|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
October 28, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m.
The meeting was called to order with Ken Dahlstrom, Bob Willard, Karyn Borucki and Chris Johnson present. Brian Wanasek was absent.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob moved, 2nd by Karyn to approve minutes of the October 4, 2004 meeting with the following correction:
Under Subdivision conceptual plan creating thirteen parcels: Rowntree Road; Owners: Joseph & Ione Kojis Trust/ Agent: Steve Kempken, a sentence was corrected as follows:
Steve verified with ANR Pipeline that <INSERT> “Town” <END INSERT> roads installed over the natural gas pipeline will have to be repaired by the Town if maintenance is ever needed in that area.
Motion carried.
Update:
Subdivision creating thirteen parcels: Rowntree Road;
Steve Knurr addressed the commission. He presented an updated map showing common areas as the oval within the loop road and a 25 to 50-foot wide walk way around most of the parcels. Lots six and seven have been cleaned up per directives issued at the September meeting. Lots nine through twelve show a twenty-five foot conservation easement where no cutting of trees will be allowed. Steve explained he met with their engineer Monday and it was determined that the road needs to be moved 15’ to the east to leave more drainage area between the paved surface and pipeline easement for a wider ditch. The map will be revised to show that change. At this time, they are proposing to manage common space by use of a subdivision association. Some concern was stated about liability in the marsh and pond areas. It was suggested some type of disclaimer be contained in association documents for that purpose.
Ken stated the main purpose of common areas is to make the land available for people to use. It was suggested the developer try to provide as much access to the south end of the parcel as possible because this is where most of the natural features are. Additionally, suggestions were made that the trail on lot one be extended all around the pond area and that the marsh become part of the common space.
Ken mentioned using the gas line easement as a walking trail (additional common space). However, Steve noted it will be crossed by multiple driveways. A revised map will be presented when ready.
Request for variance for a land division to
create a buildable substandard lot south of 104 N. River Road: (Parcel #014-03-19-14-039-000 & Parcel #014-03-19-14-042-000)
John Hamric addressed the Plan Commission. John explained he originally listed his property with the intent to sell these two lots together, but he hasn’t found a buyer for the two acres. A variance will allow John to sell the two parcels separately and make the pricing more reasonable for any buyer. He continued that when the house was built, and subsequently when he purchased the property thirty-four years ago, the minimum frontage requirement was 100 feet. Since then, the rule changed to 150 feet. His lots have 132 feet of frontage each (264 feet total). The vacant lot passed a soil test for a conventional septic system. It was verified the well for the existing residence is setback at least 50’ from the soil test site.
John was questioned on the character of parcels surrounding his. It was explained there are some narrower lots in Mather subdivision (abutting to the west of these parcels). Parcels to the north and south are one-acre in size. One on the corner of Mather Lane and N. River Road is a two-acre parcel, but one acre of the land is not buildable. He is asking for a lot line adjustment to create one lot with 152 feet of frontage and one lot with 112 feet of frontage. This will keep mature trees lining the driveway with the existing house. The driveway straddles the lot line as it currently exists. The vacant lot has been valued as a buildable lot (on the tax roll) since it was purchased.
Ken suggested the driveway be moved and the lot line be preserved as it is. Bob indicated the end result will be substandard lots either way. Karyn commented it is unfortunate the driveway was placed on the lot line. John explained the ditch is 4 feet deep. To dig up and replace the driveway and culvert would be an extensive project affecting drainage on the road. Chris indicated the lot line adjustment would maintain the integrity of landscaping completed for the improved lot, including preservation of several mature trees.
Bob moved, 2nd by Karyn to recommend the two lots be sold as one if possible. If not, to recommend approval of the 20-foot lot line adjustment as presented. Votes were: Bob: Aye; Karyn: Aye; Chris: Aye; and Ken: Naye. Motion passed.
General information session presented by the Town Engineer on the drainage review process as it is applied to land divisions
Dan Snyder and Sarah Tomczyk Crispell-Snyder Engineering, attended the meeting to answer questions regarding drainage review.
Bob began the discussion by questioning how engineers determine whether a drainage situation will not be worse after houses, driveways, etc., are placed on a property.
Dan explained Town ordinances spell out how a developer is to handle drainage. These tell the developer’s engineer what standards need to be followed. In performing engineering review, Crispell-Snyder verifies the standards are met.
Bob then questioned where Crispell-Snyder obtains data to review, or cross-check, a developer’s drainage plan.
Dan explained County topographical and soil maps are compared to presented plans. Topographical data should match at the property line. If there is a large variance, it indicates something is wrong. They can then require the information be supplemented with field surveys.
Normally, an engineer, hired by a developer, goes out and does field measurements. He uses these to design the drainage plan, including calculations for stormwater retention. If the property is part of a large watershed and this is not accounted for in the drainage plan, Crispell-Snyder will often include a design comment such as “off site drainage is omitted”. This then requires the developer to expand their stormwater calculations. This can be done with topographical maps from the County.
Crispell-Snyder does not normally go on site for smaller land divisions, but will often field verify larger subdivisions. Their first reference, however, is topographical maps. Soils are also one of the parameters. Ground cover can be an object of consideration too. The Town ordinance provides two methods to calculate drainage requirements. The Soil Conservation Service method, which is most commonly used, takes into account slope and ground cover to calculate run off. The model uses a 24 hour storm with six inches of rainfall to determine detention basin storage requirements.
Bob questioned whether Dan had ever seen a designed system fail when this method was used.
He stated his experience is such that he has not seen a detention basin built too small. He has not seen one overtopped.
He continued that DNR regulations are now requiring water quality to be an additional consideration for drainage plans. In the past, the focus was water quantity. However, it has been found that most basins sized to handle big storm events are dry 365 days a year. They are now shifting focus to controlling smaller storms, with an emphasis on putting water back into the ground. Infiltration methods are now acceptable options for stormwater control. However, Dan stated some concern about infiltration methods because of freeze and thaw patterns in our climate. Obviously, frozen ground does not allow water to infiltrate.
Stormwater plans control the rate of drainage. If infiltration methods can be utilized, they are acceptable. Soil maps are utilized for general information on the rate of infiltration and help determine required basin sizes.
Dan explained developed land generates more water run off than undeveloped land. Engineering cannot change that effect, but it can control and slow the rate of run off. Because of perceptions adjacent property owners often have of what storm water management should do, they recommend on many new developments that adjacent property owners sign drainage easements. This is because stormwater management does not stop water from coming off developed land, but rather slows the rate of drainage. Drainage still occurs.
Dan indicated he feels confident in results of storm water control methodology. His firm has successfully designed many detention basins for municipalities that have experienced failures in their drainage systems. He explained that in the past, storm water control methods focused only on space requirements, i.e., 100 cubic feet. The surface area and depth of a retention area was not significant. Now, with water quality requirements they are recommending detention areas be designed shallower with more surface area. This design improves infiltration.
Chris Johnson indicated he had seen some panels installed in areas of suitable soils to improve infiltration.
Dan indicated he has seen a panel type of system used in parking lot areas where there is a high amount of impervious surface, but they are not normally used in residential developments. He continued it is in the developer best interest to manage water. This avoids lawsuits and helps the developer maintain a good reputation. Generally, private landowners who develop their land are not as interested in storm water control as a larger developer.
Dahlstrom stated that, as the Rowntree Road development progresses, he would like to see Dan or Sarah attend more meetings. Dan indicated these plans are still in the preliminary review stage, but they will attend meetings whenever requested.
There was a question about what point a development gets to before it can be determined there are drainage problems that cannot be corrected. Dan indicated preliminary engineering has to be completed before a judgment of that type can be made. When questioned, Dan stated he could not think of one development that was rejected just because of drainage problems. His experience is such that they serve over 40 southeast Wisconsin communities.
He indicated stormwater detention basins are designed to handle flows from a 100-year flood event. However, pipes and driveway culverts are not designed for this type of occurrence, so there will always be a period of time where ditches will be full and water will be over the road. The DNR is most concerned about keeping stormwater from natural watercourses. The goal is to keep water on the developments. DNR’s drainage preferences were stated as being grass swales or ditches.
Dan and Sarah were thanked for explaining the process to the Commission.
Continued Discussion on Instructional Planning Book (as time allows)
Consensus of the Commission was to table this discussion until a future meeting.
Bob moved, 2nd by Chris to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted:
Betty J. Novy, CMC Secretary
|