|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
October 3, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION 6:30p.m. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. with Paul Beere, Chris Johnson, Brian Wanasek and Maureen Eckert present. Bob Willard arrived at 6:34 p.m. Betty Novy, Secretary, was also present. Pledge of Allegiance. Brian moved, 2nd by Chris to approve minutes of the September 6, 2005 meeting as printed. Motion carried. Conditional Use Application to extend Sand and Gravel Extraction and Processing Operation and to be allowed to Mine Below the Water Table: Park View Sand and Gravel; 31844 Washington Avenue Bill Pavin was present representing Park View Sand and Gravel. Bob Willard reported on review of the document prepared by STS Consultants, LTD. labeled “Private Well Testing, Parkview Sand and Gravel, Phase II, Rochester and Waterford, Wisconsin (dated June 15, 2005)”. He expressed concern about the number of baseline water tests done in the study. Out of 39 property owners contacted, only fourteen consented to the test. He felt the number of property owners contacted to the southeast, the down gradient of the watershed, was inadequate. Four property owners in close proximity of the gravel operation were not contacted. He felt those property owners should be given the opportunity for baseline testing if they want it done. Bill Pavin noted the County was satisfied with the testing and water will be tested annually at the gravel operation. However, he did not object to testing additional property owners next year in conjunction with annual testing. Brian moved, 2nd by Maureen to recommend approval to extend the Conditional Use Permit for Park View Sand and Gravel’s gravel extraction and processing operation, including mining below the water table, contingent that additional property owners, identified as: Robert and Dorothy Gollmar, 31705 Washington Avenue; Rhoda Runzheimer, 31617 Washington Avenue; Curtis and Donna Peterson, 31539 Washington Avenue, and the Ela Apple Orchard, 31308 & 31219 Washington Avenue; be given the opportunity for baseline well tests next year. Motion carried. Pre-Application Conference (2): Conceptual subdivision creating fourteen parcels out of one; Location: 2826 Maple Road; Owner: Edward Stone; Engineer: Dave Olsen (Parcel #014-03-19-05-008-000; 160 acres) Ed Stone addressed the Commission and explained the following changes to his conceptual layout: • a 20-foot bridal path now runs around the perimeter of the new parcels; • the number of lots has been reduced from fifteen to fourteen; and • a future access point, or right of way, is provided off the new road to the remnant parcel which would remain under Ed’s ownership. Ed’s intention is that each parcel would have gated access to the bridal path. He is considering provision of boarding services in his barn to new parcel owners. The bridal path would require common ownership so the concept is subject to legal approval. He is unsure how liability issues would be handled at this point. Consensus of the Commission was that these changes were acceptable. Ed was directed to proceed with the Conceptual Plan Development step. Pre-Application Conference: • Conceptual subdivision alternatives creating eleven to thirteen parcels; Location 28815 Washington Avenue- Owner: Joyce Malison • Conceptual subdivision alternatives creating fifteen to nineteen parcels: Location: 28527 Washington Avenue- Owner: Mary Hoyer (Estate) 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 014-03-19-12-016-000: 20.22 acres; Malison- 014-03-19-12-006-000: 55.68 acres) Tom Foht, Kapur and Associates, explained conceptual subdivision alternatives for each parcel and went over design considerations as documented in his memorandum dated September 23, 2005. Conceptual layouts for the Malison property featured eleven lots at 4.3 to 5.9 acres for an average five-acre density; or fifteen lots ranging from 2.3 to 10.04 acres when utilizing conservation-type design. Conceptual layouts for the Hoyer property featured fifteen parcels at 4.2 to 5.6 acres for an average five-acre density; or nineteen parcels from 2.07 to 10.6 acres when utilizing conservation-type design. Road lengths were identified as approximately 7,150 feet (combined) for average five-acre density; and 6,500 feet (combined) for conservation-type design. Based on Racine County review of conceptual designs, Tom noted preservation of Primary Environmental Corridor areas might best be achieved through use of the conservation-type design. Drainage was identified as a major concern on this parcel. Tom explained some areas are shown as wetlands on County maps. Wetlands will be delineated with any necessary changes coordinated and approved by the DNR. A map of drain tiles traversing these properties was supplied by Eugene Meyer. Tom explained he was not previously aware of the tiles, but will map locations on the development. Future design will take care to avoid damaging tiles and a restriction will be placed on the development stating any damage to drain tiles will have to be repaired. Resident Dick Rehberg was present in the audience. Dick expressed concern over the east portion of the Hoyer property. This land drains into the same tile as Rock Ridge Subdivision, ultimately traversing through his and the Birkett farms. Dick wanted to make sure the same consideration was given to future tile repair needs as was done for Rock Ridge Subdivision. He would expect some cost sharing provisions in subdivision documents if the tile is still utilized for drainage by this development. Resident Nancy Anderson was present in the audience. She questioned one development option Tom listed in his memorandum regarding partial designation of this area as “Urban Reserve”. Tom proposed to transition the residential area to commercial uses with multi-family development if that was the direction the Town was going in. She requested further explanation of “Urban Reserve”. Discussion followed regarding partial designation of this area as “Urban Reserve” in the Land Use Plan; and recent inclusion of the whole area in the “Planned Sewer Service Area”. It was clarified this land is not in the Western Racine County Sewerage District, but that it is designated as a parcel that could be included in the future in a regional planning document. The Plan Commission referred to two recommended alternatives for sewerage facilities to serve the area in the “Rochester Sanitary Sewer Study” (Crispell-Snyder Engineering, 1999). Alternative Map No. 4 shows gravity sewer from this area flowing towards and then along the Wind Lake Drainage Canal to a main interceptor on N. River Road in the Village of Rochester. Correspondence from the Town Engineer concluded this alternative to be unrealistic as it would require deep gravity sewer running along the canal through numerous individually owned residential properties. Alternative Map No. 4A would require installation of over a mile of gravity sewer, a lift station and a new sewer crossing at STH 36 and STH 20. Brian commented case law has established that a Town cannot require sewered development unless it is reasonably accessible to the parcel. In this case, he did not feel the Town could require it unless it was willing to bring sewer to the parcel. The question arose of why the Planned Sewer Service Area was expanded to include this area and how strongly the Town Board feels it should be sewered. Paul explained Western Racine County Sewerage District approached the Town soliciting input on areas that could potentially be included in the service area so the District could plan for future service needs. This was one area the Town Board thought might need sewer in the future because of its close proximity to a planned commercial area surrounded by CTH D, STH 36 and STH 20. Because the Planned Sewer Service Area included a strip of land south of CTH D, the Board felt it would square off the service area to the southern section line. There were several comments regarding residential developments the Town required to be sewered in the past. It was noted how this increased the number of homes allowed to be built. This development was identified as different from those because it is not in the Sewer District, but the Planned Sewer Service Area. It was thought this area could possibly be exchanged to include a different area of the Town where sewer may be needed in the future. Maureen Eckert stated her intention not to vote on this issue because it is too close to her property and she feels personally involved. However, she will be glad to share any information she can based on personal knowledge of the area. Predominantly, the rest of the Commission indicated preference for a low-density development. Bob Willard indicated this preference as well but had some reservation because of what development of this parcel means in relation to overall development of the surrounding area. Paul moved, 2nd by Brian to recommend that if this area is to be developed at this time that it be allowed to develop at four to five acres density rather than force sewer to come to the area. Votes were: Paul: Aye; Chris: Aye: Bob: Aye; Brian: Aye; Maureen: Abstention. Motion passed. Bob moved, 2nd by Brian to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer |