|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
January 3, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Paul Beere, Maureen Eckert, Chris Johnson, Brian Wanasek and Bob Willard present.
Betty Novy, Secretary, and John Tierney, Engineer, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Brian to approve minutes of the December 5, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Conceptual Plan:
·
Conceptual subdivision creating
eleven parcels;
·
Conceptual subdivision creating
fifteen parcels: Developer: Premium Properties Ventures, LLC Engineer: Thomas Foht, P.E. (Kapur & Associates)
(Root Parcels: Hoyer- #014-03-19-12-008-000:
61.18 acres; 014-03-19-01-029-000 .25 acres; and
Tom Foht addressed the commission reporting no changes to the plan since the last submittal. Concerns expressed at the December meeting had to do with road crossings of the drain tile traversing both properties. Tom indicated drain tile will be replaced in any areas where the road crosses it. As Town Engineer, John Tierney indicated he will recommend that manholes will be installed at road crossings so that flow can be checked and monitored. Complete drainage plans will be submitted with the preliminary plat. Chris Johnson reported on soil testing for the development. Each lot passed for a mound system. Greg Reesman indicated the Andersons are interested in purchasing the outlot next to their property that is created by this plan.
Bob Willard expressed concerns about the length of roads, future costs of maintenance and the affect of the development on the area’s drainage system. Chris Johnson indicated taking these lands out of agricultural use may actually slow water discharged downstream. Paul indicated his concern that if an alternative sewered development occurred in the future, there may be twice the length of road and homes. He feels the proposed rural density development fits the flavor of the town.
Paul moved, 2nd by Brian to approve the conceptual plan as presented by Premium Properties Ventures for the Malison and Hoyer properties. Votes were: Paul: Aye; Brian: Aye; Chris: Aye; Bob: Naye. Motion passed. Maureen recused herself.
Conceptual Plan: Stoneridge Subdivision Conceptual subdivision creating thirteen parcels Location: 2826 Maple Road Owner: Ed Stone; Engineer: David Olsen (Root Parcel #014-03-19-05-008-000; 160 acres
Dave Olsen addressed the Commission. Dave described the road as following topography along the ridge and coming out on Maple Road at the high point. Fifty acres are being developed (out of eighty). Ed Stone explained a bridal path surrounding the new parcels is conceptual right now. There would be restrictions against motorized vehicles on the path and access points would be restricted with pipes so that only horses or pedestrians could enter. However, he needs to consult with an attorney before determining whether this concept is truly feasible. Racine County recommended an outlot shown on the conceptual plan become a road reservation. However, Plan Commissioners felt since the outlot is attached to the larger remnant parcel, any owner of the larger parcel will have to deal with it if they chose to develop in the future. Dave Meyer, of Wetland Consulting, explained DNR endangered Species and historic sites research on the parcel. The geographical area was run through the DNR database to come up with species that mainly inhabit wet or marshy areas. None of these areas are included for development in this proposal. Bob and Brian commented on the thorough submission.
At this time, Paul requested any comments from those present in the audience.
Nick Ahlers, Washington Avenue, expressed concern about water drainage. It now runs off the Stone parcel onto his. Response was given that engineering and a drainage plan will be required. Detention ponds will be sized and placed so that they hold water and slow the release rate. The runoff will not exceed what is does now. Storm-water detention design tries to achieve 80% less runoff than present. It was also felt that turf as ground cover will create less run off than present agricultural fields.
John Bajorek, Maple Road, questioned whether a hydrologist study will be required to determine the affect of this development on water tables and how additional wastewater generated by development will affect existing well water. Brian indicated wells can be placed as close as 50 feet to a septic field. This development will be much farther than fifty feet from any existing homes. Chris indicated a hydrologist study may be requested by the Plan Commission, but only if it is felt necessary.
Additionally, Bajorek requested that subdivision restrictions be imposed to specify no automatic sprinkler systems, minimum square footage requirements on homes, and a restriction against pre-fabricated homes. He also stated a preference for just a street name sign marking the subdivision entrance. He does not want any subdivision monuments. He also requested that the number of trees removed next to Maple Road be kept to a minimum when creating the bridal path and questioned the development’s impact on taxes.
Ed Stone replied the property where Bajorek built his home was previously a dairy farm, as was his farm. A large number of cows were watered daily and there was never a problem with wells. As to trees, he will keep tree removal to a minimum, but explained some trees along the road are diseased and some weed trees will have to be removed. He also indicated his intent to form an architectural control committee through subdivision covenants. This should keep the size and quality of homes in check.
