PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
March 31, 2008
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 7:40 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
George Hammes – Chair, Terry Hanson, Tom Rauk, Don Bina, Don Meyer, Brian Kapanke, Robert Keil |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
None |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Ron Peterson, Charlie Handy, Chad VandenLangenberg, Mike Weibel (Recorder) |
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. The procedures for tonight’s meeting are explained to those gathered. This meeting is being recorded.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2008-02 Donald and Marilyn Rieser, acting on behalf of the Marilyn J. Rieser Trust, 19875 W Woodmore Trail, Antioch IL 60002. Petition to perform filling, grading and disturbing approximately 5,100 square feet in association with flood proofing an existing home at 3053 Edgewater Lane to an elevation of 650.25 feet on lands zoned Agricultural District “A” and lying within the Shoreland District of Lake Onalaska on lands described as: Outlot 74 of the Assessor’s Plat of the NE¼ of Section 12, T 16 N, R 8 W. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Robert Lenox, 3050 Edgewater Lane, La Crosse WI 54603. The property is located at 3053 Edgewater Lane. Presently the house has a first flood elevation of 647.2. The house will have to be elevated to 650.25 or more to be a conforming structure. It will put the house at least three feet above the regional flood elevation. To do this they want to raise the house, remove the old foundation, and install an engineered foundation. All existing sidewalks that surround the house as well as the concrete stairs along the back will need to be removed. Material removed for the new foundation will be stored in the sideyard until the foundation is poured and the house is put back on the new foundation. Inside, the new foundation will be filled to an elevation of 647.25 regional flood elevation (RFE) in accordance with code and the foundation sealed. Due to the fill level on the inside of the foundation, we’ll fill to a level of 646.5 RFE to equalize ground pressure on the foundation and improve the appearance of the house. The current garage is in need of repair. I know the garage isn’t on there but I have drawings. The garage is at a current elevation of 644, which is about street level. It’s right up to the lot pins. The ordinance dictates that the floor would need to be at 646.5. Because the current garage is located on the street level the garage must be moved away from the street to allow for a reasonable driveway slope. The current garage will be torn down and the adjacent concrete pad will be removed. Fill will be added to pour the concrete slab for the garage at an elevation of 646.5. Fill will be added for the driveway and sidewalks around the house and the balance of the fill will be graded down to the existing level at the lot lines. Tentative start date is August 1, 2008, so that they can use the house a little bit for the summer. They asked that the permit not expire until December of 2008. They have obtained Erosion Control Permit No. 1016-08. The Town permits are applied for.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: There is no correspondence either from Town of Campbell or from the Department of Natural Resources
Department Recommendation: Approve with 4 conditions:
1. The permit is granted to perform excavation and to remove the old foundation and construct the new engineered foundation and perform grading and filling around the foundation to an elevation of 646.5 and grade it to the lot lines in the Shoreland District of Lake Onalaska.
2. The existing erosion control permit will be kept current during all construction.
3. If required the applicant shall obtain a DNR Chapter 30 permit for this work.
4. Permit expires December 31, 2008.
Question WEIBEL: Is that an acceptable expiration date?
Answer HAMMES: Yes, that’s what he said.
Question HANSON: On the map I see the ordinary high water mark and road setback lines. Are there exemptions to these along this shoreline?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes, there has been a variance granted for this project to raise the existing structure and to construct the new engineered foundation. The Riesers have already dealt with the setback requirement issues on the lot.
Motion Meyer/Bina to approve with conditions.
Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1775 Kay and Donald Wimberly, W5162 County Road F, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to rezone from the Transitional Agricultural District to Agricultural District “A,” a 10.2 acre parcel for one single family residence and small barn on lands described as: Part of the NW-NE, SW-NE and of the NE-NW of Section 1, T 15 N, R 7 W described as: Commencing at the N¼ corner; thence S21°17’30”W 760.26’ to the point of beginning: Thence N87°14’42”E 552.02’; thence S48°16’42”E 521.62’ to the east line of the W½-NW; thence along said line S00°31’10”E 364.02’ to the north right of way line County Rd F; thence the next 8 calls along said right of way line; 1) N56°18’55”W 85.18’ to the beginning of a 606.67 radius curve concave to the south; 2) Along the arc of said curve 264.71’, the chord of which bears N68°48’55”W 262.61’; 3) N81°18’55”W 285.18’; 4) N08°41’05”E 7.00’; 5) N81°18’55”W 198.10’ to the beginning of a 676.75’radius curve concave to the North; 6) Along the arc of said curve 49.01’ the chord of which bears N79°14’25”W 49.00’; 7) S12°50’04”W 7.00’ to the beginning of a 683.75’ radius curve concave to the North; along the arc of said curve 102.63’, the chord of which bears N72°51’56”W 102.53’; thence N00°31’10”W 430.06’ to the point of beginning. Town of Shelby.
Appearing in Favor: Kay Wimberly, W5162 County Road F, La Crosse WI 54601. I’m here to request a rezone of a portion of my property to allow for a single family residence and a small barn.
Question HAMMES: Have you been to the Town Board?
Answer WIMBERLY: Yes, to 2 meetings and provided them with the same documents and applications provided to the County. It has been approved by their Planning Department and also the Town Board.
Question RAUK: In the impact statement it states “our” goals. Who does this mean?
Answer WIMBERLY: The people to whom I would sell it.
