PLANNING, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING
September 29, 2008
County Board Room – Administrative Center
6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Don Meyer, Tom Rauk, Don Bina, Robert Keil, Marilyn Pedretti, Dennis Manthei, Beverly Mach |
|
MEMBERS EXCUSED: |
None |
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
None |
|
OTHERS PRESENT: |
Jeff Bluske, Bill Jung, Ron Peterson (Recorder), Nate Sampson |
The 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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 783 Kevin A. Tuma, W8092 County Road Z, Onalaska, WI. Petitions to operate a construction business with a contractors’ storage yard on 1.61 acres of land zoned Agriculture District “A” at W8092 County Road Z and described as: Lot 4 of Certified Survey Map No. 133 Volume 4. Town of Onalaska.
Appearing in Favor: None.
BLUSKE: The procedure is to defer this for 30 days unless the petitioner shows up before the meeting is done. If there is a no-show he will need to pay the fee again.
Question MEYER: There is somebody here in opposition. Can we hear his testimony?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes, he can give testimony so he doesn’t have to stick around.
Appearing in Opposition: Michael Rudy, W8088 County Road Z, Onalaska, WI 54650. I own the home and property directly to the East of Mr. Tuma. I am here to give more information about the Tuma property. On the map it says a construction storage area. Mr. Tuma knocked on my door in September and asked me to sign a petition to allow him to keep a dumpster in front of his home parked perpendicular to County Road Z. That dumpster had been parked out in front of his house for over 10 years. He uses that dumpster to bring home from construction sites demolition material such as siding and he puts it in the dumpster. Throughout the years there has been a lot of it that has blown into my yard. Mr. Tuma has been very irresponsible in picking it up. When he asked me to sign the petition I told him that I would be foolish to do so. There would be large pieces of cardboard and plastic bags blowing into my yard.
I’m not totally opposed to him having a dumpster on his property, but if you were to approve of it I would recommend a tarp be placed over the dumpster. Someone turned him in and it wasn’t me. The dumpster was then removed and it was there for about 10 years. I believe he did it to save money so he wouldn’t have to buy a dumpster on every job site.
From past experience he doesn’t have much consideration for his neighbors. He doesn’t have it dumped regularly. I would ask that you require a privacy screen of some sort and a tarp to be placed on it at all times.
MEYER: I believe the dumpster is gone and restrictions can be placed on the Conditional Use Permit if he were to have another one. Any questions?
BINA: Question for Jeff: I didn’t know you could take construction materials off site and put them someplace else?
Answer BLUSKE: Normally, a contractor will not do that. A dumpster is at the work site and removed when the job is done. Because if he is charging the customer for a dumpster and he’s sticking things in there from other sites then others are maybe paying for it too.
RUDY: I built in 1990 and Kevin built his home shortly thereafter and he has been in the construction business a long time and I can understand a young business trying to grow and get on their feet and trying to cut overhead expenses, but he has been doing this for long, long time now.
MEYER: Okay seeing Mr. Tuma isn’t here now, we will go with your opposition to that.
There was no one else in opposition.
BLUSKE: We will hold it in abeyance until the end of the meeting.
NOTE: Petition was re-opened at the end of the meeting.
MEYER: Is there anyone in favor of Conditional Use Permit #783? Seeing none.
BLUSKE: Recommendation is to hold over until next month meeting and Mr. Tuma will be required to pay to the fee.
Motion Rauk/Manthei to defer until next month.
6 – Aye, 0 – no Motion approved. Petition to be heard next month.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 2008-13 Charles Felker, PE, 1516 Cliffview Drive, Onalaska, WI; acting in behalf of Michael Galstad, 3049 Edgewater Ln, La Crosse, WI and Donald Rieser, 3053 Edgewater Ln, La Crosse, WI; and Mitch Lown, 3057 Edgewater Ln, La Crosse, WI. Petitions to perform grading to revise the side yard elevations and flow-line design located on the common property lines of the 3 parcels zoned Agriculture District “A” described as: Outlots 71A, 72, 74 and 77 in the Assessors Plat of the NE ¼ of Section 12, T16N, R8W. Town of Campbell.
