DRAFT
PLAN COMMISSION
July 7, 2011
Members Present:
Members Absent: David Wolf (excused)
Staff Present: Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.,
Recording Secretary: Sharon Weide
Others present: Gloria Knott, Erin Feyereisen, Robin Feyereisen, Rrick Banes, Charlie Macdonell, Matt Hieb, Todd Zwiefelhofer. Others were present who did not sign in.
Call to Order
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
Minutes of the May 5, 2011
Plan Commission meeting were reviewed.
Mark Mitchell moved to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2011 Plan
Commission. Joe Duerre seconded.
Joe Duerre asked that the
minutes be corrected to reflect the correct spelling of Bob Rolle's name on
page 4, item number 4. Bob Rolle asked
that on page 5, item number 6 the sentence "He contends that an increase
in vacancies and a decrease in housing unit density is the cause." be
changed to "He suggested that one of the main reasons is an increase in
vacancies and a decrease in housing unit density."
Motion carried to approve the corrected minutes.
2. Swearing in of reappointed committee member;
Sharon Weide administered
the oath of office to Paul Mahler, who has agreed to remain on the Plan
Commission for another 3 years.
3. Cemetery plat review in consideration of any needed exception to design
standards -
Rob Jones explained that the
applicant is requesting approval of a Cemetery Plat. State Statutes require that "the plat or
map may not be recorded unless laid out and platted to the satisfaction of the
county board of the county and town board of the town in which the land is
situated." He went on to say that
the town's attorney has commented in an email that this platting activity does
not appear to be regulated by our Subdivision Ordinance (SDO) but that as the
statutes require town approval, the town is free to request reasonable context
in the plan. He finished by saying that
the property was initially reviewed in October of 2008 when the applicant
requested and received a St. Croix County Special Exception permit.
Jan Cuccia asked if the
driveway had been removed as requested in the 2008 application. Rob answered yes. Bob Rolle asked for clarification on the zoning
of this property. Rob stated that a
Special Exception had been granted for its use as a cemetery so zoning wasn't
an issue.
Gloria Knott, representing
the German Settlement Cemetery, stated that the only issues that were different
from the plat in front of the Plan Commission was that the pipe length had been
changed from 18" to 30" and the plat will be changed to show the
County Supervisor signatures.
There was a question of
whether or not the existing driveway should be shown on the plat and consensus
was yes.
4. Concept review – Jim Feyereisen, 336 CTH U;
Rob Jones began by saying
that the applicant is asking for a concept review prior to submitting an
application for a CSM in order to create a four acre residential lot from a 30
acre parcel zoned exclusive agriculture for a family member's dwelling. He explained that the SDO requires a farm
plan for exclusive AG land However, the
ordinance allows a property owner to subdivide exclusive AG land without a farm
plan if the single family residential dwelling will be occupied by a parent or
child of an owner conducting the farm operations on the parcel. He finished by saying that four acre lot
would need to be included in a farm plan if there were further subdivision in
the future of the 30 acre parcel.
Jason Feyereisen (son of the
applicant) presented the Plan Commission with an approximate site plan that he
had developed. There were general
questions from the Plan Commission regarding the siting of the proposed
driveway, and whether or not it would be extended to the field behind the
site. Jason stated that for now, there
are no plans to do that. If there were
to be access in the future it would be more like a path that would be cut
through the woods at the back of the site.
There was additional
discussion regarding setbacks and driveway spacing should the remainder of the
30 acres be further subdivided in the future.
Additionally, the Plan Commission felt there should be a note on the CSM
that this parcel would need to be included in any farm plan should there be
further subdivision. There was also
clarification of the minimum lot size allowed in the SDO.
The applicant was told that
the Plan Commission had no seriousgrave concerns and that the next step would
be to contact a surveyor and have the CSM drawn and submitted for approval.
5. Riverway review/public hearing for reconstruction or expansion in a
non-conforming area, a conditionally approved activity and variances as
required for the project and
discussion of requested town recommendation on county special exception request – Jonathan & Mary Wood, 206 N. Ilwaco Rd;
Rob Jones began explaining
that the applicant has applied for a Riverway permit for reconstruction and
expansion of a nonconforming principal structure. He reminded the Plan Commission that during
the concept review they discussed whether the expansion should be considered
parallel to the OHWM, whether a variance for filling and grading in a SPZ would
be necessary if the current septic system was expanded, if the structure would
remain visually inconspicuous from the river if increased in size to 34'
8" and whether there was support for a variance for the reconstruction of
decks, new stairways and paths. At that
time the applicant was encouraged to limit the number of variances applied for.
