PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PUBLIC HEARING

June 2, 2008

County Board Room – Administrative Center

6:00 p.m. –  9:40 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 Chair Don Meyer.  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.

PUBLIC HEARING ON FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Remark BLUSKE:  At our March committee meeting we completely revised the County’s floodplain zoning ordinance to include the new official maps.  Those new official maps went into effect April 2.  After that we had to send a copy in to FEMA and the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which we did, along with all the postings for the legal notices.  They found out after we sent this that the wrong numbers were posted for the map panels.  Our parcel numbers were correct, but they weren’t preceded by the state or county number and ending with the letter “C.”  For each map number we had to add 55 – the state number, 063C which represents these as the county’s maps.  The panel number is the next set of digits, then the letter “C.”  Those are the only changes.  It doesn’t change how we regulate – it’s only changing the numbers.  Then we resubmit to FEMA and the State DNR.  With that, Mr. Chairman, you can open it up to a public hearing.  If there are no pros or against, I recommend to pass this as presented.

Remark MEYER:  Does anyone have an comments on what’s proposed?  Hearing none, we’ll close that part of the public hearing.

Motion Manthei/Bina to approve.  Motion carried unanimously.

REFERRED 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 from Residential District “C” to Commercial District “B,” a 0.36-acre parcel for surface parking of autos from the Island Girl Cruises and Huck Finns Restaurant on lands at 1108 Bainbridge Street and described as:  Part of Government Lot 5 in Section 30, T 16 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel number 4-1260-0.  Town of Campbell.

Question MEYER:  Is the testimony given at the last public hearing part of this record?

Answer BLUSKE:  It’s part of the record, but we’re only dealing with the rezone of one parcel tonight.

Appearing in Favor:  N. Allan Poser, acting on behalf of La Crosse Queen LLC, 127 Marina Drive, La Crosse WI  54603.  I appear here a second time.  The first time our request was approved by this committee.  SkipperLiner has come into the Town of Campbell, cleaned up a brown field and made it into one of the finest marine facilities in the country.  We’re the top employer in the Town of Campbell.  We try to be proactive and work with the community.  We’ve had several meetings here with town representatives.  We have a banquet facility we offer to the community.  We’re a smokeless, noiseless industry.  I believe we’re the largest taxpayer which helps lower everyone’s taxes.  We have a good record of accomplishment and try to do what’s best for the neighborhood.  In March of 2008 SkipperLiner appeared before the Town of Campbell Planning and Zoning Committee to add off-street parking.  We came in with 3 parcels; this has been reduced to 1 parcel.  This is part of why it was hung up in County Board, but we have agreed all along we’re just interested in the property you see on the screen (refers to overhead).  Our intent is to improve parking so that people won’t be parking on the streets in front of people’s homes.  We sent to the official Town zoning meeting.  Gary Simenson led a group of 21 people protesting the rezone.  They found out their desires were only to limit off-street parking and that’s what we’re trying to do.  We agreed to 6 conditions that have been sent to Mike Weibel by Town Administrator Travis Parish.  We left with an understanding we’d work together.  The Town Board  unanimously approved the rezoning with the understanding it’s just that property.  In April we appeared before this Committee with just the one property, but it was rejected in County Board because of the way it was written with all 3 properties.  You’ll also hear this evening there was an individual that after the agreement with the Town and this Committee went in with a petition from some of the neighbors.  The statement from them was that their property values would plummet.  In fact they have increased and some cases doubled since SkipperLiner came to that area and fixing the brown field.  We met with this individual and neighbors twice.  His argument was that we were removing houses.  We’re removing no houses.  We’re taking may ¼ of that square (refers to screen) and turning it into parking contiguous with our other parking.  We ask for your help in a small parking area that will reduce street parking.  In conclusion I’d like to read a letter from Gary Simenson, a gentleman against the zoning.  We have since shown him we are for the neighborhood.  He’s unable to be here tonight, he’s attending a Town of Campbell Emergency Planning meeting.  (Letter in support of rezone petition written by Gary Simenson read into record by N. Allan Poser.)

Question BLUSKE:  How many parking stalls total?

Answer POSER:  Sixty-three.

Question BLUSKE:  And drainage…?

Answer POSER:  Drainage will be toward Marina Drive.

Question BLUSKE:  What about fencing?

Answer POSER:  No fencing at this time.  We had a fence at the bottom line of that property.  We met with Effie Piper who said she wanted no fencing.  As we get closer we’ll be working with her regarding shrubbery that might help.

Appearing in Favor:  Travis Parish, Campbell Town Adminstrator, 2219 Bainbridge St, La Crosse WI  54603.  I’m here to give background on what the Town has done.  Our Planning Commission heard and approved this petition.  It went to the Town Board who also approved the petition unanimously.  The change to Commercial “B” complies with the Town’s land use plan.  The concern of the Town is that if this isn’t approved, parking will be forced onto the street.  Bainbridge is already busy, added parking on the street will add a safety concern.  The Town wishes for the County to approve this petition.

Appearing in Favor:  Jeff Schroeder, 1734 LaFond Ave, La Crosse WI  54603.  I represent this district on the County Board.  SkipperLiner is one of the premier builders of boats that size in the United States.  If you saw their products, you’d agree.  Their plan is to use this for overflow parking because they’ll be bringing their cruise ship Island Girl to that area twice per day during summer months.  This will alleviate parking on the streets.

Appearing in Favor:  Pat Post, Chair for Town Planning Commission, 2219 Bainbridge St, La Crosse WI  54603.    The Planning Commission as well as the Town Board has approved this petition.  The person starting the petition against this is also on the Town Planning Commission.  When we did our comp plan as far as zoning on that end of the island, we voted in favor of that.  Now that he’s turned this around, I don’t know what’s changed his mind.  I know the neighbors have met with Mr. Poser.  I’m not sure what signatures this gentleman has gotten, but he was at last week’s meeting with Mr. Poser and at that time he was in favor.  Now he’s changed his mind.  As far as the Planning commission, we are in favor, have been in favor even of the 3 lots, but the one for sure.

Appearing in Opposition:  Ted Von Uhl, 145 Locust St, La Crosse WI  54603.  I’d like to submit a copy of (a petition) people who are opposed to this.  I have never been in favor of this.  I’ve never voted to change lower French Island.

Comment:  Inaudible.

VON UHL:  Yes, and some names on the back.  (Petition passed among committee members.)

Question MEYER:  Jeff, have you seen this?

Answer BLUSKE:  Late Friday afternoon the County Clerk received four pages – that looks like many more pages.  When I reviewed the protest petition, I called Mr. Von Uhl and indicated we needed the front footage that each objector had on the subject parcel, along with the reason why.  On the ones I’d received there were two that did not give a reason.  None of the front footage was given.

Question MEYER:  Where does that put the petition?

Answer BLUSKE:  I talked with our Corporation Counsel.  He indicated the petitioners are required to put that on themselves.  We cannot help them with that – we have in the past.  If those protest petitions in front of you do not have the front footage on them, he may be taking those back.

Remark VON UHL:  Excuse me, if I may.  These are not protest petitions.  These are petitions of all the people in the neighborhood from the lower end of French Island who oppose this.  Jeff, you have the protest petition.  I just used the same form because you made multiple copies.

Reply BLUSKE:  Okay, thank you.

Remark BINA:  There’s 38 the way I count them.

Question MEYER:  Are those people close enough to be petitioning against it?

Answer BLUSKE:  Mr. Von Uhl indicated in addition to the protest petition he has people beyond the 300-ft radius that are not legal objectors, but can object.

Question MEYER:  As far as the petition – which one is the legal one?  The one that’s incomplete?

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes, that’s correct.

Remark VON UHL:  I can have that complete by the county meeting.

