Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell, Joe Duerre, Paul
Mahler,
David Wolf
Members Absent: None
Recording Secretary: Becky Lopez
Others Present:
Charlie Macdonell, Steven
Weekes, Louie Filkins, Brent Lother,
Steve Gianoli
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting
of the Town of
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
2. Field entrance relocation –
Janet Hunteman property, CTH F;
3. Exception to design
standards, setback – Brent Lother,
4. Riverway review/public
hearing for permit for reconstruction of conforming structure (garage) – Steve
Weekes,
5. Riverway review/public
hearing for after the fact permit/variance for reconstruction or expansion in a
non-conforming area – Robert & Maggie Allison,
6. Riverway concept/public
hearing for reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area – Steve
Gianoli,
7. Building Permits/Utility
Permits;
8. Committee Reports &
correspondence;
9. Adjourn;
1. Approve Minutes;
Minutes of
the
Jan Cuccia moved to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2009 Plan
Commission. Mark Mitchell seconded. All in
favor, motion passed.
2. Field
entrance relocation – Janet Hunteman property, CTH F;
Ray asked if Janet Hunteman was
present, or anyone was in attendance for this agenda
item. to represent her. Ray suggested
that the PC skip this agenda item until later in the
meeting to accommodate people in
attendance.
3. Exception to design standards, setback – Brent Lother,
Ray stated that there were notes available for those
desiring them at the podium.
Rob Jones stated that the applicant is
requesting a variance to construct a garage 10 feet
from the side lot line. The application states
that there is currently a 25 foot side building
line setback on his lot. Rob commented that,
depending on the lot size, the setback could
be 25-50 feet under the Town’s
current subdivision ordinance, and the Town is requesting
that the applicant provide a copy
of the plat showing the lot size and setbacks.
The subdividsion ordinance (135-9)
allows side building line setbacks to be reduced by
exception to design standards to:
·
10 feet on lots
smaller than 2.5 acres
·
25 feet on lots
larger than 2.5 acres
The side setback can also be
reduced if the affected neighboring owner agrees to record an
affidavit effectively increasing the side
setback on their property. Rob stated that the PC
has dealt with a similar situation
in the past year. In that case the neighbor signed a letter
of support.
Brent Lother then spoke. He
presented a copy of the plat showing the lot sizes and
setbacks. His lot, #26 is just over
2.5 acres, but is encumbered by a drainage easement
located on his lot, which, along with where
the septic system had to be placed, limits
the usable area left on his lot.
Mr. Lother stated that he is
requesting to go to a 10’ setback to build a garage. He further
stated that the setback in the front of his
lot is 275’ because of the retention pond. He
informed the PC that this is the
first home/property that he has ever owned, and that this
process has been very frustrating to him. He commented
that an option of either moving
the location of the garage or down-sizing it
was not a desirable choice as it would take
away from the very limited amount of flat yard
space that he has for his children to play
on. He stated that his lot is just
barely over the size required which would make this a
problem in the first place. He said
that he has tried to contact the owner of the adjacent
lot, but he was unable to find a
phone number, and is not sure about the address that he
did find. He has sent a letter to
that address, but has not heard back. The property is for
sale, listed through a Realtor in
not heard back from him. He stated
that he has concerns that since the lot is for sale, the
owner may not want to place any
encumbrances on it.
Rob Jones clarified for Brent that
he would still need an exception to design standards
variance even if the lot was
smaller than 2.5 acres.
Rob referred to his notes stating
that criteria to consider for an exception to design
standards include, but are not
limited to:
·
Consistency of
proposed exceptions to design standards with policies underlying the
subdivision standards of this article and other relevant policies and
ordinances of the Town.
·
Effect of
proposed exceptions to design standards on surrounding property values.
·
Effect of
proposed exceptions to design standards on the neighborhood, pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and general safety of Town residents.
·
Mitigating
topographic features of specific area in which the exception is requested,
measured against policies and requirements of this ordinance.
·
Where conveyance
of land for public purposes will result in otherwise substandard lots.
Joe
Duerre stated that the adjoining
100’ between buildings. Rob read
the ordinance and clarified that for these two adjoining
lots the separation is 50’.
Bob Rolle explained that when this
subdivision was created most lots done by a developer
were under 2.5 acres. This lot was larger to
accommodate the space needed by the
retention pond, and the 25’ setback was
granted for the purpose of making all of the lots
alike. He suggested that the PC
consider this on a basis of a 50’ separation, and that a
affidavit guaranteeing a 50’
separation be required.
Ray posed the question, “What if
the neighbor won’t sign an affidavit, but would be
willing to sign a letter of
support?” There was not support for this idea by the PC
members. It was agreed by the PC members,
that, unless the owner of
to cooperate with Mr. Lother on
this, no approval would be given.
