|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
May 2, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Paul Beere, Bob Willard, Chris Johnson, Brian Wanasek and Jim Pluta present.
Atty. John Hotvedt and Betty Novy, Secretary, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to approve minutes of the April 4, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried.
Certified Survey Map creating two parcels Location: 34315 Academy Road Owners: Joseph & Barbara Carini; Agent: Gary Foat (Parcels #014-03-19-18-012-000; and 014-03-19-18-012-001: 157.6 acres)
Betty reported results of Racine County Planning and Town engineer review. Both entities found the revised Certified Survey Map to be in order and recommended approval. Brian moved, 2nd by Bob to recommend approval of the Certified Survey Map of Joseph and Barbara Carini dated April 6, 2005. Motion carried.
Application for Final Plat Approval: Rock Ridge Subdivision
Location: 28601 (Approx) Rowntree Road (Parcel #014-03-19-12-001-000: 28.71 acres & Parcel #014-03-19-13-012-000: 52.09 acres)
Steve Kempken and Steve Knurr were present. Revisions required for final plat approval were reviewed as follows:
Per Racine County Planning: 1) Label Lot 7 on Page 1 of the drawing; and 2) The note describing the intent of Outlots 2 and 3 (which was shown on the preliminary plat) must be added to the final plat.
Per the Town Engineer: 1) A copy of the restrictive covenants addressing the storm water management facility ownership and maintenance responsibilities still needs to be provided for review; 2) It is our understanding that Rock Ridge Road will be a public road. The face of the plat should clearly note “public right-of-way”. The term “common area” in the cul-de-sac should be clarified, since this is within the public right of way. Maintenance of the cul-de-sac landscaped island should be addressed in the restrictive covenants; 3) The face of the plat should also clearly designate the 33-foot right of way dedication along Rowntree Road; and 4) It is our understanding that outlots 2 and 3 are being dedicated to the adjacent land owner. The plat does not indicate this dedication. It should be clarified if this dedication is being done via a separate document.
Developer’s Agreement. Atty. Hotvedt reported the developer’s agreement is in the necessary form and ready for execution.
“Declaration of Protective Covenants”. Atty. Hotvedt reported the document has been reviewed and some changes are still pending. Revision requests have been met with no resistance from the developer’s attorney. The draft document was reviewed by Commissioners who offered the following comments:
Bob Willard questioned reference to the Architectural Control Committee and Homeowner’s Association and wanted to know how these entities are created. Atty. Hotvedt indicated the articles of organization and by-laws are separate documents which have not yet been submitted. Bob also questioned who enforces the covenants. Atty. Hotvedt indicated the association as a whole or any individual landowner in the subdivision has the right by legal action.
Bob noted on Page 11, Section F-2, the last sentence refers specifically to a square footage restriction affecting Lot 8. He felt this sentence should more appropriately be placed under Section B-6 “Dwelling Size”. Plan Commissioners concurred.
Brian noted the last sentence of Section B-6 (2) states “No floor area below finished yard grade shall be considered living area”. The previous sentence refers to Bi-level, Tri-level and Split-level houses. Since these house styles generally include living area under yard grade, the last sentence should be removed.
Bob noted Section C-2 states restrictive covenants are in effect for 25 years and then successive 10 year periods, but the document does not state how they are renewed. Atty. Hotvedt indicated this will be addressed in the by-laws of the association.
Atty. Hotvedt indicated the main issue that needs direction is maintenance of the drain tile. He drafted language regarding this issue for insertion into the declaration document, but the language he proposed was not agreed to by the developer’s attorney. Steve Kempken concurred the drain tile is the main issue needing resolution.
The issue of drain tile maintenance was discussed. Original language crafted by the Town Attorney stated the costs of any future repair or maintenance of the drain tile future would be borne by the subdivision association. Plan Commissioners clarified this was not their intent. Rather, they wished the subdivision to be responsible for only that portion of costs that the original parcel would have been if it had remained under single party ownership. Atty. Hotvedt indicated he has no problem modifying the language, the question is what portion of costs are to be borne by the subdivision and what type of events will trigger the responsibility. Plan Commissioners defined the event that triggers this responsibility as normal maintenance of the tile- to repair anything that breaks. A “gentlemen’s agreement”, spoke of by Dick Reesman at a previous meeting, was thought to be between four property owners to repair the tile when and if it broke. This would support an assumption that the Rock Ridge Subdivision association should be responsible for 25% of the costs. Chris Birkett arrived at this time. The Birketts’ own land through which the tile runs. Chris reported discovery of what was thought to be an original agreement between seven farms as to maintenance of the tile. In 1947, the Birketts’ plugged the tile when several property owners upstream did not pay for repairs as promised. A lawsuit followed and the agreement brought resolution to the issue. While he did not have the agreement with him, he thought it could be used as a basis to determine an appropriate cost sharing method. He will bring the document in for attorney review.
Steve Kempken raised a question about the responsibility of other properties that drain through the tile existing north of Rowntree Road. Steve asked how these properties will be treated when and if they develop. Consensus of the Plan Commission was that this development will set the precedent for other properties drained through this tile in the future.
Steve asked the Plan Commission to recommend approval of the final plat conditioned on outstanding issues being resolved. He explained he must have all items worked out by May 31, 2005 as a condition of his offer to purchase the land.
It was the consensus of Plan Commissioners that they could not offer this recommendation without seeing language crafted for the drain tile situation. It was noted Preliminary Plat approval was conditioned on satisfactory resolution of this issue. Atty. Hotvedt also noted there have been some problems with the deed transfer. Steve is not yet the record owner of the property. Outstanding items were identified as: ownership of the parcel, plat revisions, homeowner’s association documents and revisions to the restrictive covenants.
Steve reported some difficulties with conveyance of a portion of the Smith parcel. However, those issues are expected to be resolved within a week. He agreed to extend action on the Final Plat for a period of one month until legal issues could be resolved.
Plan Commissioners directed the attorney to keep them informed of proposed language changes. Commissioners will direct any individual comments or concerns to the attorney in between meetings. This will hopefully expedite crafting acceptable language so that an agreeable document can be achieved by next month.
Brian moved, 2nd by Paul to extend action on the Final Plat for one month in agreement with the land owner. Motion carried.
(Parcel #014-03-19-12-010-040; 9.63 acres)
Jill Stafford was present at the meeting. Betty reported on request of the Staffords’ to lift the restriction on their Certified Survey Map requiring homes to be built 330 feet back from Rowntree Road. Plan Commission records show the restriction was placed on the face of the Certified Survey Map at the request of the previous owner.
Atty. Hotvedt explained necessary actions in order to grant the Stafford’s request. A document would have to be created which authorizes release of the restriction. The document would have to be approved and signed by the Town Board; and each individual lot owner of the Certified Survey Map. It would then need to be recorded with the Racine County Register of Deeds.
Bob questioned a letter of consent from Eugene and Harold Meyer, original property owners, provided with the Stafford’s request. He stated the Meyers’ agree to lifting the restriction “only if this will not create a problem with water run off to Meyer property tillable land”. He wasn’t sure of the implications of that statement.
It was noted the original request of the Meyer’s had to do with drainage and protecting drain tiles. It was also noted lot four does not appear to have any drain tile on it. Concern was expressed about the owners of Lot one and two possibly wanting the same restriction lifted. Those lots do have drain tile running through them.
Jill was counseled to talk to the owners of lots one, two and three to determine whether they would sign the necessary documents in order to release the restriction. They should also be asked whether they wish to have the same restriction lifted from their lots. If the Plan Commission and Town Board consent, the Town Attorney can draft the necessary document to lift the restriction. However, the Staffords’ would then be responsible to reimburse the Town for legal costs. The Meyer’s intent in their letter of consent also needs to be clarified.
Consensus of the Plan Commission was they had no objection to lifting the restriction if these issues could be worked out.
Subdivision Conceptual Plan creating thirteen lots out of two: Location: 123 N. Honey Lake Road Owners: Richard Mianecki; Developer: Jeff & Lisa Johnson (Parcel #014-03-19-17-015-000; 64.87 acres & 014-03-19-17-15-020; 2.56 acres)
Jeff Johnson addressed the Commission. He corrected the agenda item to be for parcel #014031917015000 only (64.87 acres) and creating twelve lots. It was verified this meets the five acre average density requirement specified in the Land Use Plan affecting this area. Along with the conceptual layout, an aerial overview of this parcel and surrounding parcels; a contour map; a real estate description parcel map; and site photos were reviewed.
Roads and access. Plan Commissioners questioned Jeff on the approximate length of roads in the concept plan. Jeff stated the plan, as shown, has between 800 and 1200 feet of road with the cul-de-sac. After consideration of the southernmost access point shown on the concept plan, Jeff and Plan Commissioners agreed the location may not be practical for visual and safety reasons. The access point exits in the middle of a sharp curve on N. Honey Lake Road. It was noted there are three separate areas of road frontage the parcel could utilize for access, however the northernmost stretch was believed to be located at the crest of a hill. This made that location impractical for access as well. As an alternate to the initial design, Jeff may design a boulevard entrance in the center area of road frontage and create two cul-de-sacs in the development.
Septic: Chris Johnson indicated soils in this area will most likely support mound systems; with the possibility of conventional septic in some areas.
Drainage. A drainage ditch that runs alongside the Mianecki home is depicted on the plan. Jeff explained Mr. Mianecki dug the swale to control water in the Spring. The ditch drains into a pond to control the rate at which water exits before it drains under the road into a culvert. A 50’ x 50’ area near the existing house is in the 100-year flood plain. He proposes to make this a stormwater retention area in the concept plan.
Design Issues. Bob Willard asked if Jeff had given any consideration to creating a mix of smaller and larger lots. He noted the Town is trying to get away from five-acre lots. It was pointed out the concept plan shows five lots three acres or smaller. However, the plan was not to scale and acreages could not be verified. A suggestion was made to create a themed development, such as a horse farm. Property owners could own smaller lots, but share in ownership and maintenance of a large horse barn and pasture area. Jeff did not want to specialize this way as it was felt it would narrow who he could market lots to. It was suggested Jeff cluster smaller lots on a cul-de-sac and leave a couple of larger lots. There was some discussion on placing a cul-de-sac with smaller parcels on the northeast portion of the parcel and larger lots down towards N. Honey Lake Road. It was felt this would help maintain the rural character of the road. Jeff indicated he had concerns about impacting surrounding property owners in the northeast corner, but would consider the idea. A triangle of land that is separated from the larger parcel by N. Honey Lake Road will most likely be deeded to the abutting property owner.
Sidenotes: Jeff made an offer to purchase this land contingent on the ability to develop it. Bob Wetzel will be surveying the property within a week and will update the topography.
Jeff was directed to work with these suggestions and the updated topography map and come back with a revised plan.
Bob moved, 2nd by Brian to adjourn at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy Planning Secretary
|