He broke the project down
into the following five major components and led the Plan Commission through a
discussion of each.
1. The expansion of the house. He noted that the Plan Commission should
consider:
·
If the structure will be visually inconspicuous from the river
·
The Riverway Ordinance (RWO) states that footprint expansion may occur
only on the side of the structure farthest from the river or, if landward
expansion is not possible, in a location that runs parallel to the OHWM. The commission should consider where
footprint expansion is being proposed and whether that expansion meets the
criteria of the RWO
·
A portion of the principal structure footprint seems to include an
attached garage. This would change the footprint calculations for the principal
and accessory structures
·
Only the portion of the existing porch which is more than 75 feet from
the OHWM is included in the footprint calculations and proposed expansion
limits. However, the portion of the
porch closer than 75 feet from the OHWM has been considered deck by the
applicant. This interpretation was made
by applicant to address limitations placed on expansion of nonconforming
principal structures under 171-L.4c and d.
2. The reconstruction of the
deck.
·
The application proposes the reconstruction of the deck in a reduced footprint;
however this would require a variance be granted. Rob noted that part of the
deck proposed to be reconstructed could also be considered a porch, since this
structure has been arbitrarily split by the applicant into porch and decking.
3. The POWTS and well
systems.
·
The application proposes a new POWTS system and a new well that, due to
the location, would require a variance for filling and grading in a slope
preservation zone. It was Rob’s
understanding that the applicant is now proposing to move the location of the
well and drain pipes so that a variance is not required.
4. The proposed retaining
walls.
·
The applicant proposes to install retaining walls on both sides of the
paver drive and walkway. The RWO allows
retaining walls if the town determines that they are necessary to address
on-going erosion. Rob noted that the
eastern wall modifies the boundary of the SPZ by approximately 5 feet. He added that although
5. The steps and deck
between the existing detached garage and the house.
·
The application proposes stone steps and a deck walkway to provide
pedestrian access to the river via the house.
He noted that the RWO permits stairways which provide pedestrian access
to the river because of steep, rocky, unstable, or wet site conditions. He added that
Todd Zwiefelhofer, representing the Woods explained that the expansion of the house runs parallel to the OHWM. He explained that a portion of the structure presently riverward of the existing home is considered porch and a portion is considered deck. The new home would expand into the portion of the porch area which is 75 feet from the OHWM. This would allow for expansion toward the river since a porch is considered part of a principal structure. He said the applicant proposes to reduce the footprint of the deck. They are asking to remove it during construction and add it back on when construction is completed. He felt that this could be considered ordinary repair and maintenance and consequently would not need a variance.
He explained that
the septic and well dispersal area will be moved to the edge of the driveway,
out of the SPZ to avoid a request for a variance. He went on to say that the county and the
WiDNR have no issues with the expansion or the decks. Todd finished by saying that the retaining
wall is necessary to control erosion and that the county is comfortable with
its location. He is in discussions with
the WiDNR as they are opposed to it.
There was considerable
discussion about the following points:
·
Whether or not the land to the north of the home site is a slope
preservation zone. It was determined
that based on the definitions in the towns RWO it is.
·
The proximity of the principle structure and the decking in relation to
the OHWM and the SPZ to the north.
·
The steps and the deck between the existing garage and the house and
the definition of "pedestrian access".
·
The width of the driveway
·
The location and length of the retaining wall and its relationship to
the SPZ.
o
The e-mail received earlier in the day from the DNR. Mike Wenholz from the DNR stated that “An
agreement was reached that the Woods would move all portions of the proposed
retaining wall……to within slopes of less than 12%. The applicant said that they had agreed to
only consider this alternative and there were ongoing discussions between the
DNR, County and applicant.
Bob Rolle moved to recommend approval for the reconstruction of the
existing retaining wall located landward of the parking area and garage and approve
an extension of that retaining wall and construction of a new retaining wall
southward behind the bunkhouse (which will be removed) to the existing road and
not to encroach upon the 12% slope. Jan
Cuccia seconded. Motion carried.
The applicant was asked to
better define the exact location of the relocated wall on the supporting
documentation prior to the Town Board meeting.
