|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
December 5, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
In absence of the chairman, the secretary called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. with Chris Johnson, Brian Wanasek, Brian Willard and Maureen Eckert present (Paul Beere was absent.)
John Tierney, Engineer, and Betty Novy, Secretary, were also present.
Bob moved, 2nd by Maureen to appoint Brian Wanasek Chairman pro-tem. Motion carried.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to approve minutes of the November 7, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Conceptual Plan:
·
Conceptual subdivision
alternatives creating eleven parcels;
·
Conceptual subdivision
alternatives creating fifteen parcels: Developer: Premium Properties Ventures, LLC Engineer: Thomas Foht, P.E. (Kapur & Associates)
(Parcels: Hoyer- #014-03-19-12-008-000: 61.18
acres; 014-03-19-01-029-000 .25 acres; and
A representative from Kapur and Associates explained changes to the concept since it was last discussed with the Commission. Contact with the Department of Natural Resources verified no setback requirement from the heron rookery to the south of the property. The length of roads terminating in cul-de-sacs has been shortened on both developments. A 136’ x 475’ remnant parcel, created near the subdivision entrance on the Malison property, was questioned. Potential uses were identified as park or open space- or attachment to an abutting property owner’s land. Roads cross an existing drain tile system in seven places. They will be replaced with concrete pipe at road crossings to retain their integrity. There are no storm-water ponds shown due to the assumption developed land will create less run-off than the current agricultural use. However, more detailed storm-water calculations will be performed after conceptual approval to determine whether this assumption proves true.
Plan Commissioners expressed primary concern over the effect this development will have on the drain tile system. Future maintenance was identified as an issue.
Comments were solicited from residents present in the audience as follows:
Ron Anton, Washington Avenue, questioned whether the Malison property entrance road will affect placement of his fence. His fence is located five feet from the proposed road. Placement of the paved surface of the road in the center of the right of way was explained. If his fence is on his property line, the paved surface of the road will be at least 20 feet from the pavement.
Ruth Frost, Washington Avenue, questioned whose responsibility the roads become after development. It was explained maintenance will become the responsibility of the Town. She also questioned whether any consideration had been given to widening CTH D in the future. The developer indicated they were already informed that they will have to dedicate additional right of way to the County.
Jane Babik, Washington Avenue, questioned whether the developer had been required to submit a conservation subdivision plan. When answered that there was no requirement, she stated she was upset this had not come up in discussions as this has been productive agricultural land for years. She understands people need the ability to sell their land, but thought residents concerns were not taken into consideration. She identified this development’s impact on a drainage system and the loss of productive agricultural lands as two reasons why a cluster subdivision design should be requested.
Rhoda Runzheimer, Washington Avenue, offered support of Jane’s statement and wanted a vote of the audience on who supported a conservation subdivision design. (This was not done.) She also questioned whether a traffic study had been required to understand the effect of this development on CTH D. The response was no.
Maureen Eckert reported five traffic fatalities in the curve where CTH D meets STH 20 since the intersection was reconstructed. Brian Wanasek indicated traffic impacts do not have a significant bearing on whether a conservation subdivision is considered for this development. Conservation subdivision design would create more homesites and more traffic. John Tierney, Town Engineer, indicated the County will require an improved intersection with tapers at subdivision entrances.
Ruth Frost, Washington Avenue, questioned whether the Town could request a reduction in the speed limit on CTH D.
Mike Weinkauf, Town Supervisor, indicated the Town can request it, but the County makes the final decision. He also offered comment that this developer previously proposed a four-acre density concept that was similar to conservation subdivision design. Although it did not meet all the requirements, it was an attempt. At the time, the Plan Commission favored five-acre density design.