Jim Scherrer, Upland Drive, stated he liked the idea of this subdivision, but had concerns about the bridal path and farm animals. He questioned what animals will be allowed on the new parcels and wanted to know if it could be limited to horses. with no cows or chickens. The subdivision abutting the parcel, where he lives, is zoned residential. He would prefer that this development be rezoned residential to match. He also questioned what size of outbuildings will be allowed.
It was explained that parcels will remain under agricultural zoning and farm animals will be allowed. However, Town ordinance limits hoofed animals to one on parcels from two to five acres. Parcel sizes may limit the kind and number of animals allowed. Ed Stone stated he may attempt to jog the bridal path away from the Scherrer property. Parcels on that end of the development are heavily wooded and he doesn’t see them used for agricultural purposes. He will try to restrict this as best as he can. Outbuildings will also become subject to review of the architectural control committee.
Ann Grinwald, Washington Avenue, questioned what will happen to the trees on the north property line where her property abuts the development. Ed indicated he will place the bridal path inside the trees. He does not anticipate removing any trees from this area.
Roger Kram, Maple Road, expressed concern if the bridal path is not created. He wanted to know how access will be gained to retention ponds if this happens.
Dave Olsen indicated they will deal with that issue by creating a drainage easement wide enough to service the ponds if it is needed.
Tom Greil, Washington Avenue, questioned recourse if the proposed upper retention pond overflows on his land and ruins his crops. It was explained ponds are sized for a 100-year flood occurrence. The only recourse would be against the owners of the ponds, the subdivision association, if they are found negligent in maintaining the pond. If ditches and ponds are overflowing throughout the community, there is no one to claim damages against. It will be no different than it is now.
Stone indicated he does not believe there will be more water because of turf for ground cover and because a detention pond will be placed in that area where there currently is none.
Pete Mandli, Ridge Lane, questioned who will determine outbuilding restrictions.
Ed Stone indicated he will establish subdivision restrictions so that an architectural control committee will be elected by owners of the lots. However, until a majority of the lots are sold the “control committee” will be himself.
Roger Kram questioned whether all five acre lots will be required to have manicured lawns or whether prairie grasses will be allowed.
Ed indicated if owners have horses, pastures will be needed. He will not be too restrictive in that area.
Maureen moved, 2nd by Chris to approve the Stoneridge Subdivision conceptual plan for the Stone property. Motion carried.
Land Use Plan- Map Amendment Procedure
Correspondence drafted by the Town Attorney was reviewed relating to creating a procedure for Land Use Plan Map amendment requests. In the correspondence, the attorney recommended two public hearings, one by the Land Use Plan Committee; and one by the Plan Commission. The correspondence also stated any amendment must be effected by use of a resolution passed by a majority of affirmative votes of the Plan Commission. He also noted a good record must be kept of circumstances which may or may not justify the amendment, possibly in written findings by the Commission. Consensus of the Plan Commission was that hearings by the Land Use Plan Committee and Plan Commission should be held jointly to keep inconvenience to interested citizens at a minimum. Secondly, written notice should be sent to all abutting property owners, much as the Land Division Ordinance now requires upon Conceptual Plan submittal. There was also question on how the Village would sign off on amendments since this is a Joint Land Use Plan. It was felt that keeping members of the Land Use Plan Committee involved in map amendment requests, between five-year review processes, would involve Village committee members and allow any recommendations to be forwarded through the Village Plan Commission and Board as necessary. Involvement of Land Use Plan Committee members will also allow the history to be known of why areas were designated as they were. Involvement by Land Use Plan Committee members was thought to be beneficial to overall consideration of any requested changes.
Land Division Pre-Application Conference/ Conceptual Plan Procedure
Betty referred Plan Commissioners to section 27.200 of the Land Division Ordinance where procedures are explained. She noted the progression from pre-application conference to conceptual plan submittal and questioned whether a limit should be placed on the number of pre-application conferences a subdivider is allowed before neighbors are notified of formal conceptual plan submittal. The ordinance states notification goes out fourteen days prior to presentation of the Conceptual Plan at a Plan Commission meeting. At the December meeting, some discomfort was noted by Plan Commissioners because of the number of discussions they had with a developer before neighbors were notified and invited to a meeting. The purpose behind the pre-application conference was discussed. This allows preliminary discussion so that a developer does not have to invest in surveying and engineering before gaining input from the Commission on whether their concept is viable under the Land Use Plan and subdivision ordinances. It was noted the developer often prefers a second conference before being comfortable with formal Conceptual Plan submittal. Consensus of the Commission was to limit Pre-Application Conferences to two, unless the Plan Commission deems a third is necessary. In the future, the Plan Commission will make a motion directing the applicant when their next step is to submit a Conceptual Plan.
Brian moved, 2nd by Maureen to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC Planning Secretary
|