PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
April 30, 2007
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 7:05 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Terry Hanson, Tom Rauk, Brian Kapanke, Don Meyer, Robert Keil, Don Bina |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
George Hammes |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jeff Bluske, Chad Vandenlangenberg, Mike Weibel, Bill Jung |
The recessed meeting and Public Hearing of the Planning, Resources and Development Committee was called to order by Committee Vice-Chair Terry Hanson. Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1738: Joshua T. Kipp N1694 Servais Road La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to rezone from Exclusive Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A” a 19.01 acre parcel to create a 1.02 acre parcel with an existing residence and a 17.99 acre parcel for an additional residence. The property is described as: Part of the W½ of the NW¼ in Section 15, T 15 N, R 6 W and part of the NE ¼ of the NE ¼ and SE-NE of Section 16, T 15 N, R 6 W, described in tax parcel 6-396-2 and 6-419-4. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in favor: Joshua T. Kipp N1694 Servais Road La Crosse WI 54601. Goal is to separate wooded area along County Road YY from the portion on the top for sale and then build on that portion towards Servais Road up in that corner. I have a buyer for the part with the buildings and the slope that comes down to the woods.
Bluske clarifies lot line locations for two lots to be created on map on overhead.
Kipp states plans have changed a little bit, Servais’s would work with him a little bit to build on a site towards the top of the wooded parcel (indicates on overhead map), would have better access to power line.
Opposed: Joe Sullivan, representing Eleanor Sullivan (A&E Sullivan Trust), an affected property owner. Not opposed to rezone for specific purpose Josh has stated. Very concerned if parcel to be rezoned to Ag “A” with no conditions which would allow multiple lots with 20,000 square foot lot areas. Mr. Sullivan reviews topography of parcel “B” and surrounding lands; concerned about impacts of development of drainage patterns that currently exist. Mr. Sullivan questions the feasibility of development of the lands based on slope restrictions. Mr. Sullivan reviews the criteria for rezoning Exclusive Ag lands, suggests conditional zoning for one residence on the proposed Parcel “B.” Mr. Sullivan questions if the ravine may be navigable.
Question
RAUK: Just to understand your position, you started out by saying if he does
what he has proposed from the podium to do, you’re alright with that. If he’s
on that upper end, one crossing and one residence in that parcel?
Answer SULLIVAN: Well, I guess what I’m saying is I think that it’s possible
that could be done without violating your own standards for rezoning, but I
think, frankly, he’d have to tell you more than you know right now, about how he
would propose to do it. I really think you ought to be getting from him a
specific development plan that shows what he intends to build, how he intends to
build it. It should be shown that it can be done and meet the building permit
standards for the Township of Greenfield. Then if he can show you all that and
you really have a chance to review all that and not just taking something on
faith here, then I think we could probably get comfortable with that. But
that’s as far as we could go and I don’t think we know enough right now to sign
off on that. That’s why we’re so concerned right now. If there is a
possibility for one place up in that corner that might not be too bad, but
anything beyond that is pushing it.
Kevin Lueck W3718 County Road YY La Crosse WI 54601. I agree with Mr. Sullivan, no problem with him building a house up on top. Opposed to him lotting that out.
Rebuttal JOSHUA KIPP: I don’t disagree with them. I don’t plan on lotting anything off. Actually when I looked at it first I was thinking something in the middle but the drainage, washout just too much there. Actually the building site I’m looking at is above that existing driveway, the Servais family and I have talked about them working with me, get a lot that is not even going to be in this portion, right above that line, it’s flat, there is a power line, existing driveway, won’t be any erosion issues, won’t be disturbing the property at all.
Question BINA: Would you come in at the level off of Servais Road or off of YY?
Answer KIPP: That could be either, there’s an existing driveway that I’ve had looked at that’s been okayed on YY, or I could use Servais Road, it just depends what would work better. I don’t have any intention at all of developing or disturbing that property.
Question BINA: I wasn’t out there Thursday, had another meeting, is there a flat spot on top that you could put a house on without any major problem then?