There was additional discussion and clarification of the POWTS and the well and the location of the piping. Rob Jones indicated that because the location was being changed it will not be necessary to fill and grade in the SPZ. The applicant was asked to show the relocated well on the plans prior to the Town Board meeting.
There was considerable
discussion about 171-J.7.a. Section “a”
sates that a stairway is required to provide access to the river because of
steep, rocky, unstable or wet conditions. Commission members agreed that the
applicant did not meet is basic criteria because the steps did not even go to
the river. Also an alternate access, a driveway, allowed people to get safely
from the detached garage to the home, which also had a garage.
Bob Rolle moved that the application for steps and deck between the
existing detached garage and house not be approved as they do not meet the requirements
of our conditionally permitted stairways under our riverway ordinance. Jan Cuccia seconded. Motion passed.
Additional discussion took
place on the reconstruction and expansion of the house and the reconstruction
of the deck. There was considerable
deliberation about whether or not a hardship would exist if the deck were not
in place.
·
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, floodplains, 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 systems
·
The compatibility with
adjacent land uses
In expanding this residence no trees that would shelter or block the
residence from the river will be removed and the home must be constructed with
materials that are compatible with our riverway ordinance. Bob Rolle asked to have the following added
as a friendly amendment - and the existing garage will be made uninhabitable
and will not be made inhabitable in the future.
Jan Cuccia seconded.
Todd Zwiefelhofer brought Ray's attention to five trees that will be removed, two of which are on the north side of the home. There was additional discussion on this point, after which it was determined that these trees would not impact the visibility of the site from the river.
Friendly amendment by
There was additional
consideration of the proposed deck reconstruction. A portion of the existing deck is covered and
as such, is considered a porch. A
portion of the porch will be enclosed and become part of the reconstructed
principle structure. The remaining deck and
a portion of the porch on this level will be removed during construction of the
house. Once the house is finished the
applicant proposes to reconstruct it in order to provide access to the home. Discussion also took place regarding whether
or not the deck was required in order to provide access and if, by allowing the
reconstruction of the principal structure, the Plan Commission had already
agreed that it was a conforming structure in terms of the 50'/75' rule. Ray was
concerned that the applicant had not shown a non-self-imposed hardship. He was also concerned that the covered
portion of the deck was partially considered a deck and partially considered
porch in order to satisfy different portions of the river way ordinance.
Bob Rolle moved that the Plan Commission recommend the Board of Appeals
grant a variance for the reconstruction and conversion of the deck that was
previously a porch located riverward of
the house and the reconstruction of other existing for the following reasons:
·
That there would be hardship
in terms of being able to enter the house, you retain riverward facing decks if
this were not permitted
·
The public interest will not
be harmed by granting the variance
·
That the core concerns of
the riverway ordinance will be met if the variance is granted
·
That the reconstructed deck
(s) will not create an expansion of structure as facing the river and will
remain visually inconspicuous as viewed from the river
·
That the town's riverway
ordinance technical standards regulating erosion and storm water management
shall be met and that no additional hard surface will be created and that no
additional runoff will be greater than the preexisting structure
·
That the construction will
increase the value of the property and have no adverse effect on neighboring
properties.
Joe Duerre seconded.
Motion carried.
6. Presentation on Asian Carp problem;
Bob Rolle asked the members
of the Plan Commission to read a report he put together on Asian Carp. He then summarized that report by explaining
that there were four types of Asian Carp and that together, their feeding
habits can decimate the food chain for other fish and overwhelm an aquatic
infrastructure. He explained the efforts
that the Army Corp. of engineers has employed in an effort to stop the spread
of the carp and whether they have been effective or not. He addressed the threat to the
7. Building Permits/Utility Permits;
Building Permits were
reviewed. There were no new homes. The following utility permits were presented
for approval:
Permit # Applicant Address Project
Joe Duerre moved the Plan Commission recommend approval of U11-006 and
U11-007 for
8. Committee Reports & correspondence;
Jan Cuccia reported that
she, Bob Rolle and Charlie Macdonell went on a boat trip on the
Mark Mitchell reported that
he had been told that the
Mark Mitchell asked if there
were any new developments in the boundary agreement with
9.
Adjourn;
Mark Mitchell moved to adjourn the meeting of the July 7, 2011 Plan
Commission at 10:23 PM. Jan Cuccia seconded. Motion carried.