Reply BLUSKE:  He has until 24 hours before the county board meeting to correct this.

Remark VON UHL:  I am speaking on behalf of the majority of the residents of lower French Island, and neighbors of the property on 1108 Bainbridge Street.  I’m submitting the names of 47 residents, the 38 you have and the 11 Jeff has.  “We oppose the changing of the zoning and the paving over of our residential area.  We would like to see homes and families, not parking lots.  We have been told the value of our homes has increased since SkipperLiner moved in by both our Town Chairman, Scott Johnson and the representative from SkipperLiner, Al Poser.  This is in contrast with Mick O’Grady from ReMax and Terry Bartels from Gerrard Hoeschler, who are both licensed realtors.  Last month the property at 1108 Bainbridge was rental property.  The renters were asked to leave and SkipperLiner says the cost to repair and maintain the house is too expensive.  They choose instead to build a parking lot.  When questioned on the need for the parking lot, Al Poser said they provide boat rides for 30 to 40 patrons in the evening.  That’s at a time and they have two flights every evening.  When asked about how many employees they have at SkipperLiner, he replied about 110.  If half of the employees are finished with work at 4:30 p.m. and the first boat ride starts after that time, they should have adequate parking room for 50 vehicles.  And yet with 30 to 40 patrons riding at a time, you’d think some of them would ride together.  As a resident of Locust Street, right across the street from Marina Drive, I have never seen a problem with parking at their location.  I’ve never seen cars on Bainbridge Street.  While our town chairman calls this area a blight, residents are spending thousands of dollars on home improvement.  My neighbor to the east added an addition and deck as well as replacing a basement wall.  Across the street they replaced windows and put on new siding.  A neighbor near the end of the block moved into a vacant house, put in new windows, insulated, new siding, deck, chain link fence, concrete apron and a two-car garage, not mention interior work.  You can understand why our home values have gone up – there’s a lot of people putting money into their homes.  Two homes facing Bainbridge put on additions; one home put on siding, insulation and interior work and the other an addition and two-car garage.  While many have spent thousands on their homes, there are those in need of paint and repairs as well as those for sale and for rent.  I don’t think this is indicative of lower French Island, but all of French Island and all communities in general.  There are four new homeowners on Sperbeck Street and all were concerned about changing the property from residential to commercial.  A statement was made by one neighbor they wouldn’t have bought if they’d know this prior.  Many of us neighbors, like myself, have been in the neighborhood for over 30 years, and our homes have been our lives’ work.  To see SkipperLiner buy residential homes for a parking lot will erode the residential character of our neighborhood.  We support SkipperLiner and their endeavors, however we do no want them to spread into our neighborhood.  We want homes and families, not parking lots.  Hank you for your time and the opportunity to speak and your consideration.

Question BINA:  The proposal is different than last month’s, it eliminated two areas on the west side of Bainbridge.  They took it off because it wasn’t in the town plan.  Doesn’t SkipperLiner own the other side where the parking lot should go in?

Answer VON UHL:  They do, and it is now zoned residential.

Remark BINA:  I was trying to follow you – this was Commercial “C” already, but it really isn’t.

Remark VON UHL:  It’s Residential District “C”.

Question BLUSKE:  I want to make it clear – when you circulated the petition did the people know the house would stay?
Answer VON UHL:  There were rumors – it wasn’t known if it would stay or not – the petition wasn’t based on whether or not the house stayed.

Question BLUSKE:  But it sounds like it will stay there…

Answer VON UHL:  Sure.

Remark BLUSKE:  So it matters on how the petition was circulated – that would matter whether they signed or not.  If this is appealed this will come out, people will have to testify how this was presented. 

Reply VON UHL:  Effie (Piper), one of the neighbors, she is aware of this.

Question JEFF SCHROEDER:  What’s allowed on Residential “C”?

Answer BLUSKE:  Currently there’s a single family home.  They could tear this down and put in multi-family, anything over a duplex.  Residential “A” allows single family, Residential “B” allows a duplex, Residential “C” is anything as large as this lot could hold – it could be a 5 to 6-plex.

Remark SCHROEDER:  That could mean paving and black-top also.

Question RAUK:  A follow-up to the petitions.  The form is generic, I presume provided by the county clerk….okay, by the zoning office.  It says “the undersigned titleholders who own more than 50 percent of the area proposed to be rezoned or altered hereby protest the change in zoning classification of the following described lands and for the following reasons.”   No reasons have been added to these petitions.

Answer VON UHL:  The reason follows the name below it.

Remark RAUK:  So they’ve written in whatever they wanted.

Reply VON UHL:  There isn’t a reason required.  These aren’t protest petitions – this is just the same form.  It wasn’t essential to print their names – I thought it would help if there were any questions.

Question MEYER:  Jeff, if these aren’t protest petitions, what are they?

Answer BLUSKE:  They’re like a secondary protest.  People who don’t want to come to the public hearing can sign in opposition – they could be anywhere in the Town of Campbell.  In the committee’s debate and weighing of the issues, the people surrounding this carry the most weight.  The farther you get away, the less weight you’d put on it.

Remark VON UHL:  These names are from Sperbeck Street south, nobody further north.

Appearing in Opposition:  Effie Melcher-Piper, 1112 Bainbridge St, La Crosse WI  54603.  I’m to the north.  I’ve lived here 26 years.  When I bought I never thought of the possibility of this being rezoned.  Have spent time and money fixing up my property – that’s increased my value.  If it is changed to Commercial, it will change the atmosphere of the neighborhood.  The neighbors are saying they wished they’d known this earlier.  I’d rather have it remain a residential area then to worry about who’s parking in front of my property.

Question MACH:  I’m confused – I thought we were told as a committee this was Commercial – now I’m hearing it’s Residential “C”.  Didn’t you – Al Poser – say this is now Commercial? 

Answer POSER:  No, I did not.

Remark TRAVIS PARISH:  In our comprehensive plan, which is our future land use, this is designated Commercial or Mixed Use, which would allow for this change.  Currently it’s zoned Residential “C”.

Question BLUSKE:  For Ms. Melcher-Piper, when you signed the petition, did you know the house would remain?

Answer MELCHER-PIPER:  I didn’t have any idea, there have been several ideas out there.

Question BLUSKE:  Then you did not know?

Answer MELCHER-PIPER:  I did not know for sure.  Al Poser said he was going to keep it.  Other people said it would be torn down. 

Question BLUSKE:  Is your home a single family or duplex?
Answer MELCHER-PIPER:  A single-family that looks like a duplex.

Appearing in Opposition:  Charles Henry, 117 Sperbeck St, La Crosse WI  54603.  I’m the third house on the right hand side on Sperbeck.  I’m a second generation lower Islander.  I grew up on French Island, got married, had two kids.  I moved back to French Island, to the same street next to my parents.  Proud to be a lower Islander, you’ll see a lot of second generation people still living in that area.  I’ve lived there 30 years on and off.  Have never seen the traffic so bad on Bainbridge Street since NSP went in.  I oppose having it go residential.    I don’t see any difference if there’s a house there or not.  With a parking lot, nobody will rent house anyway.  I don’t want to see any more cars or parcels taken up for parking lots.  I agree with Ted – never have seen a parking problem on Bainbridge.  If they want, they can park on Marina Drive, there’s no residential areas in there.  Thank you for your time.