Answer KIPP: Right, it’s perfect, there’s a spot in the field actually, I wouldn’t even be in the woods, be bordering the woods edge, might have to put in a power pole, easier for the well, there’s a driveway. Much more convenient for me.
Question BINA: Would you be agreeable to limiting just one house on that parcel?
Answer KIPP: Yes, that would not be a problem.
Correspondence:
1) Land Conservation site inspection notes from March 13, 2007.
2) Town of Greenfield – phone call received from Ken Hess, Town Clerk. The Town will consider the rezone request at the May 9, 2007 regular Town Board meeting.
Department Recommendation: Approval as Conditional Agricultural District “A”, limit of one additional lot with one additional residence on the 17.99 acres (Parcel “B”).
Remarks JUNG: Parcel “A”, he has already had a certified survey done on that. Not recorded yet, already reviewed it, Town has signed off on that.
Motion Kapanke/Bina to approve as conditional zoning as recommended.
Question RAUK: Jeff, the conditions you have proposed, in fact allow that house to go anywhere, or are they constrained by the Land Conservation comments to the slope and location mentioned?
Answer BLUSKE: I think in March when Land Conservation was out on the site they were looking at something off of a logging road that did take it over here (indicates on map) somewhere. Don’t know if the Committee went that far.
Remarks RAUK: We went that whole length and looked at it carefully, the logging road doesn’t look so bad but getting to it looks like a ferocious job.
Remarks BLUSKE: Right, so that might be why Mr. Kipp has decided against this site because in talking with Charlie (Handy) who took you out on the site where he’s proposing to build would be in part of that ravine, so maybe that’s why he’s looking up here. So he’s going to be working with two other departments on this. This hydrology that Land Conservation would be looking for is not something that comes cheap.
Question RAUK: And the approval of this rezoning by this Committee doesn’t automatically give him permission to put that anywhere out there, he still has to work with and receive approval for both those other departments.
Answer BLUSKE: That’s right, as well as the zoning/occupancy permit from our department.
Vote on motion: 6 - aye, 0 - no, 1 - excused (Hammes).
ZONING PETITION NO. 1739: Mark G. Schlifer for Schlifer Development LLC N8257 Church Street Mindoro WI 54644. Petition to rezone from Residential District “A” to Residential District “B” for the purpose of developing a 2-unit condominium on each lot. The property is described as: Lot 1, Bernhardt Valley Addition and Lots 14 and 15, First Addition to Bernhardt Valley Addition. Town of Farmington.
Appearing in favor: Mark Schlifer N8257 Church Street Mindoro WI 54644. Here about 3 or 4 years ago and rezoned this 18.2 acres from Exclusive Ag to Residential “A.” Had a lot of success since that time putting Bernhardt Valley together. Originally did it to try to bring some folks from local area to build and some folks from outside the area. Reason I’m here tonight is to perhaps keep some of our own from the Town of Farmington. I think there is a need and a market for seniors to move off the farm and still enjoy ownership within this confine. These units by legal statutes are condominiums. I at times call them twindominiums, which I guess is a marketing tool, but would be owner occupied preferably. These would be one building with 2 units. Each occupant owner would own their own half. Would be some restrictions and covenants that I would need to take care of with my lawyers, to speak to things such as common areas and things of that nature. These structures would be targeted somewhat toward seniors because everything would be on one level; laundry, living space, deck in the back. There will be a basement; the aim is to keep everything accessible. The reason I picked these 3 lots along Harvey Lane – it’s the most level of the subdivision to make for the easiest access for seniors.
Question RAUK: Applaud your efforts to broaden the appeal of your area. My questions come from concerns about virtually doubling the occupancy of each of those lots and therefore the space needs in particular for vehicles. In each of those paired lots how many garages proposed?
Answer SCHLIFER: Each unit would have an individual 2-car garage.
Question RAUK: With 16-ft roll-up door?
Answer SCHLIFER: Yes, or individual 7½ footers. Did bring a plan with me, the units we are looking at putting on there would be approximately 1200 square feet each, but in the existing restrictions I have now for single family dwellings I have in there and will be in this one as well, 2-car garages. A lot of those things will carry over to these covenants and restrictions as well.
