APPROVED
PLAN COMMISSION
July 10, 2008
Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, Joe Duerre, David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell, (arrived 7:30), Paul Mahler
Members Absent:
Staff Present: Rob Jones, Cedar Corp., Wendy Sanders , Cedar Corp.
Recording Secretary: Sharon Weide
Others present: Phil Cernohous, Jim Swan, Charlie Macdonell, Rod and Mary Ellner, Jim and Mary Jean Marnie, Jill Berke, Steve West, Mark Erickson, Brian Schwab, Dave Simpson
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting of the Town of
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
Members of the Plan Commission reviewed the June 5
minutes.
Jan Cuccia
moved to approve the minutes of the June 5 Plan Commission. Bob Rolle seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
2. Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
Paul Mahler
moved to approve the application for action under the Subdivision Ordinance for
Julia Cernohous, 487 Virgil road, 1 lot CSM, minor subdivision, Stevens
Engineering. David Wolf seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
3. One lot CSM – Julia Cernohous,
Rob Jones explained that this application is for a 1
lot CSM to create lot 9. As such, it
would be considered a minor sub-division, however, Cedar Corp. would like
verification from the applicant as to when previous lots were created. If they were created within the last 5 years
this would be considered a major sub-division.
He went on to say that this is a flag lot, which is allowed by the SDO,
and that the setbacks in the final CSM may be different that what is shown on
the application.
Phil Cernohous, representing Julia Cernohous, handed
out new CSM drawings, which indicate a front yard setback of 150 feet and side
yard setbacks of 50 feet and a rear setback of 25 feet. He also stated that he had an affidavit
signed by Cyril Cernohous agreeing to a rear yard setback of 25 feet. He handed out documents that verifying that
the previous CSMs were completed in 1994 and 1998.
Ray Knapp explained that not only would Cyril need
to agree to the 25 foot setback but would have to encumber his property to
create a 75 foot setback on the adjoining edge of his property. Paul Mahler explained that an easement is
filed with the County. After additional
discussion the Plan Commission agreed that they would support an exception to
design standards for 100 foot front setback.
Discussion then turned to the shared driveway and
the shared driveway agreement between lot 9 and future lot 10 signed by Julia
Cernohous. Bob Rolle said that a future
lot can not be encumbered with an easement because the lot does not exist. After considerable discussion it was
determined that the Plan Commission would support the CSM if the driveway were
not shared and if future lot 10 were not shown, since lot 10 being shown
implies that it is being preapproved as part of this CSM action.
Paul Mahler
moved to recommend approval of the one lot CSM – Julia Cernohous, 487 Virgil Rd.,
provided the following changes and clarifications are made: all references to the shared driveway shall
be removed, the location of the driveway to lot 9 from Virgil Road will be
indicated, all references to future lot 10 and the vacation of the cul-de-sac
from Virgil Road will be removed, that the town attorney provide a legal
opinion to the Town Board as to the status of Virgil Road, and finally that an
exception to design standards for lot 9 be granted to reduce the front setback
to 100 feet and the remaining side and rear setbacks will be 50 feet. Bob Rolle seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
4. Riverway concept review for erosion control & driveway improvement
– YMCA, 532 CTH F;
Ray Knapp reviewed a memo from Carrie Stoltz, WiDNR,
which directs the applicant to file for the necessary DNR permits. The applicant was directed to refer to the
DNR website to determine which permits would.
Rob Jones went on to explain that this project
includes filling and grading and the installation of structural erosion control
devices within slope preservation zones as well as the installation of a
driveway outside of the slope preservation zone. The work in both areas appear to be a
conditionally permitted activities under section 171-J. The town should verify that the conditions
for filling and grading and erosion control are met. He also said that Cedar Corp. would like to
refine the design of the detention pond and outlet structure to more completely
comply with the current standards. He
can work with the applicant on this.
Dave Simpson from the YMCA would also like Zappa excavators involved in
this.
Rob finished by stating that Cedar Corp recommends
the YMCA provide a scale site map showing the exact locations of each project
area, a construction erosion control plan, a scale map showing the watershed
treated by the detention pond and the predominant land uses of the area, and
photographs clearly showing the existing vegetation in the proposed areas
construction. Dave Simpson drew Rob’s
attention to documents that were submitted subsequent to the site visit that
detail the watershed and a site map showing the exact location of each project.
The Plan Commission determined that the following
items from section 171-M.1.(d) will be required when the YMCA submits a
riverway application:
There was additional discussion between the
commission and Dave Simpson on how best to proceed with this project due to the
number of agencies that will be involved.
It was suggested that Dave arrange a meeting between the YMCA, the town,
the county and the DNR. After additional
discussion it was determined that the better course of action would be for the
YMCA to work with the county and the DNR to come up with an acceptable plan for
both agencies that the town could support.
Mark Mitchell
moved that the Plan Commission encourage the YMCA to work with the County and
the DNR to come up with a plan of action and that that plan be put in front of
this board for review. The application
will require a scale drawing showing all pertinent information, a recent aerial
photograph, proposed alterations of vegetation and topography, an erosion
control plan, a vegetation management plan and other information requested by
the town including an affidavit for continuing maintenance showing who’s
responsible for the continuing maintenance of the work, a plan showing the
proposed construction of structural erosion control measures and a scale map
showing the watershed treated by the detention pond and the predominant land
uses of the area. Jan Cuccia
seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
Dave was told to meet with the DNR and the County
and once he understands the direction those agencies want him to proceed in he
should work with Rob to submit a riverway application to the town.
5. Riverway concept review for construction in a conforming area – YMCA,
532 CTH F;
Rob Jones explained that this project is for the
construction of a horse stall building and tack shed in a conforming area. Because
both projects would be considered accessory structures under the riverway
ordinance they must meet the general standards in 171-I for building heights
and setbacks. He went on to say that the
proposal appears to comply with all the applicable general standards but that
Cedar Corp. would like to verify that the project complies with the highest
visible bluffline setbacks and color standards.
After a discussion of the site and the building the
Plan Commission agreed that no part of the structure will be silhouetted
against the sky and that the structure is not in a slope preservation
zone. Also, it appears that the
structure is more that 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark and more than
40 feet back from the bluff line. The
Plan Commission reminded the applicant that the building must be of earth toned
materials.
After reviewing the information require from section
171-M.1.(d) the applicant was told to submit a riverway application for a
permitted use in a conforming area.. The
application needs to include:
6. Riverway concept review for construction in a conforming area – Paul
Gertenbach & Kathrine Reed, 438 Stag’s
Rob Jones reviewed that this project includes
additions to the existing home and garage and modifications to the existing screen
porch. He said that this work is all
permitted work if compliance to the general standards in 171-I are
verified. He encouraged the commission
to determine if the size of the lot (195 in width) makes this a nonconforming
structure.
Bob Rolle stated that although the lot is
non-conforming, in his opinion that does not apply to the structure. Ray asked other members to offer their
opinion as to the intent of the riverway ordinance as it relates to property
width. Mark Mitchell and David Wolf felt
that the structure is conforming and that setbacks are most important. Paul Mahler felt the intent of the ordinance
was to deal with new lots. Jan Cuccia
asked if the lot was 200 feet wide would it meet the standards under 171-I, and
if so she would consider this non-conforming.
Joe Duerre agreed with Paul Mahler.
Ray concluded that the majority of the Plan Commission considers this a
conforming structure. A discussion then
followed regarding the tree cutting that has taken place on this site. Members agreed that the construction and the
tree cutting should be treated as two separate issues.
Ray addressed the construction that has taken place
on the site. The porch has been removed,
there is a new foundation, and trees have been taken down. He called the attention of the Plan
Commission to a memo from the town’s building inspector and comments relating
to the property. This memo states that
the building inspector did not give a permit for work on the foundation that
has been done. Additional discussion
took place about the number of trees that have been removed throughout the
years.
Steve West and Mark Erickson from Landsted
Construction, represented the Gertenbachs.
They provided a copy of the original CSM indicating that the current
structure meets the setback requirements.
They said that the home is located on a secondary bluff and a long
distance from the river. The roof is
cedar shake with trees behind the structure.
The home was built in 1986. Steve
and Mark showed the Plan Commission construction plans that clearly show the
different phases of construction and contend that the building inspector issued
a permit for the phase one work that has been to date. Ray Knapp stated that the town will need to
caution the building inspector to be very cautious in the future as his
perception of what was approved is different than Landsteds.
A discussion followed about where the bluff line
was, the setback from the bluffline and the status of a patio near the
bluffline. The consensus was that this
is a conforming structure. From there
the Plan Commission identified the information from section 171-M.1.(d) that
needs to be included in the riverway application:
7. Riverway concept review for after-the-fact permit for reconstruction of
stairs – James Swan,
James Swan handed out new packets of information
which included pictures of the stairs, an aerial view of the property and
engineering documents of the stairway.
Rob Jones reported that Cedar Corp. had reviewed the information
provided by the applicant and that this activity could be conditionally
permitted upon verifying compliance with 171-J.7. He went on to say that the project seems to
comply with the criteria for installing stairways. The stairway appears to comply with the
geometric requirements in the ordinance.
He encouraged the Plan Commission to discuss the required usage of
pilings, footings or engineered design.
Ray Knapp noted that at the site review commission
members agreed that the applicant had done a good job keeping the stairway
inconspicuous and the applicant minimized vegetation removal during
construction. He expressed
disappointment that the Town wasn’t notified prior to the onset of construction. Ray stated that the primary issue now is to
insure that the stairway has been built in a safe manner and that it has been
professionally engineered.
The commission members discussed who should ensure
that the footings have been properly installed.
Mr. Swan stated that he had a
After discussing the material from section
171-M.1.(d) that needs to be included in the riverway application Mr. Swan was
told to provide the following information:
Ray Knapp read a memo from Carrie Stoltz of WiDNR
directing Mr. Swan to apply for an after the fact special exception permit from
St. Croix County Zoning.
8. Review and revise sections of draft
Comprehensive Plan;
Wendy Sanders, Cedar Corp., handed out two
documents. First, a decision by the
Idaho Supreme court that explains the difference between planning and zoning,
and second, a future land use map recommended by the Comprehensive zoning code
Committee that shows the size of a possible future commercial corridor.
Ray Knapp made several suggestions for changes and
clarifications that need to be made to chapter 2 of the draft comprehensive
plan. Wendy then led the commission
through a discussion of the Goals, Objectives and Policies portion of the
draft. She explained that objectives are
broad, policies are more specific.
Several suggestions were made for changes. Cedar Corp. will incorporate those
suggestions into the document. Josh
Miller will send the members of the Plan Commission copies of the chapter that
will be reviewed at next months meeting.
9. Review & recommend land use guidelines for parks;
Jill Berke, Park Board Chair, began the presentation
by stating the intent of the Park Board is to learn more about land use and to
become more engaged in the process of future planning for active and passive
parks.
Brian Schwab then went on to review the goals of the
Parks and Recreation Plan that were adopted after a survey of landowners was
done. He then described the needs
residents addressed in that survey. Jill
ended by describing the types of passive and active parks the town could consider
and possible locations and funding sources.
There followed a question and answer period that in
part addressed the initial phases of development, private parks versus public
parks, connectivity between developments, open space, bike trails and impact
fees.
It was noted that the Park Board should feel free to
contact and invite members of the Plan Commission to take part in additional
discussions about future park plans.
10. Review Riverway notification timeline;
Mark Mitchell
moved to table Review Riverway notification timeline until the August
meeting. Jan Cuccia seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
11. Building Permits/Utility Permits;
Rob Jones presented the following Utility Permits
and noted that payment has been received for all.
Permit # Applicant Address Project
U08-003 Xcel
Energy 1201 Livingston Rd Installation of an underground
electrical service
Tower
Rd.
U08-006 Xcel
Energy 1201 Livingston Rd Installation of an underground gas
service
Jan Cuccia
moved the Plan Commission recommend to the Town Board approval of U08-003 for
Xcel Energy, 1201 Livingston Rd, Hudson, WI
54016, U08-006, St. Croix Gas, 415 S. 2nd St., River Falls,
WI 54022, and U08-006, Xcel Energy, 1201
Livingston Rd., Hudson, WI 54016. Paul Mahler seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
Ray Knapp asked the Plan Commission members to
review the building permits outside of the meeting.
12. Committee Reports & correspondence;
Mark Mitchell reported that he has reviewed minutes
of the Town Board from 2004 through 2007 and made notes that pertain to the
subdivision ordinance (SDO). Ray
explained that he and Mark felt that the Plan Commission should have a special
meeting to go through the SDO paragraph by paragraph in order to make a
recommendation on any possible changes and updates. The Plan Commission agreed. Mark will email members of the commission
with possible dates and a future meeting will be scheduled.
Rob Jones reported that he has put together document
that details the pros and cons of curb and gutter versus ditches. Ray asked the Plan Commission to review this
document and said that this item will be on next months agenda for discussion.
Rob Jones reported that he has heard nothing back
from the developer of Walnut Hills since the April meeting. Ray directed him to make further contact with
the developer. Rob reminded the Plan
Commission that the town is still holding the letter of credit for this
development.
13. Adjourn;
Mark Mitchell
moved to adjourn the meeting of the July 10 Plan Commission meeting at 11:12
PM. David Wolf seconded. Motion passed,
all in favor.