Appearing in Opposition:  Jeffrey Foellmi, 1321 LaCrescent St, La Crosse WI  54603.  Not on petition or map.  Opposed to this.  I drive in this area.  A lot of traffic on Bainbridge Street – all the way through.  I was asked by my aunt, Beatrice Foellmi, she can’t be here due to an animal she has that had surgery, she asked if I’d come speak for her.  She thought the house would be torn down, also because of the condition of the house.  The paperwork may or may not state the condition of the house. The house needs to be torn down.  We need business in the Town of Campbell.  We need residential areas more so.  Looking at other places in the Town of Campbell, we can’t have changes upon changes upon changes including residential areas.  I oppose this, not only because I live on La Crescent Street, 4 or 5 blocks north of this.  The house needs to be torn down and if he wants to build another one, that’s fine.  As far as conditional use, that can’t happen either, but a parking lot, that we do not need.

Remark MEYER:  I’d like to hear Al Poser.  I started out this hearing, hearing there was no opposition to this.  Doesn’t seem that way. 

Reply POSER:  I’ll pass around a picture of the lower piece of this property.  It’s more of a drive that would connect our property.  It makes our other parking lot contiguous.  It’s not the number of spots we’re adding, it’s the driveway going through (sketch placed on overhead).  What makes it work (referring to overhead) is the drive coming in, much less the spots being added.  This makes it a contiguous piece of property.  Total distance in this piece is maybe 15 yards, not the whole property.

Question BLUSKE:  So you’re adding 17 to 18 plus or minus spots for parking?

Answer POSER:  We reduced the overall number – this says 80, it’s more like 63.

Remark BLUSKE:  But there’s only 17 on this rezone.

Reply POSER:  The drive is the most important part, not the parking.  At our last meeting with the neighbors with Mr. Von Uhl present, I asked Mr. Von Uhl if he had a question, he asked if the house was being removed.  The residents asked that it not be removed.  Yet in the petition from last week, they’re stating they don’t like this because the house is being removed.  What was told to these people?  I don’t know if he’s telling people that he’s a member of the Planning Commission – I doubt that was ever brought up.  In the prior petition presented, probably 80 percent of the signers said the reason they opposed it was the property values were going down.  He’s even admitted the property values are not going down.  That’s the reason most people signed that petition.  I don’t know what’s being told, but it appears to keep changing.  In deference to Effie’s comments, we like Effie.  We had some trees trimmed for her, we want to make it as nice as possible.  The reason we’re not removing the house is so she can look at the same thing.  All we’re adding is a little parking and the road coming in that allows us a bigger parking area to allow for overflow.  It will be mainly used on weekends.  Hopefully the parking lot won’t be used.  When we have a full parking lot for our Marina and restaurant it can handle the overflow.  From the beginning the neighbors asked if we could eliminate or alleviate on-street parking.  We’re hoping this small lot and drive will serve the needs of the overflow parking.

Question BINA:  There was a comment about parking on Marina Drive.  That is a through street isn’t it?

Answer POSER:  That’s correct.

Remark BINA:  I don’t know how many more cars you can put there without causing problems.

Reply POSER:  There’s already a problem Mr. Bina.  We’ve met with the chief of police and Mr. Parish.  It’s not a problem here, the problem is around the corner.  People had parked on both sides of the street.  It’s almost impossible to get two cars going in both directions.  With the help of the Town, we’ve eliminated parking on the west side of the street, to allow better traffic flow.  We’re really trying to make this whole thing work.  We’re going to work with this citizen committee to work on other issues and with the Town to correct other traffic issues.  We’ve been trying to be proactive in addressing problems.  We want Bainbridge to work, we don’t want parking there.  There’s more truck traffic since Cargill went in.  We’re asking for a small section of land.  We’ve left the house as requested by the residents.  We’re really trying.

Question CHARLES HENRY:  Did you say with the cars parked on Bainbridge you have problems turning onto Marina Drive?

Answer POSER:  We haven’t had that problem.  The Island Girl hasn’t come up here yet.  We’re talking to renters to rent the house.  We currently don’t have any problems coming onto Marina Drive.  We know we’ll have larger parking issues on weekends.  Are we changing the neighborhood with this?  We don’t think so.  We’re adding a driveway more than anything.  We’re not changing the culture of the neighborhood.  We’re keeping the house.

Question HENRY:  Why didn’t your renters stay until these plans were finalized?
Answer POSER:  We asked them to leave.  Their lease was up.  We’re moving a shed.  If you were a renter you wouldn’t want all this activity.  If and when we decide to re-rent that, we will.

Question HENRY:  And you’ll put money into that house?

Answer POSER:  I don’t know what we’ll do with the house.

Remark MEYER:  Let’s move on.  We’re not going to get into a debate on who’s going to rent what.

Correspondence:
BLUSKE:

 Letter from Town of Campbell dated May 30, 2008 read into record stating town board approval of this zoning petition, also confirming compliance with the Town’s land use plan, subject to 6 town board conditions.  Approved by town board by a vote of 5 to 0.  

Protest petition was filed with the County Clerk May 30, 2008.  It had 9 names. (Refers to map on overhead.)  The three parcels on Schultz Drive:  Anderson, Schultz and Schultz; Melcher-Piper; and Larson.  The Goodes also signed.

Department Recommendation:  Approval – fits with County land use plan as conditional zoning subject to the recording of the following conditions: 

            1.  The parcel is only used for a passenger vehicle parking lot.

            2.  The parcel cannot be used for long-term boat storage.

            3.  The parcel is landscaped to fit the area with adequate drainage.

Question MEYER:  On the petition you have, they did not have the footage – should that be on there?
Answer BLUSKE:  They’ll have until 24 hours before County Board to submit these changes.  Right now we do not have a valid protest.

Remark MEYER:  And the other petition, all it says is “I want to stop this.”  If you’re that serious, you need a better reason than that.  Bill Shepherd should see these, although we don’t think they’re of much value since you have the original petition.

Question PEDRETTI:  Schultz – Schultz – Anderson.  Are they all houses?
Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Question PEDRETTI:  I thought there was a sheet-rock company there.

Answer BLUSKE:  That’s on the other side beyond 300 feet.

Question KEIL:  Now there’s three conditions, not six?
Answer BLUSKE:  Four were condensed to three.  The meeting with neighbors had nothing to do with zoning.  The only conditions we can place on conditional zoning are things we can enforce.

Motion Rauk/Keil to approve.  Motion carried unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 775  Phillip E. Quackenbush, 1811 Caroline Street, La Crosse WI  54603.  Petition for an after-the-fact permit to operate a contractors storage yard in connection with a part-time landscaping business on 0.36 acres at 1811 Caroline Street, zoned Residential District “A” and described as:  Part of Government Lot 8 in Section 19, T 16 N, R 7 W described in tax parcel number 4-657-0.  Town of Campbell.

Appearing in Favor:  Phillip E. Quackenbush, 1811 Caroline Street, La Crosse WI  54603.  I plan on operating a small landscaping business that started out as a hobby.  I do a little advertising in the La Crosse Tribune, but it is mainly word mouth.  I hold a full-time job and I’m going to retire next May and after retirement I plan on continuing to run my small business.  I would like to do this over the next five years.  I do the business solely by myself.  I don’t have standard operating hours.  I have no employees.  My business includes one flatbed truck which weighs 20,000 pounds and I understand that is a little high and I would be willing to get a one-ton truck.  I have no problems with that.  I have one stump grinder, two bobcats, one 5-ft x 8-ft utility trailer, a flatbed trailer, and some miscellaneous tools.  All equipment is stored inside except the flatbed truck and the truck and trailer.  I do not intend to have any impact on the surrounding property.  My business has been from this location since 1978.  I don’t have any traffic due to this business.  All the deliveries are to the job site.  I have no outside lighting, no noise, no employees.  The rubbish is all taken to the landfill.  I have a couple of sheds I store my equipment in.  I have a list of eighteen signatures of property owners within 300 feet.  I did have one objector at the Town of Campbell meeting.  He is the one who got this whole thing rolling.  He has been operating a small business from his property and the neighbors didn’t like what he was doing.  He was hauling in snow and a bunch of other stuff and they didn’t like the idea of that, the way I understand.  I have been approved by the Town of Campbell at both of their meetings.  I don’t want this to run any more than five years.

Appearing in Favor:  Pat Post, 809 Lori Place, La Crosse WI  54603.  I met with Phillip on this and I went around to all of the neighbors to talk to them.  The neighbors had no objections.  Mr. Quackenbush has been there for over 30 years doing this business and has never had any complaints or police reports filed.  This one gentleman was unhappy because he was not approved for this and therefore he is the one who filed a complaint.  The Town Board and Town of Campbell Planning Commission has no problems with it.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence:
BLUSKE:  Correspondence from the Town of Campbell dated May 30, 2008.  The Town Board approved the application permit number 775 for Phillip Quackenbush.  That is the only correspondence I have. 

Staff Recommendation:  Approval subject to nine conditions:

1.     Permit granted to operate a contractors storage yard in conjunction with a part-time landscaping business at 1811 Caroline Street.

2.     The following equipment only may be stored on site in the rear yard only:  one 20,000 GVW flatbed truck, one stump grinder, one 5-ft x 8-ft utility trailer, one 6-ft x 10-ft tandem trailer, two Bob Cats (skidsters), one riding lawn mower.

3.     All equipment will be stored inside except the flatbed truck and two trailers.  No parking on the street.

4.     There will be no other employees.

5.     One small pile of black dirt, less than two cubic yards, may be maintained.

6.     No signage advertising.

7.     Yard must be maintained.

8.     This permit is non-transferable.

9.     This permit expires on December 31, 2014 or sooner if there is a voluntary termination.

Motion Bina/Manthei to approve.  Passed unanimously.   

SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2008-08  Ron Reed, Chairman and acting on behalf of the Town of Barre, W4191 County Road O, La Crosse WI  54601.  Petition to perform grading and fill work in connection with a development for a new town park including a walking trail, playground equipment area, and open play areas south of Drectrah Coulee Road, on 7.0 acres that partially lie within the Shoreland District of Garbers Coulee Creek on lands described as:  Part of the NE-NE of Section 32, T 16 N, R 6 W described more fully in tax parcel number 2-417-10.  Town of Barre.

Appearing in Favor:  Cathy Brott, W3764 Walker Rd, Town of Barre, Chair of Park Committee.  Town is in progress of developing the first town park.  Part of the land was purchased, some donated.  Were able to purchase because of a stewardship granted from Wisconsin DNR, now we’d like to go into development stage.  Part of land is within 300 feet of Garbers Coulee Creek.  Amount of land to be disturbed in Shoreland District is limited.  We need a playground equipment area.  It now drains off an existing cornfield toward the creek, we want a grassed waterway with retention area.  Part of walking path would go through existing cornfield.  Path would be crushed recycled concrete.  The part along the creek down to the handicap access points will be mowed and the same materials used, but no excavation near the creek.  We’ll clear out junk trees along the creek and have master gardeners come in to plant natural grasses and plants.

Question BLUSKE:  Could you tell us about the grassy pavers?  (Refers to plan.)  Was the trail to cut through the woods?  The two jut-outs – it says handicap access there – will there be piers?  Will there be a structure that stops them from going in the water? 

Answer BROTT:  It will stop short of the water.  Garbers Creek is a small stream, but a naturally reproducing trout stream.  The rock would not go down all the way to the creek.  There’s no plan for a bridge. 

Question BLUSKE:  (Referring to plans.)  On the north end it says “grassy pavers?”

Answer BROTT:  That’s something Chris Fechner put in.  We originally talked about a wooden walkway above the dirt.  This is something Chris put in that he said would work also.  It wouldn’t be done until we had the funds.  There really isn’t a woods here.  There’s trees and brush in the steep part.  On this side where it goes down it’s grassy now.

Question BLUSKE:  We’d like a termination date for Phase 1 and Phase 2.  How long will this take?

Answer BROTT:  Sooner the better.  We’re having fundraisers.  All trail materials are donated.  All base materials for parking area are donated.  That should all happen this summer.  The base material and concrete for the shelter may be there, but materials for the shelter won’t be donated so we need to raise money.  I can’t say how long that part will take.  Basic excavation stuff should be done this summer.

Question BLUSKE:  Will a termination date of 2010 be enough time to do everything within 300 feet off the creek?

Answer BROTT:  I would think so.

Question PEDRETTI:  Will the Phase 1 walking trail be done at the same time as Phase 2?

Answer BROTT:  We hoped to begin Phase 1 before we came before you with Phase 2.  It was divided into two phases in case of inclement weather.  We didn’t need special exception for Phase 1.  Weather didn’t cooperate.  Equipment we borrowed was needed by the farmer.  They won’t be coming until next week or the week after.

Question PEDRETTI:  So no longer two phases?

Answer BROTT:  Not anymore.

Appearing in Favor:  Ron Reed, Chairman Town of Barre,W4191 County Road O, La Crosse WI  54601.  Cathy said most of it.  I concur with everything she said.  Town Board is 100 percent behind this.  Playground equipment is here or is coming soon.  It will be a nice park. 

Question MEYER:  Did people in the Town of Barre get to vote on it?  And they voted it in?

Answer REED:  Yes.

Correspondence:
BLUSKE:  Nothing from the Town of Barre but they’ve indicated for the record they’ve approved.  We were supposed to get a letter from the DNR today but it didn’t arrive.  Staff recommends approval subject to 5 conditions:

1.      This permit is granted specifically for grading and filling work for that part of the development of a town park lying in the Shoreland District of Garbers Coulee Creek.

2.      This work includes a walking path, ponding and retention areas, playground and open areas as shown on plans for the Drectrah Coulee Road Park prepared by Coulee Region Land Surveyors dated 04-25-08 as project number S-4203CCC.

3.      This permit is subject to the Town or consultant receiving an approved erosion control permit from the La Crosse County Land Conservation Department.

4.      Minimal tree cutting is allowed for walking path, no clear cutting.

5.      This permit expires July 31, 2010.

Motion Bina/Keil to approve with conditions.  Motion carries unanimously.

 

SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2008-09  Eric, Phillip and Mark Dummer, N5650 County Road E, Bangor WI  54614.  Petition to perform grading and fill work in connection with the construction of a new road to be called Dummer Valley Drive, which work includes the construction of approach fills, concrete bridge with a box opening of 26 feet wide by 10 feet high lying in the Shoreland District of Tollefson Coulee Creek on land zoned Agricultural District “A” and described as:  Part of the N½-NW of Section 3, T 15 N, R 6 W described in tax parcel 6-54-1.  Town of Greenfield.

Appearing in Favor:  Eric Dummer, N5650 County Road E, Bangor WI  54614.  We have DNR permit for the bridge.  We received Land Conservation approval at 3:30 today for flood and erosion control.  Putting in a bridge to access property we bought, to put in driveways and build 4 houses.  Parcel One has access to the road.  We had to rezone that because it was less than 35 acres.

Question BLUSKE:  Can you describe the bridge construction details?
Answer DUMMER:  Built on-site, I have the plans here designed by Dick Berg.  Fill will come from the quarry on the ridge.  We’ll elevate the road.  The bridge is 26-ft span and 9-ft high to handle a 100-year flood.

Question BLUSKE:  Has this gone to the Town Board?

Answer DUMMER:  We’re on the agenda for June 11^th.  We’ve been in discussion since November of last year.

Question RAUK:  I thought access to Parcel One was off the easement, and they wouldn’t continue on the old cement bridge.

Answer DUMMER:  There is legal access off this easement to that property.  Intent is to use the old bridge.