Question RAUK: So essentially on these lots 4 vehicles, not just 2.
Answer SCHLIFER: Correct.
Question RAUK: Then to follow that up, don’t know what restrictions you have now so could you enlighten us about restrictions on off-street parking, winter alternate side parking, those kinds of things?
Answer SCHLIFER: Don’t have any provisions at this time for alternate side parking. Haven’t addressed at Town level or County level the on-street parking. When I put this subdivision in the Town of Farmington demands, like most, that I put the water and sewer in, the road in, then basically it’s turned over to the Town so they can do maintenance. So it may be an issue with the Town of Farmington. Prefer not having parking on the street but I may have lost control of that.
Question RAUK: Two follow-up questions: Are there any on-street parking restrictions, specifically what I’m thinking of is long term parking of recreational vehicles and things like that, what are the rules on that?
Answer SCHLIFER: There are rules in my original covenants and there will be in these to follow suit. Will not be parking in the back of homes of these twindos or on the street.
Question RAUK: On corner lots will units on the corners both come in on the same street? Or perhaps driveways 90 degrees different on front street and side street?
Answer SCHLIFER: Exactly, and when we’re through with this I want you to come and help me design this because you seem very knowledgeable about this. No, your point is well taken. Both the corner lots, we anticipate, subject to change, but we anticipate on Lot 1 bringing in one driveway from Harvey Lane and then the other from Badger Lane. Our intent is to do the same things on Mark’s Lane and Harvey Lane.
Question BLUSKE: Mark, have you contacted the Sanitary District?
Answer SCHLIFER: Yes I have, I have correspondence from them. Also have something from Town of Farmington.
Opposed: None.
Correspondence:
1) Letter from Mindoro Sanitary District - no opposition to the proposal.
2) April 5, 2007 letter from Sid Hetland, Town Clerk – Town approved the petition.
Department Recommendation: Approval.
Motion by Meyer/Keil to approve petition. 6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 - excused (Hammes).
ZONING PETITION NO. 1741: Jeff and Mary Scheel, Heather Scheel and Eric Voves 2565 Edgewood Place La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to amend Conditional Commercial “B” zoning on the following described parcel: A 2.89 acre parcel for use as a motel on land described as: Part of the NE-SE of Section 28, T 16 N, R 7 W commencing center of Section 28; thence East 1616.6’ to the pob: Thence East 384’; thence S 10˚ 40’ E 149’; thence S 5˚ 15’ E 56’; thence S 20˚ 15’ W 65’; thence S 69˚ 40’ W 122.5’; thence N 85˚ 36’ W 331’ to the highway R/W; thence North along said R/W 293’ to the pob. Town of Medary. The proposed amendment is to remove the “motel use only” condition and replace with conditions that authorize a residential condominium use and a beauty parlor in the existing residence.
