January 8, 2009
Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell,
Paul Mahler
Members Absent: Joe Duerre (excused)
Staff Present:
Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.
Recording Secretary: Becky Lopez
Others Present:
Sharon Weide,
Mark Warnken, Louie Filkins, T. Berke, Charlie
Macdonell,
Wendy Sanders
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting
of the Town of
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
2. Acknowledgement of
applications for action as regulated by SDO;
3. Riverway review/public
hearing for construction in a conforming area – YMCA, 532 CTH F;
4. Riverway concept
review/public hearing for a variance/conditional use permit and reconstruction
or expansion in a non-conforming area –
Mark Warnken,
5.
Review & revise
sections of draft Comprehensive Plan
6.
Review suggested
subdivision ordinance revisions;
7. Building Permits/Utility
Permits;
8. Committee Reports &
correspondence;
9. Adjourn;
1. Approve Minutes;
Members of
the Plan Commission reviewed the minutes of the
Commission meeting.
Jan Cuccia moved to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2008 Plan
Commission. Mark Mitchell seconded. Motion passed, all in
favor.
2. Acknowledgement of applications for action
as regulated by SDO;
There
were none.
3. Riverway review/public hearing for
construction in a conforming area – YMCA,
532 CTH F;
It
was decided by the members of the Plan Commission to delay discussion of this
until later in the meeting, as no representatives from the YMCA were present to
speak.
4. Riverway concept review/public hearing for
a variance/conditional use permit and
reconstruction or
expansion in a non-conforming area–Mark Warnken,
Ray
Knapp asked Jan Cuccia to moderate this part of the meeting, as he was unable
to be present for the Site Visit relating to this request.
The applicant has requested a concept
review to reconstruct the roof of a nonconforming
principal
structure and reconstruct a shed on the same property.
·
The
reconstruction of the roof is either classified as a reconstruction of a
non-conforming principal structure (171-L.3) or as an expansion of a
non-conforming principal structure (171-L.4) depending on the pitch of the
existing roof.
·
A storage shed
may be structurally altered, reconstructed (including the foundation), or
expanded upon verification that the conditions of 171-L.5. are
met.
The
Applicant is proposing to replace the roof of an existing home, changing the
pitch, and adding 18” in height. Rob Jones stated that because this is a
non-conforming principle structure, the height of the structure cannot be
increased unless it is a flat roof. According to the UBC this roof would not
qualify as flat, because it has more than a 1/12 pitch.
The second part of their request pertains to a storage shed located on the
property.
Rob
Jones then referred to his memorandum concerning reconstruction of the roof of
a principal structure which states that: A principal structure may be
reconstructed in the ordinary high water mark setback area (200 feet), bluffline setback area (100 feet, or conditionally 40
feet), or slope preservation zone (12% slope) provided that the conditions in 171-L.3. are
met. These criteria include the stipulation that the height of the structure
may not be increased. Increasing the structure’s height would classify the
project as an expansion of a nonconforming principal structure. The structure
height may be increased without a variance if the conditions for expansion in
171-L.4. are met.
Mark
Warnken, Applicant; and Louie Filkins, working with
the Warnkens as the Engineer on this project then
spoke. Mr. Filkins handed out a Topographic Survey map done of the property
showing the location of the home and shed. He stated that there was one mistake
on the map that he would like the Plan Commission to be aware of- the small
square labeled PRIVY was actually a WELL. He also told the PC that this is a
nonconforming structure and a challenging site. He stated that the Warnkens were interested in PC feedback, so they can begin
to formulate a specific plan of action. The roof is rotting, and it requires
immediate care, and the shed is in disrepair and so is in need of attention if
it is to be salvaged.
Jan Cuccia
said that this is the first time that the PC has seen the scaled survey, and
that it appears that the home is located within the 0-50’ Ordinary High Water
Mark setback, and if so than no expansion would be allowed without a variance.
Only ordinary maintenance and repair would be allowed. Also, the shed appears
to only be about 2.5’ from the property line. Jan then opened it up to the PC
to ask questions of the Applicant.
Bob
Rolle had a question about the criteria for reconstruction of a flat roof. Bob
Rolle said that because of the snow loads that we experience in this area, he
believed that anything less than a 4/12 pitch should be considered as a “Flat”
roof, and therefore in the best interests of the owner to be upgraded to a
higher pitch for structural safety purposes. Bob felt
that the DNR would support this interpretation of a flat roof as it relates to
NR 118. Ray Knapp stated that it is worth going to the State to clarify this,
and if this interpretation is correct we should also amend the Town code to
include that clarification.
The
Plan Commission asked that Rob Jones check with the DNR to see what they classify
as a “Flat” roof. This will allow the Plan Commission to determine whether this
can be considered for either only maintenance and repair or reconstruction,
without a variance.
Bob
Rolle stated that when they were on their site visit, he noted that there were
several homes in that area, many of which have had improvements made, and that
this question will come up again in the future. Consequently it was important
to have a definite decision regarding flat roofs.
The
question was then discussed, “Since this home is within the 50’ setback from
the Ordinary High Water Mark, can the roof be repaired or replaced?” Rob Jones
stated that the Foundation may not be replaced or reconstructed, but that this may
not preclude reconstruction other than the foundation. Ray Knapp then asked the
Plan Commission if they would object to recommending a variance to reconstruct
the roof, if only repair and maintenance was allowed under the ordinance. There
was consensus that a reconstruction was probably warranted for safety issues.
Mark
Warnken stated that after talking to an Architect
about this project, they were hoping to be able to raise the roof pitch a
little to 5/12, allowing for a small loft area for their grandchildren to play
in and some skylights for added lighting, but that it was not imperative. They
would also be doing some interior remodeling. Rob Jones said that the riverway
ordinance does not regulate the interior remodeling and this would require a
standard building permit. However Rob noted that changing the roof pitch would
require the septic system to be brought up to date. This is regulated by the
County.
Jan
Cuccia then brought up the shed. Rob Jones said that the shed was considered to
be a Non-conforming Accessory Structure and that only ordinary maintenance and
repair was allowed. Mr. Warnken said that they could
do that. It was brought up that possibly the shed could be moved to a
conforming area. Mr. Filkins said that that was not an option since the slope
in the entire backyard is greater than 12%. The consensus of the Plan
Commission was that ordinary maintenance and repair only was allowable on the
shed.
Jan
Cuccia then opened the Public Hearing for a variance/conditional use permit and reconstruction
or expansion in a non-conforming area – Mark Warnken,
There was no one who wanted to speak, and the
hearing was closed.
Rob Jones then went over the requirements needed to
be provided by the applicants with their application.
Section
171-M.1.(d) requires that the following information be
provided, if
requested during concept review, to review a Riverway Permit
or Variance
application.
1. A scale drawing showing all pertinent information
2. A recent aerial photograph
3. Proposed alterations of vegetation and topography
4. A mitigation plan for nonconforming structure
expansion
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:
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.
Bob
Rolle said that he would like to see an existing elevation view of the cabin
exterior. Rob Jones added that typically photos of the construction site are requested prior
to construction. Mark Mitchell added a Septic System Review will be required. Rob
Jones told Mr. Warnken that
Mr Warnken thanked the Plan
Commission for their time, willingness to listen and obvious concern for the
riverway.
Ray
Knapp re-visited item #3 on the agenda, stating that no one had shown up to
represent the YMCA, but that the PC could go ahead and review the application.
Rob Jones said that the applicant first
completed a Riverway Concept Review
under the Lower
Plan Commission Meeting. At that review, the Plan Commission discussed
whether the
proposed site met the required setbacks and whether the structure
would meet the
color requirements. Cedar Corporation
has reviewed the
application
and has the following comments:
·
The structure
setback may be reduced to not less than 40 feet from the bluffline
if the structure is visually inconspicuous and utilizes earth-toned building
materials. The materials presented to
Cedar Corporation included a site plan on a 10 foot contour map. With this
level of detail it is difficult to determine where the bluffline
falls.
·
The applicant
states that existing topography carry runoff away from the river and into a
pasture where it infiltrates. We find
that this could be an adequate stormwater management
plan, but it is difficult to verify from the materials presented.
·
The Plan
Commission requested photos taken from the river during the concept
review. These photos have not been
provided in this application.
Rob said
that he did not believe that the building would be visible from the river, and
that in the Town Board packet the YMCA had submitted photos from the river. Rob
also noted that the PC packet included a more detailed contour drawing. After
more review Rob noted that he could possibly review setbacks and drainage
issues prior to the Town Board meeting and a recommendation by the Plan
Commission could be made with contingencies. Ray asked if the PC wanted to act
and make a recommendation or should they allow Rob and Cedar Corp. more time to
review the information provided by the Applicant? David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark
Mitchell and Paul Mahler stated that they were comfortable either way. Ray
Knapp and Jan Cuccia preferred to wait.
Ray Knapp moved to table this item until
next month. Jan Cuccia seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
5. Review
& revise sections of draft Comprehensive Plan
Ray Knapp explained that Bob Rolle and Cedar Corp. have done a lot of ongoing
work on chapter 1 and 6 of the draft comprehensive plan. Wendy Sanders said
that her goal is to have a final draft to all Plan Commission and Town Board
members by January 24th. The plan commission then spent a little
over an hour reviewing the population, housing and land use forecasts and text
contained within chapters 1 and 6. Wendy took notes on suggested modifications.
Ray stated that the comprehensive plan would be on both the Plan Commission and
Town Board agendas next month. Hopefully we will be able to schedule public
hearings in March and the town board will be able to adopt this plan at the
March meeting. Ray asked that all members of the PC carefully read through this
draft between now and the next meeting for any errors that may have been
missed.
6.
Review suggested subdivision
ordinance revisions;
Ray
suggested that we not address this at this meeting as it will take at least an
hour to do it
justice. Bob Rolle said that he will not be able to attend the Plan Commission
meeting in
February. Ray suggested that this be tabled until March in order to have the
full Plan Commission
available for this review.
Paul Mahler motioned that this be tabled until the
March meeting. David Wolf
seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
7.
Building Permits/Utility
Permits;
Members
of the Plan Commission reviewed the building permits, there were no
utility permits.
8.
Committee Reports &
correspondence;
Ray
Knapp spent time with the Murrs and the County discussing
their riverway property and the recent court decision. He added that this will
be on the agenda next month.
Jan
Cuccia brought up the March newsletter and said that information to be included
in it should be submitted by the February meeting.
Ray Knapp reminded everyone of the
Caucus next Thursday, January 15 at
9.
Adjourn;
David Wolf motioned to adjourn the meeting
of the January 8 Plan Commission at