March 5, 2008                                  PLAN COMMISSION                                                          7:00 p.m.

 

Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by chairperson, Chris Denman. Present for the meeting were Roger Kieffer, Mark Tamblyn, Dennis Crombie and James Joseph. James Rumpf and Dean Stapleton were absent.

                     

Also present was Marcy Hasenstab, Village Attorney, John Tierney, Village Engineer, Betty Novy, Clerk and Sandi Swan, Deputy Clerk acting Secretary.

 

Minutes from the January 2nd, 2008 Plan Commission were read aloud by Secretary, Swan.

 

Joseph moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to approve the January 2, 2008 minutes as read. Motion carried.

 

Application to rezone a parcel from R-2 “Single Family Residential” to B-1 “Central Business District” to combine lots and expand parking at 200 W. Main St.

Location: 104 S. Front St. Tax ID. No. 1760031911210000

Owner: Community State Bank; Agent: Steve Bell, President

 

Robert Kordus, Contractor for the parking lot was present to represent Community State Bank. He did provide a conceptual layout and landscaping plan for the proposed parking lot.

 

Novy reminded the Commission that the primary consideration right now is the rezoning application. There can be no action taken on the re-zoning request; Village ordinance requires the request to be heard first and then a hearing will be scheduled for the next meeting. No one had any objection to the rezoning application.

 

Discussion was held about the layout and landscaping of the parking lot. Parking spots will be the standard size of 9’x18’. There is only one handicap stall proposed for the Bank. Tamblyn stated that one should be considered in the back of the Village building for hall functions. Kordus stated it would be no problem to convert one of the stalls in the back to a non-van accessible handicap stall.

 

Discussion continued to the landscape ordinance that requires a parking lot to have 5% of interior landscape. The Committee discussed different options to obtain that. Kordus stated that the Bank will do whatever the Village desires; he just needs to know so that he can make the necessary changes.

 

Revised Certified Survey Map creating one lot and one out-lot from two lots and two out-lots

Owners: Dennis and Judith Karweik

Location: 521 Fox Knoll Dr. Tax No. 176-031911420000 & 176 031911419000

 

Mr. Karweik and his attorney Brad Hoeschen were present. Mr. Hoeschen gave a brief overview on what has brought the Karweiks to this point. The two zoning issues that have been resolved by the revised certified survey map are the building of the shed on lot 11, which did not have a primary structure on it, and the encroachment of the shed over out-lot line 11.

 

He stated that the revised certified survey map that is being presented incorporates lots 10 and 11 and out-lots 10 and 11. The outlot line was adjusted to follow the flood plain line which was suggested by SEWRPC.

 

Marcy indicated the original intent of the out-lot line was to follow the environmental corridor. Because that didn’t exactly follow the flood plain line, SEWRPC suggested that the out-lot line simply be adjusted. She stated that the shed no longer encroaches over the out-lot line and that the Karweiks have done all that they’ve been asked to do.

 

John Tierney added that they also incorporated all the restrictions on the revised certified survey map that were listed on the original subdivision plat.

 

Joseph moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to recommend approval of the final certified survey map. Motion carried.

 

Conceptual Development plan for 42 condominium units

Location: 705 S. Front St. Tax No. 176-031911336000; 3.77 acres

Owner: Singleton Properties, LLC

 

Paul Richter provided a revised plan that featured seven three- and four-story buildings with a total of 42 residential units.  Novy put together a list of concerns that the Village has regarding this development to be addressed individually.  The issues were discussed as follows:

 

Allowable Density / Number of Residential Units- Novy stated the number of allowable units established for this site, under PUD zoning is 32 units which was discussed at the January 2, 2008 Plan Commission meeting.  Novy questioned the Commissioners that after looking at the revised plan if there was anything that would change their mind in allowing 42 units as opposed to the 32 units discussed at the previous meeting. Consensus of the Committee was that under the Land Use Plan established for Rochester the maximum density per acre is seven units. In allowing 32 units for this site, they are already exceeding that.

 

Tamblyn moved, 2nd by Joseph that the recommendation of the Plan Commission is a maximum of 32 units for this development. Motion carried.