Appearing in favor: Jeff Scheel 2565 Edgewood Place La Crosse WI 54601. Introduces rest of investment group – Mary Scheel, Eric Voves, Heather Scheel. May all answer questions at some point this evening. We are all residents of La Crosse, three of us born and raised here, I was born and raised in Menomonee, Wisconsin. We have all grown to love this area in the 30 years we’ve been around. We all live and work here in La Crosse County today. Have an accepted offer to purchase the old Nuttleman’s Motel property which is Stevermer’s now. Located at N3080 State Road 16. Asking to amend the current Conditional Commercial “B” zoning to add residential use and a beauty salon and remove the motel use. We have no intention of maintaining a motel on the property. The zoning changes will be needed to complete the purchase of the property. We made the offer to purchase contingent on the zoning change and some other conditions that require us to be able to find financing. It is our intent to construct up to 14 condo rental units in the configuration you see on the map (on overhead) to maintain the residence in the lower left corner there, that is an English style Tudor home that is in great condition and we think is a real asset to the property, easily recognizable as you travel up and down Highway 16. Our intention is to demolish the 19-unit motel complex, it’s old and in need of repair and has probably seen its best day. We want to replace that with this new construction which we feel is both environmentally friendly and also what we call a green development, maybe the first in La Crosse County. My wife (Mary) will hand out a brochure we’ve prepared, explaining what our intentions are with the property. While you review that I will talk you through why and how we plan to accomplish this and when we plan to do this as well. I think you all received a copy of our letter along with the meeting notice. The concept of a green development is one we think that’s time has come. We plan to use materials from totally renewable resources, plan to keep the remaining tree-line structure as much as we possibly can, in that it adds both noise and sun abatement. We feel that the view from the bluff is perfect from this type of development. We think the location of the Conservancy District and that 500 acres to the east makes this an ideal location for those who enjoy hiking and biking, with views of the marsh lands that all make this a perfect location to start this sort of thing. We envision trying to recruit young professionals; Heather’s and Eric’s age in combination with some older people that are maybe more our age but not yet ready to move into something where they are inside a building all day long, but still enjoy the outdoors and gardening and other outdoor activities. We feel with the mix of these two groups it would be significantly social and have some social significance and we anticipate a community garden in the center of the development that people might be able to share and carry on some of the social activities we’d like to see them do. We are researching different things in terms of alternative heating, energy alternatives and insulation alternatives, as you can see in the brochure. We anticipate the look and style of the buildings will fit very well up against the bluff. We plan to start refurbishing the residence immediately, how do we plan to get this done? We plan to start refurbishing the residence immediately upon completion of the purchase. We have three young ladies who are cosmetologists who would like to lease that premises from us on a long term basis; we think that will fit in nicely with the residents we plan to recruit to live in this development. The small cottage in the upper left of the property will be the last to be demolished. It has a long term tenant in there and we don’t want to displace that tenant for a while. Probably start with construction of the first six units in the right hand corner of the sketch (indicates on overhead map) kind of bordering the bluff line. Once we finish the site construction and preparation and get the demolition done, those six units would be the obvious place to start. The rest will come as time, weather and sales permit. If we have everything sold and completed by next year, may depend on the weather this fall. That’s the plan. Do have a letter from the Department of Transportation that says they will not require a right turn lane. Have had Land Conservation people and Health Department people up there. It all looks like something that’s doable.
Question RAUK: Your drawing implies that your units will be on a common single well, is that correct?
Answer SCHEEL: That is going to be dependant on the soils and the property and where we will be able to place the wells. I think there are two alternatives there. Multiple units on a single well and each unit having a single well. The way the wells are located on the property now we are going to have to remove the one major well to be able to put the septic in, which is in the middle of that green space area. So it’s possible we’ll be digging more than one well and right now we don’t know how many that’s going to be.
Question RAUK: In going out there and looking at the site it looked like the area behind the existing buildings gets steep pretty quickly. Is that going to be an issue?
Answer SCHEEL: We had the Land Conservation people out there and that upper right hand corner (northeast) is the only area they were questioning at all in terms of pitch. And when we did the sketches and when we start construction we will back the units down off of whatever requirement that is, it is a little pitchy up there but everything else met the requirements. All of the area along the right hand (east) side came out okay.
Question RAUK: How will these be anchored, these look (pictures) like demonstration units on cinder blocks?
Answer SCHEEL: These will probably be on concrete.
Question RAUK: A slab?
Answer SCHEEL: There will be a basement for each unit so there will be a walk-out basement in each unit, with the next level up and then a loft.
Question BLUSKE: Mr. Scheel, you mentioned at the beginning that these were going to be condominiums and then mentioned that these would be rentals. Can you explain the difference; are these going to be time shared, is the owner going to rent it if they don’t occupy it, what’s intended?
Answer SCHEEL: The concept is ownership for us more than ownership for the people. We don’t want to be painted into a corner where we have to sell them right away. If we have our preference we would like to own them ourselves, then ultimately be in a position where we could sell the units to the residents. We didn’t want to be painted into a corner where we had to be one way or another. That’s the whole reason why I said rental condominium.
Opposed: None.
Correspondence:
1) Land Conservation April 3, 2007 inspection report on the site.