Don North, Washington Avenue, explained the tile running through this land carries a lot of water. If someone breaks it they will have to fix it or they will be flooded. His concern is whether the drainage system would be slowed down and not drain correctly. If his three-year alfalfa field is destroyed, who will be responsible for that? Brian explained the tile could fail now and the same question would exist. Don explained a gentlemen’s agreement exists that if significant repairs are needed to the main tile, property owners share the costs. If only a few tiles are broken on an individual property, that property owner would bear the costs.
Reesman indicated this agreement can be maintained in the form of a legal restriction on the plat. The tile locations will be shown on the subdivision plat.
John Tierney stated it will be a requirement of Town approval that tiles be replaced with concrete storm sewer underneath the entire length of road right of ways and that storm sewer manholes be installed so that flow can be observed.
Don North questioned whether the road going to the east can be brought to the property line to provide access should his land be developed in the future. Response was such that right of way dedication or reservation will be made a consideration.
Ruth Frost questioned a 66’ strip of land that provides access to CTH 20. She wanted to know if any consideration had been given to dedicating that as a road. John Tierney indicated no access will be allowed onto the State highway and the County does not want an access point there.
Ron Anton questioned existence of a wet area to the south of Jim Anderson’s house and wanted to know where this water will go. He reported water has sat there ever since the Malisons’ built their house. It was explained this water will mainly be directed to roadside ditches. A small wetland depression area will be filled to create the entrance road. This wetland area will then have to be created somewhere else on the larger property.
There was question about the Krall driveway running parallel to the Hoyer property access. An opinion was expressed that two entrances right next to each other might be confusing. It was explained Mrs. Krall will have the opportunity to access off the new road and shorten her driveway if she wishes to do so.
Brian Wanasek stated Maureen Eckert already recused herself from voting on this issue and polled remaining Plan Commissioners for input. Brian himself identified drainage as a major issue on the development, but also noted legal and engineering issues would have to be resolved before Preliminary Plat.
Chris Johnson stated his feeling that this plan was best because it keeps the land rural rather than urban and in the sewer district. He feels five acres density is preferable to the number of lots that could be created in a sewered subdivision.
Bob Willard expressed his feeling that an alternative conservation design should be presented. He feels this will address concerns of roads crossing the drain tile by lessening the required length of road. He also feels concentrating the houses will preserve agricultural land.
Chris Johnson indicated larger lots are better for sewage disposal rather than concentrating the location of homes- but it could be done.
Nancy Anderson, Washington Avenue, expressed her preference for the five-acre density design presented. She feels if a large chunk of agricultural land is set aside that it will be split up again in ten years. She feels this design is the lowest density and that when the subdivision is done, it will be done and not be divided again in the future.
Brian noted confliciting viewpoints between the two Commissioners and did not feel, as chairman, that Robert Rules of Order allowed him to second any one motion. Consensus was to delay action until the full Commission was in attendance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to table action on the Conceptual Plan for one month. Votes were: Brian: Aye; Bob: Aye; Chris: Aye; Maureen: Abstain. Motion passed.
Conceptual Plan: Coyote Ridge Conceptual subdivision creating twelve parcels Location: 123 N. Honey Lake Road Owner: Richard Mianecki; Developers: Jeff & Lisa Johnson (Parcel #014-03-19-17-015-000; 64.87 acres
Jeff Johnson explained changes to the concept since it was last discussed with the Commission. The plan now displays drainage areas and the direction of flow. The Town engineer presented his review comments: 1) Outlot 2 will be split by the Honey Lake Road right of way and should be split into two separate outlots; 2) Based on contours, some off-site stormwater flow would be tributary to the detention basin- in general, it is best to bypass off-site tributary flow around the basins; 3) There is a large wetland in a depression upstream of the subdivision, east of Lot 2. For building siting and protection the depression should be modeled and a critical storm analysis performed to determine at what storm frequency this depression overtops and released stormwater across the surface of the Coyote Ridge property (for proper home siting on Lots 1 and 2); and 4) A wetland delineation should be conducted to determine if there are any tiles running across the site. Additionally, the comment was offered that the detention pond should be located within an Outlot.
