PLAN COMMISSION

APPROVED

PLAN COMMISSION

September 4, 2008

Troy Town Hall @ 7:00 p.m.

Hudson Wisconsin 54016

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

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.

Recording Secretary: Jeanne Schmidt

Others present: Mark Erickson, Steven West, Louie Filkins, Jim Swan, Jim Marnie, Charlie Macdonell

Call to Order

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

Ray Knapp introduced Jeanne Schmidt, new recording secretary, to the commission members. Each of the members introduced themselves and told how long they had been a member of the committee.

AGENDA:

Approve Minutes;
Acknowledgement of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
Riverway application/public hearing for construction in a conforming area – Paul Gertenbach & Kathrine Reed, 438 Stag’s Leap Ln.;
Riverway application/public hearing for after-the-fact permit for reconstruction of stairs – James Swan, 177 Glenmont Rd.;
Riverway concept review/public hearing for minor reconstruction within existing footprint – Cheryl Adkinson, 183 Glenmont Rd.;
Discuss pros and cons of wind power;
Review and revise sections of draft Comprehensive Plan;
Review of draft amendment for Lower Riverway Zoning Ordinance; decision on readiness for formal amendment process;
Building Permits/Utility Permits;
Committee Reports & correspondence;
Adjourn;

1. Approve Minutes;

Members of the Plan Commission reviewed the August 7, 2008 minutes.

Jan Cuccia moved to approve the minutes of the August 7 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 application/public hearing for construction in a conforming area – Paul Gertenbach & Kathrine Reed, 438 Stag’s Leap Ln;

Steven West from Landsted, LLC. was introduced as representing Paul Gertenbach and Kathrine Reed. The project includes additions to the existing home and garage and modifications to the existing screen porch.

Rob Jones summarized that at the July 2 Plan Commission meeting, discussions included concerns with regard to the minimum lot width as conforming or non-conforming – the existing lot is approximately 195 feet wide at the building line. The Plan Commission felt this did not create non-conformity of an existing principal structure.

Secondly, the Plan Commission felt the vegetative screening from the river, based on physical site review and review of application photographs, was inadequate to provide acceptable screening of the house when viewed from the river. The applicant was asked to provide a re-vegetation plan to provide increased screening.

After review of the newly submitted plan, which included the planting of two (2) deciduous trees and one (1) evergreen in the setback area, Cedar Corporation encouraged further discussion regarding the adequacy of this plan by addressing the following:

The preservation of the view and use of the river
The maintenance of safe and healthful conditions
The prevention and control of water pollution
The location of the site in respect to floodways, flood plains, slope preservation zones, and blufflines
The erosion potential of the site
The impact on terrestrial and aquatic habitat
The location of the site in respect to existing or future roads
The adequacy of proposed wastewater treatment
The compatibility with adjacent land uses

Comments received from DNR indicate concern about inadequacy of screening. Mr. West was asked about whether the county had gotten a copy of their application. He indicated they had but they can’t act until the Town of Troy approves. The plans the for home addition had not changed from the original concept application. Mr. West noted that the Gertenbach’s would like to have a landscape designer sit down with them for placement of trees and they’d like to get the screen porch on before they choose a final spot. It was made clear that the exact location of new plantings must be specified before construction takes place. After some discussion on size of trees, placement in set-back area and vegetative screening, it was felt that four (4) trees, every 12 feet and staggered would be acceptable to provide a barrier. Bob Rolle had discussions with Dan Bauman asking about minimum lot width and believes that the DNR is comfortable with the Town’s assessment that this a conforming area. About the issue of whether the structure meets bluff setback requirements, Louie Filkins from Ogden Engineering, a licensed surveyor, testified that it was in accordance to the regulations. They did go to the 100’ minimum when setting the house and they are very close at 101’-102’.

A public hearing was opened but no comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

Paul Mahler moved to recommend approval for the Riverway application for construction of the conforming area for Paul Gertenbach and Kathrine Reed, 438 Stag’s Leap Ln. It appears to be a conforming use that will not affect the health and safety of the area, the neighboring roads, and the neighboring plots. There is adequate access to the property. They indicated they won’t be increasing the bathrooms in the house or the total requirements of the house with wastewater being a problem. It is certainly compatible with the adjacent land uses all being residential. The one condition that I would recommend to the Town Board would be prior to the Town Board, they submit an actual landscaping plan/vegetative management plan indicating the additional trees to be planted and their locations as we discussed tonight and I think in doing so, that will help to preserve the intent of the Riverway Ordinance to preserve the view from the river.

Mark Mitchell seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.

4. Riverway application/public hearing for after-the-fact permit for reconstruction of stairs – James Swan, 177 Glenmont Rd.

Rob Jones summarized the concept review discussions from the July 2 Plan Commission meeting about the installation of the concrete footings and to have an engineer certify that the stairway components will be securely anchored to prevent shifting and cause erosion; protection of existing vegetation; and receiving application after construction without obtaining a Riverway permit. He reminded the Plan Commission that they needed to address the Riverway checklist before recommending approval.: (See checklist noted earlier in notes.)

He said a Wisconsin professional engineer has signed off on the footings and construction methods used. He also brought up Riverway Ordinance, Section 171-M.1(a) that states no building, foundation or structure shall be erected, constructed, placed, moved, structurally altered, reconstructed or expanded in violation of any provision in this ordinance. He suggested consideration of whether or not we would like to recommend a violation fine. Rob Jones indicated his primary concern was with the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions, for which the applicant has hired a professional engineer to review the plans and construction. Concerns with erosion potential of the site have been mitigated by leaving the existing railroad ties and removing almost none of the slope vegetation.

There was discussion about how the town has addressed earlier fines for Riverway Ordinance violations. It was noted the applicants were careful in keeping vegetation in tact. Mr. Swan commented that he did not think he had to get prior approval. He felt it was an improvement to an existing dangerous situation and a safe access to the river. After some discussion as to the size of possible fines, Ray Knapp suggested issuing a citation under the Uniform Building Code for not getting a building construction permit. That fine could be $250 versus making a citation under the Riverway Ordinance for a minimum fine of $2,500. A straw poll was taken on the citation and all felt a $250 citation as a building code violation could be recommended.

Mark Mitchell moved to recommend the Town Board approve the St. Croix Riverway application of an after-the-fact permit for a conditionally approved structure of stair reconstruction at the James Swan residence at 177 Glenmont Rd. under the condition that a special exemption permit from St. Croix County is received with the understanding that the preservation of the view and use of the river was maintained, safe and healthful conditions were not violated, there wasn’t any water pollution, the place of the site in respect to floodways, flood plains, slope preservation zones and blufflines were not impacted, erosion potential of the site wasn’t an issue, impact on terrestrial and aquatic habitat was not a problem, the location of the site in respect to existing or future roads wasn’t a concern, the adequacy of proposed wastewater was not an issue in this case and compatibility with adjacent land uses was also not an issue.

David Wolf seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.

Jan Cuccia moved to recommend to the Town Board to look at issuing a violation remedy under the Uniform Building Code to determine the appropriate fine. Mark Mitchell seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.

A public hearing was opened but no comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

5. Riverway concept review/public hearing for minor reconstruction within existing footprint – Cheryl Adkinson, 183 Glenmont Rd.;

A public hearing was opened but no comments were received. The public hearing was closed.

A site visit was conducted on Saturday, August 30. Mr. Louie Filkins, Ogden Engineering, was representing Cheryl Adkinson. Rob Jones explained this was a concept review to identify the requirements of the ordinance that applies to the plans, discuss and refine the applicant’s plans and identify the information that the applicant will be expected to provide with the Riverway permit application. Essentially they are proposing adding two dormers to the second floor without changing the footprint or building height. He believes this could be classified as structural alteration because it is a modification of an exterior wall. He feels this work should comply under the conditions set under 171-L.3. He identified the five (5) points he felt most applicable as:

· The alteration will be visually inconspicuous

· The applicant shall submit a mitigation plan addressing vegetative screening

· Private wastewater treatment systems shall be brought into compliance

· The applicant shall submit a re-vegetation plan and erosion control plan

· No filling or grading is allowed in conjunction with this work

Since three members of the Plan commission had not attended the site review, Ray Knapp explained what they saw at the site visit on August 30^th. The dormers will not extend beyond the outside exterior wall. There was a chimney on the left side (as viewed from the river) that is being removed. The impression of the Plan Commission members who attended that site review was that the owner has been consistent in not removing any vegetation. It appeared as though the home would not be visible from the river. Bob Rolle felt that this could be considered ordinary repair and maintenance under the ordinance. The Plan Commission did not agree.

Bob Rolle made a motion that we grant a waiver for submitting the following application information:

1. A scale drawing will be required.

2. A recent aerial photograph will not be required.

3. Alterations of vegetation and topography will not be required.

4. A mitigation plan for nonconforming structure expansion will not be required.

5. Photos of the site taken from the middle of the river, slightly upstream and downstream of the property, will be required.

