APPROVED

PLAN COMMISSION

April 3, 2008

Troy Town Hall @ 7:00 p.m.

Hudson Wisconsin  54016

 

 

Members Present:     Ray Knapp, Chris Mueller (arrived 8:00 PM), David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell, Paul Mahler

 

Members Absent:      Dan Pearson (excused), Mark Mitchell (excused)

 

Staff Present:             Rob Jones, Cedar Corp., Josh Miller, Cedar Corp.

 

Recording Secretary:           Sharon Weide

 

Others present:          Phyllis Albert, Josh Miller, John and Sharon Durbin, James and Heather Solie,

                                    Jack Anacker, Glen Wiese, Marc Heintzman, Bill and Sara Poulos, Jocelyn                                           Richardt, Teri Brosi, Gene Bahr, Corey Benedict, Charlie Macdonell, Greg                                           Erickson, Jan Cuccia, LouAnn Endries, Theresa Barnes, Tammy Wittmer, Alex                                        Blackburn, Michael J. Barnes; others were present who did not sign in.

 

Call to Order

Ray Knapp called the meeting of the Town of Troy Plan Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

AGENDA: 

  1. Approve Minutes; 
  2. Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
  3. Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Sara & Bill Poulos, 288 Cove Rd;
  4. County special exception (institutional usage) – Heartland Montessori School, 436 Red Brick Rd.;
  5. Review proposed Developer Agreement amendments – Brightkeys, Walnut Hills Subdivision;
  6. Review & recommend Amended Driveway Ordinance;
  7. Review & Revise January ‘08 version of Comprehensive Plan;
  8. Review & recommend land use guidelines for parks;
  9. Building Permits/Utility Permits;
  10. Committee Reports & correspondence;
  11. Adjourn;

 

  1. Approve Minutes;

 

Minutes of the March 6 Plan Commission were reviewed.

 

Paul Mahler moved to approve the minutes of the March 6 Plan Commission meeting.  David Wolf seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

  1. Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;

 

There were none.

 

  1. Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Sara & Bill Poulos, 288 Cove Rd;

 

Ray Knapp began by saying that the purpose of the concept review is to complete the following tasks:

    • Identify the requirements of the ordinance that apply to the applicants plans,
    • Discuss and refine the applicant’s plans where possible,
    • Identify the information that the applicants will be expected to provide with the Riverway Permit Variance application depending on what they ultimately apply for.

 

Cory Benedict introduced himself as the contractor for Bill and Sara Poulos and stated that he would be managing the project with the exception of any landscaping.  Bill Poulos went on to review the different aspects of the proposed project:

1.       New house siding with stone to be installed on the foundation,

2.       Repair the deck, bring to code by replacing some or all of the footings, move rearward about 2 feet,

3.       Replace a railroad tie retaining wall with rock and extend to the North side,

4.       Install a pergola to make the house more esthetically pleasing,

5.       Repaint the garage and install a new garage door.

 

Cory Benedict showed the Plan Commission a sample of the siding and trim color, along with a picture of the rock proposed to be used.  Members agreed that the colors were acceptable and that this portion of the project would be considered ordinary repair and maintenance.

 

Ray Knapp then addressed the repair of the deck.  He began by saying that the applicants may replace decking and railing within the scope of ordinary repair and maintenance but that they would not be able to move the deck.  Bob Rolle added that the Poulos’ would not be able to replace the footings without a variance.  Ray went on to say that because the deck is classified as a nonconforming accessory structure it may not be structurally altered, reconstructed, or expanded without a variance being issued.  The Poulos’ stated that their intent was to replace the footings in order to make the structure sound.  Bob Rolle said that this would require the Poulos’ to have the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) determined and additional documentation that will be reviewed later.

 

The next item discussed was the replacement of the railroad tie retaining wall.  Bob Rolle felt that if only the existing ties were replaced that it could be considered ordinary repair and maintenance.  Ray Knapp asked if a retaining wall would be considered an accessory structure, and therefore non-conforming.  Rob Jones said yes, and that all, or significantly all of the structure could not be replaced.  He went on to say that the wall could be modified if it is necessary to address on-going erosion that a nonstructural method could not address, if it would be constructed out of natural materials and remain visually inconspicuous, and that the applicant submit detailed construction, erosion control and vegetation management plans.

