APPROVED
PLAN COMMISSION
August 5, 2009
Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, Joe Duerre, David Wolf, Mark Mitchell, Paul Mahler
Members Absent: Bob Rolle
Staff Present: Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.,
Recording Secretary: Sharon Weide
Others present: Tom Kigin, Donna Avery, Tanner Turnquist, Jon Sonnentag, Jim Anderson, Mikki Anderson, Wally Riedel, Lil Riedel, Bob Allison, Maggie Allison. Others were present who did not sign in.
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting of the Town of
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
Minutes of the July 2, 2009 Plan Commission were
reviewed. Mark Mitchell moved to approve
the minutes of the July 2 Plan Commission.
Jan Cuccia seconded. Motion
passed, all in favor.
2. Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
There were none.
3. Concept review of 3 lot CSM – Tanner
Turnquist,
Rob
Jones explained that the applicant has applied for a concept review to
subdivide a 14.03 acre lot into 3 new lots.
This 14.03 acre lot was previously created as "lot 1" in May
of 2004 as part of a fifty/fifty farm plan.
Had this proposal come before the Plan Commission prior to May of 2009
it would have been considered part of the original subdivision and therefore
would have been deemed a major subdivision as opposed to a minor
subdivision. The concept proposes a
shared driveway for new lots 5 and 6 to exit onto
·
The density ratio
is one dwelling unit for each 3.0 acres
·
The minimum lot
size is 2.5 acres
·
Commonly owned
areas aren't required unless storm water management devices which require
common maintenance are required
·
Houses should be
located on the lots so as to allow for as great of separation from the
protected agricultural use as possible.
Rob
also said that one of the larger lots (either lot 5 or lot 6) could be further
subdivided in the future while still complying with the criteria noted above,
and that the Plan Commission may want to determine how a potential excess
development right could be held as part of this subdivision or possibly
transferred.
Jon
Sonnentag, representing the applicant, clarified lot sizes and who would have
ownership of the shared driveway. Ray
Knapp asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this concept. No one came forward.
The
Plan Commission then discussed the concept design. Mark Mitchell said that he would like to see
the shared drive serve all three lots so that there was only one more access
from
Further
discussion took place about the remaining development right. There was general consensus that the
development rights can not be moved to a holding permit or sold once the
property is zoned ag-residential. Rob
Jones will research this.
Finally,
members of the Plan Commission came to a consensus that they would consider
approval of the proposed plan with the creation of a shared driveway for lots 5
and 6 and an individual driveway for lot 7 with the caveat that that a
statement is made on the CSM that there be no further subdivision. A maintenance agreement for the shared
driveway will also need to be executed.
4. Riverway concept review/public hearing for after the fact permit for
reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area to repair and/or replace
existing deck as needed and creation of storage area – Robert & Maggie
Allison, 277 Cove Rd.;
Rob
Jones explained that this proposal is an after the fact request to repair and
replace an existing deck in a non-conforming area. The Riverway Ordinance (RWO) allows for
ordinary repair and maintenance of non-conforming accessory structures but does
not permit the reconstruction or replacement of an existing deck without a
variance. He reminded the Plan
Commission that in the most recent related applications they attempted to determine
the following during the concept review:
·
If the footprint
of the structure had changed
·
If any vegetation
was removed as part of the project
·
If the
reconstructed structure will be visually inconspicuous from the river
He
reminded the Plan Commission that if they recommend approval of the application
it will go before the Board of Appeals for approval and to the Town Board to
determine if any fines should be assessed.
Paul Mahler asked why this was a non-conforming area. Rob answered that it was because the
structure is within the 40 foot setback of the bluff.
Bob
Allison addressed the Plan Commission and presented a drawing of the outline of
the home and the deck. He also displayed
pictures of the previous deck from varying locations around the house. He went on to say that he had started to
rebuild the deck approximately three years ago.
Ray Knapp asked if the concrete pad was there prior to beginning the
reconstruction project. Mr. Allison said
that the original concrete pad was torn up and rebuilt. He then shared erosion control efforts that
have taken place between 1963 and 2009.
He was asked if the footings had been replaced and answered that the original
deck supports rested on concrete blocks and the footings had been added during
reconstruction. When asked if he had a
building permit to replace the deck he said no.
He
went on to explain that the drawings shown to the Plan Commission tonight are
not the original drawings of the deck.
Although he still has the originals, they reflect a deck that was never
installed. Ray Knapp said the said that
the only way to determine if the footprint of the structure has changed would
be to establish the scale from the pictures.
Ray
Knapp opened a public hearing for
an after the fact permit for reconstruction or
expansion in a non-conforming area to repair and/or replace existing deck as
needed and creation of storage area – Robert & Maggie Allison, 277 Cove Rd.
at 7:57 PM. No one came forward to
speak. The public hearing was closed.
A
question arose about a storage area the Allison’s want to create. This area will be approximately 10’ by 10’ on
the deck level of the house. If there is
a basement underneath this proposed storage space it will become part of the
principle structure. If not, they it
would be considered an accessory structure.
Additional research will need to take place to determine this.
Paul
Mahler said that it’s obvious from the pictures and from being on site that
there was a substantial structure there prior to the beginning the
reconstruction. He expressed his
frustration that this project went forward without any of the necessary
permits. Ray Knapp agreed, and told the
Allison’s that even if this had not been in the Riverway it would have required
a building permit. He went on to share
that the DNR’s position in a previous, similar, instance was that the applicant
should tear down the deck. He also
explained to the Allison’s that they will need to apply to
After
additional discussion the consensus of the Plan Commission was that it did not
appear that the foot print had changed, but that this would need to be verified
by determining the scale from the photo’s provided. Members also agreed that it didn’t appear
that vegetation had been removed. Members
said they would be open to the Allison’s applying for an after the fact
variance to reconstruct the deck. They
were told to include the following materials in their application package:
·
A scale drawing
showing all pertinent information, including a statement that the dimensions of
the new deck matches the original deck, the size of the joists, posts and
spacing
·
A statement that
existing vegetation will not be disturbed and pictures of the existing
vegetation
·
A mitigation plan
for nonconforming structure expansion if the proposed storage area is built
·
Photos of the
site taken from the middle of the river, slightly upstream and downstream of
the property (as previously submitted)
·
An erosion
control plan (as previously submitted)
·
Additional
information on the proposed storage area with pictures, plans and photos
Rob
Jones ended the concept review by explaining the time line for submittal of a
Riverway Application.
5. Riverway concept review/public hearing for construction in a conforming
area to add a second floor to an existing single story residence – Tom Kigin
& Donna Avery ,
Ray Knapp explained that since the submittal of this
concept review the applicants have changed the design from the addition of a
second story to an expansion of the first floor.
Rob Jones reviewed the proposal for the Plan
Commission. This project includes the
reconstruction and expansion to an existing single-family home in a conforming
area. As such it requires a 100’ setback
from the bluffline while allowing that setback to be reduced to 40’ as long as
the structure remains visually inconspicuous from the river. He added that the RWO stipulates that
vegetation not be removed if it would disrupt the inconspicuous character of
the structure. The applicant has said
they will need to remove one tree on the river facing side of the
building. A discussion followed in order
to clarify conforming vs. non-conforming sites, slope preservation zones and
setbacks with Rob concluding that if it is a conforming area the applicant can
expand as they want as long as they don’t infringe on the 40’ setback in a
slope preservation zone.
Tom Kigin and Donna Avery have owned this home since
1995 and want to expand it Tom stated
they recognize the Town’s goals of maintaining the rural character of the area
and the preservation of the river. Donna
reviewed the existing site plan for the Plan Commission and said that their
goal is to modestly increase the size of the structure as they plan on spending
more time there. The project is to
construct a first floor living room addition in place of an existing deck. The plan also calls for remodeling the
balance of the interior spaces to create a more usable environment. This will add 360 square feet to the home yet
keep the total square footage below 1500 Square feet. The intent is to expand over the existing
deck. If that is the case there will be
no need for any grading, but there remains a possibility that the basement will
be expanded also.
Rob Jones said that most of the conditions and
setback requirements detailed in the RWO appear to be met .
Ray Knapp opened the public hearing for construction
in a conforming area to add a second floor to an existing single story
residence – Tom Kigin & Donna Avery ,
The Plan Commission members then discussed the
proposed addition. Mark Mitchell asked
for clarification on filling and grading.
The town's engineer said that because this site is a conforming area the
project can include filling and grading as much as is minimally necessary. Additional discussion took place around the
issue of the slope to the rear of the structure. There is concern that that slope may be a
slope preservation zone. Rob Jones
suggested that the applicant could avoid the cost of a new survey by applying
for a permit to construct in a non-conforming area. If the applicant chose to go that route they
would need to follow the more restrictive regulations found in the SDO under
section 171-L. A question was asked if
the septic system would need to be brought to code. The town engineer stated that if the addition
to the structure is in a conforming area the applicant would only need to
provide a statement that the septic meets
Ray Knapp summarized the discussion for the
applicants by saying that the Plan Commission feels the proposal to modify the
structure is a fine plan but there is concern about the rear slopes. If the applicant chooses to move forward with
an application for construction in a conforming area they will need to have the
site surveyed to show that they are not in a slope preservation zone. If they choose to move forward with an
application for construction in a non-conforming area they will need to provide
documentation that the septic system is up to code and follow the more
restrictive regulations in the SDO under section 171-L. This second option would also limit what
changes could be made to the structure in the future.
The applicants will need to include the following
materials in the Riverway Application:
·
A scale drawing showing all pertinent information including identifying
the rear slope, and a full topographical map 65' in all directions
·
Proposed alterations of vegetation and topography that identifies the
tree to be removed and where new vegetation will be placed
·
A mitigation plan for non-conforming structure expansion (if the
applicant goes that direction)
·
Photos of the site taken from the middle of the river, slightly
upstream and downstream of the property
·
An erosion control plan (silt fences, erosion control mats, etc.)
·
A vegetation management plan that identifies removals and additions
·
Photographs of the site
·
Location of proposed on-site wastewater treatment system and private
water supply information (this is critical if the applicant moves forward with
construction in a non-conforming area)
Rob
Jones ended the concept review by explaining the time line for submittal of a
Riverway Application. Ray Knapp
suggested that the applicants look at earlier applications to see how they were
structured and work with Rob Jones to better understand slope preservation
zones.
6. Building Permits/Utility Permits;
There were no utility permits. Building permits were reviewed.
7. Committee Reports & correspondence;
Mark Mitchell asked if everyone had received updated
copies of the proposed screening guidelines.
Paul Mahler asked if it would be appropriate for the
assessor to take more pictures of the homes and cabins in the riverway
district.
Mark Mitchell reported that he has shared the
updates to the Subdivision Ordinance with the town attorney.
Jan Cuccia reported that she had seen correspondence
regarding a driveway that currently exits to
8. Adjourn;
Joe Duerre moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 PM. Dave Wolf seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.