Question RAUK:  And that will continue to be his only access?

Answer DUMMER:  He would have access up to this town road.  He’s not intending to use this as his driveway.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence: 

BLUSKE:  From Wisconsin DNR, copy of a letter dated May 15 to Eric Dummer stating permit approval.

Question BLUSKE:  A DNR condition requires project completion by November of 2013.  Do you have a different date of completion proposed?
Answer DUMMER:  Intent is to start at end of June/beginning of July.  The date was not requested by us.

Question BLUSKE:  What is projected completion date?

Answer DUMMER:  As soon as possible.

Question BLUSKE:  2010?

Answer DUMMER:  That would be adequate.

Staff Recommendation:
BLUSKE:  Approval subject to 5 conditions:

1.      This permit is granted specifically for the construction of a town road and that portion of a 66-ft driveway access easement as shown on plans and survey dated 10-29-07 by RLS Richard Berg.

2.      The work will include the construction of approach fills and a concrete bridge with a box opening of 26-ft wide by 9-ft high in the bed and Shoreland District of Tollefson Coulee Creek.

3.      Wisconsin DNR Chapter 30 permit number IP-WC-2008-67004 is made part of this permit and must be kept current.

4.      An approved erosion control permit is required from the La Crosse County Land Conservation Department before any construction is started in order to prevent any sedimentation or pollution in the creek.

5.      This permit expires July 31, 2010 in order to monitor and make repairs after final construction.

Question BLUSKE:  Is it 9 feet or 10 feet high?

Answer DUMMER:  The plan submitted to the DNR was 9 feet.  That’s based on Dick Berg’s flood study.

Motion Keil/Rauk to approve with the 5 conditions.  Motion carried unanimously.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 776  Tom Bethea, agent for US Cellular, 2720 N Dayton Street  Unit G, Chicago IL  60614; acting on behalf of Darrell R. and Klara M. Oelke, W5625 Skyline Drive, La Crosse WI  54601.  Petition to construct a 90-ft monopole telecommunications tower for US Cellular to be known as the Maple Grove Tower, including a 30-ft wide utility/access easement on 0.23 acres of land zoned Transitional Agricultural District and described as:  Part of the NW-NW of Section 35, T 15 N, R 7 W described as:  Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Section 35; thence S01°24’51”W along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 35, 605.36’ to the point of beginning; thence S88°35’09”E 100.00’; thence S01°24’51”W 100.00’ thence N88°35’09”W 100.00’; thence N01°24’51”E 100.00’ to the point of beginning; together with a 30’ wide Access/Utility Easement being a part of the NW-NW of Section 35, T 15 N, R 7 W containing 0.653 acres of land and being described by:  Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Section 35; thence S01°24’51”W along the West line of the NW¼ of said Section 35, 605.36’; thence S88°35’09”E 115.00’ to the point of beginning; thence S01°24’51”W 50.00’ to a point herein after referred to as Point “A”; thence S86°40’45”E 238.90’; thence S81°58’34”E 261.22’; thence S87°10’50”E 148.23’; thence S68°40’56”E 199.88’ to the Northwesterly right-of-way line of Skyline Drive and the point of termination.  Also, including the following described line:  Beginning at aforementioned Point “A”; thence S01°24’51”W 50.00’ to the point of termination.  Town of Shelby.

Appearing in Favor:  Tom Bethea, 2720 N Dayton St, Chicago IL  60614.  Original project designed to provide coverage that is now inadequate, just for the main thorough-fare that goes north/south through the City of La Crosse.  Highways 14/61 and 35.  We’re trying to cover the bottom portion of the City of La Crosse and the northern portion of Highway 35 as it extends south toward Prairie du Chien.  As proposed, the antennas will cover that area and that valley to the east – 14/61 as it goes to Coon Valley.  You should get about 2 towers worth of coverage out of this one footprint.  A 90-ft monopole is a short antenna tower.  It will be located in an existing utility corridor.  It will be visible only to the minimal amount of traffic that drives west on Skyline Drive.  From other locations you’ll see only the very top of the pole.  The tower conforms to all the county siting requirements with the exception that all new poles must be a minimum of 520 feet away from residences from the tower property.  In this case we have one residence 457 feet away and the owner has already signed a waiver stating he doesn’t have a problem with a 90-ft pole that distance from his house.  The proposal has been favorably endorsed by the Town of Shelby.  I can answer any questions.  I think you all have plans and know where it’s located.

Question BLUSKE:  Maybe you could describe what is a monopole?

Answer BETHEA:  It’s stacked on-site, they’re basically graduated cylinders – they taper as they go toward the top.  This tower is designed by the manufacturer to carry the required number of antenna.  We’ve arranged with the landowner to lease enough ground space to house the required equipment needed by co-locaters.

Question BLUSKE:  (Referring to screen) Tom, could you indicate which building up there will be yours?

Answer BETHEA:  The one at 12 o’clock.  US Cellular typically uses a 12-ft x 20-ft prefabricated structure.  The 3 other boxes are footprints where the others could go.

 

Question BLUSKE:  Has the entrance to the easement been determined yet?
Answer BETHEA:  You have a legal description of the centerline, comes off right where the transmission line runs overhead.

Question RAUK:  Which property is within the designated distance you mentioned?

Answer BETHEA:  The Ken Lubbs property.

Question RAUK:  And there’s a residence within that 500 feet?
Answer BLUSKE:  We have a little sketch of that too.

Remark BETHEA:  The line shows about 450 plus feet of separation from the nearest point on the residence to the pole.

Remark BLUSKE:  We do have something in our ordinance that does allow if that house is within 500 feet that if we have their permission, which we do, the project can go ahead.

Appearing in Favor:  Darrell Oelke, W5625 Skyline Drive, Coon Valley Wisconsin.  I talked to all the neighbors, nobody has any problems with it.

Opposition:  None.

Correspondence BLUSKE:  An e-mail to myself from Town Adminstrator Jeff Brudos stating the town board approved at their last town board meeting.

Staff recommends approval subject to 14 conditions.

1.     United States Cellular is granted a permit for one 90-ft monopole-type communications tower with related equipment shed or cabinets.

2.     Tower may be constructed to be expanded in height by amendment of this conditional use permit.

3.     The tower will be designed to handle three additional carriers for future co-location.

4.     The 100-ft x 100-ft leased area shall be fenced to a height of 8-ft with barbed wire top and existing vegetation may be used for screening and landscaping and a Certified Survey Map is required before zoning/occupancy permits are issued.

5.     The owner of the telecommunication facility shall completely remove the facility, including subsurface structures, and restore the site to its pre-construction state when the facility is no longer used for its permitted purpose.

6.     A bond, letter of credit or other suitable financial guarantee shall be filed with the La Crosse County Zoning, Planning and Land Information Department, in the amount of $10,000. 

7.     The owner of the facility shall file a yearly report pursuant to Section 28.10 of the Telecommunications Ordinance.

8.     No hazardous materials may be stored on site other than batteries and items normally found in such facilities, such as propane. 

9.     The tower will be colored gray because of its placement in trees.

10. This permit is transferable per Section 28.14.

11. The access easement shall be kept clean and open in case of any emergency.

12. No advertising will be allowed on tower.

13. No vendors, no concession stands, no camping, no standing and no seating will be allowed within the tower drop zone.

14. One sign attached to the fence with contact information and phone number in case of emergency.

Question MEYER:  If another carrier comes do they contact US Cellular or us?
Answer BLUSKE:  They get permission from US Cellular then they come to us for a zoning/occupancy permit.

Motion Manthei/Keil to approve.

Comment RAUK:  Just a comment to Mr. Bethea – we’ll give you those 14 conditions inwriting.

Motion carried unanimously.

