PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

February 26, 2007

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. – 7:05 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Committee Chair George Hammes.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.

ZONING PETITION NO. 1737   Scott Schmidt  800 Commerce Street  Unit 7  Holmen WI.  Petition to rezone from Agricultural District “A” to Exclusive Agricultural District, a 14.7 acre parcel on County Road D for one single family residence on land described as:  Part of the NW-SE of Section 34, T 18 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel 10-1363-1 except Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 62, in Volume 13.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor:  Scott Schmidt  800 Commerce St #7  Holmen  WI  54636.  This is a revision of work that we had done last autumn.  Cleaning up some confusion between Township and County.

Opposed – None

Bluske reviews previous petition – May 2006 application.  Town recommended approval for rezone of 3 acres.  Would amend Comprehensive Plan to show that, which has been done.  We thought we had accomplished that by rezoning entire parcel as conditional zoning, so whole parcel could only have one house.  The Town didn’t like that so we are back here.

Department recommendation:  Concur with application.

Motion by Hanson, Rauk and Meyer to approve.   6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Bina).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 739   Thomas M. Brindley  W3114 County Rd T  Mindoro WI.  Petition to operate a custom sawmill site in a proposed 24 ft x 48 ft multipurpose pole building with some outdoor storage of slab wood edging and sawdust including an advertising sign at this address on land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District and described as the NE½-NW-NE and part of the W½-NE of Section 23, T 18 N, R 6 W described in tax parcel number 5-1052-2 in 2006.  Town of Farmington.

Appearing in favor:  Thomas Brindley  W3114 County Rd T  Mindoro WI  54644.  Plan to operate a part-time portable saw mill on my property.  Part-time business to supplement my income when I retire in a couple months.  Just a part-time endeavor to keep me busy. 

Question BLUSKE:  When out with the Committee last week I noticed a couple of drainage patterns through this parcel, seems like they both cross this parcel, one is shown on the map here (indicates on overhead) and another that crosses above this.  Can you explain to the Committee why you like that spot (for sawmill location)?  With water running through there?

Answer BRINDLEY:  Actually water will run around it.  If you could see those tracks in the snow, kinda outlined that area, when you were out there, water from the north, natural waterway across the driveway will circumvent that area which will be filled at driveway level about 3-ft higher than existing there now.  That’s the way the water currently runs. 

Question RAUK:  Sounds like what you describe is water would come to north side of the building and curve around it, that sounds an awful lot like the same place where your circular drive goes around that now?  Sort of that same place?

Answer BRINDLEY:  No, it would not change the pattern or flow of the water at all.  This would be inside of where the water flows already.

Question HAMMES:  Did you say you were going to add fill?

Answer BRINDLEY:  Yes.

Question HAMMES:  Does he need any special permits for that?

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes, he’ll need an erosion control permit.

Question HAMMES:  Is that within 300 feet of active stream?

Answer BLUSKE:  No.

Opposed:  None.

Correspondence:  Town of Farmington letter dated February 8, 2007, received February 12, 2007.  Town Board has approved conditional use request.

Department recommendation:   Approve with 9 conditions:
           

1. The permit is granted for one portable sawmill that may be taken off site for location sawing. 
2. This permit allows the use of a proposed 24 ft x 48 ft detached pole building to be used in conjunction with the on site mill.  A zoning/occupancy permit is required for this building because of its commercial nature.
3. Since the proposed site of this building lies partially in 2 drainage patterns an alternate site should be looked at with an approved erosion control plan from the La Crosse County Department of Land Conservation.  An approved erosion control plan is required if the current site is kept as well.
4. The CUP site shall encompass an area 100 feet surrounding the proposed pole building and shall include the storage for logs, trimmings and saw dust.
5. The existing sign near County Road T can be modified to advertise the business.  A zoning/occupancy permit is required for the sign.
6. Personal property related to this business shall be reported to the local assessor each year during

the preparation of the current assessment roll.

7. Equipment allowed as part of this business is the portable sawmill and related attachments, loader,

edger and tractor.

