APPROVED
PLAN COMMISSION
May 6, 2010
Members Present: Ray Knapp, Joe Duerre, David Wolf, Mark Mitchell, Paul Mahler, Bob Rolle
Members Absent: Jan Cuccia (excused)
Staff Present: Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.,
Recording Secretary: Sharon Weide
Others present: Doug McMillan, Charlie Macdonell, Mark Warnken, Julie Kosanke, Betsy Foster
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting of the Town of
AGENDA:
Ray Knapp administered the oath of office to citizen Plan Commission members Joe Duerre and Bob Rolle.
1. Approve Minutes;
Members of the Plan Commission reviewed the minutes
of the March 4, 2010 meeting.
Mark Mitchell moved
to approve the minutes of the March 4, 2010 Plan Commission meeting. Bob Rolle seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
2.
Building Permits/Utility
Permits;
Building permits were
reviewed. There were no permits for new
homes in April.
Rob Jones presented the
following utility permits for Plan Commission consideration:
Permit # Applicant Address Project
U10-005 Xcel Energy 120 Livingstone Rd. Installation of underground
and
(
Bob Rolle asked if Rob Jones
would ask the gas company if there was a master plan to expand their natural
gas lines and if so, what the time line was.
Joe Duerre moved to recommend approval of utility permit numbers
U10-001 through U10-006. David Wolf
seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.
3. Riverway review/public hearing for a variance and/or a conditional use
permit for septic replacement – Mark Warnken,
Rob Jones began by reminding the Plan Commission
that the applicant had a concept review during the March 4 Plan commission
meeting. They have now applied for a
variance for filling and grading in a slope preservation zone. He said that this is the fourth case of a
private waste water treatment system (POWTS) that the commission has
heard. He went on to say that at the
conclusion of the concept review the applicant was told to include the
following in the final application:
·
Any proposed alterations of vegetation and topography. The applicant was asked to clearly mark on a
photograph any vegetation to be removed.
If it is excessive he was asked to consider replanting.
·
An erosion control plan. The
site plan shows a silt fence on the downstream side of the project. The application should contain a statement
that it will be erected to DNR standards.
·
A vegetation management plan.
This should include what mitigation will take place, for example
seeding, etcetera.
·
Additional information. How any
damage to the access trail will be remediated, and a statement that if
necessary, the site will be accessed by barge.
This information has not been received. He added that
Mark Warnken stated that he did not realize that any
application materials were missing. He
understood from his Mark Steiner, the firm installing the POWTS, and Ogden
Engineering that all the requirements had been met.
Bob Rolle said that what the Plan Commission was
primarily concerned with was the vegetation, erosion and that the site would be
visually inconspicuous. He asked for
clarification of the placement of the drip field. Mr. Warnken explained that Steiner Plumbing
would be seeding the area with a short grass prairie mix. Rob Jones added that there was a note on the
site plan that confirmed this. The note
also said that no trees a proposed to be removed as part of the construction.
There was considerable discussion around this point
because the applicant had stated that along with some buckthorn, a basswood and
an iron wood tree would also be removed.
Members of the Plan Commission were very disappointed that pictures had
not been provided clearly showing the vegetation to be removed. They were equally disappointed that
Ray Knapp asked if the Plan Commission still wants
to see the site pictures prior to sending this to the Board of Appeals, or if
they were comfortable with accepting the counties decision and letting them
manage the process. He referred to one
of the county directives being a preconstruction meeting.
Joe Duerre added that members of the Plan Commission
had all been to the site and that the vegetation was pretty poor in the area of
the proposed system. He added that
Steiner Plumbing had been involved in the previous POWTS upgrades and that they
had been careful in the past. Mark
Mitchell questioned whether the town was setting a precedent by not requiring
the photos.
Ray led the Plan Commission through the items that
the Board of Appeals would ultimately have to address and concluded that the
following issues have been met:
·
Hardship has been demonstrated
·
The public interest isn't harmed by granting this variance
·
The core concerns of the ordinance will be met if the variance is
granted
·
The structure will be visually inconspicuous from the river
·
·
The neighboring property values will not be adversely affected
After additional discussion about the counties
decision, the size of the trees being removed and possible replacements the
Plan Commission decided to pass this application on to the Board of Appeals.
Ray Knapp opened the public hearing for a variance
and/or a conditional use permit for septic replacement – Mark Warnken,
Bob Rolle
moved to recommend to the town's Board of Appeals approval of a variance to
replace an existing septic system for Dr. Warken, 150 Cove Ct., and that
1) the current system is outmoded and failing
and needs to be replaced, and is a public hazard,
2) the public interest will be served by
replacing the failing septic with a new approved system,
3) the applicant has provided evidence and
materials to insure that the core values of the Riverway Ordinance are met,
4) any and all of the septic system will be
visually inconspicuous from the river,
5) the town requires that any vegetation removed
as part of the installation shall be replaced where appropriate to minimize
temporary and permanent erosion as required by the Wisconsin DNR technical
standards referenced in the town's Riverway Ordinance, and
6) no harm will come to the neighborhood housing
values nor shall any adverse effect occur as part of the variance.
Joe Duerre
seconded. David Wolf, Joe Duerre, Ray
Knapp, Paul Mahler, Bob Rolle voted for approval, Mark Mitchell opposed. Motion carried.
Ray Knapp concluded by reiterating to the applicant
the Plan Commission's disappointment that the materials were incomplete.
4. Riverway concept/public hearing for reconstruction or expansion in a
non-conforming area – Douglas & Ann McMillan,
Rob Jones explained that Doug McMillan has submitted
a concept review for reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area. He is proposing to alter the roof and dormers
on the west side of the house with no foot print expansion. The alteration would add a front shed dormer
and replace three dormers in the rear with a shed dormer. This project would increase the height of the
structure by three feet.
He went on to say that although this alteration will
not add addition square footage it is still considered an expansion under the
town's Riverway Ordinance (RWO). Because
the existing house is located in the ordinary high water mark setback area,
bluffline setback area, and partially in a slope preservation zone expansion is
not allowed without a variance and hardship must be shown.
Members of the commission then reviewed a chart that
Rob provided that laid out the requirements of section 171-L.4 of the RWO
relating to the expansion of non-conforming principal structures. There was some discussion and clarification
of what is considered and expansion and when a roofline could be altered.
Doug McMillan began by saying that the town's
engineer had done a good job of summarizing the project. He explained that the hardship in this case
was the height of the ceiling on the second level of the structure. He said that the ceiling height is 6 feet ten
inches at its maximum, and then only down the center of the room. His grown sons are all well over 6 feet in
height and this has now become a safety issue.
The addition of the shed dormers will add to the usable space on the
upstairs level. He went on to say that
he doesn't believe that there will be any erosion control issues as there will
be no excavation done. He also added
that even with the increase in height of three feet the structure will still be
below the maximum height allowed by the SDO by 14 feet.
The Plan Commission then reviewed the site map. It was determined that a portion of the house
lies within a slope preservation zone.
Bob Rolle said that it is his understanding if the slope is under the
house (for instance, if the house is built on stilts) it is considered to be in
the slope preservation zone. However, if
the house was built prior to the adoption of the Lower Riverway Ordinance, on a
flat surface, such as a cement basement, it is no longer in a slope
preservation zone. After clarification
of Bob's suggestion, the town engineer was directed to contact the DNR for a
determination. If Bob's interpretation
is correct, this application would not need a variance.
There was continued discussion of the plan, after
which, Paul Mahler asked if this design would increase runoff. Mr. McMillan said that the existing gutter
system would be used.
Ray Knapp opened a public hearing for a Riverway concept review for
reconstruction or expansion in a non-conforming area – Douglas & Ann
McMillan, 272 E Salishan Dr. at 8:25 PM.
Julie Kosanke, 274 Salishan Dr., said that she
represented her entire family. She said
her family doesn't see a problem with this plan other than the height issue
which will need to be resolved by the DNR.
She went on to say that her concern is with any possible erosion because
the land in this area is very soft. She
is concerned about any increased runoff.
Ray Knapp asked if she thinks that using the existing gutter system will
increase runoff. She answered that she
didn't know but wanted the Plan Commission to make sure it was addressed.
Julie Foster, 274 Salishan Dr., added that Mr.
McMillan had always addressed any concerns with runoff in the past.
The public hearing was closed at 8:29 PM.
Ray Knapp asked members of the Plan Commission if
they would be able to support the plan as presented or with modifications. Bob Rolle said that he would be able to
support this plan and considered the height of the second floor a
hardship. He would like to see pictures
from the river to the house and from the house to the river to make sure that
the addition would be visually inconspicuous.
Paul Mahler thought that the three foot change was minimal in the
overall scheme but would like to make sure that any possible erosion issues are
addressed. Mark Mitchell said that he
could support the addition but would like to see the front shed dormer pitched
to the east in order to abate some of the runoff issues. Both Joe Duerre and David Wolf said they
could support this project.
Rob Jones pointed out a previously proposed rain
garden by the shed that would reduce runoff towards the river.
Ray Knapp summarized that the Plan Commission is
willing to hear an application for a variance at the next scheduled
meeting. He added that the commission
would like to see:
·
A modification of the roof line to keep the same percent of water
coming off the roof going in the direction that it is today,
·
Additional photos from the river to the house and from the house to the
river,
·
Any plan for additional water capture techniques,
·
An erosion control plan during construction.
Ray added that this item should be noticed as a
variance or reconstruction on the next agenda pending a determination from the
DNR.
5. Committee Reports & correspondence;
Charlie Macdonell stated that he was still waiting
for errata sheets on the draft Comprehensive Zoning Code from Joe Duerre, Paul
Mahler and David Wolf. All three said
they would not be submitting suggestions.
Joe Duerre asked the status of fiber optic in the
town. Ray said that feedback on the
grant application should be received in June.
6. Adjourn;
David Wolf
moved to adjourn the meeting of the May 6 Plan Commission meeting at 8:45
PM. Paul Mahler seconded. Motion passed, all in favor.