Appearing in Favor: Charles Felker, PE, 1516 Cliffview Drive, Onalaska, WI 54650. Originally, Last year we did work on these two parcels that are on the extreme ends and at that time Mr. Galstad and Mr. Lown proposed new residences which they put up. You see on the drawing the flow lines, initially all I could do at the time was meet the existing flow lines. I wasn’t doing anything for Mr. Rieser and we didn’t know that he was going to do anything, well before the end of the year he decided to raise his home up which he has now done and I suggested to the other owners that they not complete anything on the sides because maybe we could do a little better job of grading in there and that’s exactly what happened and Mr. Rieser is cooperating. I re-did the flow line and instead of a bare 1% pitch from the street to the lake, I brought the grade up a bit. Twenty-one inches on the one on the south and 22 inches for Town’s. I created a nicer side yard for moving and things like that. In the case of Galstad’s and Lown’s it created a little more usable yard area. It would take a few truck loads in each case. There is a nice blend between the properties.
Question RAUK: How large of an area these two side yards are draining? They connect directly to Edgewater Lane and I was wondering where on Edgewater Lane these two side yards are? Is it collecting all the water form Edgewater Lane or what exactly is it doing?
Answer FELKER: The roof water is all going to be piped to the lake. Galstad has already done that and Mr. Rieser is going to redo his downspouts. And Mr. Lown has one or two downspouts to do. That takes care of the roof water. The only water that is going to be contributed to the street would be what falls on the front yard. That water all comes down to a little catch basin between Rieser and Lown, and then there is another one on the south end of Lown’s property which is piped to the lake. In a typical rain the runoff is not going to amount to much because much of it is grass. In a flood situation there would be a problem down there until they raise the street someday, but that would be difficult because there are a few garages at street level.
Question RAUK: The catch basin on the north end of the Rieser property in Edgewater Lane piped to the Lake?
Answer FELKER: No. But it will be channeled into the flow line on each side to the Lake.
Question BLUSKE: Mr. Felker, because the garage isn’t done on the Rieser property what kind of a time frame are you looking at for completion for all the fill?
Answer FELKER: Four or Five weeks
Question BLUSKE: So by the end of the year is enough time to get it done?
Answer FELKER: Yes. They are controlled by when they pulled the Zoning/Occupancy Permit out, and that has been about a year.
MEYER: No one else appeared in favor of this petition.
Opposition: None.
Correspondence: Bluske: Town of Campbell, September 11, 2008, addressed to Mr. Weibel. The Town stated that Mitch Lown and Mike Galstad of Edgewater Lane with revisions to flow lines had no objections.
Staff Recommendation is to approve subject to 4 conditions:
Question MEYER: Mr. Felker, are those acceptable to you?
Answer FELKER: The project does not even come close to requiring a Chapter 30 permit because the area is so small. I think the silt fence is still up so that takes care of Mr. Rieser’s property.
Question BLUSKE: Is there any dirt running into the catch drain?
Question PEDRETTI: I have a question about the timing. Are you seeding the area or sodding it?
Answer FELKER: Rieser’s will probably seed theirs, Lown will put in sod, and Galstad’s will most likely sod. Markgren Lanscape Group is putting in the landscaping for both jobs.
BLUSKE: I believe mid-October is about the last time you can seed.
MEYER: What is the committee’s pleasure?
Motion Manthei/Mach to approve with conditions.
6 – aye, 0 – no Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1792 Dave Herlitzke for Herlitzke Enterprises LLC, 2131 Market St, La Crosse, WI; acting in behalf of Paul E Kunert, W4525 US Highway 14/61, La Crosse, WI. Petitions to rezone from the Commercial District “B” with conditions to Commercial District “B” for use for commercial condos and storage condos on 2 lots on the north side of Eddie Avenue described as: Lots 3 and 4 of Certified Survey Map No. 152 Volume 11, EXCEPT part taken for highway. Town of Shelby.
BLUSKE: The conditions that were placed on this were actually from Petition No. 1522 back in June 2003 where this committee recommended approval as conditional zoning upon the recording of conditions that only a tavern or a restaurant be allowed on this site. Those are the conditions he wants removed.
Appearing in Favor: DAVE HERLITZKE: 2106 14th Street South, La Crosse, WI. I am here to ask for these restrictive covenants be removed so that we could move forward with possible condo storage and business condos as you can see on the map. I met with the Town of Shelby and they said they would be willing to lift the restrictive covenants too. I met with them a couple of times and their planning commission.
Question BLUSKE: We sent a notice to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and he got a call back and the agent there, Mike Lenz, indicated that the Department of Transportation had some plans. They are indicating that they might be extending and taking the west end of Eddie Avenue. How would that affect your entrance if they had to take this? Have you talked to them?
Answer HERLITZKE: No, I haven’t talked to them. The driveway comes right to the end of the cul-de-sac there. We did have a map that the Department of Transportation proposed, but obviously things have changed. It didn’t show taking that portion. I would have to talk to Mike Lenz.
Question BLUSKE: Would you build these in phases with the ones in the back first?
Answer HERLITZKE: No, we would probably build the front buildings first. The cornerstone to the project is to have that frontage facing the highway. We could possibly shift things over or do some rearranging.
Question MEYER: Do the impacts and setbacks come from the Department of Transportation?
Answer BLUSKE: If they had purchased this after we had done our tour, the questions was asked “how did the Department of Transportation end up with this piece? Well they would have bought it from Mr. Kunert. I also have to show the committee this map because it is important. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation purchased this (looking at the map) from County Road YY down to the corner around this piece right here, around the cul-de-sac and another piece from Mr. Kunert in 2005. They had approached Mr. Brudos and they haven’t come up with any agreement yet. Maybe there is still enough room to make the access driveway work. There would be greater setbacks from the Right-of-way of a State Road, but you should be able to meet those anyway.
Answer HERLITZKE: I guess we can talk to Mike Lenz and find out what there ultimate plans are.
Question BINA: That area is where the Department of Transportation set up the temporary asphalt/mixing plant?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes.
BINA: If the Department of Transportation owns it and if they won’t use it again, maybe you could buy it back.
HERLITZKE: Our architect, Jerry Soderbach, called the Department of Transportation and they said they might allow a lesser setback because the one lot is so small. I think they are willing to work with us on that corner. Who knows what their ultimate plan is? These restrictions are the big thing right now. There is a lot more planning needed to get this to fly.
MEYER: No one else in favor or opposed to the petition.
Correspondence: Bluske: We do not have any correspondence form the Town of Shelby at this time, but it does sound like they are in favor at this time.
Staff Recommendation is approval. We looked at both the County and Town plan and it is consistent with both plans so we recommend approval.
BINA: If we make approval, when would it be enforced? Because the plan may change somewhat.
BLUSKE: When I talked to Mr. Lenz on the telephone he indicated they had run out of money because they did the hill project first. From where the four lanes end they still intend to make 4 lanes coming into Town, but money hasn’t been appropriated yet. It sounds like they would still use this area that was once a temporary asphalt plant site. Based on what Dave hears from the Department of Transportation, that will be his new setback requirement.
Motion Bina/Keil to remove the conditions..
6 – aye, 0 – no Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1793 Jason Yahnke acting in behalf of William H. Yahnke, W6816 Village View Ln, Holmen, WI. Petition to rezone from the Transitional Agriculture District to Agriculture District “A”, a 7.97 acre parcel in order to convert part of an existing pole building to a residence on land described as: Part of the SW-SW of Section 26, T18N, R8W described in tax Parcel number 8-1129-7. Town of Holland.
Appearing in Favor: Jason Yahnke, W6816 Village View Lane, Holmen, WI. Trying to rezone to put a residence inside the pole building. I bought the property 2 years ago with 27 building sites on it. Now there’s 3 and they were all in very bad shape.
Question BLUSKE: How many building sites?
Answer YAHNKE: 27
Question BLUSKE: According to what?
Answer YAHNKE: Sheds, corncribs, (etcetera)
Remark BLUSKE: Farm buildings, I thought you meant lots.
Remark YAHNKE: I’d put a 2 bedroom house inside the pole building. Rest of the land to be used as a hobby farm. On the paper it’s the larger building – 88’ X 54’. Only part of the building (used for house), rest will be used for a garage.
Question MANTHEI: It’s strictly a pole building now?
Answer YAHNKE: Yes.
Question PEDRETTI: Why isn’t the parcel to north being rezoned?
Answer YAHNKE: I didn’t have a reason to do it. It could be if needed. I just didn’t have a reason (to rezone).
Remark PEDRETTI: That’s part of the horse pasture.
Reply YAHNKE: Yes.