8. Two employees including the owner are allowed.
9. This permit is non-transferable.

Motion by Kapanke/Keil to approve with conditions as recommended.  6 - aye, 0 - no,

1 - excused (Bina).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 741   Kevin W. Naas and Modern Homes Inc. and William and Ardis Naas  3031 Pierce Ave  La Crosse WI.  Petition to operate a contractors storage yard including a proposed detached storage building with storage of 2 dump trucks, end loader, fork lift, enclosed trailer, 2 fifth wheel trailers, bulldozer and other related contractors equipment, on 4.87 acres of land zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  Part of SE-NE of Section 12, T 16 N, R 8 W described in tax parcel number 4-1511-13 for 2006.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in favor:  Kevin Naas  W8236 Tower Street  Onalaska WI  54650.  My intent was originally to have a place to store my equipment from my construction company.  After meeting with the Town of Campbell I am retracting the conditional use application on this property.

Discussion by Naas and Committee regarding use of a proposed building for storage of non-commercial items in a 30-ft x 50-ft building.

Question HAMMES:  You are asking to withdraw this conditional use application on this property?

Answer NAAS:  Yes, to withdraw the conditional use permit request for contractor’s storage.

Question HAMMES:  Petition 741?

Answer NAAS:  Correct.

Motion by Hanson/Meyer to approve request to withdraw conditional use application 741.  6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Bina).

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 742   Kevin W. Naas and Laurie A. Schroeder  W8236 Tower St  Onalaska WI  d/b/a Modern Homes Incorporated  647 Commerce St  Holmen WI.  Petition to operate a contractors shop out of an existing detached accessory building for small tool storage and minor maintenance on equipment, on 0.51 acres of land zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  Lot 6 in Block 5 of Homestead Addition East.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in favor:  Kevin Naas  W8236 Tower Street  Onalaska WI  54650.  Intentions here are to be able to put some small hand tools in my shop there, be able to make some cabinets, that kind of thing, do some vehicle maintenance, tractor maintenance, need to have one 16-ft construction trailer and a small 1-ton truck with plow on it.  Did talk to the Town of Onalaska and the Planning Committee, they did approve it but the board meeting is tonight. 

Question MEYER:  How many vehicles and things like that are you going to have there?

Answer NAAS:  Well, my personal truck and my work truck and then a trailer.  My wife’s vehicles fit in her garage on the house.  So I would have a total of two vehicles there of my own; one personal vehicle and one company truck that would both go in that driveway of that building. 

Question MEYER:  Then you are going to build cabinets and such in the building?

Answer NAAS:  Yes.

Question MEYER:  Power tools and noise, what kind of tools?

Answer NAAS:  Hand tools also, skill saws, table saws – that type of thing, with the Planning Committee agreed that 6:00 a.m. would be earliest start time, 8:30 would be my latest time all through the week except nothing on Sunday.   

Question MEYERS:  Talked to neighbors about it?

Answer NAAS:  You bet, they would be here if this was like the Town of Campbell. 

Question RAUK:  The vehicles mostly are going to be in the driveway in front of the shop on the left?

Answer NAAS:  Correct.

Question RAUK:  And the trailer?

Answer NAAS:  That will fit in the driveway and still give me room to get into the big door with one vehicle, so at most, one vehicle and the trailer in the driveway.

Question RAUK:  And inside you will do your layout with hand tools, cabinet making, everything so in fact you can put a truck inside?

Answer NAAS:  Can get one truck, plus all the tools I want inside there, yes.

Question RAUK:  All vehicle maintenance will be done inside and not in the driveway?

Answer NAAS:  Correct, will have a dumpster here, spoke with the Town of Onalaska about that, will put up a small fence for that.  It’s a small 2-yard dumpster.

Vicki Burke  W8349 Northshore Drive, Town of Onalaska.  I did have an opportunity to speak to at least one of the neighbors there.  He did indicate that he had talked to him about it and he was agreeable.

Opposed:  None

Correspondence:  None

Bluske notes that a variance had been granted in October of 1998 for the 30-ft x 44-ft with

12-ft sidewalls.

Department recommendation:  Denial.  Strictly residential nature of the surrounding area and for safety reasons – residential streets and location of a town park across the street.  Mr. Naas can use 25 percent of floor area in home for use as professional office and any tools normally found under residential use.

Motion by Meyer/Rauk to deny.

Question RAUK:  Jeff, could you help me understand; you just enumerated some of the things he can do there without asking us and yet he’s asking for more authority.  Define for me the differences in what we will not let him do?

