APPROVED                   PLAN COMMISSION

                                                             June 4, 2009

                                                  Troy Town Hall @ 7:00 p.m.

                                                     Hudson Wisconsin 54016

 

Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell,

                                 Paul Mahler

Members Absent:  Joe Duerre (excused)

 

Recording Secretary:     Becky Lopez    

 

Others Present:     Charlie Macdonell, Mark Pendergast, Todd Bjerstedt

 

Call to Order

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

 

AGENDA: 

1.       Approve Minutes; 

2.       Review & recommend Letter of Understanding for vegetation removal in Lower St. Croix Riverway District for St. Croix Electric;

3.       Discuss sub-division landscaping standards;

4.       Discuss questions posed by CZC;

5.       Building Permits/Utility Permits;

6.       Committee Reports & correspondence;

7.       Adjourn;

 

 

1.             Approve Minutes;

 

             Minutes of the May 7, 2009 Plan Commission were reviewed. Jan Cuccia noted some

             typographical error changes that needed to be made.

 

             Ray asked for some clarification on item #3 of the minutes. Jan passed out a letter from

             the Town Board to the county Board of Adjustments stating their recommended action.

             Jan noted that the Town Board was uncomfortable with the Plan Commission

             recommendation to just share concerns and not an approval or disapproval

             recommendation with the County.

 

             Mark Mitchell moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2009 Plan

             Commission. David Wolf seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.

    

             Ray Knapp abstained because he was not at the May meeting.

 

2.            Review & recommend Letter of Understanding for vegetation removal in Lower   

             St. Croix Riverway District for St. Croix Electric;

           

           

             Ray reminded the Plan Commission that this had originally come up as a result of

             vegetation removal done by

            St. Croix Electric at the Mark Swanson property. He directed the PC, and handed copies

            to the public present, to a letter to St. Croix Electric Cooperative which has been drafted

            after meeting with the DNR, the county, consultation with the town attorney and the

            attorney for St. Croix Electric. He explained that this letter acts as a riverway permit for

            vegetation removal and will be sent to SCEC if it meets the approval of the PC and the

            Town Board. Ray drew the Plan Commissions’ to a key area of the letter where the DNR

            comments

 

              “that federal standards for right of way maintenance by rural electric

               cooperatives (including REA Bulletin 50-3, Standard D 804, R-1  ‘take

                precedence over the restrictions on vegetation cutting in NR 118 and the county

                zoning ordinance’”, adding that

 

             “We believe any provisions of the town riverway ordinance that conflict with or

               frustrate the purpose of the federal law are preempted by and give way to the

               required federal standards.”

 

Ray summarized that the letter will serve as a three year Town riverway permit for SCEC to continue its proposed tree trimming and cutting and brush removal in the utility easement areas that SCEC maintains in the Town’s Lower St. Croix Riverway district. The Town will be kept informed of SCEC’s activities and if changes are made to Federal law, or other changes need to be made affecting this permit, that the Town and SCEC will work together in a spirit of cooperation to make those needed changes.

 

Mark Mitchell asked Mr. Pendergast if these Clearance Specifications have been their normal practice. He stated that they have been for the past seven years. Ray then elaborated somewhat on the Clearance Specifications.

 

Bob Rolle asked whether this document could be applied to other utility companies in the area, such as Pierce Pepin and Excel Energy. Ray said that could be a possibility. Bob asked that this be put on the PC agenda for July for further discussion. Ray added that he felt that the Town has become more educated as a result of this process.

 

Paul Mahler asked what SCEC’s policy is for removal of trees that are cut down. Mark Pendergast replied that SCEC does not remove the wood from the property. They will brush and chip anything under 4-5”. Otherwise, it is cut up and stacked, and the Homeowner is asked if they want it for firewood. If they don’t, SCEC receives many calls inquiring about wood that has been cut, and with the Homeowners’ permission, those callers may be directed to where they can pick it up.

 

Jan then asked who is responsible for remembering to come back and renew this permit every three years. Mr. Pendergast  explained that SCEC takes the issue of vegetation removal very seriously, and that he will renew this permit every three years.

 

Ray reminded the Plan Commission there is the outstanding citation for SCEC, which is not addressed by the PC, but Ray will be recommending to the Town Board that they void that citation.

 

Bob Rolle then brought up that the date stated in the letter of ‘1972’ is incorrect. It was decided that Ray would consult the town attorney to determine if that change needed to be incorporated into the letter.

 

Paul Mahler moved that the PC recommend to the Town Board the approval of the draft letter regarding trimming in the Lower St. Croix Riverway by St. Croix Electric Cooperative. David Wolf seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.

 

3.          Discuss sub-division landscaping standards;

 

             Mark Mitchell explained that, in keeping with what the citizens of Troy want, a rural and

             natural feel, he felt that adopting some standards for buffering along arterial roads should

             be incorporated as a condition when sub-divisions are being created. He referenced a

             three page hand-out with the details of Hudson’s landscape standards that could be used

             for guidance in developing a plan for Troy. There was then some discussion by the PC

             members as to what should be considered when creating guidelines. There was a

             consensus that the goal is to keep the standards simple, and to screen homes from arterial

             roads. The desire is to keep the rural atmosphere, by the use of landscaping materials,

             natural topography, pastoral areas, farming fields, etc. Ray said that he would be willing

             to work with another PC member to sift through the Hudson standards, and come up with

             some guidelines that could be discussed by the PC. Mark Mitchell said that he would be

             willing to work with Ray on that. They will put some thoughts together to bring before

             the PC at the July meeting for discussion.

          

4.         Discuss questions posed by CZC

 

            Ray directed the PC members to a one page hand-out, “Current Questions for Plan

            Commission - To Provide Guidelines for CZCC”. He explained to the PC that he had

            asked Charlie MacDonnell to keep the PC on-task and keep us focused on the specific

            questions being posed.

                        

            Charlie MacDonnell, Chair of the CZC addressed the PC. He stated that the CZC is close

            to completion of a Comprehensive Zoning Code. They are requesting input from the PC

            on the questions before them concerning commercial related zoning.

 

            Question #1 dealt with what areas should be considered for commercial zoning: on a

            spot basis other than along the HWY 35 corridor, and/or along the HWY 35 corridor north

            of Glover Rd.

 

            Bob Rolle clarified that this was concerning new commercial activity, as there is other

            historical commercial activity in the town currently that would not meet these criteria.

       

            After discussion by the PC, Ray summarized that it is the PC’s desire to prevent any

            current commercial properties from morphing into other commercial uses, and to promote

            future commercial development in only the area along STH 35 north of River Falls to

            Glover Road. The PC discussed the fact that they may have pressure from the city of

            Hudson to develop north of Glover, but that there is also, at this time, no planned road 

            system in this area to accommodate commercial activity. The PC also spoke against spot

            commercial zones.

 

            Question #2 deals with transfer of development rights (TDR): as a required part of zoning

            criteria, as an elective, or not at all.

 

         

         

            After much discussion the PC agreed that TDR should be used in commercial zones to

            allow for increased hard surface densities of up to 20%. Lower density commercial

            development might not be required to transfer TDRs. As with the transfer of TDRs for

            residential development, the TDR program can be a mechanism to promote rural character

            as Troy gets more commercial property.

 

            Question #3 addressed the allowance of townhouse-type, multi-family housing in

            exclusive ag or ag residential areas.

 

            After discussion, the PC concurred that there was no interest in promoting multi-family

            homes in residential districts and if any multi-family homes were allowed they would be

            in commercial areas.

 

            Question #4 asked what percentage of impervious surface should be permitted in

            commercially zoned areas.

 

            Based on information offered, the PC agreed that an impervious surface area of 20%

            seemed reasonable, but how the commercial development was screened and buffered were

            just as important in planning considerations.

      

5.         Building Permits/Utility Permits;

         

            There was one building permit for a new home. There were no utility permits.

         

6.         Committee Reports & correspondence;

        

            Ray brought up the News Release from the Attorney General in response to the questions

            regarding dual authority in Riverway Zoning Ordinances. Ray suggested that the PC

            agenda for July include:

            “Discuss State Attorney General’s opinion on Riverway Zoning Ordinance questions.”

       

            Ray met with the DOT on the Coulee Trail overpass, and it looks like that is a go for next

            year, but the DOT will be making their financial decisions in October.

 

            At the June 9 at (5:30 PM) CZC meeting there will be a consultant speaking on mini-

            municipal waste treatment systems.  

   

7.         Adjourn;

 

         David Wolf moved to adjourn. Mark Mitchell  seconded. All in favor. Motion

         passed, meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.