Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030-2066-40-000(2) h ti 03 Oe d° c o a ° ° 00 o w'E N mmv(Lo CL m (D d�o L Cam) C-4 ti vL E air' D C > N N (q N 7 O'=of IL m 3 m 2 O)C O N(M M c 0 'OYEv N CL N 7 0'O- N ° o z V .2—MS c is Ln L" V) .SQ v O N a p O E= O U O N C 7 Q a O c 3 O 3 Cl) m z o M £ w Z O y ° o a m LO ce)M F- C7 O Z a c u o ° N Z C N H E d ° a> cm a N C N O N O O O O m co a. N c � O 4= N O Z m z O N zzo Y '6 N � £ N LO IL \1 Z o S a p 0. a c co j ti N Nr 2 0 • = aaa N v LO u1 to J U rn rn } Q co r O °o 2 ° ° _ E > > _CL > (i o ? Q uJ M m O c V! Vl °° 3 Y y c 0 O w O c ° ° rn ex, CI N m N N N c C 7 O O N O N 'O z N r N to in 0 • O M fn 2 LO 0 Z a (D 3 a • ee CL m 2 rr`Irj r.+ E ` c c 3 �1 A ciao ', 0inu r i BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION Request of Richard A. Thompson for a ) special exception use, Article 3. 12 GC, ) St. Croix Riverway, Lift, ST. CROIX ) A-33-84 COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. Location: ) June 26,1984 NE14 of the SE's of Section 35, T30N-R20W, ) Town of St. Joseph. ) The St. Croix County Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1984 to consider the request of Richard A. Thompson for a special exception use, Article 3.12 GG, St. Croix Riverway, Lift, ST. CROIX COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE. The St. Croix County Board of Adjustmemt conducted an onsite inspection of the site in question. After inspection, the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment entered an Executive Session to discuss the request. After returning to open session, the following decision was rendered. Motion by Supervisor Stephens to deny the request of Richard Thompson. The present structure, both upper and lower decks, shall be removed by August 1, 1984. The bluff- line to be restored to its original contour. Zoning Administrator to inspect the site after completion. Mr. Thompson can re-apply for a lift upon completion of the structures removal and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Seconded by Supervisor Kelly. Motion carried. Vote to deny: Stephens, yes; • Meinke, yes; Kelly, yes. All variances approved must be acted on or constructed within one (1) year from date of approval or they shall be null and void. Vernon Kelly, Secretary St. Croix County Board of Adjustment VK:HB:mj Richard A. Thompson Town Clerk Jake Vander Voort, DNR 'N'--TJT BAG - 2 Greg Moore objected to the tower. He feels that if additional height is required, the tower should be moved. Robert Gabrick objected for several reason. Judy Peterson objected. 3. Kenneth O'Shea presented his request to construct a pole barn on his property that would be approximately 120 feet from CTH "V" and 25 foot side yard. 4. Wes Halle presented his request to construct an onsite sign that would be 12' by 12' advertising his business. The structure would not obstruct the view on STH "64", and a town road. 5. Randolph Bollum presented his request to construct a garage that would be 90 feet from the centerline of US 12. He explained that it is about the only place to construct it due to the location of the well and sanitary system. 6. Richard Thompson presented his request to construct a lift on his property and to leave a deck and landing that he has constructed. Correspondence was read from ad- joining landowners objecting to the structure. Correspondence was read from MN-WI Boundary Area Commission urging the Board to follow D N R request. Jake Vander Voort, D N R, informed the Board that the deck and landing should be removed and they will object to the deck if approved by the Board of Adjustment. He recommends that a specific time be given to remove the deck and then the will a of the lift. Y rove PP t. 7. Roger Arvold presented the request of Curtis Arvold to construct a house that would be 140 feet from the center of the cul de sac in Woodland Hills, He stated the reason for the setback is due to the location of the sewer system. 8. Gary Martin presented his request to construct a storage building that would be setback 75 feet from the centerline of STH "35" & "64". He explained the reason' for the requested setback. The structure would be in its place until a permanent structure was added to the existing building. Questions by members of the Board. 