Answer BLUSKE:  He’s asked to store a 1-ton truck trailer and 1-ton truck with a plow.  The

1-ton truck I don’t know what that would end up looking like, but normally pick-up trucks, vans you would normally see in a residential area.  Things that would be associated with a business truck with their name on it, like a pick-up or panel truck, people will have those for personal vehicles, those would end up being allowed.  But the maintenance of bringing contractors equipment home, parking them outside, parking them on the street, doing maintenance on them is not something you normally see in a residential area and that’s why he’s applying for that.  When we take a look at these situations too, there’s 3 homes across the street, they could end up seeing those things parked out there.  When we were out there, neat and clean, but if an employee would bring something home, just can’t get at it, it’s going to sit there all weekend, something like that, I don’t know if that’s something that should be in a residential area. 

Question RAUK:  So the vehicles could be there, it’s the maintenance of those vehicles?

Answer BLUSKE:  Not the tractor, not the trailer.

Question RAUK:  Not the truck with the plow?

Answer BLUSKE:  We would need to see the size of that, if it’s got a big box on it, one ton is a pretty big truck.

Question NAAS:  Were you out there Thursday?

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Remarks NAAS:  It was out there and you never noticed it.

Question BLUSKE:  Is it pick-up size, we did see a truck alongside the building.

Answer NAAS:  That was it.

Remarks BLUSKE:  That would be okay.

Question NAAS:  Construction trailer?

Answer BLUSKE:  That can’t be there.

Question KAPANKE:  Could you be more descriptive of machinery that will be worked on?

Answer NAAS:  Would like to bring my tractor home from time to time, put it in the garage, change oil.

Question MEYER:  When you say tractor?

Answer NAAS:  Small loader tractor.

Vote on motion:  4 – no (Keil, Kapanke, Hanson, Hammes), 2 – aye.

Motion by Kapanke/Hanson to approve with town conditions as requested.  2 – no (Meyer, Rauk),  4 – aye.

AFTER-THE FACT SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2007-02   Keith Herlitzke, agent for The Potato King Incorporated  N1078 Justin Rd  La Crosse WI.  Petition to perform grading, stock piling, construction of a retention pond with an outfall for the construction of a parking lot and future building site on lands that lie within the Shoreland District of Mormon Creek on lands zoned Agricultural District “A” with a Conditional Use Permit, said project covers 3.4 acres on land described as:  Part of the N½-SE of Section 23, T 15 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel number 11-1789-0 for 2006.  Town of Shelby.

Appearing in favor:  Keith Herlitzke  N1078 Justin Road  La Crosse WI  54601.  The property we are working on there we want to extend parking and a future building for our garage.  Do have a conditional use permit to expand our business to that area, was in effect June of 1986.  Also have permits done with Erosion Control and DNR Storm Water Runoff Plan.  Also will be a water retention pond put in in the spring to catch runoff water. 

Question BLUSKE:  Who is doing the construction work up there now for you?

Answer HERLITZKE:  Who had done it?  Kammel Custom Excavating, Paul Kammel.

Question BLUSKE:  Did they ask you if you needed any permits before they got started on that?

Answer HERLITZKE:  We didn’t know we needed the permit for being too close to the waterway.  Mike Weibel brought it to my attention, he had given my dad a permit, way back, for the rest.  I took over after my father so it was something I had never heard of before.

Question BLUSKE:  How much work left to be done yet up there, estimate of time, what kind of work has to be done yet?

Answer HERLITZKE:  Right now only plans are to in spring put the retention pond in, and the area that’s left there, one area that isn’t parking yet, that area is seeded but we are going to take the fill from building the retention pond, distribute it on that area and then re-seed it.  Mike Weibel is the one who suggested the future building area, he said if you’re going here for the parking area you should do it all at once so you don’t have to come back in and do it twice.  No plans currently for a building there. 

Question BLUSKE:  Where the retention pond appears to be going, next to the long concrete strip, looks like trucks were parking the landing gear on that, right next to that it looked like part of the retention pond was already done but had some look like demolition material in there, bricks, rubble, concrete curbing, is all that coming out of there?  Where did that come from?