2) Town of Medary letter dated April 18, 2007: Approve as Conditional Commercial “B” for residential use and beauty salon, removal of motel only use condition.
Department Recommendation: Approval as Conditional Commercial “B” as recommended by the Town of Medary.
Motion Bina/Keil to approve as Conditional Commercial “B” as recommended.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 – excused (Hammes).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 748: John and Dawn Macewen W5860 County Road OS Onalaska WI 54650. Conditional use application to modify the provisions of existing conditional use permit number 416 on property described as: Lot 2 of Certified Survey Map No. 80 in Volume 12. Tax Parcel 9-72-4. Town of Medary.
Appearing in favor: Dawn Macewen N4438 Eagle Bluff Court Onalaska WI 54650. I want to apply for a new permit. I was told I had to.
Question BINA: Jeff, you said something that I didn’t quite get. You said that the only thing we are considering is that bottom square and the top is going to revert back to what?
Answer BLUSKE: To Agricultural District “A” in the Town of Medary. The original petition back in 1998 included both Lot 1 and Lot 2.
Question BINA: So the top lot isn’t going to change, that will stay the same?
Answer BLUSKE: There is a house built on Lot 1 so it’s not being considered as part of the retail operation.
Question BINA: I thought it was going to revert back to Exclusive AG or something like that.
Answer BLUSKE: No.
Question RAUK: On the drawing it mentions the two sheds along the north boundary line to be removed and the right hand of the two houses is to be razed, do you have a schedule for when that is to happen?
Answer MACEWEN: We have until May of 2008.
Question BLUSKE: Maybe Dawn you can explain to the Committee what you want to do new that did not exist prior. (Bluske reviews conditions of current conditional use.)
Answer MACEWEN: Would like to be open on Sunday’s too. Seven days a week. Would like to have the two signs if we could. Signs are 4-ft x 6-ft.
Question BLUSKE: Intended hours of operation?
Answer MACEWEN: January – October: Monday through Saturday 10 am to 6 pm
Sunday 11 am to 5 pm
September – December: Monday through Friday 10 am to 8 pm
Saturday 10 am to 6 pm
Sunday 11 am to 5 pm
Question BLUSKE: Is the property for sale? So you would want conditions to transfer?
Answer MACEWEN: We’re not selling Ivy and Lace per se, we’re just selling the front half where the two houses are. (Macewen indicates on overhead map area for sale.)
Discussion regarding reapplication for modification of the conditional use if parcel boundaries change.
Remarks JUNG: Certified survey map required to further subdivide the parcel as explained here. 200-ft lot depth required.
Question RAUK: In selling the southern portion along “OS,” essentially it would be that whole portion to the right of where the horses used to graze all the way up to the fence on the uphill side?
Answer MACEWEN: Lot line would run to the windmill.
Question RAUK: So if you sell that part as Commercial could there be signs for your business on these other properties and at the driveway or use Eagle Bluff as access?
Answer MACEWEN: City won’t allow that.
Remarks BLUSKE: This parcel is actually “Agricultural “A” so a rezone to Commercial would have to be addressed at that time.
Remarks MACEWEN: We may sell the whole thing, just depends.
Opposed: None.
Correspondence: No correspondence. Town will meet on May 8th to consider.
Department Recommendation: Approval with 5 conditions:
1. Allow two existing signs advertising business to remain: 4-ft x 6 ft and 4.5 ft x 5.5 ft.
2. Allow permit to be transferable as the property is currently for sale.
3. New hours of operation:
September – December: Monday through Friday 10 am to 8 pm
Saturday 10 am to 6 pm
Sunday 11 am to 5 pm
January – October: Monday through Saturday 10 am to 6 pm
Sunday 11 am to 5 pm
4. Change legal description to read: Certified Survey Map #80, Volume 12, Lot 2.
Town of Medary.
5. The green house must be removed under terms of enforcement letter dated
April 11, 2007.
Motion Rauk/Meyer to approve with conditions.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Hammes).
Motion Keil/Bina to adjourn.
6 – aye, 0 – no, 1 excused (Hammes).
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