9. Steven Weekes presented his request to construct a house that would be 40 feet from the bluffline. Mike Ma quire, an architect, spoke in favor of the request,q , ex- plaining the characteristics of the lot. Correspondence was read from the MN-WI Boundary Area Commission. Jake Vander Voort explained that the Board of Adjustment only has the power to act on existing lots at the time the ordinance was approved. It is also the Board of Adjustment's decision to determine the hardship. Hearings recessed to inspect the properties in question. Board returned to session to render decisions. 1. Jon Erickson: Motion by Supervisor Stephens to permit filling with 10 foot wide channel from the lake to the point of entrance of natural waterway maintained at the present depth. Sidewalls of channel shall be secured to prevent erosion, with com- pleted work to be inspected by Zoning Administrator. Culvert from driveway must be removed or blocked to prevent flowage into channel. D N R approval in writing shall be furnished to the Zoning Office before filling can begin. Seconded by Supervisor Meinke. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Stephens, yes; Meinke, yes; Kelly, yes. 2. Park Broadcasting: Motion by Supervisor Stephens to deny the request because the original appeal stated the tower was researched to function at 1000 feet. Seconded by Supervisor Kelly. Motion carried. Vote to deny: Kelly, yes; Meinke, yes; Stephens, yes. 3. Kenneth O'Shea: Motion by Supervisor Kelly to approve the request as it is the best location and use of the land. Seconded by Supervisor Stephens. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Meinke, yes; Stephens, yes; Kelly, yes. 4. Halle Builders, Inc. : Motion by Supervisor Meinke to approve the sign request. Sign shall not be larger than 12 feet by 12 feet. The sign will not cause a traffic hazard on STH 64 or'the town road. This is an onsite sign and shall be removed if and when the house is sold. Seconded by Supervisor Stephens. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Kelly, yes; Meinke, yes; Stephens, yes. 5. Randolph Bollum: Motion by Supervisor Stephens to deny the request because there are alternate sites on the property to construct a garage. Seconded by Supervisor Meinke. Motion carried. Vote to deny: Stephens, yes; Meinke, yes; Kelly, yes. ` BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND HEARING June 26, 1984 9:00 - 4 :30 p.m. Meeting called to order by Chairman Stephens at 9:40 a.m. in the County Board Room, Courthouse, Hudson, Wisconsin. All members present. Minutes of the May meeting and hearings approved as mailed. Old business: Jon Erickson talked to the Board about his denial for filling a pond adjacent to Cedar Lake. Board will inspect the property and make a,, decision. Hearing called to order by Chairman Stephens. Zoning Administrator read notice of hearings as published in the county and local newspapers. 1. ARTICLE: 2.6(12) ,Radio Transmission Tower, Amended Height APPELLANT: Park Broadcasting Company LOCATION: NW's of NE4 of Section 8, T30N-R19W, Town of Somerset 2. ARTICLE: 2.3 F(3) (d) , Structure APPELLANT: Kenneth O'Shea LOCATION: NE's of NE's of Section 25, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph ti 3. ARTICLE: 8.5 C, Sign APPELLANT: Halle Builders, Inc. LOCATION: SW14 of NEB of Section 4, T30N-R18W, Town of Richmond 4. ARTICLE: 8.4 BUM) , Setback from a State Highway APPELLANT: Randolph Bollum LOCATION: NWT of NW's of Section 24, T29N-R18W, Town of Warren 5. ARTICLE: 8.4 B(2) (b) , Setback from a State Highway APPELLANT: Gary Martin LOCATION: NWT of SE114 of Section 22, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph 6. ARTICLE: 3.12 GG, St. Croix Riverway, Lift APPELLANT: Richard A. Thompson LOCATION: NE's of SEA of Section 35, T30N-R20W, Town of St. Joseph 7. ARTICLE: 8.4 B(4) (b) , Setback from a Town Road APPELLANT: Curtis Arvold LOCATION: NEk of NE'x of Section 25, T30N-R20W Town of St. Joseph P 8. ARTICLE: 3.12 E(c) , St. Croix Riverway, Bluffline Setback APPELLANT: Steven Weekes LOCATION: Govt. Lot#3, Lot 14, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy 9. ARTICLE: 3. 12 GG, St. Croix Riverway, Lift APPELLANT: Gary Griswold LOCATION: Lots 34 & 35, Section 13, T28N-R20W, Town of Troy 1. Mrs Sandra Griswold presented their request to construct a lift on their property. There will not be any trees removed and will also curtail erosion. 