Answer HERLITZKE:  Correct, that came from the Cargill grain elevators, we used that for the base for the parking lot, all that brick instead of hauling in breaker rock.

Question BLUSKE:  You’re not going to spread that stuff around on the site?

Answer HERLITZKE:  No.

Question BLUSKE:  We also noticed you were washing trucks up there, have you got a permit for that?

Answer HERLITZKE:  Yes, but we’re trying to find that right now.  Do you know who’s responsible, 2 years ago, I don’t know who it was, stopped and said you need a truck wash permit.  I said, well no I didn’t, he said, don’t worry about it, I’ll take care of it and put it on file.

Question BLUSKE:  Who is that?

Answer HERLITZKE:  I have no idea.  I’m working with Kurt Rasmussen at DNR, he is tracking it down.

Remarks BLUSKE:  There is an industrial discharge permit when it’s close to the water like that.

Answer HERLITZKE:  Right.

Remarks BLUSKE:  Gray water is supposed to go in a holding and then be pumped out. 

Remarks HERLITZKE:  What they told them, what Kurt looked at, we use biodegradable soap, as long as we wash on a gravel area, and the water runs through vegetation before it can get to an outlet then it’s okay.

Opposed:   

Dave Hoffman  N3267 Mohawk Valley Road  Stoddard  WI.  I own the property on east boundary of the Herlitzke property.  Not so sure if I should be speaking for or against but I chose to stand up against.  Just want to make sure the Committee takes a look at this site with a good eye because there’s a lot that’s been happening to this site in the last 40 years.  Have owned the property for 39 years, when Paul and Joyce had the property they started out with a very small business.   Don’t think they realized how big this business was going to get.  Don’t think the Town of Shelby did, don’t think anyone in La Crosse County knew how big this business was going to get.  I think everybody is surprised at how big it is.  I understand that the business is operating under a conditional permit, but it is still zoned Agricultural “A.”  Not sure of that, Committee should be looking into this.  Now there is nothing going on with production agriculture on that property at all.  This is basically a buying, marketing, selling operation going on.  I’m just telling you what this business is.  You guys should be thinking about how this should be handled.  Maybe it’s okay, I don’t know.  I’m thinking maybe this should be a commercial zoning, and follow the necessary rules for commercial.  Mr. Bluske mentioned that they do wash trucks, I believe they also repair trucks, when I drive by occasionally I see the hoods up on these trucks, I see the trailers jacked up with the tires off, that almost borders on industrial.  Hardly Agricultural “A” zoning operations.  This business has expanded quite a bit in the last 40 years, not sure what’s going to happen in the next 40 or next 10 years.  All I know is when I go on my fields and many fields in this area, I bale a lot of hay in a lot of fields in Mormon Coulee, when you looked down on that property it really looked nice 40 years ago but it’s a hell of sore site right now and at night when the lights are on it’s even worse yet.  I’m not so sure we can do anything about it at this point.  I just want you to know what’s going on out there, I think a lot of you probably don’t realize how big a business this is and whether it should be policed under Agricultural “A” zoning or under Commercial zoning or Industrial zoning.  I just wanted to bring those points up to the Committee to consider.

Remarks MEYER:  It’s Agricultural “A” right now.

Correspondence: 

1.      E-mail received from Mary Jo Webster - Department of Land Conservation, waiting for revised plan.  Kurt Rasmussen – DNR, also waiting for revised plan. 

2.      Letter received from Land Conservation Department dated February 26, 2007 regarding December 12, 2006 notice of non-compliance on the Potato King site and actions required.

Remarks HERLITZKE:  We did the work personally, silt fence installed, erosion control matting has been, all areas have been seeded and mulched.  It was news to me that there are changes needed in the plan.  Chris Feckner did the survey and design for the pond.  He actually submitted that right to Mary Jo and Kurt Rasmussen and I’ve never heard back from either one of them that there was anything wrong in the plan design. 

Remarks BLUSKE:  Sounds like they are asking for revisions and this fore bay he’s talking about, that’s like a pre-pond pond, catches majority of the silt before it goes into the retention pond, that’s something Mary Jo does want to see so that would require a revision to the plans they already have.

Remarks HERLITZKE:  I think Mary Jo is in communication with Chris Feckner and Coulee Region Land Surveyors directly.