Appearing in Favor: Scott Skibo, 14 Copeland Avenue #307, La Crosse WI 54603. My wife and I would put in a single family residence and a small barn. Our goal is to have goats, chickens, an orchard and an organic garden. The construction of our home would complement the natural beauty of the land.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: A letter from Town of Shelby dated March 28, 2008. Board approved the
change with condition of 1 home on 10 acres, or 2 homes if they are clustered in
a conservation type development. Complies with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Department Recommendations: Recommend approval. This petition is consistent with future land use classifications and the future land use map of the La Crosse County Land Use Plan. Land use is low density rural residential with approximately 1 dwelling per 10 acres.
Motion Kapanke/Keil to approve. Discussion.
Question RAUK: Do our conditions match with the Town’s? I thought I heard they’d allow 2 homes if they were clustered.
Answer WEIBEL: Correct. That could be a condition, or part of a motion that they comply with the Town’s request.
Remark RAUK: That almost sounds more permissive than our 1 (house) per 10 (acres).
Reply WEIBEL: They’re saying they would allow 2 per 10 acres because they feel that complies with their conservation type development in the area.
Remark HAMMES: The motion is to approve the petition as presented.
Reply WEIBEL: Correct.
Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1776 Russell J. and Carol M. Bringe, N6976 County Rd M, Holmen WI 54636. Petition to rezone from the Agricultural District “B” to Exclusive Agricultural District, approximately 23 acres which are currently zoned Agricultural District “B,” for one single family residence, which 23 acres are contained in the following 40 acres described as: That part of the following described parcel zoned Agricultural District “B”: Part of the S½-SE, E½-SW, NW-SE of Section 1; and part of the NE-NE of Section 12 all in T 17 N, R 7 W; and, part of the NW-NW of Section 7, T 17 N, R 6 W described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Section 7; thence N88°37’E 1031.17’ to the northeast corner of said Fractional NW-NW; thence S0°15’21”W 180’ along the east line thereof; thence S87°12’27”W 1043.69’; thence N84°29’31”W 244.08’; thence N66°05’11”W 483.23’; thence N41°15’19”W 1834.44’; thence N41’15’19”W 35’ to the centerline of the creek; thence Southwesterly along the creek 442’; thence N12°06’24”W 155’; thence S80°06’23”W 503.65’ to the easterly right-of-way of County Rd M; thence Northeasterly along said right-of-way 1191.08’; thence S44°15’06”E 884.3’ to the southeast corner of said NW-SE; thence S44°04’23”E 1896.24’ to the point of beginning. Town of Onalaska and Town of Hamilton.
Appearing in Favor: Russell J. Bringe, N6976 County Road M, Holmen WI 54636. In this tract some areas are zoned Ag “B.” The Wendtlands have requested to buy 40 acres for a new farmstead, to raise cattle and horses. I need to convert Ag “B” back to Exclusive Agriculture. I had Mr. Osgood review for access and he said there was no problem.
Question RAUK: Which side of the creek would a residence go on?
Answer BRINGE: Purchaser would make that decision, I would think on the north side but can’t answer for them. Anything we do would be a permitted use of the land.
Remark RAUK: It just looks difficult to gain access.
Reply BRINGE: I’ve been offered by Land Conservation to cost share for a stream ford. They’ve already inquired about that.
Remark RAUK: The proposed crossing is for residential?
Reply BRINGE: Correct.
Appearing in Opposition: Blaine Lee, Town of Hamilton Board Supervisor, N6304 Bergum Coulee Road, West Salem WI 54669. Not in opposition, but hasn’t went through Town Board. We have concerns as a Town: Where will they cross the creek? Has the DNR viewed this? We’re concerned about the road. Mr. Bringe has said he’s talked to Mr. Osgood – we know nothing about this. We also have concerns about going back in the valley – if he’s selling 40 acres for one single family dwelling, we don’t have a problem with that. Does he plan to branch off on in the future, or do we need to restrict this road to one residence? We have no opinion yet because it hasn’t been brought to us.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: Had a phone conversation with Town Chairman Richard Schomburg. The Town will consider the petition at their April 8, 2008 Town Board meeting. Correspondence from Town of Onalaska, Town Clerk Sue Schultz. Matter has not come up before Town Planning Commission or Town Board, therefore no recommendation from the Town. Town Board meets on April 28, 2008.
Department
Recommendations:
WEIBEL: Approval – consistent with future land use classifications adopted in
the future land use plan adapted in the La Crosse County Land Use Plan,
classification is Agricultural Preservation. Purpose is to preserve land for
food and fiber production, protect productive farming by preventing conflicts
between incompatible uses, maintaining viable agricultural base to support
agricultural processing and service industries, reduce cost of providing
services to scattered non-farm uses, promote orderly urban growth, implement
provisions of the County’s Farmland Preservation Plan and comply with the
Farmland Preservation Law for farmers to receive tax credits under ss.91.11(1)b
of Wisconsin Statutes.
Question HANSON: In Exclusive Ag, do you need 35 acres to build a house?
Answer WEIBEL: Minimum lot size to establish a residence is 35 acres.
Question HANSON: Can you cross town lines to get your 35 acres?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes you can. We look at the farm as a unit, not necessarily parcel by parcel.
Question HANSON: So it could be in different townships?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes. When we issue a certificate we’ll issue one for the land in Town of Onalaska and one for land in Town of Hamilton.