2. Hank Van Dyk presented the request of Park Broadcasting, explaining that F.A.A. and F.C.C. regulations require that the tower be raised to 1349 feet to insure getting into St. Louis Park. Robert Burns also explained the reason for requesting the additional height. Peter Stark spoke about the tower, explaining that the additional height would not change the margin of safety. Mr. John DuBois said that the additional height would not cause any radio or television interference. w � - 3 - 6. Gary Martin: Motion by Supervisor Meinke to approve a temporary storage building. Building shall be removed after fivee years, or structure to the north of main building is constructed. Seconded by Supervisor Stephens. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Meinke, yes; Stephens, yes; Kelly, yes. 7. Richard A. Thompson: Motion by Supervisor Stephens to deny the request of Richard Thompson. The present structure, both upper and lower decks, shall be removed by August 1 , 1.984. The bluffline to be restored to its original contour. Zoning Admin- istrator to inspect the site after completion. Mr. Thompson can re-apply for a lift upon completion of the structures removal and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Seconded by Supervisor Kelly. Motion carried. Vote to deny: Stephens, yes; Meinke, yes; Kelly, yes. 8. Curtis Arvold: Motion by Supervisor Kelly to approve the 140 foot setback from the center of the cul de sac as it is the best use of the land. Seconded by Super- visor Stephens. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Stephens, yes; Kelly, yes; Meinke, yes. 9. Steven Weekes: Motion by Supervisor Stephens to deny the request because the 100 foot setback does not hinder construction and does comply with NR 118 and 3. 12 of the St. Croix County Riverway District. Seconded by Supervisor Meinke. Motion carried. Vote to deny: Meinke, yes; Stephens, yes; Kelly, yes. 10. Gary Griswold: Motion by Supervisor Meinke to approve the request as it does not disturb the surrounding area and complies with NR 118 and 3.12 Goof the St. Croix County Riverway Ordinance. Seconded by Supervisor Kelly. Motion carried. Vote to approve: Kelly, yes; Stephens, yes; Meinke, yes. The next scheduled meeting will be July 24, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. with hearings scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Motion by Supervisor Meinke to adjourn. Seconded by Supervisor Kelly. Motion carried. Meeting and hearings adjourned at 4:20 p.m. dAer �I&A Vernon Kelly, Secre iry St. Croix County Board of Adjustment This is a full day meeting. VK:HB:mj CAD REcE�vEO 7 1985 ,uN 1 looG ®ffici STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRC COURT ST . CROIX COUNTY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �-Q, - - - - - - - - - - COUNTY OF ST . CROIX , Plaintiff, vs PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RICHARD A. THOMPSON , Defendant . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMES NOW Harold Barber , the duly appointed Zoning Administrator for St. Croix County, through his attorney, Harley F. Stark, Jr . , and alleges as follows: 1 . That the Plaintiff in this matter is a municipal corporation of the State of Wisconsin . 2. That the Defendant , Richard A. Thompson , is a resident of St . Croix County, Wisconsin . 3. That the Defendant is the owner and occupant for the last 9 years of the following described premises: All that part of Government Lot 114" in Section 35-30-20 , St. Joseph Township, described as follows : Commencing at SE corner of Section 35- 30 -20 ; thence N along E line of Said Section 35 for 811 .87 feet; thence W at right angles bearing N900001W for 593.64 feet to Point of Beginning of this description; thence S37043152 11W for 403.96 feet ; thence S770501W for 367.4 feet to Ely shore of Lake St. Croix; thence NWly along the Ely shore of Lake St. Croix for 100.4 feet ; thence N74047'03 11E for 332.93 feet ; thence N43003'06 11E for 423.89 feet to centerline of the 66 foot roadway; thence SEly along said Centerline of the roadway for 100 feet to Point of Beginning , containing 2. 1 acres , more or less. Recites : Subject to a roadway easement over Nly 33 feet of above description , also subject to easements , covenants and restrictions of record and together with right of access to the St. Croix River beach and the right of use of said beach. Together with an easement over a 66 foot roadway over all that land described in Exhibit "A" attached to the warranty deed to Howard J. Conn recorded January 11 , 1968 , in 11439" page 461 , #291105 . 