(Mr. Bethea asked about county board meeting date and time.  June 19 at 6:00 p.m. in this room.)

ZONING PETITION NO. 1780  David Harter, member Marvin Gardens Development LLC, W5726 Koss Road, Onalaska WI  54650; acting on behalf of Delores M. Steck, N5592 Hauser Road, Onalaska WI  54650.  Petition to rezone from the Exclusive Agricultural District to Residential District “A” an approximately 9.5-acre parcel lying above Schultz Drive, for an approximately 11 lot subdivision on land described as:  The North 6 acres of the NE-SW and that part of the SE-NW lying southerly of a tributary to Sand Lake Creek, all in Section 27, T 17 N, R 7 W.  Town of Onalaska.

Appearing in Favor:  David Harter, W5726 Koss Road, Onalaska WI  54650.  It’s basically an addition to Marvin Gardens Subdivision platted a few years back.  It’s really an additional ten lots.  Lot 13 (3 on overhead) has been planned to make a continuous curve, so you can see we’ve planned this since before the subdivision was platted.  I have a purchase option for this property.  It’s in the comprehensive plan as residential.  Any questions?

 

Question MACH:  On the front page it says Residential “A”, on the inside it says Agricultural “A”.

Answer BLUSKE: It should be Residential “A”.  It was originally submitted as Agricultural “A”.  When we amend our zoning ordinance the Agricultural “A” District will be a problem for us, it allows duplexes, multifamily.  Mr. Harter agreed to rezone to Residential “A” since it will be all single family.

Remark HARTER:  It will have the same restrictions as the rest of Marvin Gardens.  Because of the change, the Town of Onalaska couldn’t act on it last month.

Question BLUSKE:  Isn’t there an outfall structure on Lot 11 or 20?

Answer HARTER:  Lot 11, an existing lot in Marvin Gardens.

Question BLUSKE:  So you’ll address that in an easement.

Answer HARTER:  Yes.

Remark HARTER:  We haven’t met with the Town, but that parcel that says “Harter Trucking, Inc.” (refers to overhead) was set aside for a future park – to the left is the existing park.  They can’t require park land, but it might be part of the negotiations.  With Lot 13 (3 on our map).  Jeff how accurate is that 9½?

Answer BLUSKE:  It’s an estimate – if you have a better acreage.

Remark HARTER:  Somebody had come up with about ten acres, with Lot 13 and the outlot on Schultz Lane and the Harter Trucking parcel, the total land for these ten lots will be in the 14 to 15 acre range.

Appearing in Opposition:  Todd Baus, W5951 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  Most bought those lots for views, houses only on one side of Schultz Lane.  Safe place for the kids to play.  Adding 11 lots would double traffic and make it a different place to live from what we were told. Dave marketed lots as a subdivision with a country setting.  He stressed lots couldn’t be developed unless Town of Onalaska comprehensive land use plan could be changed, up to ten to fifteen years.  Two years later we’re facing this.  Back ends of all lots, there’s a bank dropping down to a creek.  Will require pushing houses up to the front of the lots.  All houses now are 70 to 75 feet off the road.  I invested much money.  If I knew this would happen, I’d have bought a city lot.  Marvin Gardens has many lots available.  Not a lot of lots there, don’t know why we need 11 more.  Five are still in Dave’s name.  There are several unsold lots on the other end, they’ve been available for three years.  We were told that wouldn’t be lots.  Schultz Lane was put there intentionally so current owners couldn’t use his road without paying him back or selling him land.  That was all planned.  This tax base will be attractive to the town to pack in ten more houses.  I don’t think it’s right when you have several lots available that long.  How does this addition fit into the town’s land use plan keeping part of the land green and some residential.  How can we sell off fourteen acres of someone else’s land to a different person and count that in out town land use plan, that hasn’t even been changed yet.  Did not appreciate finding out about this meeting back on May 24 and other people as late as last Wednesday or Thursday.  Dave, that Harter Trucking lot – are you going to offer that to the town?

 

Reply HARTER:  For park purposes possibly.

Remark BAUS:  That’s not a suitable park area.  Can’t run or walk through there.  Won’t send my kids down there.  It’s mud.  I run across it – when it rains, I can’t run it for two to three days.  I have a petition, not a legal petition, just as a group of neighbors.  There’s 21 people up there, 5 represented by Dave.  Still, 16 people owners of lot within 300 feet.  Thirteen signed against, one opposed and I didn’t get in touch with two.  (Read into record text of petition in opposition to Zoning Petition 1780.)  Don’t know if I can present this – if it’s worth it – I’ve never done this before.  Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak. 

Appearing in Opposition:  Lance Schmitt, W5999 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  Directly across from proposed subdivision area.  Todd Baus and I got together with neighbors yesterday.  We have signatures, don’t know how legal it is –first time we’ve done this.  Everybody has same feeling – we were marketed these lots as country setting, no lights across from us.  Two years later he wants to develop it.  That will force some of us to move, that’s the reason we invested money into it.

Appearing in Opposition:  Troy Hillstead, W5983 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  I apologize for my interruption before.  I received notification on May 28, 2008 – that’s why the petition isn’t legal.  Everybody’s got the same concerns:  traffic, how the lots were marketed, the lots were to stay the way they were.  I’m not against a free market or making money.  I work hard for my money.  I picked the hardest lot to develop out there for one reason – the view.  I’m lot number eleven.  Now it’ll be choked off with eleven little lots.  He’s claiming they’ll have the same conditions – will they have the same setbacks?

Reply HARTER:  The County regulates that.

Question HILLSTEAD:  Do we know where the 100-year floodplain is?

Answer HARTER:  It’s on the very back edge.

Remark HILLSTEAD:  So the lots will be shorter than they appear.

Reply HARTER:  The building area – yes.  All are along the creek.

Remark HILLSTEAD:  Most of us were under the impression of what we see is what we get.  That’s what got us together – we’re not a bunch of anti-social people that say this is out little slice of heaven.  It actually is our little slice of heaven.  We left the city to have more room to grow with our families.  It will be compromised severely with these eleven extra lots.  Thank you.

Appearing in Opposition:  David O’Mara, W5967 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  We bought thinking we’d stay there until retirement.  If this goes through, we’ll reconsider.  We were told the land across from us would not be developed – that’s why we chose the lots on that end.  The view of the creek, the trees, the wildlife, that’s why we chose it.  With septic systems and lawn fertilizer that close to the creek, some say it will get into the creek.  I believe there’s ten to fifteen lots still available; adding these eleven smaller lots doesn’t make sense.  When I bought the land, we sent a letter to Mr. Harter, thanking him for this development where houses weren’t stacked on one another.  I was wrong.  He’s in it for the money.  We’re here to live and raise our families.  Thank you.

Appearing in Opposition:  Shawn Kudron, W5991 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  Lot number ten (on overhead map), right across Schultz Lane.  I share a lot of the concerns brought up.  This neighborhood is unique.  Adding these ten lots completely takes away the uniqueness.  This development will go along the lines of this by Holmen with stacked-on houses.  I bought our lot from Mr. Harter, he was an easy person to work with.  But sharing the feelings of my neighbors I feel duped into what would happen with this land.  Right now it’s a field; looking at this map it’s hard to get a feel of the lay of the land.  He mentioned setbacks remain the same.  There’s concern about these houses being closer to one another.  Excessiveness of this development is a concern – number of lots still open.  Good from a business, tax base standpoint, but for green space…these lots back up to a wooded area on Sand Lake Creek.  Only lot number two on other side of Sobkowiak Road includes some wooded area, that will be taken up in residential lots.  A unique neighborhood where only a portion of one lot contains a wood line.  Now we’re looking at ten additional lots containing wood lines.  It’s a concern I have as a resident of the Town of Onalaska and La Crosse County.  The park is a concern.  I bought this lot because I have young children, like many of tonight’s speakers.  Nothing was given in writing or plans for developing this area.  We were told it would be developed similarly to Wellington Greens in the City of Onalaska, where they have a park and play structures.  This park, the play structure is pathetic.  It has a shelter for rental.  It didn’t seem to be high on the town’s money list.  A bridge goes over the creek that has a cheap 2 x 4 railing system.  I was told by a town board member that was to be a covered bridge, that hasn’t happened.  Railing system is completely down and there’s cardboard signs that say “use caution when crossing the bridge.”  I don’t know where the priorities are when we have all these children living out here.  Develop more lots/tax base/money, but then we have an area dedicated to children that’s gone by the wayside.  It goes along with where the priorities for the town and county are.  My concerns have to do with the green space, what’s been developed, and what most of us were told when we bought our land and built.  Thank you.

Remark B. JUNG(County Surveyor):  In regard to the floodplain question; if this is rezoned – when the preliminary plat comes in, we’ll address the floodplain issue.  As far as the park; I don’t know if the comprehensive plan requires anything, but the subdivision ordinance doesn’t require anything – that’s strictly a town issue.

Remark MEYER:  I’d like to have Dave come up particularly to comment on what they were told when they bought.

Reply HARTER:  There was never anything said about that land not being developed.  I challenge an one of you to say it was.  This was planned all along – that’s why lot 13 is a triangular lot.  Who would put a lot like that in unless they anticipated developing it.  I’ve been in conversations with Stecks ever since I platted this.  There’s absolutely no truth to this that it was marketed without being developed.  Even if I were to say something like that, I wouldn’t have control over it.  I don’t even own the land.  Every time I go to a rezoning, the people behind are saying “we don’t want a change,” similar to the earlier petition.  The reason they don’t want it rezoned is because they want it left that way.  Maybe if I lived across the street I wouldn’t want to see houses built either.  That’s not the way things progress – there’d be no building.  The park issues – the railing is down.  I was told by the town chairman that is down because they re going to put in a covered bridge.  Again, an issue I have no control over.  The town decides on improvements.  The lot next to it, that was always anticipated as future park land – why would have an outlot next to the park unless we would extend it, and if we were extending the park, then we get back to the same scenario when we developed the subdivision in the first place.  At that time, park land had to be donated – this was set aside as an outlot so it could be donated.  That verifies the fact it has always been in the back of my mind, actually up front – we’ve had discussions about lot 13 and the outlot for the park.  It’s obvious.  The condition of that property extended for the park – it’s in no worse condition than the existing park.  A comment was made it’s not acceptable as park property – it wouldn’t be any different.  As far as frontage – the lots will be larger than the lots across the street, and with more street frontage.  It’s pretty straight up.  If you look at a town map, I don’t think you could fin a more natural place to extend a subdivision.  It’s always been on the forefront of being developed and it’s a natural extension of what’s there now. 

Question MACH:  I’m beginning to question the safety of some of these lots.  I live near Pammel Creek.  In 1979 we were ready to leave the house because of a sever flood.  We now have a canal that protects the area I live in which is a floodplain of Pammel Creek.  I do question some of these houses built where they are.  A 100 year flood is not all we have – we sometimes have a 500-year flood.  So I do question houses being built near this creek.

Question BINA:  How many vacant lots do you have up the road or valley?

Answer HARTER:  Approximately 18.

Question BINA:  A while back we did a study on how many empty lots we have.  I think more in the Town of Greenfield.  Jeff, do you know how many are in the Town of Onalaska?

Answer BLUSKE:  I don’t have that number.

Remark HARTER:  They’re not all cookie cutter lots – people are looking for different styles.  In fact somebody else in Marvin Gardens asked that if we ever did develop this, he’d be interested in one of those lots.

Remark BLUSKE:  Getting back to Beverly’s comment – the 100 year floodplain is mapped on the Marvin Gardens plat.  We would require it on this subdivision.  Not only do we have setbacks from the front and sides, but we also have a rear yard.  There’s a 75-foot no construction zone at all for everything from the creek’s ordinary high water mark (OHWM).  Setback from street is 27 feet from right of way or 60 feet from centerline, whichever is greater.  He might have only 10 or 9 lots depending on talks with his surveyor and consultant in order to meet all the setbacks.  Those things do come into play, so that’s a real good point.  But we don’t regulate anything outside the 100 year.

Question PEDRETTI:  Just for clarification, have you had a board meeting with the Town of Onalaska?

Answer HARTER:  Not officially.  Their meeting notice said it was going from Exclusive Agricultural to Agricultural “A” and Jeff wanted to change it because of the reasons stated earlier.  We had informal discussions.

Question PEDRETTI:  And the comprehensive plan says….?

Remark BLUSKE:  Have you looked at it?

Answer HARTER:  It’s planned for residential use.

Question PEDRETTI:  Just this area or further north?

Answer HARTER:  Further north also.  The entire area around it is conservation residential.

Remark BLUSKE:  It has lot size restrictions based on the plan.

Question PEDRETTI:  And this meets that?
Answer BLUSKE:  Yes.

Remark HARTER:  That’s the last point I want to make.  It’s not an idea that came up tonight – it’s been planned for some time.  Everybody has agreed, that’s an area that should be residential.  Again, I want to reemphasize I have never said that shouldn’t be developed.

Remark MEYER:  In all fairness, I’ve let David speak in rebuttal; I’ll allow one person from the group in opposition.

Appearing in Rebuttal:  Todd Baus, W5951 Schultz Lane, Onalaska WI  54650.  Just a couple of questions.  Dave said this was in the process from the start.  Lot 2 is owned by John (inaudible), is that correct? (Using a laser pointer on the overhead screen.)  If you draw a straight line from lot 2 to 3, that notch there – if this was the plan from the start, why are you trying to sell it to John now?

Answer HARTER:  Because I didn’t own it.  I can’t sell something I don’t own.

Question BAUS:  You said there are 18 lots available?  How many were in the first addition?

Answer HARTER:  38.

Reply BAUS:  So we’re barely over half sold.  Setbacks are how far?  We were told 72 feet, and now you’re saying 60 feet.

Remark BLUSKE:  The subdivision could have been more restrictive, but we don’t enforce it if it’s more restrictive.  If that’s a condition of purchasing the lot, that’s what the developer wanted.  Sixty feet from centerline is the County’s minimum requirement.

Question BAUS:  In the comprehensive plan, does it state the person selling a 10-acre portion of their land to someone else to develop?  I don’t believe it does.  The person currently owning wants to sell all of their land, then they can put it in the comprehensive plan as stated.  I’m not going to tell you what the rules are because I don’t know.  I don’t believe it states in there that if a person has 80 acres, selling 15 to a different owner and letting him in there.  Maybe it would work if he bought the whole thing, not just that section.  I could be wrong, too.  From what I understand, that does not meet the comprehensive plan.  He could do that eight times, to eight different people.

Reply BLUSKE:  I can’t answer that.

Remark HARTER:  For the benefit of the committee, a point of information; one of the owners is here if the committee wanted to verify we had been talking for more than three years.

Remark BAUS:  We’re not a group of neighbors who all got together and said we’re going lie about this.  We all had the same information that was not going to be developed.

Reply MEYER:  This committee is not in the position to be the judge on that.  It’s not in our realm of responsibility.

Correspondence:

BLUSKE:  Nothing from the Town of Onalaska, we do have a resolution from them for situations like this, if they have not had the opportunity to act, they ask for a delay until the following meeting.  If we have no correspondence from them, this will not go to County Board on June 19.  It will be referred to the business portion of our July meeting, which is on June 30.  They’ll have to meet sometime in June.

Question RAUK:  Does that mean we should not take a vote tonight?

Answer BLUSKE:  No.  The committee should vote taking that into account.

Question RAUK:  What will we do when it comes back to the business portion?
Answer BLUSKE:  State statutes require before going to County Board, the committee has heard all correspondence.  You can’t send anything to County Board without hearing from the towns.  They play as important a role as La Crosse County.

Question RAUK:  So even though we act to pass or deny, we’ll hear all correspondence we get between tonight and the next committee meeting?

Answer BLUSKE:  At the business portion of the meeting.

Question RAUK:  But then we take a vote again?

Answer BLUSKE:  That’s correct.

Remark BINA:  The town may put an amendment we don’t have and that would be considered also.

Question KEIL:  Can we delay this for 30 days?
Answer BLUSKE:  Certainly.  If we delay we have to take it to the public hearing portion – we have to open it up again.

Question MEYER:  Even if nothing’s changed.

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes, if it’s deferred to the public hearing.

Remark MEYUER:  Everything said tonight would be on record at that time.

Reply BLUSKE:  That’s right.  (Refers to overhead map.)  Because we received this correspondence tonight from the people of Marvin Gardens subdivision, you can make check marks, circles or whatever.  These numbers that are on these parcels – that’s all they are, they’re not designed to replace original lot numbers.  We do this to identify people within 300 feet.  Owner of parcel 15, husband and wife – both have signed.  Husband and wife of parcel 13 have both signed, husband and wife of parcel 12, husband and wife of parcel 10, husband and wife of parcel 11, parcel 2 husband and wife, parcel 6 both have signed, parcel 9 both have signed, parcel 5 -  I’d have to confirm this but only 1 party has signed – in order to be valid both must sign, parcel 4 both have signed, parcel 19 one has signed, parcel 17 – I think that is the only owner, parcel 16 only 1 has signed.  That’s 13 lots represented.  For a protest this is not valid.  It does not give reasons why.  If they wanted to resubmit as a valid petition, they would need to start all over.  This is just something for you to weigh, knowing out of this list, I had 5 lots that took enough time to show up tonight.  Our rules indicate that if we have a public hearing, there should be enough stress put on it that people show up, rather than writing their name.  They can write letters, but they won’t be read into the record unless somebody else reads it into the record.  This is like the 38 names we saw before – whatever weight you want to put on them.

Question MEYER:  What does the top paragraph say?
Answer BLUSKE:  We the concerned citizens of the Marvin Gardens Subdivision, Town of Onalaska, hereby petition against the rezoning of said land north of Schultz Lane, Petition #1780 by Dave Harter, member of Marvin Gardens, LLC, acting on behalf of Delores M. Steck.

Question RAUK:  (Referring to map on screen.)  Explain the rules about sufficient petitioners around the perimeter and what perimeter we’re talking about.  And if they have to do it over again, what would be sufficient.  It may be as simple as sending a representative to Jeff’s office:  Would you tell them the deadline for submitting the petition.  The perimeter, process and deadline.

Answer BLUSKE:  When a person makes an application to rezone, we have a deadline – it’s usually the first Friday of the month.  Two weeks after that we prepare the maps and legal notices you receive in the mail.  We are also required by law to send a Class 2 notice to the La Crosse County legal newspaper.  Two weeks prior to this hearing, I need a legal notice in the paper, then the following week a second notice not less than one week before the meeting.  Part 2 requires us to send the notice out to the county board, this committee, the supervisor for this district, to the town board, and all property owners within 300 feet.  We mail those out Thursday or Friday because that meets our deadline requirement.  If it takes until the following Wednesday for it to get to your house, I can’t do anything about that.  We have to certify that because if this ended up in court, the first thing they’d ask is if we followed the letter of the law.  We do it every single month.  To be a valid protest, the signatures of over 50 percent of the perimeter of this black line (refers to map) must sign.  So looking at this map, Mrs. Steck and Mr. Hauser would need to sign, and maybe a couple of more lots to get 50 percent.  If you’re on this side of the line, I’d have to calculate the perimeter.  On a form I’d provide, they have to indicate – based on a legal description – how much frontage they have, which would be projected onto the front of this parcel.  Even though Mr. Harter owns this, you jump over it.  So you add these lines – whoever is on a side goes onto that 50 percent of the perimeter.  The petition is filed with the county clerk, it comes to us, we calculate the 50 percent of the signature around that.  That has to be filed at least 24 hours prior to the county board meeting.  The county board meets the 3^rd Thursday of every month at 6:00 p.m.  Twenty-four hours prior to that would be Wednesday up until 5:00 p.m., since we’re open until then.  Once that’s determined, it’s given to the county clerk and county board chairman to indicate we have a protest petition of over 50 percent of the perimeter.  If the petition has that, it requires the county board to pass this by a three quarters vote, rather than a majority.  We have 35 supervisors, half would be 18, three quarter is, I think, 28 supervisors, for the rezone to pass.  If it is not valid, the county board has to pass by more than 50 percent.

Comment RAUK:  On the notification – that was from county staff following precise county published procedures requiring notification.  Check your mail and see if you received notice from the town or anyone else on this subject.  It is the county that provided it, however late you perceive you may have received it, it is the county that provided that information.

Staff Recommendation:
BLUSKE:  Approval – it is consistent with town and county plan, and adjacent to an existing plat.

Question PEDRETTI:  If we vote on this tonight does it come to county board?

Answer BLUSKE:  No it will not, we have not heard from the town.

Question PEDRETTI:  If we vote to delay, it comes back here.

Answer BLUSKE:  Yes, at 6 o’clock.

Comment RAUK:  If we vote to approve or delay, that binds none of us to the same vote at the next committee meeting.  We may hear other information, and also the following county board meeting.

Comment BLUSKE:  The only information that can be used is what is heard here during these public hearings.  We record this.  If somebody adds testimony, that could change your vote. 
Question KEIL:  Will he have to reapply and repay?

Answer BLUSKE:  If you move to defer this, that means you’re looking for more information.

Comment RAUK:  I don’t think any of us feels there’s a clear and obvious choice.  I’m going to move to deny.

MEYER:  Do I have a second?
BINA:  I second.

MEYER:  I have a motion and a second to deny.

Discussion:

RAUK:  I don’t consider that choice an easy one.  There’s been a lot of information presented this evening, the vast majority in a gray area.  Here’s the significant points from my perspective:  I strongly support the opportunity for a businessman to do business – to buy land and develop it.  That’s a nice piece of land – I believe there was a long-term intent to develop it.  How or in what fashion it may or may not have been communicated – that’s beyond our determination.  I support that endeavor.  I also believe in and support the opinions of taxpayers and property owners to have input in the process.  The third thing is having sat on this committee and the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee and hearing about an estimated 700 to 900 lots available in this county, it’s hard for me to perceive a need for another 10 lots.  That’s what led to my motion.

BINA:  I need to justify my vote too.  I asked about how many lots in the Town of Onalaska before and I didn’t get an answer.  It was an issue in the Town of Greenfield and one big parcel was turned down.  That’s history.  This is an ideal spot for building sites, but there is a lot of opposition and miscommunication on what that land would be.  We have a lot of people saying the same thing and if they only got their notice a little bit ago, I’m sure they got the same communication.  There’s enough people and families on this list – I felt we have to do things differently.  That’s why I seconded the motion.

MEYER:  We’ll do this by a head count.  For denial or against:  Mach – for denial; Manthei – no; Pedretti – no; Keil – no.

BINA:  You lost me when you said for denial.

MEYER:  His motion was to deny.

BINA:  So it’s yes?

BLUSKE:  Yes if you’re recommending denial, no if you’re not.