Question PEDRETTI: Is there any kind of issue with that being landlocked?
Answer BLUSKE: That’s an issue. The parcel is subject to an easement. You can’t create a parcel that land locks another without providing access.
Question BLUSKE: Do you own the land?
Answer YAHNKE: I’ve owned it for 3 years.
Remark BLUSKE: But it’s not in your name.
Reply YAHNKE: It’s in my father’s name. We haven’t transferred it yet.
Remark BLUSKE: Something would need to be done when that lot (to the north) is transferred. We’ve contacted the county health department. Can you tell us about the septic system, well and windmill?
Answer YAHNKE: Septic system has been removed. Well is existing – has been tested and is suitable for use. I don’t think there is anything wrong with the windmill.
Question BLUSKE: Is there a pit or cistern that needs to be abandoned? The health department said there was.
Answer YAHNKE: I’ve never seen one in there.
Question BINA: How many acres do you have in total?
Answer YAHNKE: The lot being rezoned is 8.5, the back lot is 3.
Question MEYER: You’re going to build a house in that pole building. Are you going to tear the pole building apart?
Answer YAHNKE: No – it will be 1 unit. The house will be inside the pole building – trying to utilize space.
Appearing in Opposition: None.
Correspondence: Bluske: Nothing official from the Town of Holland yet.
Remark PEDRETTI: Planning Commission is Tuesday, Wednesday is Town Board.
Remark BLUSKE: Staff has looked at Town’s and County’s plans – this is not consistent with either one. One calls for conservancy on part of this and the other calls for environmental. On the Town of Holland’s plan (refers to map on projector screen), this is the Highway 35 corridor. This shaded, hatched area is conservancy – it’s an overlay district. The back portion allows for small lot residential, but we don’t know how deep the conservancy district extends. We don’t know if the shed falls within that. We’re recommending that until we hear from the Town on how deep that extends, that we can’t make a determination. The conservancy district is established to conserve environmentally sensitive and archeological areas including but not limited to wetlands, 100 year floodplains, wet soils, steep slopes, wildlife corridors and archeological sites. Doesn’t prevent existing uses … from continuing. This district would likely utilize the purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, or such program providing long term preservation. Recommendation to deny or refer until we hear from the Town. We can’t tell how much is in conservancy.
Question BINA: Out on New Amsterdam Road, wasn’t there a scenic easement of 350 feet. Is this on that same road?
Answer BLUSKE: Highway 35 has the scenic easement.
Question BINA: You’re not sure what the setback may be then? I don’t know how far that goes down toward New Amsterdam.
Reply BLUSKE: (Refers to aerial photo on overhead). This was the auto dealer on the corner. These are the property owners Yahnke’s purchased from. This is the pole barn. It depends where the conservancy line goes through this property. Anything below the line would not be subject to this rezoning. We’d need to amend it to not include that portion.
Remark PEDRETTI: I think it’s in the report. I think it’s 300 feet. We’ll check.
Question PEDRETTI: Do you need to do this with the plan if an existing house is already there?
Answer BLUSKE: It was a residence, had the house not burned down we wouldn’t be subject to this. It would have been an allowed use – now that it’s not there, they’re starting over. We’re changing the occupancy of a building designed for storage. If it was the existing residence and they wanted to remodel, that’s an allowed use.
Question PEDRETTI: Let’s say the Town Plan says 300 feet, that building is outside the 300 feet ….
Answer BLUSKE: Then we’d go along with it. The 300 foot line went right in front of Mr. Gilbertson’s building. 300 feet would run approximately here (refers to overhead site plan). We’re on fact finding mission – we could rezone this portion of it. Our recommendation would be to approve outside of the 300 feet or whatever it is.
Question BINA: If the lot is 750 feet deep and you put a ruler on it (refers to overhead), it appears it would pass. But if you’re questioning it, I wouldn’t want to turn them down, have them re-apply and pay another fee. It’s our problem looking into the criteria. I’d rather we hold it over for 30 days.
Remark BLUSKE: Maybe you could ask Jason what is his time frame – this year? Next year?
Reply YAHNKE: I was hoping to get concrete in before the frost.
Remark BLUSKE: Our recommendation would be to approve this as Agriculture “A” Zoning outside the conservancy (planning) district.
Question BINA: Would he want to expand that lot if the front doesn’t qualify?
Answer YAHNKE: No. I wouldn’t have to.
Question BINA: As long as it’s rezoned for your house in that area. And any problem driving through conservancy to get to his house?
Answer BLUSKE: That’s an existing use.
Question RAUK: But if the 300 feet encompassed the pole building, a condition would be he couldn’t remodel this home and he’d need to go elsewhere – then he’s talking new construction on undeveloped land. Will our conditions include all those choices?
Answer BLUSKE: All uses in Agriculture “A” would be allowed for residential.
Question RAUK: So he’ll have 3 choices if the 300 foot line falls street side of the pole barn. He can remodel the pole barn, he could remodel the shed in back or he could start new on open ground?
Answer BLUSKE: Yes.
Question MEYER: Jeff, will we have that answer by County Board day?
Answer PEDRETTI: Town Board meets next Wednesday.
Remark BLUSKE: Supervisor Pedretti said the Planning Commission meets next Tuesday, then the Board on Wednesday. I’ll have it ready for a report by Friday. If Jason attends those, he’ll know by then.
Question RAUK: Can you restate your recommendations?
Answer BLUSKE: Our recommendation is to approve Agriculture District “A” for that part of the parcel that is not conservancy in the Town Plan.
Approval with conditions Rauk/Keil. Motion carried unanimously.
ZONING PETITION NO. 1794 Steven Mader, Chairman Town of Greenfield, N884 Valley View Rd, Coon Valley, WI; acting in behalf of FSPA Villa Farm, 912 Market St, La Crosse, WI. Petitions to rezone from the Transitional Agriculture District to Agriculture District “A”, a 1.84 acre parcel for use as a new town hall, town shop and fire station on land described as: Part of the S ½-SE ¼ of Section 12, T15N, R6W commencing at the S ¼ corner of said Section 12; thence N 36° 55’ 31” E 1335.48 feet to the POB: thence N 03° 40’ 04” W 236.73 feet; thence S 89° 12’ 27” E 381.09 feet; thence S 18° 02’ 44.5” E 169.42 feet; thence S 80° 31’ 01” W 424.18 feet to the POB. Town of Greenfield.
Appearing in Favor: Steven Mader, Chairman, Town of Greenfield, N884 Valley View Rd, Coon Valley, WI. This is to rezone about 1.5 acres behind the church and school, on the water tower site, which is owned by the sanitary district. We have an easement we’ll sign to access this property for a fire station, town shop and town hall. This project is the result of a 4-5 year plan to bring a fire substation to Greenfield. Response times are 12-15 minutes – not safe. Fire protection is supplied by Shelby. We put the substation in the town shop – we have a fire truck, 5 firemen and 2 first responders. We’re excited about this project. Stumbling block – Town’s plan is not completed, our first meeting is this coming Thursday. We have big support for this project – had a referendum 2 years ago – 777 people voted. It was 609 to 136 to establish fire substation, 614 to 97 it should be built in or near the community of St. Joseph. It was 522 to 192 that if a fire station is built, a new town hall shall be built as part of the building. Fourteen months ago we had a special town meeting to discuss where it should be sited. One site was west of St. Joseph 1 mile, one was west ½ mile. The last was the water tower site. The vote to keep it in the village was approximately 189 to 24. It was a mandate for the site and a mandate to go forward. Town board is under direction to move forward one step at a time. This is the next step.
Remark BINA: The area they want to build wasn’t planted in crops this year. It’s a vacant lot. They’ve been planning to build here a long time.
Question BLUSKE: Was this the first site you considered?
Answer MADER: This is the site I didn’t want but I go with the majority.
Appearing in Favor: Sister Sharon Berger, representing the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, 912 Market St, La Crosse, WI. We have had property in St. Joe’s Ridge since 1895. This property was bought in the early 90’s. We have 100 sisters in retirement there and we appreciate the town wanting to provide fire protection for all of the citizens. We have been in negotiations with them for over 1 year. We fully support this proposal
Correspondence: Bluske: We’ve heard from the town tonight. There are no hurdles – they participated in planning the first time. Their plan agrees with ours – mixed use, along with residential. We concur with this request and recommend approval
Motion Bina/Keil to approve. Motion carried unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
The above minutes may be approved, amended, or corrected at the next Committee meeting.
Ron Peterson, Recorder