October 4, 2010
PLAN COMMISSION
7:00 p.m.
Mike Weinkauf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Paul Beere, Chris
Johnson, James Joseph, Tom Rowntree and Mark Tamblyn present. Maureen
Eckert was absent.
Jonathan Schattner, Zoning Administrator, and Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer were
also present.
Johnson moved, 2nd by Joseph to approve the September 13, 2010 minutes as
printed. Motion carried.
Pubic Hearings: There were none.
Action Items:
Pre-Application Plan Review of Certified Survey Map to create four lots out of
one
Address: 716 N. Maple Lane
Applicant: La Von North
Tax Id#176031916011000 (32 acres)
Schattner presented zoning review comments as follows:
Mr. Richard North has submitted a pre-application plan for a land division to
divide the above referenced property, consisting of 31.39 acres, into four (4)
lots, located on the west side of North Maple Lane, approximately 975 feet south
of Academy Road (C.T.H. FF) in Section 16, Township 3 North, Range 19 East,
Village of Rochester, Racine County, Wisconsin. The submitted plan
illustrates that the proposed lots will be created as follows:
a. Lot 1 of the proposed land division
consists of 13.33 acres, exclusive of road-right-way and the original farmhouse
and existing accessory structures will remain on this lot.
b. Lot 2 consists of 3.69 acres of land exclusive
of road right-of-way and an existing pole shed will remain on this lot.
c. Lot 3 will consist of 6.31 acres of land,
exclusive of road right-of-way and there are no buildings present on this lot.
d. Lot 4 consists of 8.06 acres of land exclusive
of road right-of way and there are no buildings located on this lot.
Please note that the owner has indicated that 1.41 acres of this lot may be
added in the future to the lot owned by Richard & Jean North located at 516 N.
Maple Lane.
1. This property is zoned A-2, General Farming &
Residential District II. Under the A-2 zoning requirements each lot must
have a minimum of 150’ of lot width and the building setback line (75’ from the
road right-of-way line) and 40,000 square feet of land area, exclusive of road
right of way.
2. There are no floodplains, wetlands, or primary
environmental corridors located on the subject property.
3. The submitted plan does not indicate the height
of the shed located along the south line of Lot 1 and the shed located on Lot 2.
This information must be provided to establish if the two sheds have
code-complying side yard setbacks from the south line of Lot 1 and north line of
Lot 2.
4. The plan illustrates that there is an existing
on-site sanitary system located on Lot 1 to serve the existing dwelling.
In addition, the plan illustrates that soil borings have been made by a
certified soil tester to determine if a code complying on-site sanitary system
can be placed on Lots 2-4 for future home sites: I recommend that the
property owner contact the Racine County Code Administration office to determine
if copies of the soil test have been submitted to Racine County for these lots
and if a code complying sanitary system can be installed on each of these lots.
5. The “Land Use Plan for the Village of Rochester
2035” identifies this development as “Rural Density Residential and Agricultural
Land” (3.0 to 30.0 acres per dwelling unit). The plan illustrates the
property owner owns a total of 31.39 acres of land on the west side of N Maple
Lane. The proposed plan clearly indicates that property owner will comply
with the 3.0 acre density.
6. The submitted plan indicates that an existing
pole shed will remain on Lot 2. Under Section 20-1008 (a) “Accessory Uses
and Structures” found in Chapter 20 of the Rochester Zoning Ordinance it states,
“Accessory uses and structures are permitted in any district, but not until
their principal structure is present or under construction.” (This requirement
applies to those lots that are less than 10 acres in size). The property
owner has the following options to comply with this requirement:
A. Removing the pole shed from the property and comply
with the requirements outlined in Section 20-1008 (a): or,
B. Obtaining variance approval from the Village of
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the pole shed to remain on the lot
without the presence of principal structure.
If the property owner chooses to go with Option B and keep the pole shed on the
lot, he will be required to obtain variance approval from the Village of
Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to obtaining conceptual plan approval
of the Certified Survey Map from the Village of Rochester Planning Commission
and the Rochester Village Board.
7. This property has frontage along N. Maple Lane.
This road is defined as a “rustic road” and comes under the jurisdiction of
Racine County. I would recommend that the property owner contact Jeff Katz
or Andy Oakes at the Racine County Public Works Department to determine if the
locations of the driveways that serve these lots comply with the access
requirements regulated by Racine County.
The most prominent concern identified by Plan Commissioners was that Lot 2 would
require a variance to allow the pole barn to exist on the lot without the
presence of a primary structure. Schattner explained if the parcel was
greater than 10 acres in size, this would not be an issue. However, parcel
size alone does not solve the variance requirement because the shed must also be
100 feet from any lot line in order to meet zoning code requirements. The
distance of the barn from the proposed lot line is only 53 feet.
Richard, Kathy, and Nancy North addressed the Commission. It was explained
that Lot 1 will likely be sold in the near future. The Norths’ wish to
keep the pole barn in their possession so they may continue to farm Lots 2 – 4
for an indefinite period of time. The size of the pole barn was identified as
60’ x 80’, or the equivalent of 4,800 square feet. Schattner noted there
is a limit of 3% of a lot’s land area that applies to the size of accessory
structures. Should the Norths’ decide to proceed with the variance
process, this will also have to be analyzed in relation to the overall size of
Lot 2.
Plan Commissioners discussed possible ways to address the existence of the pole
barn on Lot 2 that would not require a variance. However, the only identified
option was to begin construction of a primary structure (home) on Lot 2 within
six months of approving the land division. The Norths’ indicated this is
inconsistent with their plans for the property.
It was noted that the grant of a variance requires proof of hardship. Plan
Commissioners indicated it would be difficult to prove hardship in relation to
the ability to create a new lot. It was suggested that the Norths’
adjust the proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 to keep the pole barn on
Lot 1. Moving the area designated for a future lot line adjustment to the
south will offer the flexibility needed to accomplish moving the line between
Lot 1 and 2.
The Norths’ indicated intent to re-think how they would like to divide the land.
Ordinance #2010-4 Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 4-2004 to Allow Parking on
Certain Sections of the Private Roadways in “The Settlement of Rochester”
Condominium Development
Novy reported this ordinance is under consideration to further the request of
“The Settlement” condominium owners to allow parking on one side of the street
on some sections of their private roads. The original request was
reviewed and approved at the June 7th Plan Commission meeting. The
ordinance is needed to amend parking restrictions that were included as part of
the original planned unit overlay zoning ordinance. The Village
Board will hold a public hearing on the ordinance at their meeting, but require
a recommendation from the Plan Commission before they can take final action.
There was question on whether overnight parking would be allowed.
Novy is to check if this is addressed in the amendment.
Johnson moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to recommend approval of Ordinance #2010-4
subject to the location of the designated parking areas being consistent with
what the condominium association had originally submitted in June and
clarification of no overnight parking provisions. Motion carried.
Beere moved, 2nd by Joseph to adjourn at 7:46 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC, CMTW
Clerk-Treasurer