Question HANSON: So this meets all those qualifications?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes.
Question BINA: The Town line crosses this?
Answer WEIBEL: (Refers to map) The Town line is right there.
Question BINA: So in this case, you could have one town approve and one deny?
Answer WEIBEL: That would be possible.
Question RAUK: Town of Onalaska will not meet until after the next County Board meeting. Will we still delay 30 days until they act?
Answer HAMMES: Town of Onalaska has a request we hold everything until they’ve met, for 30 days, so we’d make a recommendation one way or the other, the Towns each have their say.
Question RAUK: But it won’t go on the next County Board agenda.
Answer HAMMES: No. It will go after the Towns have acted.
Remark WEIBEL: The Town has a request on file that not only gives them 10 days to respond, but 20 days, additionally.
Motion Bina/Keil to approve. Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1777 N. Allan Poser, acting on behalf of La Crosse Queen LLC, 127 Marina Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. Petition to rezone three parcels from the Residential Districts “A” and “C” to Commercial District “B,” for surface parking of autos (no boat storage) in part from overflow vehicles from Huck Finns Restaurant and the Island Girl Yacht Cruises on properties at 114 Locust Street, 117 Walnut Street and 1108 Bainbridge Street, on lands described as: Lots 1, 2, 20 and 21 in Block 3 of the Resurvey of Blocks 2 and 3 of West La Crosse; and part of Government Lot 5 Section 30, T 16 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel number 4-1260-0. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Al Poser, 127 Marina Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. Thank you to the members of the zoning board for hearing our rezoning request. Skipperliner is in the business of building tour vessels like the La Crosse Queen and the Island Girl. Around the country these vessels provide a way for people to get out onto the water ways in an eco-friendly, low-impact manner. It is our desire to convert some properties that are contiguous to Skipperliner manufacturing to off-street parking. The need that we have is to find a new home for the Island Girl. It no longer works behind the old Holiday Inn property. We would like to move it to North Bay, in front of Huck Inn’s Restaurant. The dilemma we have is that we cannot do this without parking areas. We don’t want cars parking on the streets, which is also a concern of the neighbors. Thus we would convert properties we own contiguous to Skipperliner into off-street parking as it is needed by the Island Girl. Everybody has worked well with us. We have presented our plan earlier this month to the Town of Campbell. It answered a lot of questions for the Town and the neighbors. We agreed to the conditions that were laid down at the meeting like; no boat parking on the property, vehicles only, maintain clear vision for traffic at the intersections because it can get a little rough with the trucks going by, we agreed to screening with neighbors to make sure it works for them. The Town Board approved our plan and we met with the neighbors or their representatives on a couple of occasions. We included things such as lighting pollution from our building where our lights are shining out and we will fix that so that we are lighting our lots and not the neighbors. Also working on issues such as making the Clinton and Bainbridge intersections better for everybody. We have met with the French Island Yacht Club and we have talked to our industrial neighbors. So in conclusion what we would like to do is bring off-street parking to this area to facilitate Skipperliner and the neighborhood.
Question RAUK: If those three areas are developed for parking, do you picture that the Island Girl customers will be using that as the parking area?
Answer POSER: Good question. This is over-flow parking. The north most parcel will probably be used the most for off-street parking. We have a very large lot between our industrial building and the Marina and Restaurant and that’s where people will park most of the time, but on weekends and holidays that area fills up quickly so they become off-street over-flow parking and we don’t think they will be used all the time.
Question RAUK: You have a sturdy fence restriction along the east side of Bainbridge Street and your property, but there is a gate between Walnut Street and the alley to the north. Do you envision that the excursion customers are going to walk from this across the street parking through that space?
Answer POSER: What we anticipate with the parcel on the lower part of the page is probably going to be used for employee parking where the parcel on top would be used for the over-flow from the Marina & Restaurant, etc.
Appearing in Favor: Pat Post, 809 Lori Place, La Crosse WI 54603. I am a supervisor on the Campbell Town Board and I’m also a chairperson of our Planning Commission. We met with Al a few weeks ago about this and we did approve this plan. He has worked well with the neighbors and a lot of things have been taken care of that they were in objection to. We feel that this will be a good thing for the people on the Island, but also the Town of Campbell as a whole as far as economic development for the Island. So therefore we do approve this and we were a little concerned because of our comprehensive plan that it didn’t address this issue as far as doing any type of business down there in that residential area. Unfortunately when we did the comprehensive plan was not specifically addressed. It was addressed in the fact that we do want to have more business on the south end of the Island, but it didn’t specify that in the map. I wanted you to be aware of that, but this is something that we are rectifying. We will have another meeting and do what needs to be done to take care of that. The Plan Commission and the Town Board are in favor of this.
Appearing in Favor: Bob Crooks: 1831 La Fond Ave, La Crosse WI 54603. I’m a supervisor in the Town of Campbell. Skipperliner has been a benefit to the Town of Campbell economically. They have transformed an eyesore on the south side of the Island into something very attractive. We have a harbor there where many boats are docked. My concern is that if we don’t allow this parking that a lot of the employee parking and possibly part of the overflow parking would wind up on Walnut, Locust and Sperbeck Streets. I’d rather not see that happen because those streets are not that wide and it could cause a safety problem. The Town Board and the Planning Commission as Pat Post mentioned has passed this. I would ask for your approval.