 

Access- Novy stated according to Jeffrey Katz, Racine County Public Works Engineer, in a conversation she had with him on March 3, 2008, in order to create the safest entrance the primary access should be aligned with Ag School Rd. Racine County will consider a secondary access only if required for emergency vehicles. Use of the secondary access by residents of the development is to be discouraged.  An email from Rochester Fire and Rescue was received indicating a second entrance to the development would be beneficial should there be any kind of an emergency at the development.

 

Singleton stated that they are in the process of going to the Racine County Board to get approval of a different access other than suggested by Jeff Katz. Novy stated that getting the access clarified can be very key in determining the layout of the development.

 

Building Heights – Concern was discussed at the January meeting with the three story high buildings and the local fire equipment’s ability to service a building that tall. The revised plan now shows four story buildings. Rochester does not own a ladder truck and would have to rely on mutual aid agreements with Waterford and Burlington to fight fires at this height, but that will also depend on the availability their equipment.

 

Denman could not confirm if the other jurisdiction’s equipment is adequate to serve buildings over three stories.

 

The maximum height allowed in all residentially zoned districts is 35 feet. John Tierney said that the height of the building is usually measured at the mean of the roof which is the 2/3 point of the roof. That will have to be clarified by the building inspector. 

 

Fire Suppression – A letter was received by the Rochester Fire and Rescue Company identifying three options of obtaining adequate water supply in case of a fire emergency. The options are

a.       Install dry hydrants on the property

b.       Install an asphalt driveway to the Fox River

c.       Install an underground tank of at least thirty thousand gallon capacity

 

Singleton stated that they are going to use a pressurized system for the buildings. Denman stated that they would have to have one of these options defined above in addition to a sprinkler system. These options would be for the Fire Departments use in a fire emergency.

 

Tierney stated that a dry hydrant is basically a pipe to the river and you could have a tank with a dry hydrant that is continuously being replenished by the river. Dry hydrants would probably be the cheapest of the three options.

 

Greg Meinerz stated that with the development having to be reduced to 32 units, alot of the dynamics of the development will change; including fire suppression and building heights.

 

Rescue – Rescue services ask that if elevators are installed in the buildings that they be large enough to accommodate a gurney. Paul Richter stated the elevators planned for the developed will be able to accommodate furniture so they should be adequate to fit a gurney.

 

Floodplain – The high water mark is not indicated on the site plan, this line needs to be shown to allow for proper site plan review. Richter stated that he will indicate that on all future plans.

 

Zoning/Legal – Marcy explained that if they would like to continue restaurant operations while residential construction begins, the Village suggests that the parcel be divided into three lots, the north and south lots be Zoned R-4 and the center lot to remain B-1 Zoning, all with one PUD residential/business overlay district. PUD allows the Village to vary from the rest of the zoning code restrictions.

 

The restaurant can continue to operate under B-1 Zoning. The Village can consider re-zoning the center lot to R-4/PUD overlay at the time the developer is ready to demolish the restaurant.

 

Tambyln asked about adequate parking for the restaurant, residents and construction. Tierney stated there maybe a need for an interim plan for restaurant parking. The developer should submit plans showing how the parking will be reconfigured to allow adequate parking for the continued use of the restaurant.

 

The progression of the development should be explained in phases and an approximate timetable for each phase should be provided. Consensus of the Commission is to have something in the Developer’s Agreement stating a firm date as to the demolition of the restaurant.

 

Novy stated that the next step for the developer is to complete and file a “Rezoning Application” for formal consideration of the proposed development, including general development plans that take into consideration the input gained from the Commission.

 

Plan Commission Workshop offered by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

Date: March 19, 2008 from 6:00p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Location Ives Grove Office Complex

 

Denman reported on the workshop offered by SEWRPC. The workshop is on the same night as the Village Board meeting so Denman, Tamblyn and Stapleton are unable to attend. Kieffer and Joseph have other commitments. Crombie stated that he may attend.

 

Joseph moved, 2nd by Kieffer to adjourn at 8:18 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by,

 

 

 

Sandi Swan

Secretary