 

Sara Poulos asked if the size of the retaining wall was not modified, just replaced would it be considered ordinary repair and maintenance.  There was additional discussion around augmenting the existing retaining wall with stone and whether there may or may not be footings or a welsh foundation under the existing retaining wall.  The Plan Commission was not willing to commit to this at this time.  The Poulos’ need to provide additional information about this issue in their application.

 

Bob Rolle explained that the pergola would not be able to be built as expansion towards the river is not allowed.  Finally, the painting of the garage to match to house color and the replacement of the garage door would be considered ordinary repair and maintenance.

 

Rob Jones then explained the application process.  He reviewed for the Plan Commission the information that the applicants would be expected to provide with the Riverway Permit Application.  These are:

1.   A scale drawing showing all pertinent information including setbacks and the OHWM

2.   A recent aerial photograph

3.   Proposed alterations of vegetation and topography

4.   A mitigation plan for nonconforming structural expansion (if the retaining wall is to be extended)

5.   Photos of the site taken from the middle of the river, slightly upstream and downstream of the    property

6.   An erosion control plan

7.   A vegetation management plan

8.   Any other information requested by the Town

1.       A scale, or dimensioned, drawing clearly showing the proposed decks within the footprint of the existing decks.

2.       Photographs clearly showing the existing vegetation in the proposed areas construction.

9.   Location of proposed on-site wastewater treatment system and private water supply information

10. A plan showing the proposed construction of structural erosion control measures and what is under the existing railroad ties

11. Specifications for Transmission services

12. A construction plan for stairways and lifts

 

Bob Rolle moved that the Plan Commission waive the requirement for Riverway Application items 2, 9, 11, and 12. Paul Mahler seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

There was a short discussion with the Poulus’ on how they might best proceed.  Ray suggested they look at recent riverway applications to see how to structure their application.  Ray Knapp then opened the Public Hearing, Sara & Bill Poulos, 288 Cove Rd, at 7:58 PM.  No one came forward to speak.  The Public Hearing was closed.

 

  1. County special exception (institutional usage) – Heartland Montessori School, 436 Red Brick Rd.;

 

Jocelyn Richardt, Treasurer, Heartland Montessori School explained that Heartland currently has two campuses, one in River Falls that has a preschool and an elementary school, and one in Hudson (off of I94 and Exit 4) that has a preschool.  Their plan is to move the Hudson location to the Red Brick Rd. address in order to obtain more outdoor space.  There are twenty students currently enrolled, the plan is to limit enrollment to 25.  The school also wants to establish a parent/toddler program once a week that would enroll up to 10 toddlers plus parent/s.  The school would operate during the school year between the hours of 7:30 am to 5:30 pm and hold one summer session of 3 weeks duration.  She went on to say that the differences in enrollment numbers and operating hours contained in the County application and the Town application was not intended to mislead.  It was intended to ensure that Heartland would not have to revise the Special Exception Permit if enrollment increased.  She finished by saying that Heartland intended to be a good neighbor.

 

Ray Knapp asked if any of the neighbors would like to address the Planning Commission.

 

Jack Anacker, 446 Red Brick Rd, asked if the property will become tax exempt once the Montessori School purchased it.  He also asked if the Town planned on posting a speed limit on the road as it is currently 55 MPH.  He also expressed concern about the sewer and water system and asked if the road was safe enough to handle the additional traffic.

 

Ray Knapp said that the Town could lower the speed limit, without an engineering study, to 45 MPH, and to 35 MPH if an engineering study is done.  Mr. Anacker stated he would like the speed brought down to 35 MPH.

 

Rob Jones said that the water and septic issue is a County issue but there would definitely be an inspection by a plumber prior to the special exception being granted.  Jocelyn Richardt stated that Heartland Montessori is non-profit and that the property in River Falls is tax exempt.

 

Jim Solie, 443 Red Brick Rd, echoed Mr. Anackers concerns and added that the times the children will be dropped off and picked up at Heartland are the times that neighborhood children are getting on and off of the bus.  Ray Knapp asked if Mr. Solie had concerns about the play area, the answer was no.

 

Sharon Durbin, 442 Red Brick Rd, doesn’t care for the play area in the front, she would like in the back.  She also asked if there would be fences, and what kind.  Ms. Durbin stated that she feels the school is a negative for property values and that she came to the country for the country, not to live next door to a school.  She stated she is opposed to the application

 

Glen Wiese asked if the old driveway off Coulee Trail is legal and if not would it be closed off.  Ray Knapp said it is not a legal drive.  Glen also requests that there be hedging along the north side of the property and he would like to see the playground in the front of the house.  He expressed concern about the septic system.