Appearing in Favor: Scott Johnson – Town of Campbell Chairman, 3025 Lakeshore Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. If you look at these properties along south Bainbridge Street, which runs down to the incinerator where the majority of the County’s trash goes and when we were looking at this in our long range plan some of those properties we looked at we thought would be better served as commercial due to the flow of traffic that goes through there. Also since I work for waste management I have had an opportunity over the last 20 years to observe those properties and on average I go by there four to five times a day. For the last 20 years I have watched them deteriorate. They were pretty bad before Skipperliner bought them. They have done improvements to all three of those properties. A couple of them they have cleaned up extensively and I think this is the next step in that transition because when you look at that area, a number of properties are in the flood plain and the condition of some of those properties combined with the limitations for improvements. You have to look at how you are going to transition this neighborhood for the future. I think that the condition we put on these properties in order for them to be rezoned to commercial is a transition to make it more acceptable to the neighborhood so you don’t have them going from instantly open so they could do anything but the one purpose that Skipperliner is asking for which is for parking. I think we took steps with the conditions we have to try and make this more acceptable to the neighbors and Skipperliner has worked extensively with the neighbors. I’m sure there are still going to be as few people that will be opposed to it. Long term I think the value of this for the people down there and for the Island is a good fit. Al didn’t mention it but the one property in the middle was on the market for almost two years and didn’t sell. The one on top they probably paid $20,000 to $30,000 more than what the property was actually worth with the thought that they could use them in the future for commercial use. For the property owners there, having that ability to sell your land for that possibility increases the value of them although some of them feel that rezoning them would be a decrease in the property value. I think that when you look at what Skipperliner did there shows that it is not the case. Thank you.
Appearing in Favor: Gary Simonson, 128 Locust Street, La Crosse WI 54603. When this was initially started 2 years ago we were very much against it. We were against it at the initial onset in March again. But with the conditions that were worked out with the Town zoning and Town Chairman and Town Board, I think most of us are happy with the conditions that we have and we can keep an eye on each other and we can work together. It’s probably the first time a business and residents worked together and came up with a better situation for both of them.
Appearing in Favor: Helen Vitale, 2913 Bayshore Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. I have lived on the Island for over 50 years and I was on the first planning committee that did the 1995-2020 advanced planning and I am also on the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Commission right now, as the secretary. When we did the first long range plan we talked extensively about the use of the land both north and south of Bainbridge and Clinton Street. We decided then that might eventually become commercial or mixed use. Skipperliner did not buy those three lots to become landlords. When you buy lots in that area you have another use for them. We know that. And we had a very long talk that it would be mixed usage along there. I would like to remind everyone in this room that we can not force anyone to change any zoning. It has to come from the owners. Skipperliner owns those lots and they are asking for the zoning change. I am for it. I know that they will do a good job because it is in their interest to do that. They have to maintain it to keep up their image. It helps not only Campbell but also the County, which is what we want. I hope you approve it. Thank you.
Appearing in Favor: Travis Parish, Town of Campbell Administrator, 2219 Bainbridge Street, La Crosse WI 54603. I’m here to address the technical aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the two lots to the west of Bainbridge Street are listed on our Comprehensive Plan as being residential. After talking with some of the Planning Commission members and the supervisor who has spoken here they would like to amend that plan, so have set up some meetings to go through the procedure of amending the plan to bring it more into what their vision of those properties and actually the southern end of the island and what they are looking for. I just wanted to clarify that. We will be going through a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
No one else appearing in favor.
Appearing in Opposition: Jeff Foellmi, 1321 La Crescent Street, La Crosse WI 54603. I live north of this area quite a few blocks. I’m not necessarily against the businesses and I’m not against the parking lots used for cars or boats. My other thing is that I look at this as an additional traffic concern by putting the boat to French Island which is going to increase more traffic. I drive the whole Island. I’m used to the Island and I know what it is like. The only thing I would recommend, even if you approve or disapprove this, is that you put hours as far as the use of them. You are looking at residential areas and commercial areas. The residents that were there back then did not look forward in the years to come to these properties being zoned commercial. So therefore we ask that you take this under consideration by not only zoning this for their boat use, parking or whatever. They tell us they won’t put boats in there. The Town of Campbell brought up that they want to see this, but we look forward to this being the Town of Campbell looking to say businesses on the south end. There are residents that don’t want this. There are people that won’t come forward, that can’t come forward. Therefore we ask for you to make the realistic decision and look at this, even if you have to postpone it a time or two. Thank you.
Appearing in Opposition: Ed Von Uhl, 145 Locust Street, La Crosse WI 54603. I have some information I would like to pass around. We are in opposition to Zoning Petition No. 1777. As residents of the Town of Campbell, taxpayers and homeowners we oppose rezoning 1108 Bainbridge Street, 114 Locust Street and 117 Walnut Street from residential to commercial for the purpose of parking by the La Crosse Queen. The rezoning should not be granted in order to preserve the residential status, the safety of the residents and the value of the property. Furthermore the rezoning is not consistent with the Town of Campbell’s Comprehensive Plan. Adverse Traffic Effects: Parking lots in front of buildings at intersections create safety hazards. Bainbridge, the County Trunk Highway, that provides access to manufacturing and industrial businesses on the south side of the Island. According to the La Crosse Tribune in 2005 Cargill accounts for a gain of about 12,000 trucks visiting the elevator every year. This does not include trucks hauling to the Xcel Energy Plant, Robers Dredging, River City Steel, Cottonseed Inc., and Omaha Tie Company. Also wide streets tend to increase the speeds of vehicles and reduce attentive drivers. There will be more pedestrians crossing Bainbridge Street. Huck Finn’s Restaurant and the Island Girl are approximately 1000 feet from the parking crossing Bainbridge Street. There would be increased alley and street use. Some may take a short cut or wrong turn off of Bainbridge Street. According to the Comprehensive Plan, local streets offer the lowest level of mobility and through traffic use on the system is usually discouraged. Effects on the Neighborhood Livability: More noise, more lights, more traffic. Local streets are narrow with no curbs and no sidewalks. Roads are used for walking, bicycling and walking. Many people in the area ride bikes, use skateboards and play ball and children walk to school. Value of the property: Les Milde Appraisals was consulted regarding the property values. He stated that if you have a single residence in the commercial area that residence would have an increase in property value. He cited a case in West Salem. However that is not the case here. Les explained that if you have a single commercial entering a residential neighborhood the residential values would decrease as residential property. Michael Grady of RE/MAX agrees that residential property values are adversely affected when residential property abuts commercial. The difference in value can be from 5 to 7 percent. It increases if it is waterfront property such as the 1112 Bainbridge Street property. Prior to this request industry has been contained in the southern tip of the Island. According to the Town Plan page 10, Goals of Housing: The Town will seek to maintain the quality of the existing housing stock and supplement it in appropriate locations with safe, well-constructed housing at a density, scale and character that complements the present residential neighborhood. The residential neighborhood referred to at the southern tip of the Island has been urbanized for a longer period of time than any other area of the Island. The predominant residential occupancy is single family homes and there are still some scattered multi-family units. Second and third generations still continue to live in this area. Improvements are being made. Recently several variances have been granted to make improvements on home where the costs exceed over 50 percent value of the home. A commercial parking lot is not consistent with present land use. Homeowners count on a zoning ordinance to protect the value of their homes. This kind of inconsistent zoning only serves to discourage people from investing in and buying homes on the southern end of the Island. Rezoning will set a precedent which will consistently lower our property values. According to the published minutes of the Town of Campbell Planning Commission meeting on April 17, 2007, since the tip of the Island south of Clinton Street is used mainly for light and heavy industrial purposes the Commission agreed that is should stay that way. The only concern is that some homes still abut the industrial zone. Plans should be made to create a buffer between the residential housing and industry. Because a great deal of the area could be in the flood plain, it was suggested that a park or other green space could be the best solution. This is an important item for future study. The residential area on the southern end of the Island in the future land use plan is not a mistake on the current future land use plan. Improper Zoning: Rezoning this property would be an example of spot zoning. Spot zoning is when a zoning ordinance is amended to rezone a relatively small area whose use is relatively different from the surrounding area to favor the owner of a particular piece of property. Cited from “Home Guide to Community Planning in Wisconsin,” page 105. Rezoning should be consistent with long range planning and based upon considerations which affect the whole community. Therefore spot zoning should only be indulged where it is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of the property owner requesting the rezoning. Cited from “Cushman vs. City of Racine.” Rezoning should be consistent with long range planning and based upon considerations that affect the whole community. We request that this request for rezoning be denied. At the prior meeting for the Town of Campbell. Gary Simonson brought a petition with 23 signatures on it. That was of the residents of the area. That was denied. I also have a petition of protest that will be submitted to the County Board prior to their meeting. I have a letter here from Terry Bartels I would like to read. This letter is addressed to the Zoning Board. He writes:
“I am against the zoning change because you are moving commercial business into the doorstep of a single family area. If I tried to rezone my property at 134 Walnut to multi-family, I wouldn’t have a prayer. Why are we even talking about commercial zoning? The fine people in this area have deep roots and most have lived there all their lives. Even though most are modest homes they still deserve the same consideration as any other single family area. Let’s not pre-judge by size or value and assume this is a shoe in. It seems as though everyone was generous about joining zoning changes when Skipperliner wanted to establish and keep everything on the east side of Bainbridge and in giving them an inch they want a foot. Moving the Island Girl to Huck Finn’s makes good business sense, but with that, however comes more traffic. People who have been partying and drinking, more cars, more people, more problems. And to think they want to mix all of this into a single family area with people walking and riding bikes and kids playing doesn’t sound like a favorable mixture. When taking everything into consideration why doesn’t Skipperliner use the land across the bay to the east for the Island Girl and parking. There is a large flat parcel just south of the army tank and where the City dumps snow in the wintertime. It is serviced by a four-lane road, has a waterfront, and is large and flat that now has no real purpose. It would also help with overflow at the boat ramp at busy times as needed. I have almost 25 years of real estate experience in the La Crosse area and my professional opinion is that this will diminish home values in the area if this zoning change passes. Past experience has given me a lot of insight into these situations. This is a lose-lose for the homeowners and a win-win for Skipperliner. I hope the Zoning Board realizes how they would feel if this were happening at their doorstep. This zoning is not in everyone’s best interest. And therefore I will on record to vote no for this. Thank you, Terry Bartels.”
He works for Gerrard-Hoeschler. Thank you gentlemen for your time.
