Easements were briefly touched on stating they may be forever, without opportunity for change.
Preference of the Commission was to set a special meeting just to discuss the Subdivision Ordinance. TOWN OF ROCHESTER Page 6 October 7, 2002 PLAN COMMISSION 6:30 p.m.
Brian moved, 2nd by Maureen to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried.
Submitted by:
Betty J. Novy Secretary
|