Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell, Joe Duerre
Members Absent: Paul
Mahler, David Wolf (excused)
Recording Secretary: Becky Lopez
Others Present:
Charlie Macdonell, Wally
Riedel, Tanner Turnquist, Jon Sonnentag, and
unidentified
others
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting
of the Town of
AGENDA:
6.
Concept review in the Riverway for reconstruction of conforming
structure (garage)-
Steve Weekes,
7. Building
Permits/Utility Permits;
8. Committee
Reports & correspondence;
9. Adjourn;
1. Approve Minutes;
Minutes of
the
Mark Mitchell moved to approve the minutes of the August 5 Plan
Commission.
Joe
Duerre seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
Ray Knapp informed the members of the Plan Commission
that he received a phone
call from the Andings on Tuesday
requesting that items numbered 4 and 5 be
removed from the Agenda due to the
Applicants’ indecision about whether to pursue
rezoning, as they would be
required to submit a Farm Plan. Ray then asked for a motion
to remove those items from the agenda.
Joe Duerre moved to remove items 4 and 5 from the Plan Commission
Agenda.
Bob
Rolle seconded. All in favor. Motion passed.
2. Acknowledgement
of applications for action as regulated by SDO;
The PC addressed a request for an acknowledgement
concerning the Turnquist property.
Rob Jones informed the PC that all of the
materials required by the sub-division ordinance
have been delivered to the Clerk Treasurer,
Town Attorney, and Town Engineer, and that
those materials are complete.
Mark Mitchell moved to Acknowledge the Application for a Minor
Sub-division for
the
Tanner Turnquist property at
motion. In discussion, Jan
pointed out the blank spot on the application for a date.
Ray stated that the PC has 90
working days from acknowledgement to take action.
All
in favor. Motion passed.
3. 3 lot CSM – Tanner Turnquist,
Rob Jones reviewed his notes on
this. He stated that there are some minor changes to the
CSM following county comments. The shared
driveway easement on
provide access from
party shared driveway agreement.
After discussion with the County concerning their
geometric requirements, the
Applicants moved the easement to be part of lot 7. This was
done to address lot width as it
relates to road setback.
Jon Sonnentag further clarified the
County’s requirements concerning the lot width and
setback requirements and why they
decided to make the changes concerning the driveway
easement.
Rob then brought up the original farm
plan and density allowances. The current proposal
is for three lots. Four would have been allowed
if the total sub-division plan had taken
place when the parcel was first
sub-divided. He then said that he had spoken with the
Town Attorney and she requested
that it be specifically spelled out that this application is
an Amendment to the original Farm Plan, and
that the Farm Plan does not cease to exist,
this just becomes a part of that plan. He
also brought up the issue that Lots 5 and 6 are
large enough that they could
potentially be sub-divided again. The Plan Commission
generally is not supportive of that
and so a note was put on the CSM which states,”Per the
Town of
applicant also submitted a Deed
Restriction Document stating that further subdivision of
this property was prohibited. In
discussion with the Town Attorney, she stated concerns
that neither of these were enforceable to her
satisfaction, and that a Conservation
Easement would be the better solution
in this case, if the applicant wanted to remove a
development right from the property. Rob noted
that to pursue the development right, the
owners of Lots 2 and 3 would need to agree,
since they are part of the original Farm Plan.
The Town Attorney is willing to work with the applicant
over the next week to create a
notorized document foregoing any
additional claims to development rights and they
could proceed and still receive approval this
month.
Rob then summarized the
requirements he and the Town Attorney feel that the applicant
would need to fulfill before
proceeding with this sub-division request. They were:
1) Explicitly request an
Amendment to the original Farm Plan.
2) Agree to forego a claim
to any additional development rights and pursue a
notarized agreement
drafted by the Town Attorney.
3) Revise the driveway
covenants to include some specifics as to rights granted and
remove some of the
internal inconsistent language.
Ray provided copies of Rob’s notes
to the public.
Jon Sonnentag then addressed the
PC. He asked the PC to clarify what would be
required to pursue this at the Town
Board meeting next week.