Question BLUSKE:  Keith, do you think that having everything done by the end of June, is that doable?

Answer HERLITZKE:  All we have to do, the pond is about half made already, just a matter of moving that demolition fill, few loads of that and constructing the pond, I think it’s about a 2 or 3 day construction project to get the pond installed.

Question BLUSKE:  How about the berm around the top? 

Answer HERLITZKE:  Was there a berm or just a slope?  (Herlitzke reviews drainage plan with Committee.)

Bluske reviews existing conditional use permit with Committee.  Does not allow for truck repair.

Department recommendation:  Approve with 8 conditions:

1.      This permit is granted for the after-the-fact filling and grading within the 4.8 acres described in the project plan submitted January 21, 2007 by Coulee Region Land Surveyors.

2.      An approved Erosion Control Permit is required from our Department of Land Conservation.

3.      There will be absolutely no filling or grading in the floodplain or on slopes over 30 percent.

4.      Only clean fill is allowed – no demolition, lumber, tin or steel.  If these items are found they will be removed to an upland site.

5.      The mound of fill is in the middle of Area 1 and Area 2 can’t be removed unless permitted by a Conditional Use Permit and another Special Exception Permit. 

6.      All permits required by the State of Wisconsin including but not limited to:  storm water discharge, industrial discharge for washing vehicles, Chapter 30 required notices of intent and required plan revisions are part of this permit and subject to compliance.

7.      Any employee of this department or that from the Department of Land Conservation shall be allowed access to this project site for checking permit compliance.

8.      This permit expires the end of July, 2008.

Motion Meyer/Hanson to approve special exception permit with conditions as recommended.

6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Bina).

SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2007-03   Thomas J. and Rita A. Sanger  4103 Riverview Drive  La Crosse WI.  Petition to repair a stream bank from erosion, re-align a dry drainage channel, build a field road including a ford within the Shoreland District of an unnamed stream on 38.91 acres of land zoned Exclusive Agricultural District described as:  That part of the NE-NE of Section 28 and that part of the SE-SE of Section 21 all in T 15 N, R 6 W described in tax parcel number 6-654-1 for 2006.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in favor:  Rita Sanger  4103 Riverview Drive  La Crosse WI  54601.  As indicated by the information we will be constructing a stream ford, hope to be building a home there this summer, some stream bank restoration we would like to perform at the same time.  We have met with Mr. Pericak at the DNR, do have the DNR approval so far and a permit in hand from them.  A Chapter 30 Permit I believe it’s called.  Just need to know if we can go ahead with the County. 

Question BLUSKE:  Are you real familiar with the site?

Answer SANGER:   That’s why I have Fred (Hilby) here.

Fred Hilby, La Crosse Engineering and Surveying, took the photos for the Sangers.  Bluske and Hilby review series of photos of the project area with the Committee.  Hilby indicates on the project map where each photo was taken. 

Question BLUSKE:  The 3 lath out in the corn field, is that the drain field?

Answer SANGER:  Yes, house will go right in here (indicates on photo on overhead).

Question RAUK:  House will have a basement.

Answer SANGER:  Walk-out basement, floor at about the level of the cornfield.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence: 

1.      Bluske reviews DNR permit dated December 26, 2006, GPWC 2006-0704/0705LB.

2.      E-mail received from Carrie Olson – DNR.  Department has issued a permit for both grading and fording unnamed stream in La Crosse County.

Bluske reviews current soils map with Committee.

Department recommendation:  Approve with 7 conditions:

1.      This permit is granted specifically to repair a stream bank from erosion, re-align a dry drainage channel, build a field road and ford and grade a future single family building site.

2.      An approved erosion control permit is required from our Department of Land Conservation before any construction is started.

3.      All conditions and requirements of the Department of Natural Resources General Permit No. GP-WC-2006-0704-0705 LB are part of this permit.

4.      All excavated materials such as brush, trees and root balls must be removed to an upland site.

5.      Only clean fill is allowed.

6.      Any employee of this Department or that of Land Conservation should be allowed access to this project site for checking permit compliance.

7.      This permit expire the end of September, 2007.

Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve with conditions as recommended.

6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Bina).

Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn. 

6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Bina).

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.

Mike Weibel, Recorder