6. An erosion control plan will not be required.

7. A vegetation management plan, other than for screening, if necessary, will not be required.

8. Any other information requested by the Town still may be requested.

9. Wastewater treatment system information is not required.

10. A plan showing temporary structural erosion control measures, if applicable, shall be submitted.

11. No specifications for transmission services are required.

12. No information is required for stairways and lifts.

This is based on the fact that the information not requested is not relevant to making an informed decision on this request. Jan Cuccia seconded.

Ray Knapp asked if we don’t have the applicant submit a vegetation management plan does this mean that we assume there are none? Bob Rolle amended his motion, with permission of the second. Bob Rolle changed #3 to “No proposed alterations of vegetation and topography are permitted. Under #7 A vegetation management plan is not required unless the site is not adequately screened. This was seconded as an amended motion. They later modified the motion to #7 to require a vegetative plan. We would accept as a management plan a document that says they are removing no vegetation. He then amended his motion to require #6 and not require #10.

Amended Motion passed. All in favor.

Louie Filkins said the front balcony is existing, none of the new construction extends toward the river and the new construction stays within the existing footprint. He asked about the additional waiver re 171.L.7. Rob Jones explained this is a reconstruction section of a non-conforming structure, which requires a mitigation plan. It generally has to do with vegetative screening and how it is going to be done. If vegetative management plan is submitted, and is acceptable, he didn’t think we would need the mitigation affidavit. There was consensus that if no vegetation is removed then an affidavit is not needed. Rob Jones noted that architectural drawings would be required in the final application and not just a scale drawing of the home

The DNR submitted an e-mail noting that as long as the footprint is not increased and a vegetative management plan is submitted, and a land use permit is obtained from St. Croix County, they are comfortable with this concept.

The public hearing was re-opened. Jim Marnie who lives near this residence has no problems with the project. He questioned whether the square footage (for riverway calculations) increased if a second story was added? Rob Jones responded that it did not. The public hearing was closed.

6. Discuss pros & cons of wind power.

Ray Knapp’s goal was to get some general feedback from the Plan Commission, which could be passed on to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Committee. He referred to two recent newspaper articles … one about Woodbury and one about Oakdale. Discussion took place … some members felt that if allowed they should be placed only in agriculture or commercial areas and should be regulated with standards. The group agreed that this is a very complex and timely issue. We need more education about noise pollution, maintaining rural character of the community and affect on migrating birds. Jan commented that the University Farm Campus has expressed interest in looking at a turbine. The Comprehensive Zoning Committee has to work on this and will get back to us with more information.

7. Review and revise sections of draft Comprehensive Plan

a. Rob Jones reviewed Chapter 7, Economic Development draft September 2008. Several suggested changes were made and Rob will integrate these into the draft document.

b. Rob Jones reviewed Chapter 8, Intergovernmental Cooperation draft September 2008. Several suggested changes were made and Rob will integrate these into the draft document.

8. Review of draft amendment for Lower Riverway Zoning Ordinance; decision on readiness for formal amendment process;

There was general discussion on the proposed revisions to Chapter 171: Lower St. Croix Riverway Zoning Ordinance. The evening’s goal was to understand how the ordinance has changed. Discussion was limited to one hour. This will be on the agenda in November, when there will also be a public hearing. Charlie Macdonell shared his view on how the revisions have made the ordinance more restrictive in some ways and less restrictive in others.

Ray Knapp encouraged members to review the changes in more detail at home. It will go to Town Board next week. The goal is to adopt the revised ordinance in November. Jan Cuccia agreed to work with Sharon Provos and Gwen Kuchevar to determine whether we need one or two public hearings.

9. Building Permits/Utility Permits;

There were no Utility Permits. Members of the Plan Commission reviewed the August building permits.

10. Committee Reports & correspondence;

· Mark Mitchell hopes to get the sub division ordinance revisions back to Plan Commission members by the end of the week.

· The public hearing held by the DOT concerning Highway 35 access roads was well attended. There are some new maps available that may be of interest. The Coulee Trail overpass is still planned for construction in 2011. The DOT seemed pretty committed to this timetable. Radio Road is planned for 2013 but that date doesn’t sound too firm at this time.

· Jan Cuccia is doing the newsletter. She is looking for information on the public information session that the Comprehensive Zoning Committee is having on Nov. 19^th.

11. Adjourn;

David Wolf moved to adjourn the meeting of the September 4th Plan Commission meeting at 10:20 p.m. Mark Mitchell seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.