Ray stated that last month the PC shared
their preference to have a
three lots. Jon said that the applicant
did not want to do that because of the added
cost as well as the fact that there
would be no further development requiring use of that
Town road.
Ray asked the applicant if he was
willing to go along with the requirements
stated by Rob, and if he pursued the
removal of a development right that the owners of
Lots 2 and 3 would have to be
involved? Tanner acknowledged that he understood his
options.
Ray summarized that he would be
willing to go forward with recommendation to approve
this application with compliance to the
requirements stated by the Town Attorney.
However, this would not have been
his preferred plan and that he would rather not see
four driveways coming onto
included in the Driveway Covenants stating
that no Occupancy Permits would be issued
until the shared driveway was paved or a
financial guarantee was made. All of the PC
members agreed with this.
During further discussion, there
was consensus that it would be best to have the shared
driveway serve Lots 5, 6, and 7.
This would normally require a
will only serve 3 lots with no possibility of
additional use, it was agreed that an exception
to design standards could be
granted. Ray then asked Rob how this would affect the
applicant’s
timetable for pursuing approval of his application. Rob said that he would
have to check, but he believed that the exception
to design standards could be requested at
the same time that the applicant
appeared before the Board. Rob further stated that the
town ordinance still requires that
shared drives be built to town road standards. They
typically reduce that requirement
to 12’ paved surface with 3’ shoulders. This has been
revised in the draft ordinance, but has not
been adopted yet. It was suggested that wider
turnouts to
Bob
Rolle motioned that the Plan Commission recommend approval for a CSM
application made by Tanner Turnquist,
conditions:
1) That the Applicant request an amendment to the original farm plan.
2) That the Applicant forego a claim to
an additional development right, and
pursue a notarized agreement drafted by the
Town Attorney.
3) The Applicant revise the driveway covenants to include additional
specifics as
to the rights granted
and remove some of the internal inconsistencies in the
language.
4) That the Applicant build a
Town shared driveway 16’ wide with 12 feet of
blacktop to town road standards, prior to occupancy of any dwellings on
the
three new lots or posting a bond
equal to the amount of the road construction.
5) All three new lots’ driveways will
access the new shared driveway and not
Boundary Road. The shared driveway will be approved as an exception to
design standards.
Mark
Mitchell seconded. Ray suggested as a friendly amendment that the width of
the
shared driveway should be 18 feet, with 12’ of asphalt, and 3’ shoulders. Jan
added
a friendly amendment concerning the shared driveway being an exception to
design
standards.Bob Rolle accepted both amendments. All in favor. Motion passed.
Jon Sonnentag suggested that the
amended farm plan request be a part of the
notarized document.
Rob looked up the “exception to
design standards” in the sub-division ordinance. The
ordinance states that the applicant
may petition the Town of
other reference as to the timeline
and notification requirements. Rob suggested that the
applicant include this in his petition to
the Town Board.
4. Rezoning Exclusive Ag to Ag/Res –
Removed from the Agenda by motion
passed by PC members.
5. Rezoning
Exclusive Ag to Ag/Res – Raymond & Eloise Anding, 403 Hwy 35;
Removed from the Agenda by motion passed by PC
members.
6. Concept review in the Riverway for
reconstruction of conforming structure (garage)-
Steve Weekes,
Ray stated that this was a Concept
Review and Public Hearing in the Riverway for
Reconstruction of a conforming
structure, a garage for Steve Weeks at
Rob directed everyone to his
notes, saying that this is an accessory structure in a
conforming area of the Riverway
district. He stated the goals of the concept review as:
·
Identify the
requirements of the ordinance that apply to the applicants plans.
·
Discuss and
refine the applicants’ plans where possible.
·
Identify the
information that applicants will be expected to provide with the Riverway
Permit or Variance Application.
This applicant is proposing to
replace a garage/pool house that burnt down in a lightning
strike. The applicants have
stated that they don’t intend to modify the footprint to any
great extent, and are working
with an Architect. Rob suggested that the PC take any
questions that the applicant has
and identify what items we would like to see as part of
the permit application. In this
case the applicant has already begun filing the application
to give notice for next month’s
meeting.