Comments were solicited from residents present in the audience as follows:
Chuck Haubrich, Academy Road, offered a Powerpoint© presentation stating the following concerns with the Mianecki development:
Spoils Rural Views Inconsistent with Surrounding Rural Area • Doubles number of homes on N. Honey Lake Rd • Changes rural to suburban character • No other subdivisions in the area Will have Negative Impact on Environmental Corridor • Surrounded by primary environmental corridor – Haubrich 88 acres of forest, prairie, and wetland along east border is permanently protected from development by a conservation easement – Jaeger 15 acre mature forest on north side – Williams 100 acres of ponds and wetland along southwest side Infringes on Hunting Rights • Infringes on hunting rights on Weiners and Haubrich properties • New residents often object to hunting; two deer shot within 100 yards of the property line in last two years; ten altogether More Runoff and Flooding will Occur
Recommendations • 400 foot wide buffer along east and north borders • Plant borders with prairie grasses and scattered trees to minimize runoff • Place homes on smaller lots closer to road
Pictures of flooding in 1999 were included with the presentation. Acreage on the Jaeger parcel was corrected as 10.2 acres.
Robert Weiners, Maple Road, stated flooding shown in the pictures was not unusual. Similar flooding events occurred on ten to eighteen acres of their land in 1993, 1995, 2000 and 2004. Significant water sheds off the Mianecki property onto their farmland.
Richard Weiners reported this flooding began when ponds were dug on the Williams property across the road and ditches were filled in where the water used to go.
Brian responded to the presentation stating new lots could be pushed one way or another; but in either instance abutting property owners will not be happy if new houses are pushed toward them.
Mike Weinkauf commented pictures did not present residential development across the road; there are multiple houses to the west and in the Woods.
Fred Yaeger, Academy Road, stated his land abuts to the north. He expressed concern about fire access to his land as his parcel is heavily wooded. Those present did not feel location of the subdivision would affect access to the back portion of this land. It is currently not accessible by fire trucks.
Lori Anderson, N. Honey Lake Road, questioned the purpose of the REZONE sign placed on the property. It was clarified the sign also states LAND DIV/ COND. USE and the Town’s telephone number. The signs provide notice that some type of development is proposed. If people are interested, they can call the Town and find out what is happening. She clarified her question to whether or not the land was being rezoned. The answer was no.
Darlene Geiser, N. Honey Lake Road, stated concern that N. Honey Lake Road was just reconstructed and heavy construction equipment will damage it. The Town engineer responded bonding or insurance requirements can be imposed on the developer if the Town is concerned.
Lori Anderson stated the back of her lot abuts proposed lots eleven and twelve. This area often floods and had cattails growing in it at one time. She just wanted to reiterate this concern from a previous meeting.
Darlene Geiser stated her concern whether the detention pond will be big enough. If not, it may cause problems for her property on the other side.
Brian Wanasek indicated a drainage plan will need to be approved by the Town Engineer. The Town is always concerned about drainage because of problems that have occurred in previous developments.
Fred Yaeger indicated water flows beyond the northern ridge of the Mianecki property onto his property. This sometimes floods his driveway. After reviewing topography, Plan Commissioners felt most of this water was probably originating from his own property because of a crest in the hill at the property line.
Rhoda Runzheimer questioned whether a cluster subdivision was considered for this parcel.
Brian Wanasak stated the root parcel is 63 acres and ten of the homes will be concentrated in one area. Lots one and two are in a low floodplain area. This is why smaller parcels are concentrated on the hill. Previous concerns were identified as length of road. This design also shortened the road to 1600 feet.
Bob Willard referred to the soil type characteristic chart submitted as part of Conceptual Plan materials. In the chart, soil types identified on the parcel were listed as “Slight” under “Suitability for Residential Developments.” Chris Johnson explained soil type books have not yet been updated for today’s sewage disposal options. These soils will support a mound system.
Lori Anderson stated she doesn’t want more houses in her back yard because of horses and the electric fence.
Bob Willard stated a need to respect what is there now- both hunting rights and horses on abutting properties. A response was made that hunters must be responsible for their actions regardless of development.
Chris Johnson stated the first plan included seven to nine acre lots and was spread out more. Previous concerns were the longer road and drainage to the south. This plan addressed those items.
Maureen Eckert reported seeing multiple proposals on this property in her tenure as Town Clerk. Of those, she feels this is the least offensive plan. No one is ever totally happy, but she feels this is the least offensive.
Richard Weiner stated regardless of leaving a bigger area (buffer) along the east side; people will still trespass on his land. The wider buffer won’t matter.
Rob Weiners stated some additional concerns. The east drainage ditch or swale does not show any structured end or solution to it. The hydrology study for lots 1 and 2 will most likely show difficulty for any type of conventional septic system. How the culvert underneath Honey Lake Road will handle any discharge from the detention pond should be covered- the culvert may need improvements. Slopes will be a challenge and this land is producing water now.
Chris Johnson stated engineering will ensure that there will be no more water run-off than there is now.
John Tierney stated water from the back of Lots 1 and 2 will be directed to the detention pond.
Maureen moved, 2nd by Chris to approve the conceptual plan for Coyote Ridge as presented. Votes were: Brian: Aye; Chris: Aye; Maureen: Aye; Bob: Naye. Motion passed.
Preliminary Site Plan Review of Commercial Development Location: Evergreen Dr Owners: Groundupopps Enterprises LLC Developer: Commercial Construction Consultants LLC; Jim Hurst (Parcel #014-03-19-01-021-050: .63 acre & 014-03-19-01-021-060 .34 acre)
The Town engineer presented review comments stating the site is currently a paved parking lot and the impact of this development on impervious surfaces is very little. To preserve wetland quality to the north, he recommended some filtration method before storm-water is discharged. He noted more parking spots than needed on the site plan and suggested the northern parking strip be graded and planted with grass to allow for transition.
Jim Hurst stated the developer’s desire to retain the parking strip because adequate parking is a shared concern with abutting properties. They do not want to reduce the number of spots. The neighbor to the west is blocked from parking on the east side of his building because there is only an 8 – 10’ paved strip on that side before the lot line (which is now delineated with steel posts to prevent anyone from parking there). They intend to re-pave the parcel to maximize parking and direct water to the back through a series of shallow catch basins. Only the southerly one-half of the building has known tenants. The other two have not been determined and they do not want inadequate parking to limit uses for those units.
Tom Stelling, architect, reported meeting with the Millers (abutting property owner to the west). Their primary concern was drainage and they had noted no drainage swale next to the road for this property. The catch basin system will drain run-off from the Town road to the back of the property and benefit the Town in this way. A small landscape area that will be created in the front of the building actually makes impervious area about the same as what is there now.
There is only two and a-half to three feet of fall between the buildings to the east and west; and five feet of fall from the street to the rear of the property.
The floor line will be established in such a way that water flows correctly to the back of the property. The elevation must be approved by Racine County. There are two front facades, one facing Evergreen Drive and one visual from STH 36.
Water quality of discharge into the wetland will be a matter of concern. The DNR may have some requirements such as sediment pipes or rap rap before exiting. A DNR discharge permit will most likely be required.
Mike Weinkauf questioned whether the developer had talked to the Millers regarding the shortage of parking for their building. It was stated additional parking could be created along the east side of their building with this development plan because of driveway access and traffic flow lanes that will be created. A joint driveway easement was identified as a possibility.
Betty reported an email had been received from the Millers stating no objection to the plan as long as no additional water is directed towards their building.
Bob moved, 2nd by Maureen to recommend approval to the Town Board with the following conditions:
Motion carried.
Bob moved, 2nd by Maureen to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy, CMC Planning Secretary |