|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
August 2, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30 P.M.
The meeting was called to order with Brian Wanasek, Chris Johnson, Ken Dahlstrom, Bob Willard and Karyn Borucki present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to approve minutes of the July 8, 2004 meeting contingent that reference to a high water table under the concept discussion on the Rowntree Road subdivision be amended to read “seasonal” high water table and that the name of Dick Sheehan referred to under the drain tile discussion be amended to Gene Sheehan. Motion carried.
Concept discussion on subdivision layouts to create thirteen to fifteen parcels out of two: Rowntree Road;
Owners: Joseph & Ione Kojis Trust/ Agent: Steve
Kempken Parcel #014-03-19-13-012-000: 52.09 acres)
Steve Kempken and Jaren Hiller, P.E., addressed the commission. A preliminary stormwater/ drainage analysis report was presented based on a 100-year rainfall event of 5.88 inches in a 24 hour period. Jaren explained the analysis determines runoff volumes and rates from the site as is; and then calculates a volume based on the change resulting from placing residential units on the land. In theory, this includes runoff from rooftops, driveways and roads. Calculations were based on a two-acre density for residential units; that was the maximum classification available in TR55 soil conservation methodology. TR55 figures are generated using rainfall amounts; soil types; and land use types. The average density in this development is five acres. There are four drainage basins delineated on the map.
Basin 100 contains the northeastern corner of the property, an area known to naturally retain stormwater. Water flows in from under Rowntree Road at this point. There was question on whether to provide stormwater retention in this area by use of a berm or damn; or to let accumulated water spill over when it reaches approximately two feet of elevation and flow down the eastern edge of the property (as it does now). The concept of placing a detention area a little further up from the northeastern corner was thought to be a good approach to deter additional waters from draining into this natural retention area. Another concept discussed was use of a drainage swale. Water drainage to the west of this property appears to travel both east and west from a high point. The water draining east from the high point enters the aforementioned natural retention area.
Basin 200 contains a natural pond located approximately mid-point on the eastern edge of the parcel. Some ideas were to place a conservation easement on the pond area, including a buffer around it. The current layout of the land division requires that a driveway go through in this area. Steve indicated he would raise the driveway at least 3 feet and control drainage with culverts so that water could flow from one side to the other. There was some discussion about the safety of ponds. Jaren indicated a common safety approach is to build a safety shelf within the first 10 – 15 feet of the pond by dropping only 1 foot in elevation over that area; the accepted 3:1 slope then follows.
Basin 300 and 400 were located on the southern end of the property
After review and discussion of drainage and design issues, consensus of the Plan Commission was:
§ A concept drawing of the land division should be created which utilizes cluster design standards, examples of which were given to Steve at the July meeting. The southern two lots can be utilized as a common area, or one large lot, vs. two separate lots. Location of the natural gas line should not limit placement of the road.
§ The question of how to handle drainage for Basin 100 needs to be addressed; and
§ Drain tiles need to be located on the parcel.
Conceptual Land Division - Creating two parcels out of one: Teut Rd Owners: George and Rose Baumeister Parcel # 014-03-19-15-001-000: 151 Acres
Paul Baumeister addressed the Commission. He presented a Certified Survey map showing a split of one acre of land from a parent parcel of 151 acres. He explained this farm is in joint ownership of his mother and uncle. A home would be built on the new parcel for his mother and two brothers. His uncle will retain residency in an existing farm house on the parent parcel. A memo from Racine County Planning was reviewed. The new parcel meets minimum zoning requirements and they have no objections to the division.
Drainage comments: Brian noted barely any change in elevation across the parcel. No drainage concerns were stated. Chris indicated soils allow a conventional septic system.
Design comments: There was question about future development of remaining acreage. Paul indicated there are no immediate plans to develop the farm.
Road comments: It was noted the rest of the parcel has adequate road frontage to accommodate any future divisions of land.
Brian indicated the parcel exists within the City of Burlington’s extraterritorial jurisdiction. Paul will have to present the land division to the City of Burlington for approval after Town approval is received.
Brian moved, 2nd by Karyn to recommend approval of the land division noting that the new parcel will count towards average density calculations applied to any future divisions of the parcel. Motion carried.
Gravel Pit Permit Fees
The Town of Lisbon’s gravel pit ordinance and fees were used as a model for discussion. Adding fees for crushing operations and wash plants was considered on top of a $500.00 administrative fee. The need for fees to be tied to administrative costs was noted. Bob commented gravel pits are a major economic enterprise in our Town. However, issues like noise, increased trucks on the road, and crusher operations affect the quality of life for our residents. A desire to adopt a fee schedule similar to the Town of Lisbon was expressed.
Parkview Sand and Gravel representative, Bill Pavin, was present. He reported gravel pit operations being primarily governed by Racine County. Initial costs for inspections, baseline water tests and formation of restoration plans cost his company approximately $39,000.00. This included tests of surrounding wells. Annually, engineering fees of approximately $10,000 - $15,000 are required to update reports for Racine County showing how much of the land was excavated, how much of the land was restored, and water table information. Permit fees are paid to Racine County in the amount of $1,000.00 a year; the Town of Rochester in the amount of $500 a year; and the Town of Waterford in the amount of $500 a year. Crushing of sand and gravel is done on a continual basis and is required to break up oversized gravel. Oversized gravel makes up about 10% of excavated material. In some cases, screening gravel is all that is required. They do not manufacture asphalt or concrete at this location.
It was thought that Lisbon bases some of its fees on what it pays consultants to monitor gravel pit operations. In our case, Racine County performs these monitoring functions. Bill Pavin indicated municipal fees are not required of other quarries operated by his company in Illinois, with the exception of Rockford where blasting fees are imposed. Karyn commented the Town either needs to put more time into monitoring gravel pit operations or leave the fee schedule alone. There was some discussion on inviting gravel pit operators to a meeting to consult with them on the issue. Quality of life issues created by gravel pit operations were noted, but raising permit fees does not address or improve those issues. If more monitoring was done by the town, it would justify an increase in fees. However, it was not felt the Town needs to increase monitoring activities for gravel pits at this time. The County does a good job and no complaints have been received that would cause the Town to consider increased monitoring.
Mike Weinkauf, Town Supervisor, was present in the audience. The Plan Commission questioned what the Town Board would like to see as resolution to this issue. Mike indicated he would like to see this issue brought to closure. He does not think rates need to be changed as long as gravel pit operators are following their conditional use permits. Again, there have been no complaints. He feels it is hard to raise fees when the pits have been operating so efficiently. They are not destroying the land, only changing the way it looks.
Karyn moved, 2nd by Chris not to change the gravel pit fee structure until such time as the Town can justify changes by increasing their monitoring activities. Votes were: Karyn: Aye: Bob: Naye; Ken: Naye; Chris: Aye; Brian: Naye. Motion failed.
The secretary was instructed to contact the Town of Lisbon requesting how they justify the fees in their ordinance and whether their County performs any monitoring activities for their gravel pits.
Discussion on Instructional Planning Book (to page 25)
Discussion brought up possible review of the Town’s standard developer’s agreement and imposition of impact fees. Brian reported working on these types of documents and issues for the Town of Salem. He will bring in sample documents for review. Discussion on pages 1 – 25 of the instructional book were tabled until the September meeting.
Chris moved, 2nd by Ken to adjourn at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, Secretary
|