APPROVED

 

PLAN COMMISSION

May 1, 2008

Troy Town Hall @ 7:00 p.m.

Hudson Wisconsin  54016

 

 

Members Present:     Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, Chris Mueller, David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell, Paul Mahler

 

Staff Present:             Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.

 

Recording Secretary:           Sharon Weide

 

Others present:          Joe Duerre, Kathy Halberg, Lee Halberg, Marcia Allard, Jon Sonnentag, Randy                                                Anding, Eloise Anding, Mike Langer, Charlie Macdonell and Robert Vince.                                           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 7:01 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

AGENDA: 

  1. Approve Minutes; 
  2. Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
  3. Set-back exception to design standards – Shawn & Kim Coffey, 510 Orchard Dr.;
  4. Concept review – Randy & Eloise Anding, Troy Glen Court;
  5. Review & recommend usage of mountable curb;
  6. Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Chad Kisseal & Marcia Allard, 278 Cove Rd.;
  7. Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Robert Vince, 114 Black Bass Rd.,
  8. Review & recommend land use guidelines for parks;
  9. Report activities on Comprehensive Plan update;
  10. Building Permits/Utility Permits;
  11. Committee Reports & correspondence;
  12. Adjourn;

 

1.      Approve Minutes;

 

Minutes of the April 3 Plan Commission were reviewed.

 

Paul Mahler moved to approve the minutes of the April 3 Plan Commission.  Bob Rolle seconded.

 

Bob Rolle asked to have the minutes amended as follows:

- Page 2, paragraph 4, 3rd sentence – remove the word “either” and replace with “without a variance”.

- Page 4, last paragraph, change “screen” to “screening”.

- Page 6, paragraph 4, last sentence, add the words “was the” after the word “what” and delete the word “was”.

 

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

 

There were none.

 

3.      Set-back exception to design standards – Shawn & Kim Coffey, 510 Orchard Dr.;

 

Kim Coffey, owner of the property, explained that she and her husband would like to build a garage within 5 to 10 feet of the property line.  She explained that there is no other place to build due to the steep grade and slope of the property.  She handed out a letter from neighbor to the west, John Cernohous, and read it to the Plan Commission.  In that letter Mr. Cernohous stated he has no objection to the Coffey’s building within 5 feet of the property line as long as there are no restrictions placed on his property as a result.

 

Rob Jones explained that the side building setback for this 2.51 acre lot is 50 feet.  He went on to say that this may be reduced by exception to design standards to 25 feet if the distance between the side setback on the adjoining lot is increased correspondingly.  Bob Rolle asked if, in fact, that this request would really be for a variance and then go to the Board of Appeals.

 

Ray Knapp stated that because the neighbor will not agree to increase their side setback, the Coffeys will need to request a variance.  He asked the Plan Commission members if they would look favorably on a variance that decreases the side setback to 5 or 10 feet.

 

There was considerable discussion by the members of the commission with a consensus that because the neighbor will not agree to increase his side setback from 50 to 75 feet this request must be for a variance, not an exception to design standards.  If the Coffeys come back to the Plan Commission with a request for a variance, members agreed that they could not support a side setback of 5 to 10 feet.  They may, however, be able to support a decrease to 25 feet. 

 

Ray Knapp clarified for Kim Coffey that if they could convince the neighbor to agree to an increase in his side setback to 75 feet, the commission would most likely support an exception to design standards that decreased the Coffeys side setback to 25 feet.  Without the neighbor’s agreement, the Coffeys will need to apply for a variance.  In either case, the commission would probably not support anything less than a 25 foot setback.

 

Paul Mahler moved that the Plan Commission not recommend the Town Board approve the set-back exception to design standards for the Coffey property based primarily on the lack of agreement by the neighbor to provide an increased setback on his lot as specified in the subdivision ordinance.  David Wolf seconded.

 

A neighbor of the Coffeys from 294 Apple Pine Circle stated that he would support the construction of the Coffey’s garage as stated in the application.  He said that he felt it was a much more attractive option than having boats, tractors, and four wheelers out on the lawn.  He felt the garage would be more aesthetically pleasing.

 

Jon Sonnentag asked the size of the lots in question.  They are 2.51 and 2.4 Acres.

 

Ray asked if there were any other comments or questions.

 

Motion passed, all in favor.

 

 

 

4.      Concept review – Randy & Eloise Anding, Troy Glen Court;

 

Randy Anding explained that residents of the Troy Glen Court have used a strip of land north of the site for storage and gardening for approximately 20 years.  This property is currently owned by Randy’s father.  If the property does change hands in the future he would like to keep this property so that the residents have a back yard, a place to garden, and a place for storage.  He clarified the property lines for the Plan Commission.  The parcel he would like to purchase is less than 13 acres.  He stated that the size (500 feet deep) was determined based upon a DNR rule stipulating that if a new well needs to be drilled it will be located at least 400 feet from the existing well.  Ray Knapp asked if the intent was to provide open space and a buffer for the residents rather that to provide space for additional mobile homes.  Randy answered yes.

 

Rob Jones told the Plan Commission that this project would be classified as a minor subdivision and would require a CSM to break the parcel off.  He said that he would need to research the DNR code requirement for the well.  Bob Rolle added that he would like confirmation that none of the trailers are non-conforming.  If they are, the mobile home park will need to be brought up to code.  Bob also asked if this property was zoned Ag-Res.  Ray Knapp believed that it is, but noted that the Andings need to verify zoning in their future application.  Mark Mitchell asked if it weren’t for the well requirement how deep would this parcel be.  Randy answered it would be about half as deep. 

 

Ray asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this concept.  When no one came forward he asked the Plan Commission members for their thoughts. Mark Mitchell and Paul Mahler said they wouldn’t object as long as there was no expansion of the mobile home court.  David Wolf said he feels this is a smart thing to do.  Ray agreed with Mark and Paul but suggested that Randy contact Terry Peterson, (WiDOT), to make sure there won’t be any issues since Highway 35 now has freeway designation.  Jan Cuccia said she could agree with the project if its purpose is to create a buffer zone.  Chris Mueller had no concerns and Bob Rolle thought is a good idea as long as there is no further development of that parcel and the mobile home court is in conformance.

 

Ray asked Randy if he had any questions about the process to move forward and suggested he speak immediately with WiDOT about any Right of Way or access issues.

 

5.      Review & recommend usage of mountable curb;

 

Ray Knapp explained that the developers of Meadow Valley have requested that the Town consider the use of mountable curbs in this subdivision.  Rob Jones explained the Subdivision Ordinance states “Rural-type town roads without curbs are preferred.  Concrete curbed roads will be allowed only when required for proper road design, as determined by the Town Engineer.”  He added that in the south portion of Meadow Ridge the developer used 24” surmountable curbs throughout, and that developers prefer them from an aesthetic point of view.  He reviewed some of the pros and cons of this type of road treatment.

 

Ray Knapp recapped some of the pros and cons.  There are no culvers, the curbs keep the grass under control, and streets are a little wider.  On the other hand, curbs require a storm sewer which will eventually require future repair or replacement.  Chris Mueller asked what the rational for not allowing curb and gutter in the Subdivision Ordinance was.  Bob Rolle explained the original reasoning.  He also stated he could support curb and gutter in cluster developments where the lots are smaller.  Mark Mitchell and David Wolf agreed.

 

There was additional discussion on who would maintain the storm water ponds and the storm sewers, and whether or not the homeowners would or could be assessed for any additional maintenance the Town may have to assume.  Rob Jones said that there are very specific laws that govern property assessments but that he would have to research them before offering an opinion.

 

Paul Mahler said he was generally opposed to curb and gutter, he doesn’t think they should be used for aesthetic reasons only.  Jan Cuccia agreed and said she was concerned that the town maintains its rural look and atmosphere.  Bob Rolle suggested looking at examples of surmountable curbs during the next site review.

 

Jon Sonnentag said that the Meadow Ridge Subdivision has had comparative success during the current housing slump.  The developer feels that is partially due to the aesthetic appearance that was enhanced with mountable curbs.  The developer would like to carry this forward into the next phase of Meadow Valley project.  He asked if the Town has assessed any properties for major repairs.  Ray said no, the money comes from the general fund.  Jon went on to say that curbs make for a neater appearance in a subdivision.

 

The Plan Commission agreed that they would like to investigate the legal options for recovering the costs involved in maintaining a curb and gutter system.  They also agreed that looking at various curb systems in the Town would be an agenda item for the next site review.

 

6.      Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Chad Kisseal & Marcia Allard, 278 Cove Rd.;

 

Marcia Allard, owner, explained that there are two existing decks at this site, one in front facing the river, and one in back nearer the bluff.  The owners would like to replace these decks, in the same footprint, and if needed add a couple of footings to bring them up to code.  She showed samples of the proposed decking to the Plan Commission and said the plan called for matching railings and clear glass balusters.

 

Rob Jones led the Plan Commission through the engineering comments.  He stated that the deck is a non-conforming accessory structure and as such only ordinary repair and maintenance can be completed without a variance.  If the owners were not granted a variance or did not want to apply for a variance they could repair the structure by replacing portions of the decking as required for safety.  At a minimum, if the applicant wants to request a variance they will need to supply, as part of their application the following:  1) a construction erosion control plan, 2) a scale or dimensioned, drawing clearly showing the proposed decks within the footprint of the existing decks, and 3) photographs clearly showing the existing vegetation in the proposed construction area.  He then explained the application process to the owner.

 

 Ray Knapp opened the public hearing at 8:07 PM.  No one came forward to speak.  The public hearing was closed.

 

Ms. Allard stated that the reason they are asking to be allowed to do this now is that the deck is in need of repair.  Some of the steps are broke and the railings are low and far apart.  This project is not only to improve function but will enhance safety.

 

Ray Knapp explained that ordinary repair and maintenance can be done without a permit.  If the steps are broken there is nothing stopping the owner from making repairs.  Rob Jones explained that reconstruction is what requires a variance and explained that reconstruction is the replacement of all or most of the structure.

 

A discussion between the committee members, the applicant, and the contractor, took place regarding the color of the decking, the balusters and the need for additional footings.  Ray then asked the Plan Commission if they would be able to support an application for a variance in this case.  The consensus was yes as long as the decks are in the same footprint, and that the materials used are non-reflective.  Ray Knapp suggested bringing samples of the glass in so that the commission could see them.  He also cautioned the applicant that a plan that calls for the replacement or addition of any footings will draw considerably more  attention from the Town, DNR and St. Croix County.  Mike Langer, contractor asked if it were possible to provide two options.  Ray agreed that it may be, although it has not been done in the past and may slow the process.  He then reviewed what steps the applicant should take next.

 

7.      Public Hearing/Riverway concept review – Robert Vince, 114 Black Bass Rd.,

 

Robert Vince, owner, stated that he is proposing to preserve an existing day cabin on his property.  He said that the building has been on site for over 30 years.  He’s had two contractors look at the structure.  Both have said that the shingles need to be replaced now, that another summer’s rains would cause major damage.  He has also asked to re-roof, replace the siding, replace windows, and possible do some work on the footings. He asked the Plan Commission what he would be able to do under the Riverway Ordinance.

 

Rob Jones explained to the Plan Commission that the complication in this application is how to classify day cabins.  He went on to say that St. Croix County, in an earlier memo, has classified this as a nonconforming accessory structure and that all the work proposed could be classified as ordinary repair and maintenance under their ordinance.  The DNR feels that repair or replacement of the footings would not be allowed on an accessory structure according to NR 118.  They could, however, consider identifying the day cabin as part of the principal structure, after legal review, if the construction predated NR 118.  Mark Mitchell added that he had spoken with Jenny Shillcox and that she had planned on clarifying the County’s reasoning prior to tonight’s meeting but had not gotten the information to us.

 

Robert Vince said that he spoke with his contractor who said it wasn’t really necessary to replace the footings.

 

There was discussion between the commission members and the applicant regarding what would be considered ordinary repair and maintenance, which could be done without a permit.  Mr. Vince was told that he could re-shingle without a permit.  If he wanted to do any additional work, such as re-siding, replacing windows and replacing joists he would need to bring the plans into the Town for approval.

 

Bob Rolle expressed concern for the safety of the building, he feels it needs reconstruction and that a case could be made for this cabin to be classified as a non-conforming principle structure due to its age.  As such, footings may be able to be replaced.

 

If Mr. Vince wants to do more than reroof and shingle, he was asked to provide documentation to the Town on when the buildings on this site were constructed.  Once the Town has the documentation they will forward it to the DNR for clarification so that they can get an opinion on how the DNR would classify this structure.  In the meantime, Mr. Vince was told that he could fix the roof without a riverway permit but would need a building permit if total construction costs exceed $3000.

 

8.      Review & recommend land use guidelines for parks;

 

Jan Cuccia explained that the Park Board is not ready at this point to hold this discussion and requests that it be tabled.

 

Bob Rolle moved to table agenda item 8.  Jan Cuccia seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.

 

9.      Report activities on Comprehensive Plan update;

 

Ray Knapp apologized that he needed to cancel the last meeting and reminded the Plan Commission that a new date has been set.  That date is May 13 from 7:00 PM until 9:00 PM.  He asked Bob Rolle for a brief review of documents and zoning mapping that he has uncovered.  Bob stated that he has reviewed over 20 years of records at the Town, City of River Falls, and St. Croix County.  He went on to say that he needs to review a couple more documents and then will be writing a report for review by the Town Attorney and the Plan Commission.  Ray Knapp asked Bob to review his findings with him once the report is written, Bob agreed.

 

Jan Cuccia asked if Dan Pearson was able to finish the research on the history of the Town as recorded in previous minutes.  Ray was uncertain as to the status of this assignment.  She volunteered to follow up with him on the status and prepare that piece for the committee if need be.

 

10.  Building Permits/Utility Permits;

 

Building Permits were reviewed; there were permits for four new homes.  There were no utility permits.

 

11.  Committee Reports & correspondence;

 

Ray Knapp reviewed that the Town Board had unanimously voted against allowing a County special exception for a Montessori School on Red Brick Road at the April meeting.  Following the meeting he sent a two page letter to the County that outlined all of the Town’s objections to the proposal.  The County Board of Adjustment granted the special exception at their April meeting.  He went on to say that the residents on Red Brick Rd. may challenge the decision in Circuit Court.  He has asked Rob Jones to determine what the Town’s legal authority in a case like this would be to request a second review by the Board of Adjustment.

 

Ray stated that he received notification from the City of Afton that there will be a public hearing held on the construction of a stealth tower.  He asked if the Plan Commission would like to have representation at that meeting.  Bob Rolle stated that they have found a new site for the tower which allows for a reduction in size and that it will reportedly resemble a tree.  There was no interest in pursuing this issue.

 

12.  Adjourn;

 

Jan Cuccia moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:02 PM.  David Wolf seconded.  Motion passed, all in favor.