 

Members of the Plan Commission asked Jocelyn for clarification on the following points:

1.   Would there be meal service – No, the kitchen would not be removed but no meals would be served.

2.   How big is the play area, would it be fenced, where is it located – 80 feet by 160 feet, fenced with a 5 foot  green chain link fence.  That design may change to include the existing white rail fence. It will be located in the front, toward the side of the house.

3.   Could the play area be moved to the rear of the house – No, because the rear of the house is the only area for the paved parking lot as the septic system is in the front of the house

4.   Will there be any other fencing and/or screening– A 6 foot Cedar fence on the west side of the yard is planned, there are a number of evergreens and deciduous trees already on the property.

5.   What type of signage – Heartland would like signage on both Coulee and Red Brick Rd.

6.   Does Heartland plan to rent or buy this property – The property will be purchased.

7.   What type of lighting will there be – Heartland would like 5 lights at the rear of the building that will remain on all night.

8.   The number of student enrolled at the school – Heartland plans for a maximum of 25 students, with a parent/toddler program that would meet once a week for an hour and a half.

 

There was considerable discussion around each of these points.  Ray Knapp then asked each commission member their thoughts on the proposed project.

 

Chris Mueller felt that if the structure blends into the residential area he doesn’t have a philosophical problem with it, although he feels the number of students is high for the size of the house.

David Wolf felt that he could support the project if it was done appropriately and kept on a small scale.

Paul Mahler also felt that the project needs to be scaled down; he did not feel that the green chain link fence was aesthetically pleasing.

Ray Knapp felt that the school could be a good use for the property but would like to see the number of students limited.

Bob Rolle felt he could support the project, but screening was important and he would not support any signage on Coulee Trail.  He and Chris Mueller wanted to make it clear to the County that the Town would be opposed to this project if strict conditions are not imposed in the Special Exception.

 

After considerable discussion on all of the above points the following recommendation was made:

 

Bob Rolle moved the Plan Commission recommend the Town Board recommend approval of County special exception (institutional usage) – Heartland Montessori School, 436 Red Brick Rd. to the County Board of Adjustment with the following stipulations:

1.  there will be no signs on Coulee Trail

2.  the driveway to Coulee Trail will be closed

3.  there will be vegetative screening on Coulee Trail

4.  the play area will be moved toward the back

5.  there will be no night time lighting other than what would be consistent in a residential area

6.  the white fence will be left in front of the property

7.  there will be screening on the west side of the property that is acceptable to the neighbors on the west.

8.  there will be no play equipment or hard surface south of the home

9.  the property will meet all state and government regulations for health, fire, insurance and safety

10.  there will be no more than 25 students and no more than 8 students enrolled in the parent/toddler program

11.  the Town would be extremely opposed to the County granting a special exception permit unless these requirements are not mandated as part of the permit approval process

 

Chris Mueller seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

  1. Review proposed Developer Agreement amendments – Brightkeys, Walnut Hills Subdivision;

 

Rob Jones reviewed that the Walnut Hills subdivision was constructed in accordance with revised plans that differed from the approved plans referenced in the Developer’s Agreement.  For that reason, the town has not yet accepted the town roads within the subdivision.  The developer (Bright Keys) has met with Cedar corp. and St. Croix County to work towards completing the project but is not yet ready to propose any amendments to the Developer’s Agreement.  Rob stated that the outcome of this discussion should be to identify the issues remaining on the project, to review the conceptual construction proposals made by the developer and to give the developer direction on how to proceed.

 

Rob then reviewed the developers proposed resolutions to the storm water runoff problems.  The developer would clean the sediment out of the culvert at station 93+50, widen the area at the outfall to relocate the channel for erosion control, providing rip-rap and fabric where needed, and reseed.  They would build a drop rock stabilization structure approximately 360’ from station 93+50 towards the pond.  They would regrade the infiltration system back from pond 4p to the drop structure.  The developer would remove an 8” PVC culvert between the ponds and replace with an armored overflow (rip-rap and fabric) and reseed.  They would remove sediments to the 952 contour in pond 4p and the 955 contour in pond 5p.

 

Ray Knapp asked how this would change the flow of the water.  Rob Jones explained that the only way to lose water volume is to infiltrate it.  The purpose of the above steps is to enlarge the infiltration system to meet today’s standards.  By increasing the infiltration water quality is improved, volume is reduced and the rate is controlled.  The proposed plans do not replace the two 36” pipes with the 18” and 24” pipes in the original Developer’s Agreement.

 

Bob Rolle asked if the water wouldn’t run slower by leaving the larger pipes in.  Rob Jones said that because the revised plan has more than doubled the storage and provides for greater infiltration the water is changed, coming to the pipes.  This would be a better design than the original.  Ray asked if the pipes could be screened.  Rob said that the Town could ask the developer to do so.

 

Ray Knapp then asked if anything was going to be done with the holding ponds on the hill.  Rob explained that the holding ponds were only laid out for holding water, not infiltration.  Ray asked if this had been discussed with the County as one of the objectives was to infiltrate water.  Rob thought that this could be on the table as an objective. 

 

Bob Rolle asked what was proposed for the developer to insure that 5-10 years down the line the system doesn’t fail.  Rob Jones stated that the County is looking at requiring that the developer post a new letter of credit to insure that the system is maintained, or to require that the homeowners association have a maintenance plan written into the agreement.

 

Tammy Wittmer, St. Croix County Land Conservation Department, stated that her department’s goals are to 1) address and stabilize the site, 2) develop a long term maintenance plan so that everyone involved knows what can and can not be done at the site (mowing, etc.), 3) and finally, obtain as built drawings that an engineer has signed off on.

 

Ray Knapp asked about looking at the ponds at the top of the site.  Tammy thought that was a reasonable request and said the Town and the County would need to identify who’s going to be responsible for that and what the time frames would be.  Ray then asked if smaller pipes to regulate the flow could be installed at the upper pond.  Rob Jones said that putting in the smaller pipes would change the height of the water, so that action would need to be reviewed. Rob also said that infiltration systems on top could be a possibility, but that the soils would need to be reviewed and new engineering would need to be done.  Chris Mueller said that all the options should be considered and if the solution reduces the size of the lots, then so be it.  Bob Rolle asked what was the biggest failure at this site, Rob answered that it was erosion.

 

Ray Knapp asked the Plan Commission members if they agreed with the following summary.  The Town would like to retrofit the up-stream ponds, deal with the increase in erosion and sedimentation, clean the site of sediments, stabilize the site, and expand the infiltration system and drop site.  The consensus was yes.

 

Gene Bahr, representative for Bright Keys, said that the developer hopes to resolve these difficulties so that the project can be completed.  He stated he is willing to work with the Town on a resolution.

 

Theresa Barns read a letter from she and Michael Barns requesting the pipes to be changed from two 36” to 18” and 24” as specified in the developer’s agreement.  That letter also addressed storm water runoff problems that have occurred in the past and gave excerpts from County correspondence to the developer and excerpts of discussions with the Town’s engineer.  A copy of that letter is on file at the Town Hall.

 

Phyllis Albert, who lives to the north, said that she would like the runoff on the north side of the development reviewed as there is a large waterway there and the potential for significant erosion once the area is built out.  

 

Ray Knapp then asked Rob and Tammy to clarify what direction, from the Town, they are looking for.  Rob asked if the Town would be comfortable with another meeting taking place between the Town, the County, the developer and an engineer of their choosing.  There was considerable discussion on who should engineer the remainder of the project. Tammy Wittmer expressed concern about getting a 3rd firm involved; she felt that the system should be redesigned from the ground up. 

 

Gen Bahr reiterated that he plans to work diligently with all sides to get this completed.

 

  1. Review & recommend Amended Driveway Ordinance;

 

Ray explained that the Plan Commission is required by ordinance to make a recommendation to the Town Board if portions of the driveway ordinance are clarified or modified.  He, Dan Pearson, and Gwen have been working on the ordinance.  Ray used an outline from Gwen to work through the areas that have been clarified.

 

First, Gwen suggested that the intent of the ordinance had been to only regulate driveways that only enter onto Town roads and recommend that the scope of the ordinance be clarified to address only driveways that take access onto Town roads or private roads.  The Plan Commission agreed to this.

 

Second, permits are reviewed and issued by the Town chair “or designee”, currently the Town’s Building Inspector.  Plan Commission advance approval is needed to issue a driveway permit if the first building on the lot is not a house.  The Plan Commission agreed to maintain this procedure.

 

Third, the Town has the ability to inspect and repair what are essentially private bridges or driveways over very large culverts and do maintenance and repair if after notice the owner fails to perform required maintenance.  The cost can then be charged back to all tax parcels using (or able to use) the private structure as a special charge.  The Plan Commission agreed to this and added the verbiage “or Homeowners Association”.

 

Fourth, Section 125-6J was modified to further clarify the location of field roads.  The Plan Commission agreed with this.

 

Fifth, Section 125-6I clarifies that only one driveway is allowed per residential lot.  Bob Rolle said he would like to see the verbiage change to read “Commercial lots and parcels greater than 20 acres in size may receive additional driveway permit/s…”.The Plan Commission agreed with the intent of these clarifying statements.

 

Finally, Sections 125-7 and 125-12 were modified to clarify the process for removing a field road or driveway for which no permit has been issued, at the owner’s expense.  The Plan Commission agreed with this modification.

 

Rob Jones reviewed several thoughts that Cedar Corporation had about technical standards.  The Plan Commission agreed to add a maximum width for residential driveways based on Rob’s comments.

 

Cedar Corp. also recommended replacing the text description with a driveway profile diagram relating to driveway grade in the appendix.  The Plan Commission agreed to revisit this at a later date.

 

Ray Knapp recapped the above items.

 

Chris Mueller moved to recommend approval of the amended driveway ordinance with the changes Ray Knapp has documented.  Paul Mahler seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

  1. Review & Revise January ‘08 version of Comprehensive Plan;

 

Josh Miller, Cedar Corp, handed out the rewritten Introduction, Setting, Methodology, and Recent Developments.  He stated that some editing still needs to take place.  Bob Rolle also added that he has 3 more paragraphs to be included.  He will forward those to Josh.  The Plan Commission decided that members will review the revised section and forward any items for editing to Ray.  He will incorporate all of the edits into the document.

 

The Plan Commission then reviewed the revised existing land use map.  The map has classifications for Residential, Commercial, Ag/Res and Exclusive Ag, along with Riverway Zoning, and the Sending/Receiving areas from the Subdivision Ordinance.  Bob Rolle said that he would like to see the Ag-res and Residential designations combined into one color.  The maps are still missing the parks and conservancy designation and he would like to se that the TDRs sending and receiving stand out more.  After discussion by the Commission it was decided to combine Ag-re and Residential designations.

 

The Plan Commission then turned their attention to what they would like to see on a future land use map.  Bob Rolle would simply like to see the addition of a commercial district along the Highway 35 corridor.  He feels to get any more specific would carry the weight of a zoning map and would break the deal previously made with the farmers.  Ray Knapp said that he would like to see a future map that identifies large swaths of residential, agricultural, and commercial development.  He feels that this would provide a vision of what the Town would like to see in the future.  Ray asked Rob Jones for his input.  Rob explained that Menomonie’s future land use map had big bubbles that defined what their vision was.  Josh Miller said that in Troy’s case that may be the best way to go because you’re not following boundaries, it would be more abstract.

 

After considerable discussion it was decided that Bob Rolle would make a map up that would include a projected commercial zone and Ray Knapp would make a map up that would have large swaths for the differing zones.

 

Ray also suggested that there be special meetings to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, rather than try to do it during a Planning Commission meeting.  The meetings will take place on the last Thursdays of the month, with the first being April 24th from 6 to 10 PM.  These will be working sessions only.

 

  1. Review & recommend land use guidelines for parks;

 

Ray Knapp explained that Jill Berke, Park Board Chair, had asked that this item be tabled until the May meeting.

 

Paul Mahler moved to table item 8 relating to the review & recommended land use guidelines for parks.  Bob Rolle seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

  1. Building Permits/Utility Permits;

 

Building Permits were reviewed.  There were no utility permits.

 

  1. Committee Reports & correspondence;

 

Ray Knapp said that he has been contacted by the DOT to set up another meeting regarding Highway 35 with Bob Rolle, Dan Pearson and himself attending, and is waiting to hear back on the date.

 

  1. Adjourn;

 

Chris Mueller moved to adjourn the April 3, 2008 meeting of the Plan Commission at 11:58 PM.  David Wolf seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor