November 1, 2010
PLAN COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
Mike Weinkauf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Paul Beere, Maureen
Eckert, Chris Johnson, James Joseph, Tom Rowntree and Mark Tamblyn present.
Jonathan Schattner, Zoning Administrator, and Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, were
also present.
Joseph moved, 2nd by Johnson to approve the October 4, 2010 minutes as printed.
Motion carried.
Public Hearings: There were none.
Action Items:
Application for Final Plat Approval: Stoneridge North Subdivision
Location: Ridge Lane
Owner: Edward Stone
Parcels #176031905008060; 176031905008050; 176031905008040;
176031905008030; 176031905008020; 176031905008010
Schattner reported zoning review comments and recommendations as follows:
1) The previously dedicated
future road, located between Lot 6 and Lot 7 has been named “Stone Valley
Trail”.
2) The centerline of Maple Road,
which is actually the east line of the Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 19
East, has been labeled accordingly.
3) The name of the School
District is now mentioned on the face of the final plat. The Waterford
School District has reviewed and approved the final plat for this development.
4) The property owner has
provided the Village of Rochester with a revised copy of the restrictive
covenants for this proposed development for review and approval. I would
recommend that these restrictive covenants be reviewed by an independent legal
firm to provide a written recommendation to the Village of Rochester
Planning Commission and the Rochester Village Board for final approval, prior to
signing the final plat for Stoneridge North.
5) The proposed development
yield has been placed on the face of the final plat and based on the
calculations, it meets the three (3) acre density requirement allowed in a
“rural density residential and agricultural lands” as defined on the Land Use
Plan for the Village of Rochester 2035.
6) An isolated natural resource
area exists on portions of Lot 8 & 9. A note has been placed on the face
of the plat to minimize the number of trees to be cut down for the future
construction of the residential home, on-site sanitary system and proposed
driveway on these lots. I would recommend that an additional comment be
placed on the face of the final plat indicating that the removal of trees on
these lots shall not exceed more than fifty (50) feet outside the perimeter of
the future residence, driveway, and on-site sanitary system to the
dripline of the trees. This condition should be included in the
restrictive covenants for this development.
7) The Racine County Code
Administration Office has reviewed the final subdivision plat and soil
evaluation report and recommended final plat approval of Stoneridge North
Subdivision, subject to complying with five (5) conditions outlined in their
letter dated October 21, 2010. These items are required to be placed on
the face of the plat, prior to recording the plat with the Racine County
Register of Deeds.
8) The Village of Rochester
Engineer has reviewed the subject final plat and has indicated no objection to
the land division as it has been presented. The Village Engineer also
stated that if the developer intends to remove the twenty (20) foot bridal path
easement, the Village may need a legal opinion as to whether Stat 236.42(2)(a)
or 236.42(2)(b) apply to the previous easement.
9) The State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration has reviewed the final plat of the Stoneridge North
Subdivision and has notified Gary B. Foat, Surveyor, that there are
four(4) items that need to be addressed on the final plat before the Department
grants final approval. I recommend that the Village Planning Commission
grant conditional approval to the final plat subject to receiving final approval
from the Department of Administration.
Schattner recommended that the final plat of Stoneridge North Subdivision be
conditionally approved subject to the comments mentioned above.
Edward Stone, owner, and Gary Foat, surveyor, addressed the Commission.
Foat reported he had already incorporated most changes requested by Racine
County and the State Department of Administration on the plat. It was
noted that the bridal path easement is being removed from both Stoneridge North
and the original Stoneridge Subdivision. Foat will be filing an affidavit
of correction to remove the path from the original plat of Stoneridge before
filing the final plat for Stoneridge North.
Stone reported on proposed changes to the restrictive covenants.
Changes to the restrictive covenants will be applicable to both Stoneridge and
Stoneridge North subdivisions. The version submitted to the Plan
Commission and zoning administrator in advance of the meeting was not the
version Stone had with him. Novy reported she had received the
revised covenants too late for review or presentation to the Commission.
Stone explained some errors had been made in the version the Plan Commission
received. Stone previously instructed his attorney to remove any
references to a subdivision association from the covenants. His attorney
was not available when the covenants were originally submitted and the revisions
had been completed by an associate. Upon return and review by Stone’s
attorney, more revisions were needed to accomplish this direction.
Stone stated his reason for removing the subdivision association from the
covenants was that the only commonly owned area in both subdivisions was the
bridal path. This is being removed from the plats. The only
other responsibility given to the association was maintenance of drainage areas
or storm-water detention ponds. However, this is specifically referenced
in covenants as a responsibility of the owners of the lots that contain these
facilities. The covenants give the Village the right to inspect
drainage facilities periodically and have them mowed in the instance that they
are not being maintained. If this occurs, the Village can charge the owner
115% of the costs incurred for that purpose.
Foat reported all drainage easement areas have been corrected delineated on the
face of Stoneridge North. On the original subdivision plat, swales leading
to the detention pond on Lot 6 were not included.
There was discussion regarding the lack of a subdivision association and how
this would affect implementation of covenants that regulate minimum home sizes,
exterior façade requirements, keeping of animals, driveway regulations, etc.
Stone reported the covenants create an architectural control committee which
will be active during initial build-up of the subdivision. After which,
the covenants can be enforced by legal action of any one property owner.
Beere moved, 2nd by Eckert to recommend approval of the Final Plat for
Stoneridge North Subdivision subject to the recommendations of the zoning
administrator and legal review of the revised covenants and restrictions noting
that the Plan Commission has no objection to removal of a subdivision
association from the convenants, but would like tighter language restricting the
placement of any fill, structures or plantings within drainage easement areas.
Motion carried.
Request for extension of site plan approval to construct a pond on a lot
located north of Washington Avenue and east of Upland Drive
Owner/ Applicant: Nick Ahlers
Parcel Id# 176031905002001
Schattner recommended approval of the extension subject to the following
conditions:
1) The pond project shall be completed by June 21,
2011.
2) All disturbed areas and stockpiles of excavated
material shall be temporarily seeded in rye grass by November 15, 2010.
Permanently seeding or sodding shall be completed by June 21, 2011.
3) Complying with the original conditions approved
by the Rochester Village Board, on May 10, 2010. (See attached copy)
Beere moved, 2nd by Joseph to extend site plan approval for the Ahlers pond
through June 21, 2011, subject to the zoning administrator’s recommendation.
Motion carried.
Site Lighting Plan Approval: Trail of Pines Condominiums
Location: Trail of Pines Lane
Co-Owner: Roger Kieffer, Trail of Pines LLC
Parcels 176031911453111; 17603191145312; 17603191145313; 17603191145314;
17603191145315; 17603191145316; 17603191145317; 17603191145318
Schattner reported zoning review comments and recommendations as follows:
1) The proposed site lighting plan illustrates
that their will be four (4) lamp posts placed on the east side of Buildings
A-D. These lampposts will be centered on each building and will maintain a
thirteen (13) foot setback off the edge of the private road.
2) Under Section 2.05a(3) Occupancy Permit
Required, found in Chapter 15 (Planning & Zoning) of the Village of Rochester
Municipal Code it states:
a) All the following restrictions must be complied
to before an occupancy permit is issued:
(3) Where street lights are not available, owners must install a decorated
photo cell operated light, either next to the curb and gutter or not more than
twenty (20) feet nor ten (10) from a lot line. ( Must be one-hundred (100)
minimum to one-hundred fifty (150) maximum wattage, incandescent light or
equivalent .)
3) Under Section 14.04 Glare and Heat, found in
Chapter 15 (Planning & Zoning) of the Villlage of Rochester Municipal Code it
states,
No activity shall omit glare or heat that is visible or measureable outside the
premises, except activities in the industrial district which may emit sky
reflected glare which is not visible at ground level outside the premises.
4) The property owner did not submit a detail plan
illustrating the style of the lamp post and the type of illumination that will
be installed in each lamp post. It is my recommendation that the property
owner submit a detail plan of the style of the lamp post along with an
illumination plan that would be in harmony with the style of lamp posts that
front along Mink Ranch Road and obtain review and approval from the Village of
Rochester Planning Commission prior to installation.
Roger Kieffer addressed the Commission. Kieffer presented a specification
sheet for the lamp posts proposed for installation within the development.
Schattner noted the fixtures meet the minimum requirements of the zoning code.
There was some discussion on who ensures continuing operation.
Kieffer indicated it will be the responsibility of the condominium association.
Tamblyn moved 2nd by Joseph to approve the site lighting plan as presented.
Motion carried.
Review and Recommendation on Resolution No. 2010-8 “A
Resolution to Vacate a Portion of S. State Street as platted on the Original
Plan of Rochester but never constructed, lying westerly of Blocks 23 and 25 in
the Village of Rochester, with reversion of title to such land to the abutting
property owners, and to amend the official map of the Village of Rochester to
show the same”
Novy reported the purpose of the proposed street vacation is to correct a street
platting error dating back to 1845. The error is affecting legal
descriptions of several properties abutting S. State Street and recently
prevented the issuance of a zoning permit. The Village Attorney has
recommended the street vacation to correct the problem. Joseph moved, 2nd
by Eckert to recommend adoption of Resolution No. 2010-8. Motion carried.
Review and Recommendation on SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 0Ordinance No. 2010-5 “An
Ordinance Providing for the Amendment of Chapter XXVII, Land Division Control,
of the (former) Town of Rochester Code of Ordinances, and Chapter 16, Land
Division, of the Village of Rochester Municipal Code, to conform to recently
enacted State Statutes, which will apply to the entire Corporate Limits of the
Consolidated Village of Rochester”
Novy reported this ordinance amendment is necessary to comply with recent
statutory changes affecting approval and submission deadlines for subdivision
plats. State statutes were written in such a way that local land
division ordinances must be consistent with these changes by December 31, 2010
or they will no longer be enforceable.
Joseph moved, 2nd by Beere to recommend adoption of Ordinance No. 2010-5.
Motion carried.
Johnson moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to adjourn at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC, CMTWClerk-Treasurer