|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
February 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
The meeting was called to order with Paul Beere, Bob Willard, Chris Johnson and Jim Pluta present. Brian Wanasek was absent.
Gary Beck, Town Chairman, and Mike Weinkauf, Supervisor #2 were present representing the Town Board.
Betty Novy, Secretary, and John Hotvedt, Attorney, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Options to the question of an advisory referendum on whether to continue the process of consolidating Town and Village into a Village: Atty. John Hotvedt
Paul Beere explained the first two items on the agenda are subject of a joint meeting involving both Plan Commission and Town Board members. Atty. John Hotvedt explained three options to the referendum question as follows:
1. Shall the Town Board continue to work with the Village of Rochester and attempt to consolidate the Town of Rochester with the Village of Rochester?
2. Shall the Town Board pursue Cooperative Boundary Agreements with neighboring municipalities as part of an effort to consolidate the Town of Rochester with the Village of Rochester?
3. Shall the Town Board pursue Cooperative Boundary Agreements which determine how certain Town lands will be annexed into the City of Burlington and/or the Village of Waterford as part of an effort to consolidate the Town of Rochester with the Village of Rochester?
He further explained selection of the question would depend on the level of information the Board wishes to be conveyed in the text of the question.
This led to discussion on pursuit of boundary agreements with abutting municipalities; that early talks are already in process. It was noted that if electors gave direction not to pursue consolidation with the Village of Rochester, the Town may attempt to organize as a Charter Town. In this instance, boundary agreements are still needed. Board and Commission members did not think it would be wise to include boundary agreement language in the referendum question as they may still need to pursue them regardless of the outcome of the election. Benefits of organizing as a Charter Town were identified in that it would protect the Town from annexation. However, organizing this way does not grant the same home rule powers that would be gained by consolidating into one village. Bob expressed concern about the limited time to educate voters before the election. Gary Beck explained a lot of materials were created in advance of the decision to hold an advisory referendum and these can be updated for distribution. Bob then questioned individual Board members on how they would like to see the referendum turn out. Gary Beck stated he would like to see Rochester preserved as it is into the future and feels consolidation will allow both Town and Village to have control over this. Paul indicated that, after learning all he has as Town Supervisor, he feels it in the best interest of the Town to continue pursuing consolidation. Mike stated he would like to see consolidation occur, but feels it should be fair to the whole Town- that water, sewer or TIF districts must advantage both sides equitably. He feels there is an advantage when it comes to sharing services, but wishes to make sure it is set up to be equal. In further discussion of referendum questions, consensus of the Plan Commission was to recommend use of Option #1 “Shall the Town Board continue to work with the Village of Rochester and attempt to consolidate the Town of Rochester with the Village of Rochester?”
Process and content of information to educate residents on the referendum question
Through discussion, the following items were identified to be addressed with educational materials on the referendum:
Gary explained the Town Board’s intention to do a direct mailing to each resident and to schedule a public meeting. He also informed those present that the Town Board will be having a joint meeting with the Village of Rochester Board Thursday to discuss these same issues. He invited anyone present to attend that meeting if they so wished. Bob Willard reported he had drafted a list of questions. He was directed to turn those in to the Town Clerk.
Conceptual Land Division creating two parcels Location: 502 N. River Road Owners: Dennis & Karen Ketterhagen (Parcel#014-03-19-14-024-000: 5 acres)
Betty reported Dennis Ketterhagen called in and was unable to make the meeting. The item was tabled for the March meeting.
Report on Preliminary plat progress: Rock Ridge Subdivision
Location: 28601 (Approx) Rowntree Road
Steve reported on his meeting with the Racine County Planning and Development Committee earlier that night. There was some confusion because of a difference in the site plan and preliminary plat. The easement on the east side of the property was increased from 25 to 50 feet wide to accommodate drainage. Racine County approved the Preliminary Plat with some conditions. They will forward this information to the Town.
Letters from Crispell-Snyder Engineering and Racine County Code Administration were reviewed for engineering and sanitary comments. A representative for Rock Ridge stated final plans will be modified to address Crispell-Snyder’s comments. The only comment with which there was disagreement was #14 recommending that pond #2 be placed in an outlot. The Plan Commission will request the Town engineer to explain reasoning behind the comment before making a final determination on whether the developer needs to make that change.