Appearing in Opposition: Effie Piper, 112 Bainbridge Street, La Crosse WI 54603. I think Ted Von Uhl has said it very well about the opposition to the rezoning. I finally have a neighbor I can get along with very well. Joe and I had a wonderful relationship. The lower end of the Island is like a small town. I think it’s wonderful to know all of your neighbors. I feel like we are trying to change everything right now. When I bought the property there, this was no consideration at all, it was a small community. Now all of a sudden they want to change it. I am opposed to the change.
Appearing in Opposition: Kevin Mahoney, 110 Sperbeck Street, La Crosse, WI 54603. My big concern right now is that if they do make parking there it’s going to be the ‘Indy 500’ coming out of that parking lot. There are a lot of little kids that are running around there all the time. So access, if approved, should be off Marina Drive. I have a feeling that there is going to be a lot of parking in the alley, if not in my place. And I’ll be the one to baby sit. I hate to have to call tow trucks to get out of my own house. I am opposed to it. I’d rather see a house out my bay window instead of a parking lot. Not to mention all the garbage that comes with it and the drunk people walking to Kwik Trip. Thank you.
No one else appears in opposition.
CHAIRMAN HAMMES: We will close the public hearing. Al, would you come up to the podium? Mr. Meyer has a few questions.
Question MEYER: Al I’m confused. I thought you said earlier that you talked to the neighbors and worked things out. Now I see a petition go by with 21 names on it. One of which earlier spoke that he was for it. I don’t quite understand it all.
Answer POSER: When we originally approached the Town….We apologize to everyone at the Town because it seemed like we were rushing into it. We had short notice that we could not operate out of the South Bay area and we needed to find another opportunity and that would be the North Bay area. I think we tried to work with the neighbors and at the meeting we answered a lot of the questions to the point where Gary and all of the people that he had talked to on the south end of the Island. We resolved those issues. I’m extremely pleased that we were able to meet with these folks because before we didn’t have a good way to talk to everybody. Through Gary’s efforts people who were opposed to it at that time, we talked and resolved their issues. We had a nice meeting where everybody came in and we hopefully tried to figure out all the things that we could do together to improve the Island. One thing that was mentioned here is that we want a really nice looking area. I told the folks about a month ago we brought in people from the Caterpillar Corporation and they were thrilled. They said this was one of the nicest facilities they have seen for ship building. The reality of it is that we build everything indoors. We compete with people down south and they build outdoors where it is dusty and noisy. We don’t have those problems. We have gone to great lengths to make sure that this is a friendly industry that fits well in the neighborhood.
Reply MEYER: I understand. I’m not asking if you are or you aren’t. I’m just confused on the list. Gary spoke and he was the first one on the list that was against it. So I’m not sure what these 21 names mean.
GARY SIMONSON: I presented the petition to the Town’s zoning meeting back in early March because I was against this thing. I felt like it was a “slip it under the door” situation. I took it upon myself to go around to the neighbors I talked to 2 years ago. I got a petition signed and presented it at the Town Board meeting, Town zoning meeting, with the 23 signatures on it. We met for an hour and a half that night and we resolved a lot of problems at that meeting. But the petition went in the record as I presented it that night.
Question MEYER: Are there names of people on this list who are now for it?
Answer SIMONSON: I can’t speak for everybody, but I would say so. I presented the petition because I have lived there 62 years. I felt threatened. Am I going to lose my house? I just lost my wife. She died in this house I’m in now and I felt threatened. But since we met, I don’t feel that threat anymore.
Question KAPANKE: I have a question for Al. The question was the parking lot for Marina and Bainbridge, was the plan for that to empty onto Marina Drive and then Bainbridge, or directly onto Bainbridge?
Answer POSER: We would be willing to work with people and figure out what works best. I have heard that a gentleman has concerns about it accessing onto Bainbridge. If it works better onto Marina Drive we are open to that. We want it to flow and have easy access for people. The French Island Yacht Club likes the idea because we are taking parking off Marina Drive and it gets congested there. Our goal is to make the neighborhood better. If engineers say it is better to pull traffic onto Marina Drive, that’s great.
Question WEIBEL: Before I give the Department recommendation and correspondence I have a question for the Town Administrator. My I ask the question Chairman Hammes?
Answer HAMMES: Yes.
Question WEIBEL: Is the property located north of Marina Drive and east of Bainbridge Street in the current Town Plan as mixed use commercial?
Answer TRAVIS PARISH (Town Administrator): Yes.
Question WEIBEL: So the Town’s Plan does not include the 2 lots to the west? Is that correct?
Answer PARISH: Yes.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: I have one piece of correspondence. I have a letter from the Town of
Campbell dated March 12, 2008 addressed to myself, the zoning supervisor. At
the regular Town Board meeting on March 11, 2008 the following action took
place: Under zoning requests item #4; Petition #1777, Campbell Town Board
agreed upon the following conditions:
1. They meet with the neighbors before March 31, 2008.
2. They use the parking lots for passenger vehicles only.
3. They not use the lots for long term boat storage.
4. They landscape the lots appropriately.
5. They provide for adequate drainage.
6. They provide for alley and street access safety, including cutting back parking lot corners.
Department Recommendation: Approve with the six conditions noted by the Town and with an additional recommendation as conditional zoning that the Town amend their land use plan for 117 Walnut Street and 114 Locust Street so that they are in compliance with this request.
Question BINA: I have a number of concerns with this one. And it is a concern we have argued over for the last month. We now have a County Comprehensive Plan, we didn’t until March 20, 2008. Now we are violating our own rules by accepting this as a condition until the system has worked its way through. We had Town Board meetings twice and I think Bob Crooks and that other chairman was at one or two of these meetings. The Town Board Association asked for us to do some changes to the Town Plan which got beat at the County Board meeting of last month. One of the changes that was asked by the Town’s Association which included nine Towns and not 12 because they weren’t all there, was that we consider rezones more than once a year. Because in our Plan we have once a year and with certain conditions it can be taken up at a different time. The Town Board petitioned that we do it quarterly and that got beat at the County Board meeting. My question is why are we considering this now because we are violating our own considerations? I have not heard at all as to how we can bring a petition in that is not in the Town Comprehensive Plan? When did the Town of Campbell get their plan approved? Someone said August of 2007. So this is a petition that is not in the Town Plan. My question is why are we considering this now?
Answer HAMMES: Don, this is a re-zone request. What you are talking about is changing it quarterly was to change the Town Plan and the County would take action on changing the Town Plan.
Reply BINA: That’s what we are talking about right here.
Remark HAMMES: This is a zoning change.
Remark BINA: This is why we put together a Comprehensive Plan for the County.
Reply HAMMES: I know.
Remark BINA: And the Town did too. We are in violation of our own rules. Because if we wouldn’t have put the County Plan together and approved it, and that didn’t get approved by a very good vote in my estimation.
Question HAMMES: Charlie, any comments?
Answer CHARLIE HANDY, County Planner: The very specific language in the County’s Comprehensive Plan is to amend at least once per year, which allows you as the County Board to amend it as often as you wish. The language is specific. It says at least once per year.
Reply HAMMES: You can do it every month. It says a minimum of once a year. I voted against the plan.
Question BINA: But it
doesn’t say who has the right to bring that to our consideration. Can it be the
Town Board?
Answer HAMMES: The Town Board would have to petition to change the plan.
Reply BINA: Okay.
Question HANSON: I was interested in the staff recommendation because when I first looked at this we said we weren’t going to approve any rezone request unless it matches the Town Plan. I stuck by that over the last couple of years. Here we run into our first instance where we have a Comprehensive Plan where the land use doesn’t match up with the zoning request. We have in the past made the Town of Hamilton and the Town of Onalaska specifically go back and change their Town Land Use Plan and in their Land Use Plan to match what the zoning request would be. We made other Towns do this. Now do we make an exemption in this fact even though the Town of Campbell, as I understand it, is going to go back and make this amendment? Are we putting the cart before the horse? Should we approve this? And are we saying at that point, any Town, after we get the Comprehensive plan in, and they want to rezone something that doesn’t match your Land Use Plan you then come in here and tell us we are going to amend our Land Use Plan, but right now we want you to rezone it first and then we will go in and change our Land Use Plan? My understanding was that we were going to make them change their Land Use Plan before we did the rezoning. If that’s what this Committee wants so adhere to which then I would vote against this. My idea is that I would like to see the Town of Campbell amend their Land Use Plan. Bring it back and get the amendment in and then come back with this rezoning just the way we made the other Towns do it. I don’t like the idea of saying if you go ahead and do that, then we will go ahead and do it anyway. But I don’t want to turn this petition down because if I do then it will be one year before they can bring it back to the Committee. If this Board agrees then we should ask them to put it and then go to the Town of Campbell.
Department Recommendation:
WEIBEL: My recommendation for this specific petition called out the properties at 117 Walnut Street and 114 Locust Street because those two properties do not currently fit into the current Land Use Plan, but because this petition came in with 3 properties all together. The property you see on the corner of Bainbridge and Marina Drive currently fits the Town’s land use map. That’s why I’m making this Conditional Zoning for the two properties lying west of Bainbridge.
Question HAMMES: Are you saying that the zoning change would not take effect until the Town Plan is changed for those two properties? It’s the same thing we did in the Town of Hamilton.
Answer WEIBEL: The rezone does not happen or become effective until the Town amends the Land Use Plan. So they still have the land use discussion at the Town level.
Question HANSON: So you are saying that they could not build the parking lots there until they have amended the Land Use Plan?
Answer WEIBEL: Correct.
Question HANSON: But if they amend the Land Use Plan and it’s passed by the County Board, then the zoning would automatically take effect. Did we do that on the other petitions?
Answer WEIBEL: With Hamilton, they amended their plan and recorded it as a deed restriction.
Reply HANSON: Thanks for the explanation.
Remark WEIBEL: Under Conditional Zoning even though it’s approved and we’ve approved at the County Board level that zoning does not become effective until those conditions were met. The six conditions that the Town has outlined actually would apply to all three lots and that was for the surface parking and the drainage, etc. The actual rezone doesn’t occur until the Land Use Plan is amended for those two lots.
Question HANSON: If we want to do this, do we do it in one motion or two motions?
Answer HAMMES: One motion. Do you want to move for approval with the Town and Department recommendations?
RAUK: Move for approval to include all of the Town recommendations that apply to all three parcels and the County’s recommendation to apply to the two parcels on Locust Street and Walnut Street.
Question HAMMES: How many
Town conditions were there?
Answer WEIBEL: Six.
Meyer seconds the motion.
Discussion:
BINA: This is going to be an interesting Committee before we are all done with it. We are basically setting the policy by the seat of our pants in my estimation. Something came in from the Town of Onalaska pertinent to whatever was approved last month. We are going to have one heck of a big thing if we start approving prior to the Plan being changed. We should have a system that works. We are starting to make exceptions to our system.