4. St. Croix County has duly enacted and published a County Zoning Ordinance, parts of which were enacted to conform with the Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972 , 16 U.S.C. 1271- 1287 , and Wis. Stats. 30.27 governing banks, bluffs, and bluff tops of the Lower St. Croix River , attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 5 . That on March 29 , 1984 , the Defendant Richard A. Thompson filed a Special Exception Use Permit Application with the St . Croix County Zoning Office for construction of a mechanical lift on tracks , two stations , stairs , and support structure on the property above described , which is located on the Lower St . Croix River . 6 . That on June 26 , 1984 , a hearing was held on the application of Richard A. Thompson before the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment . 7. That on June 26 , 1984 , the Board of Adjustment issued a decision, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", which required Richard A. Thompson to remove the present structure , consisting of two decks connected by a stairway, and further ordered that the bluffline be restored to its original contour in conformance with 2 the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. 8. That there continues to exist on the property of Richard A. Thompson two wooden decks connected by a stairway, both of which exceed the 40 square foot maximum requirement set forth in the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance , adopted in conformance with NR 118, adopted in June, 1975. 9. That there continues to exist on the property of Richard A. Thompson , a large deposit of dirt and fill , altering the bluffline contour , also in violation of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance adopted pursuant to Section NR 118 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code . 10 . That in no respect has the Defendant , Richard A. Thompson , complied with the Order of the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment , or in the alternative, duly execute an Appeal from the decision therein. . 11 . That the bluff on the Defendant ' s property is imminently in danger of erosion unless and structures and fill are immediately removed and the area reseeded . WHEREFORE , St. Croix County prays that an Injunction be issued upon a filing of an Answer and hearing , pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 813.08, to require the Defendant to remove the deposited fill , to dismantle the stairway and structures in excess of 40 square feet as prescribed by the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance , and to complete all necessary soil erosion preventative measures. 3 RL Dated this day of ta$y , 1985 . Harold Barber Zoning Administrator St . Croix County, Wisconsin Harley tack, Jr. —� Assis ant strict Attorney St . Croix County, Wisconsin �1 STATE OF-WISCONSIN- - - - -CIRCUIT-COURT- - - - -ST .-CROIX-COUNTY COUNTY OF ST . CROIX , Plaintiff, vs SUMMONS RICHARD A. THOMPSON , File No . Defendant . THE STATE OF WISCONSIN TO SAID DEFENDANT: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Harley F. Stark, Jr., Assistant District Attorney for St. Croix County, whose address is Courthouse , 911 Fourth Street, Hudson, Wisconsin 54016, an Answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon You within 20 days after service of this Summons , exclusive of the day of service, and in case of your failure to do so , Judgment will be rendered against you according to the demand of the Complaint . Harle ---- -------------- y rk, Jr . Assistant District Attorney St . Croix County Courthouse 911 Fourth Street Hudson , Wisconsin 54016 (715) 386-5581 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 23 August 1964 r Rt #2 Hudson, Wise. 54016 Mr. Harold Barber Zoning Administrator St, Croix County Hammond, Wisconsin Dear Mr. Barber: This letter will serve as acknowledgement of your letter to me dated 23 July 1984- First of all the meaning of your correspondence is extremely difficult to understand because of the following inconsistencies. 1 . Last year when you were out to my property with Jake Vandervoort you told me to go ahead and finish nailing down the top support planking one piece at a time because I had already been granted a variance to do the job. 2. While Tou were looking at the lift platform you also instructed me to put on a railing for reasons of safety. This was done. 3. About one month later I received a letter from you stating that I was in violation of code and I would have to remove all the top support planking. The same planking you previously had told one to go ahead and install. 4. You, also told me to fill in the top portion of the project with dirt after I had removed the support planking. 5. The corpliance time limit for this was subsequently delayed into the spring of 19811 by mutual consent. This provided me the time for a special meeting with Jake Vandervoort in Eau Claire, the result of which was the suggestion to file another variance re- quest. Our conversation also heavily emphasized the point that Stair landings were not the same thing as lift stations. 6. Another Ivariancel request was completed with your help, just as the first request was, and filed to include a minor request for 6 Foot wide steps which you stated would present no problem in being approved. 7. However, this was denied and I was then ordered to remove every- thing already granted in my 1981 variance and to fill in the part of my property which was leveledr (terraced), and reinforced to provide for supports for my top lift station. The planking has been removed from the top support portion and I have tried to fill in dirt as previously instructed but it seems that you have now stopped the delivery of the fill I ordered attempting to comply with all the conflicting directives I have received and the 1 August 1984 deadline date. I do not comprehend how I can finish the job without dirt or amid all the contradictions which seen to be surfacing. t. c As provided for in the regulations I have been in contact with Mr. Eric Lundell of the County Attorneys office over the telephone and at his office numerous tines in an attempt to resolve the matter. I attempted to have Mr. Lundell out to my property quite a number of times for an in person 'look see' however he never made it while I was at the property. I do understand from my second office meeting with Mr. Lundell the other day that you and he had been out to my place togeather while I was not in town. This was the same meeting you sat in on for a while and we all discussed the dituation. During that discussion your answer to Mr. Lundells question of what the problem was, was the lift station being located 'over the hill' . you Left the office shortly thereafter and Mr. Lundell and myself talked a few more minutes about the problem. Referencing that discussion and all that has taken place it would seem at this time that a final solution will have to be reached procedurally. Therefore, I request that you do the following things for m®. 1 . In form the County Board that I have not ignored their directive. 2. Provide me with a copy of all the complaint letters read and referred to by Bob Stevens at ttie June Varaince hearing signed by Airs. Nelson. This includes the complaint letter on the float- ing docks at the bottom of the hill seeing that I am included in the use of one of them. 3. Provide me with a copy of my letter to Jake Vandervoort which I presented to Bob Stevens and the board at the hearing. I also would like a reply from you in writing as to what Jake Vandervoort and you have done since becoming aware of the code violations in my immediate area when you both inspected my property last year, and the additional code violations which have occurred since which you have seen, and Mrs. Nelsons dock complaint which was read at the June hearing. During my last two visits to your Hammond office you made re- peated reference to where I was flying out of. I expect this was because you have tried to contact me unsuccessfully as I am so seldom available at spay Hudson Property. This is understandably frustrating to all parties when trying to get a problem settled. Anyway, to expedite resolution of this variance problem and avoid unneccessary delays please direct any further letters, orders, or whatever to my Attorney, Mr. Steven Goff, 710 North Main str. , River Falls, Wisconsin 54022, as he is now handling this matter to it conclusion and will be in contact shortly. T ks for your promp attention Richard A. Thompson 436 8'¢. y t . 27 May 1984 RT #2 Hudson, Wisc. St. Croix County Board Gentlemen: In. 1981 I requested a variance to install a lift and two lift stations on my property. All procedures were checked with the Zoning Administrator and complied with and subsequently the Board approved this request. During the Boards onsite inspection which included the DNR representative, the staked out position of where the track was to run down the hill was o.k. 'ed - The location of the lift machinery and cart placement below the crest of the hill was o.k. ed - and both the placement of a few steps to descend to , and the top lift station which was to run laterally along the hill to the cart were talked about and approved. We also thoroughly discussed the point that the purpose in having the station and the lift below the crest of the hill wag to avoid 'spoiling' my northside neighbors downriver view. This location complicated the entire project and added to my costs. However, it seemed ffortrand considerate the extra effort P The lift project was approved and started in 1981 • It seems are appendice to the St. Croix Code received by the Zonrng Administrator in the fall of 1982 calls for stairs to be no wider than 3 feet. I have 5 steps 3 feet wide and a wheel chair ramp 3 feet wide from the stair landing to the lift station or I have 5 steps 6 feet wide whichever way you choose to look at it. See drawings. Technically I may, or I may not, be in violation due to the lack of a request in writing for steps in my 1981 application even though the stairs were orally approved, but, if necessary, I do request a variance for what has been built. See drawings. Also, St. Croix County zoning specifies that fencing or railings are O.K. Which for reasons of safety is only common sense. However, If necessary, I do request a variance for the railings I installed. Also, St. Croix County zoning specifies that the lift machinery be covered by an overhang. This I did build into the project in combination with railing supports and the supports for the lift station. Again, if necessary, I request a variance for this 3 foot wide overhang. See drawings. Becauso of the unstable nature of the soil over the crest of the bank, (sand & gravel) , I continued the planking rearward from the 3 foot wide overhang to insure additional stability and strenght in the supports for the lift station. 2 Again, if necessary, I request a variance for at least 6 feet or so of additional planking behind the overhang back toward my houseg This top support planking is not visible from the river in any event nor is it visible from either neigh or ng or party under summer conditions and does nothing to compromise the spirit and/or intent of the zoning ruloof, said zoning river rulesato'a local the property owner© See grant a variance attached drawings. Gentlemen, it is a shame that 'circumstances ' should require such a close technical re-examination of what reasonable people had previously deemed consider, therefore, in quest pleas , 1 . All procedures and requirements we checked o ith t e Zoning )and Administrator prior to the 1981 request t3 or 4 approved. 2. The project was done based on the information obtained from the Zoning Administrator in 1981 . At no time was I made aware by anyone of any 1982 changes or whatever to the St. Croix Book until this 'anonymous' problem arose. 3. Board and DNR site inspection O.K. was part of 1981 variance. 4- No trees weie removed from the site. 5. Screening trees & shrubery for the lift station, rail 8gf Etc. , eet are planted as agreed upon originally with DNR. They tall at present and should be 12' - 14' and bushed out within the period specified in the code, totally obscuring everything from view. 6. Color is dull olive drab as called for. 7. Approval of both neighbors was obtained in writing prior to the 1981 variance hearing. 8. There is no private residential property across the river from me for over 1 mile in either direction. one to considerable extra expense to do a good job based 9. I have g to et on previous approval rather than just he minimum necessary B by when the soil problems became apparent. 10. I expect the main consideration overall isha visibility romthe river. As pointed out in #5, ti everything Even though DNR within a few years even if partially visible now. approved only trees for coverage I expect that, if necessary, some creeping Ivy can be planted which support posts while i$u further trees grow. visibility of the railings an p. Thanks again for your time and consideration R.A. Thompson ?7 iN ts],% T-' 'F � y cli r, vp, H VII C U: Qj Co �tm `1 5 fi S� w I. rt T_— cy - ' S 1 F t r c� t7,, o i 4v 17 ==d4 4!n 1 -4 , M w Mil► r 4 � �:�w#ev �+, �� �n," , „se �y'avy h .�, •r , ,"qr yy H�",�;�1 .l.' `4•f{ a/�:f Alm .tp. r � ` At r ,K1 Iry P. :,x ��'"��f` a1� Vin'.