Steve updated the Plan Commission on progress of the development since a change in Plan Commission members had occurred. He explained that at his last meeting with the Commission, he was given conceptual approval on the development and was directed to proceed with preparation of the Preliminary Plat. Since then, he had soil borings done to determine infiltration rates. Additional septic borings were also performed to replace those that had been located inside the (now expanded) drainage easement area. Drainage ditches and swales in the development lead to two ponds. Much of the engineering for this development was done up front because of drainage concerns. As a result, drainage and road plans on the preliminary plat are very accurate. In regards to drainage, it was noted water comes across this development from the north. The engineered plans will allow more water to be diverted into pond number one which is located just ahead of a depression area where water currently sits. Grading will occur outside of the current depression; enlarging it further into their property and increasing the volume of water that can be held.
A consideration brought up by Bob Willard was whether a drainage agreement with neighboring property owners should be pursued. It was noted that the swale along the east side of the property ultimately feeds into an 18” drain tile and that a drainage district is already in place. The fact that there will be no grading or change of landscape to Lot 8 was noted. The parcel exists with nearly 30 acres. Impervious surfaces caused by placement of a house and possible barn should have a minimal affect on overall drainage for the parcel.
The 50-foot drainage easement along the east side of the development will contain a shallow swale to encourage both evaporation and infiltration before water exits into a drainage tile.
There was a question on how a gravel driveway will be constructed to service Lot 8 because of wetland areas. Steve reported the DNR and Army Corps. Of Engineers delineated at least a 120 foot width that was not in the wetland. This area will accommodate the driveway. Culverts will be utilized to accommodate drainage under the driveway. This has yet to be designed, however it is known multiple culverts will be installed.
The configuration of Lot 7 was discussed after Bob expressed concern that at least half of the lot is utilized for drainage. It was noted that (abutting) Outlots 3 and 2 are conveyed to Smith (an existing property owner to the west). The reason for the odd configuration of Lot 7 is to create necessary road frontage for the Smiths’ via the outlots. Steve indicated the building pad area of Lot 7 is 50’ x 38’. They are considering rotating the mound system around to increase this.
It was noted that in order to improve Lot seven’s configuration, it would be necessary to obtain a variance on the Smith’s minimum road frontage requirement. Bob indicated he was not in favor of how Lot 7 is configured and felt that it should be eliminated and lands attached to the Smith’s property or Lot 8.
Paul indicated his biggest concern is water. He did not feel the property line of Lot 7 was a major hurdle to the development. He is still not convinced the development won’t cause drainage problems.
Engineer comment #4 was discussed stating that more information is needed regarding low depression areas and the effect additional runoff volume with have on adjacent properties. It also states that the location and condition of drain tiles should be provided. Paul stated he did not want this development to create more water problems for the neighbors.
Rock Ridge representatives explained a tremendous amount of information had already been provided to the engineer. Basin 100E and 100G (reference Figure 6-1 of the Stormwater Management Plan) will be run into the increased depression area of Pond #1. Depth and elevations of the pond were also discussed, along with spillway specifications. A storm sewer directs any overflow down the length of Rock Ridge Road into Pond #2.
There was additional discussion on care and maintenance of community areas, including the 50 foot drainage easement / walking trail area around the development. Steve explained the attorney and utilities will not work on the development until the preliminary plat is approved.
There was question on whether the 25-foot easement along the west side of the development was included as a communal area. Steve explained this easement only specifies that existing trees can’t be cut down.
It was stated that the Plan Commission should be able to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat at the next meeting assuming that most of the issues are worked out by then. The Town Engineer should be present at the March meeting to address any outstanding issues.
Bob Hegeman, abutting property owner to the west, questioned where the road serving the development will be. It was explained it will run parallel to the east of the natural gas line which dissects the property. He questioned whether the Smith’s driveway will be removed as the culvert is too high and it is backing water up. The reply was that it will be removed.
Other business. The secretary questioned Plan Commissioners on several forms that were developed to offer a format for review of land divisions, applications for conditional uses, zoning changes, variances, etc. Plan Commissioners agreed it would be beneficial to use the forms so that review of these items is consistent. Any changes or additions to the forms should be referred to the secretary.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy Planning Secretary
|