Ray asked Mr. Weekes if he had
given his neighbors notice of the Concept Review. The
normal requirement is 24 days notice, but the
Plan Commission would like to waive this
requirement because the loss of
the Weekes’ garage was an act of nature. Mr. Weekes
stated that he had contacted the
neighbors (as requested by the Plan Commission
Chairperson) and that they had
given written approval of waiving the 24 day notice and
also written approval for them to rebuild a
similar structure, and that he had turned those
documents into the Town. He thanked the PC for
cooperating with him to help expedite
this process. He stated that they
will be using the same architect and that it will be very
close to the same footprint. Ray asked him if
he had contacted the County, which Mr.
Weekes affirmed, stating that the
County had his file and said that since this is a
conforming structure, this should
be about a 2 week process. They stated that they will
not need to come out and see the
building before it is razed. The PC members agreed that
Mr. Weekes could remove all
debris, but should not start construction until a Riverway
permit is issued. Mr. Weekes
stated that they will be using Zappa and that he will apply
for the proper permits and they
will get that done. He said that he was applying to be on
the PC and Town Board agendas in
October.
Ray asked the applicant if
everything stated by the Town Engineer was correct.
Mr. Weekes said that the summary was
correct. Rob reminded the applicant that he must
also follow the general standards concerning
setbacks, color, vegetation, erosion control,
etc.
Rob and the PC members then went
through the checklist for the applicant stating
exactly what items needed to be included in
the Riverway Permit Application.
1. A scale drawing showing all pertinent information. This should be in the form of an Architectural drawing showing building height, external dimensions, and general layout. Ray stated that the PC will stamp this in October and give it to the Building Inspector, so he knows we have approved it.
2. A recent aerial photograph is not required in this case.
3. Proposed alterations of vegetation and topography. A statement explaining their vegetation plans would suffice if no significant alterations were planned. Pictures of existing vegetation should be included. The applicant should put X’s on the photos clearly identifying the few trees that will need to be removed as a result of fire damage.
4. A mitigation plan for nonconforming structure expansion-NA
5. Photos of the site taken from the middle of the river, slightly upstream and downstream of the property -Waived.
6. An erosion control plan. Most important if they will be doing any significant grading. Mr. Weekes stated that he did not anticipate that they would be disturbing enough soil for that to apply. Rob will help the Applicant draft a statement saying that they agree to follow best management practices concerning erosion control.
7. A vegetation management plan- Mr. Weekes stated that they will be re-landscaping upon completion.
8. Any other information requested by the Town-NA
9. Location of proposed on-site wastewater treatment system and private water supply information. Bob Rolle suggested that they get a statement from the County verifying that the waste water system on the property is adequate. Mr. Weekes said that he could have Zappas get that when they get the permit from the county.
10. A plan showing the proposed construction of structural erosion control measures-NA
11. Specifications for Transmission services-NA
12. A construction plan for stairways and lifts-NA
Ray then opened the public hearing for the reconstruction of a conforming
structure –a garage/pool house for
Steve Weekes,
asked if there was anyone present who would like to speak to this. There
were no comments, so he closed the public hearing.
7. Building
Permits/Utility Permits;
One Utility Permit:
Permit # U09-006 Applicant: St. Croix Gas To install underground gas
service to
Rob stated that they had received
the fee payment and everything seems to be in order.
Jan
Cuccia recommended approval for this permit. Joe Duerre seconded. All in
favor.
Recommendation passed.
Two driveway permit applications were received. Ray
will follow up with Brian Wert on
the Tanner Turnquist driveway
permit application to understand why this has been issued
as the Town is still considering
his sub-division request.
8. Committee
Reports & correspondence;
There were none.
Bob Rolle requested that “
Discussion of Commercial Density” be included on the Plan
Commission October agenda.
9. Adjourn;
Joe Duerre moved to adjourn. Mark
Mitchell seconded. All in favor. Motion
passed, meeting adjourned at