Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning 06-13-01AMENDED AGENDA ST. CROIX COUNTY NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING TO: Thomas Dorsey, Chairman St. Croix County Board FROM: Ronald Raymond, Chairman COMMITTEE TITLE: Planning, Zoning and Parks Committee DATE: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 TIME: 7:00 p.m. hearing LOCATION: St. Croix County Government Center, Hudson, WI CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: ADOPTION OF AGENDA: DATE OF NEXT MEETING: ACTION ON PREVIOUS MINUTES: UNFINISHED BUSINESS: OTHER BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: 1) Robert Shiefelbein, Ruby Shiefelbein and Donna Summerfield to rezone approximately 26 acres of land from Agriculture to Ag /Residential. Location: The 'SE ' / of the NE' /4 of Section 9, T31 N R19W,Town of Somerset. 2) An Ordinance Amending the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance to add Subchapter VIII of Chapter 17, Regulating Wireless Communication Service Facilities. A copy of the proposed amendment is available from the St. Croix County Zoning Office. 3) * Municipal Plat(s) ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING: ADJOURNMENT (Agenda not necessarily presented in this order) SUBMITTED BY: St. Croix County Zoning Office * Amended Items DATE: June 12, 2001 COPIES TO: County Board Office Committee Members County Clerk News Media /Notice Board . 4 MINUTES St. Croix County Planning, Zoning and Parks Committee June 13, 2001 St. Croix County Government Center, Hudson, Wisconsin Committee members present: Supervisors Ron Raymond, Linda Luckey, Art Jensen, and Buck Malick. Staff present: Steve Fisher, David Fodroczi, and Deb Zimmermann Excused: Supervisor Gerald Larson Chairman Raymond called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. A motion was made by Jensen, seconded by Malick and carried, to adopt the agenda. The upcoming meeting for this Committee is a Parks Reorganization meeting on June 18, 2001. Raymond explained the hearing process and opened the hearing. Robert Sheifelbein, Ruby Sheifelbein, Donna Summerfield Fisher read the notice into the record. The request is to rezone approximately 26 +/- acres of land from Agriculture to Ag/Residential. Location: A parcel of land located in the SE' /4 of the NE '/4, Section 9, T3 IN, R19W, Town of Somerset, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Donna Summerfield, 118 Mack Avenue, Tomah, Wisconsin, is one of the owners representing this request. The owners have inherited this parcel and would like to divide it three ways. The entire parcel they own is 160 acres but they only want to rezone 26 acres. Part of the land will be in CRP until 2006. Fisher went over the staff report, stating that the parcel conforms to the County Plan. The Town of Somerset approved this request at their June 6, 2001 meeting, after considering Wl. Stat. 91.77. Fisher added that the request meets 4 out of 5 of the town requirements. Fisher went over the GIS map, pointing out that the land is located near Pine Lake, has some steep slopes, is not prime farmland and consists of Class 4, 6 and 7 soils. The staff supports the rezoning request. The hearing was recessed on a motion by Jensen seconded by Luckey and carried. A motion by Malick was seconded by Jensen and carried to forward to the June 19 County Board meeting, based on the following findings: 1. The Town of Somerset Planning Commission and Town Board recommended approval of the rezoning request. The Somerset Town Plan uses five guidelines to delineate where preferred development areas shall be located. Based on the criteria in the plan, this rezoning generally conforms to the Town Plan. 2. The request complies with the County Plan. 3. The Town certified that the provisions of §91.77 have been met The Committee also so certifies. 4. There were no objections to the request. 5. The area is in proximity to some existing development. There is one major subdivision to the west and several smaller acreage farms and homes to the east of the site. 6. The parcel is in the rural planning area and is an appropriate use. 7. The land in the area is not good for farming and there is some increasing development around the area. 8. The parcel is not identified on the potentially productive agriculture map. 9. The soils on the parcel are borderline to poor. 9 • 10. The proposed use of the land for three lots with no improvements meets the policies of the County Plan. 11. Large lot development would be consistent with the rural character of the area. 12. The owners should provide a site plan showing the proposed lot locations. This would provide an opportunity to review impacts to environmental features and access to the site and the lake. The owners should be encouraged to preserve part of the environmental features and to be aware of the limitations associated with these features. The environmental elements should be incorporated into the development. It is specifically recommended that as little vegetation as possible be removed from the steep slopes leading to the lakeshore to prevent erosion, run off and sedimentation. 