Bob
Rolle motioned that item #3, Exception to design standards, setback –
Brent Lother,
owner of Lot 25 and get a signed
affidavit agreeing that
encumbered by an increased setback. David Wolf seconded. Paul Mahler clarified
that this is an affidavit recordable against the lot. All in favor.
Motion passed.
Brent Lother stated that he
may or may not pursue this because it would be a building
restriction on this lot, and he wasn’t
sure it was worth the effort. He did agree to contact
the Town if he still wanted this on the
November agenda.
4. Riverway review/public hearing for
permit for reconstruction of conforming
structure
(garage) – Steve Weekes,
Rob reminded the PC that this had
been reviewed at the August 6 PC meeting. He stated
this is in a conforming area. It
is a reconstruction of a similar structure with a similar
footprint, after the original
structure was destroyed in a fire. During the Concept Review,
the PC requested the following
information in addition to the original application: 1. An
architectural drawing showing
building height, external dimensions, and general layout,
which the PC can stamp and give to
the Building Inspector so he knows it has been
approved by the PC. 2. A statement
explaining that there will be no significant alterations
to existing vegetation, along with
photos of existing vegetation, with the trees damaged
by the fire which need to be
removed marked. 3. A statement of intentions to follow best
management practices concerning
erosion control. 4. A statement from the County
verifying that the waste water
system on the property is adequate.
Bob Rolle stated that while the
new structure will be very similar to the former structure,
because it does have a bathroom
and kitchen, as did the former structure, he would like to
see it labeled as a garage/guest house, and he
would be agreeable to approving it.
Steve Weekes addressed the PC. He
provided the floor plan overview, pointing out that
the reconstruction is only
slightly larger, is a slab on grade, and that the elevations are
shown. He also passed out the
letters regarding the vegetation. He stated that they have
removed the trees destroyed by the
fire, but there is a possibility that there may be a
couple more that they were hoping
they could save, but may not be able to. He said that
they plan to do extensive
landscaping in the spring, he is in forestry and likes trees. He
directed the PC to the required
vegetation photos which were at the back of their packet,
and he passed out a letter from
Zappa. He explained that in order to be able to save more
of the trees they would have to
relocate the septic tank, but could maintain the existing
drain field. The letter states that the system
will be in compliance with the Town
provisions. Rob stated that the PC
could give approval contingent upon the County
signing off on the septic system
before the issuance of a building permit.
Ray opened the public hearing for permit for reconstruction
of conforming structure
(garage)
– Steve Weekes,
present who would like to speak to
this. Hearing no one he closed the public hearing.
All agreed that they had received
the information that had been requested at the August 6
PC meeting. Rob reminded the
applicant that the building also needed to conform with
the riverway ordinance requirements
concerning earth-tone colors, etc.
Paul
Mahler motioned that the Plan Commission recommend approval of a permit
for
reconstruction of a conforming structure, garage/guest house for Steve Weekes,
standards, and contingent upon County approval
of the sanitary system before the
issuance
of the building permit. Jan Cuccia seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.
Ray reminded Mr. Weekes that this
will be on the Town Board agenda for next week. He
advised Mr. Weekes to get a letter from the
County approving the sanitary system plan.
5. Riverway
review/public hearing for after the fact permit/variance for reconstruction
or expansion in a non-conforming area – Robert
& Maggie Allison,
Ray informed the PC that the
Allisons had called and were not able to attend because of
their son’s wedding. Rob explained
that this was an after the fact variance request for
reconstruction of non- conforming
accessory structures, and that the recommendation
made by the PC will go to the Board
of Appeals. The application addresses the
reconstruction of a deck, and the
construction/enclosure of a storage area. The Town staff
has requested that the applicant reapply
to separate the storage area from the after the fact
variance. The applicant has submitted
a statement and 2 drawings to support their position
that the deck is approximately the
same footprint as the previous deck, and that no
vegetation has been removed. Since this is an
after the fact request, it must be treated
carefully, making sure that there
was no expansion of the deck.
Ray then read an E-mail sent from
Carrie Stoltz of the DNR to Rob Jones and the Town of
project. She believes that
according to Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 118.08(3) the
deck should be removed and no
reconstruction allowed.
Ray noted that both the Town and the
County did allow the Murphy/Carlson after-the-fact
project to go forward, but that non-compliance
of this nature makes it difficult to enforce
our ordinances effectively.
Louie Filkins of Ogden Engineering
then spoke for the Allisons. He said that the storage
enclosure had been reapplied for
and would be coming up for a concept review in
November. He then presented several
photos of the previous deck, and an unused set of
home plans, which did show the deck
plan that most likely was still used in the original
construction of the home. He stated
that he could not definitively conclude from this
evidence that the deck is exactly
the same size as the original deck, but that he strongly
believed that it was very close,
and had been rebuilt to the same overall dimensions.
Mark Mitchell asked if aerial
photos from the county would possibly show the previous
deck. Rob stated that the
resolution used by the county in rural areas would not be high
enough to help in this case. Mr.
Filkins did bring an aerial photo which he showed the PC
and it was too fuzzy to be of use.
Bob Rolle stated that not allowing
a homeowner to replace a deck that was unsafe is an
unreasonable hardship on the
homeowner, but at the same time, it is improper to just do it
without following the riverway
ordinance regulations.He stated that he would be in favor
of tabling this application for one
month, having an independent party go over the pictures
further, and any other documents
that may help in determining what, if any changes were
made.
Ray opened a
public hearing for after the fact permit/variance for reconstruction or
expansion in
a non-conforming area – Robert & Maggie Allison,
Ray then asked Rob if Cedar Corp.
could look these pictures and drawings over further
and make a determination with some
assurity that the applicants’ claims are accurate. Rob
stated that they could scan this
information into their CAD program, but that he doubted
that they could, from this
information, say whether these dimensions were accurate within
more than 10%.
Paul
Mahler moved that the Riverway review/public hearing for after the fact
permit/variance
for reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area –
Robert
& Maggie Allison,
supporting documents by the Town Engineer at the expense of the
Applicant. Jan
Cuccia seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.
6. Riverway concept/public hearing for reconstruction or expansion
in a non-
conforming
area – Steve Gianoli,
Ray asked Mr. Gianoli if he
had any drawings showing what will be constructed.
Mr. Gianoli passed out copies to
the members of the PC. Ray felt that in this case, stairs
were required for access to the home’s
front entrance and were not optional.
Rob stated that the stairs were considered part
of the principal structure being
reconstructed, then under Section
171-L.3. of the riverway ordinance that was a
permitted activity. He informed the applicant
that he needed to provide the PC with:
1) A statement saying that the lot
is at least 7.000 square feet.
2) A statement saying that the stairs and
landing will be in earth tone colors.
3) A statement verifying that the entire
structure is located over50’from the ordinary
high water mark.
4) A statement saying that no harm
will be done to existing vegetation, and that best
practices will be used for erosion control,
and
5) Current photos of existing
vegetation to show that none was removed during
construction.
Ray then brought up the retaining
wall project. Rob said that if the Town determined that
it was necessary for erosion control,
they could issue a riverway permit. He said that the
applicant wanted to remove a
landscape timber retaining wall and replace it with blocks.
The ordinance requires that a
detailed plan be submitted with the permit application
detailing how it will be constructed and how the dirt will be controlled
during construction.
Rob said that the retaining wall is under 3’ high, so structural
integrity is not a huge issue.
Ray informed Mr. Gianoli that he would have to
have this information in to the PC for
review by the end of October to be put on the agenda for the December
meeting.
Ray opened the public hearing for
reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area–
Steve Gianoli,
public hearing.
2. Field
entrance relocation – Janet Hunteman property, CTH F;
Ray shared that he had
spoken to Janet Hunteman. She has talked to the County about
this, and she does not have a
problem with the relocation of her field entrance. Ray then
asked if any of the PC members had
any concerns.
The PC consensus was that they were
agreeable as long as the owner supported this and
as long as the County followed the
specifications set forth in Section 125-6.
Jan Cuccia moved that we approve the
field entrance relocation for the Janet
Hunteman
property, CTH F providing that the County builds it to our specifications
set
forth in Section 125-6. That it be 12 foot wide. 5” depth compacted bed of
crushed limestone. A 15” culvert if field access would interrupt the
ditch grade. A
500’
line of sight on town road. Perpendicular intersection with the town road. Joe
Duerre seconded. David Wolf stated that 18”
culverts are being specified. Jan amended
the motion
to say “a minimum 15” culvert”. All in favor. Motion passed.
7. Building
Permits/Utility Permits;
The PC reviewed the building
permits.
One utility permit:
Permit # U09-007 Applicant: St. Croix Gas To install underground gas service at
Jan Cuccia moved we approve utility permit # U09-007.
Paul Mahler seconded. Ray
made a friendly amendment adding
“recommend” approval. Jan amended to say “we
recommend approval of utility permit #U09-007”. All in favor. Motion
passed.
8. Committee
Reports & correspondence;
Bob Rolle stated that he has
prepared a report on commercial density, and requested that
a discussion of commercial density standards
be included on the Plan Commission
November agenda. He can provide
copies of the report for the PC members. Ray asked
that he provide them to the office
staff and they will see to it that they are in the
November packets.
9. Adjourn;
David Wolf moved to adjourn. Jan
Cuccia seconded. All in favor. Motion
passed, meeting adjourned at 9:35
PM.