HAMMES: What the staff has recommended is what has been done in the past.
BINA: You’re right, but we have to follow plans now which we never had tight authority over in the past. We had a plan from many of the Towns that were flexible. We now have brand new plans coming in and we need a new process of how we make approvals of some of these things. I’m not opposed to what you have here. It’s the process that I’m questioning right now.
MEYER: Could I ask Bob and Scott from the Town of Campbell, how long would it take to amend the Town Plan?
HANDY: Statutory requirements will probably require it to take about 45 to 60 days because of the 30-day notice for public hearing and then the publishing of an ordinance amendment. The quickest route would be about 45 days.
Vote on motion. 5 –
aye, 2 – no (Bina, Hanson). Motion passes.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2008-03 N. Allan Poser, acting on behalf of La Crosse Queen LLC, 127 Marina Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. Petition to remove an existing home at 1108 Bainbridge Street, then to perform filling and grading in order to construct a paved vehicle parking lot on 0.36 acres zoned Commercial District “B,” all in the Shoreland District of the Black River on land described as: Part of Government Lot 5 Section 30, T 16 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel number 4-1260-0. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: N. Allan Poser, 127 Marina Drive, La Crosse WI 54603. Want to change elevation of property, currently is at 643, plus or minus 1 foot. We’re working with the DNR and Land Conservation. We’ll put in a swale on the north end. We originally thought the best thing would be to put everything in the storm sewers along Bainbridge, but it’s better to filter it through vegetation. That’s what the swale is on the north end. We’ve worked with Davy Engineering. We’ll use tall pampas grass. We’re going to work with Effie to make sure that meets her needs. She didn’t want tall fences, she wants the breeze to come through. We’ll try to meet her needs. She doesn’t like the trees, so we’ll try to accommodate her there also. We tried to meet with everyone to try and eliminate questions.
Correspondence:
(WEIBEL:)
Letter dated March 25, 2008 read into record stating no opposition and need for
Chapter 30 permit from DNR Water Management Specialist Carrie Olson.
Department Recommendation: Approval subject to 4 conditions:
1. Permit is granted to perform excavation to remove the existing home at 1108 Bainbridge Street and to grade and fill in order to prepare the lot for surface parking in the Shoreland District of the Black River.
2. An approved Erosion Control Permit is required from La Crosse County Department of Land Conservation before any construction is commenced.
3. Applicant shall obtain a Chapter 30 DNR permit.
4. A 50-ft vegetated protective buffer between the impervious areas and the Ordinary High Water Mark of the river must be maintained.
Remark WEIBEL: As a note – paved parking lots are considered structures in the Shoreland Zoning District. This must be setback 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark.
Question HANSON: The application said “on lands zoned Commercial District “B.” Isn’t this land zoned Residential “C”?
Answer WEIBEL: Yes.
Question HANSON: So can this be done on Residential “C”? It won’t be Commercial “B” until County Board acts.
Answer WEBIEL: The zoning district doesn’t bear directly on Special Exception. Special Exception Permit is to perform grading in the Shoreland District. It’s independent of the zoning district.
Question HANSON: So even if there’s an error on the zoning of the property?
Answer WEIBEL: We’d allow them to grade in Residential “C,” they just couldn’t use it as a parking lot, until it is rezoned to Commercial “B.”
Motion Kapanke/Bina to approve with recommendations of Department. Motion carried unanimously.
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 641 – TERMINATION NO. 19 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate
Conditional Use Permit No. 641 filed by Harter Trucking, W5726 Koss Rd, Onalaska WI 54650 and passed by the La Crosse County Board on April 20, 2004 to stockpile and sell excess borrow materials taken from the construction of roads, ditches and storm water management structures in Marvin Gardens Plat. Reason for terminating – the stockpiles were removed and the Conditional Use Permit has not been operated for a period in excess of 12 consecutive months. Town of Onalaska.
Correspondence:
WEIBEL: Letter stating this is a voluntary termination with no objection from the property owner.
Motion Bina/Meyer to approve termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 641 – Termination No. 19. Carried unanimously.
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 257 (A & B) – TERMINATION NO. 20 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 257 (A & B) filed by David Harter, W5726 Koss Rd, Onalaska WI 54650 and passed by the La Crosse County Board on October 8, 1992 to establish a contractors storage yard in an existing pole building and to excavate top soil for commercial purposes respectively. Reason for terminating – the pole building has been removed and these permits have been out of operation for over 12 consecutive months. Town of Onalaska.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to approve termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 257 (A & B) – Termination No. 20. Carried unanimously.
TERMINATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 580 – TERMINATION NO. 21 Chad Vandenlangenberg, on behalf of La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, 400 4th Street North – Room 3170, La Crosse WI 54601. Petition to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 580 filed by Joe Kawatski, W7495 Council Bay Rd, Holmen WI 54636; acting on behalf of David and Mary Thompson, N8827 US Highway 53, Holmen WI 54636 and passed by the La Crosse County Board on April 16, 2002 to conduct experimental education using trained facilitators. Reason for terminating – Mary Thompson has indicated the business has not been in operation for over 12 consecutive months. Town of Holland.
Motion Hanson/Keil to approve termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 580 – Termination No. 21. Carried unanimously.
Motion Hanson/Meyer to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.
Mike Weibel, Recorder