13. Access to any lots should not cross the drainage area. 14. As the owners consider design elements they should be encouraged to: protect floodplain; use best management practices, erosion and sediment control and stormwater management for the steep slopes; and not cross the drainage areas to access any lots. Raymond reopened the hearing and went over the procedure for the hearing process. Ordinance Amendment to add Subchapter VIII of Chapter 17, Regulating Wireless Communication Service Facilities: Fisher read the notice. Raymond asked for comments from the group. Several representatives from cell tower companies expressed opinions: Attorney Greg Korstad, on behalf of Voicestream, Attorney Mark Holm, on behalf of American Tower and Verizon Wireless and Attorney Evan Rice, on behalf of Sprint PCS. They all claimed that the current ordinance is adequate, and that the special exception process is a good process to allow towers in the area and helps to find reasonable areas to locate the towers. They do not want to see the proposed changes. Some of their concerns were: 1. If towers other than stealth design are not allowed within 2 miles of the river, there will not be any coverage for the Riverway area. 2. Some areas need to have towers taller than 200 feet to get the coverage needed. Shorter towers, such as stealth towers, would mean that there would need to be more towers. The topography in this area makes it difficult to have shorter towers in some areas. 3. Colocating is best suited to taller towers. They are concerned with the lowering of towers from 300 -feet to 200 -feet, as there is a large difference between the capability of a tower at 300 -feet and 200 -feet. The tower companies are willing to work together to have fewer towers, but the height must be there. 4. Questions were raised on the proposed annual report and fees that may be implemented. They believe that the engineering standards that the companies are held to should be adequate, and an annual report should not be necessary. It was suggested that a database on all towers should be implemented to keep track of towers. Bill Haase, 324 230' Avenue, Somerset, Wisconsin, is a landowner and dairy farmer. He is on the agenda for the next Board of Adjustment meeting for a proposed tower. His property is just outside the Riverway District in Somerset, and he and APT are proposing a 180 -foot monopole tower. Because it is not over 200 feet, the tower would not be lighted. He does not favor the proposed changes to the ordinance, as this would cause more towers, rather than fewer towers that are taller. There is no noise, smell or pollution with these towers, only visual effects He would prefer a monopole tower on his property, rather than a stealth tower that looks like a large silo. Haase asked how this change will affect his application. Fisher will check with 2 - Corporation Counsel. Paul Roelandt, representing the National Park Service, told the group that he appreciates the comments that everyone has made. He added that he strongly supports the proposed changes to the tower ordinance, and believes that it is valuable to keep the area scenic. He has been working with a group represented by citizens of Wisconsin and Minnesota, that have been very helpful in giving input for this proposed ordinance amendment. Roelandt showed the group picture of examples of stealth towers and camouflage towers. The camouflage towers look like telephone poles, and can hold up to 5 colocations. Roelandt stated that the National Park Service is willing to work with the companies to come up with something that is aesthetically acceptable within the park boundaries, but the companies must be willing to work with them, as well. Carl Press, 2007 280'' Street, Emerald is a supervisor from the Town of Forest. He told the committee that the Town of Forest has allowed American Tower to construct a 400 -foot tower, and that will be the only tower in their area, as it allows for coverage to the whole area. Malick read the comments of DNR's Kris Belling into the record, supporting the ordinance to minimize kills of birds, as well as a letter from the Town of Somerset plan committee chairman, Bob Pierce, supporting the amendments. Fisher added suggestions from Jeff Nelson, St. Croix County tower consultant. Nelson thinks it would be a good idea to look at "creative designs," if that could be defined, and work with the companies by offering incentives for designs that work. Discussion was held on line of sight coverage. If there are no hills or lots of foliage, coverage generally ranges about 5 to 6 miles. It was suggested that the county look at limiting colocations according to the height of the tower. It was noted that colocation does not seem to be happening due to competition. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Luckey and carried, to close the hearing. Municipal Plat: Dave Fodroczi presented the municipal preliminary plat of Red Cedar Canyon, Second Addition to the Committee. This plat is in the Town of Hudson. The Planning Department objected to the first addition of this plat, and commented to the State on it. Somehow, the objection fell through the cracks at the State level, and now Fodroczi is asking for the Committee to closely look at this plat, as there are areas on the plat that are inconsistent with the sewer service plan and are in conflict with the County plan. Discussion held. Motion by Jensen, seconded by Luckey and carried, certifying no objection to the preliminary plat if the final plat is consistent with the Hudson Area Urban Sewer Service Area Plan. Adjustments to the plat or an amendment to the Plan will be required to reconcile the plat and the Plan to make the final plat non - objectionable. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. t�ljv�.✓ Debra Zimm ann, Recorder C. W. Malick, Secretary 3