•'�y .lr'''' r.t► !; 1sRS" `A � h r' 1 _ h C A ' w �- C� t T n' l —ra Vlf � ►v , h N (1 Ct'I O s I�j �1 t n Pr / 27 May 1964 kT #2 Hudson, Wive. St. Croix County Board Gentlemen: In 1981 I requested a variance to install a lift and two lift stationer on my property. All procedures were checked with the Zoning Administrator and complied with and subsequently the Board approved this request. During the Boards onsite inspection which included the DNR representative, the staked out position of where the track was to run down the hill was o.k. sed - The location of the lift machinery and cart placement below the crest of the hill was o.k. led - and both the placement of few steps to descend to , and 'the top lift station which was to run laterally along the hill to the cart were talked about and approved. We also thoroughly discussed the point that the purpose in having the station and the lift below the crest of the hill was to avoid ' spoiling' my northside neighbors downriver view. This location complicated the entire project and ridded to my costs. However, it seemed both reasonable and considerate of me at the time to make the extra effort and I expect the board must have been in agreement. The lift project was approved and started in 1961 . It seems an appendice to the St. Croix Code received by the Zonfng Administrator in the fall of 1962 calls for stairs to be no wider than 3 feet. I have 5 steps 3 Yeat wide and a wheel chair ramp 3 feet wide from the stair landing to the lift station or I have 5 steps 6 feet wide whichever way you choose to look aT—it. See drawings. Technically I may, or I may not, be in violation due to the lack of a request in writing for steps in my 1981 application even though the stairs were orally approved, but, if necessary, I do request a variance for what has been built. See drawings. Also, St. Croix County zoning specifies that fencing or railings are O.K. Which ror reasons -pf safety is only common sense. However, if necessary, I do request a variance for the railings I installed. Also, St. Croix County zoning specifies that the lift machinery be covered by an overhang. This I did build into the project in combination with railing supports and the supports for the lift station. Again, if necessary, I request a variance for this 3 foot , wide overhang.. See drawings. Beoausq of the unstable nature of the soil over the crest of the bank, (sand & gravel) , I continued the planking rearward from the ' 3 foot wide overhang to insure additional stability and strenght in the supports for the lift station. 2 Again, if necessary, I request a variance for at least 6 feet or so of additional planking behind the overhang back toward my house. This top support planking is not visible from the river in any event nor is it visible from either neig or ng property uMeer summer conditions and does nothing to compromise the spirit and/or intent of the zoning rules, the 'wild river act ' , or the boards power to grant a variance of said zoning rules to a local property owner. See attached drawings. Gentlemen, it is a shame that 'circumstances ' should require such a close technical re-examination of what reasonable people had previously deemed O.K. , therefore, in examining this 'variance re- quest ' please consider, .i hope positively, the following points. 1 . All procedures and requirements were checked with the Zoning Administrator prior to the 1961 request (3 or 1� office visits)and approved. 2. The project was done based on the information obtained from the Zoning Administrator in 1981 . At no time was I made aware by anyone of any 1962 changes or whatever to the St. Croix Book until this 'anonymous' problem arose. 3. Board and DNR site inspection O.K. was part of 1981 variance. 4. No trees were removed from the site. 5. Screening trees 8c shrubery for the lift station, railings, Etc. , are planted as agreed upon originally with DNR. They are a feet tell at present and should be 12' - 14' and bushed out within the period specified in the code, totally obscuring everything from view. 6. Color is dull olive drab as palled for. 7. Approval of both neighbors was obtained in writing prior to the 1981 variance hearing. 8. There is no private residential property across the river from me for over 1 mile in either direction. 9. I have gone to considerable extra expense to do a good fob based on previous approval rather than just the minimum necessary to get by when the soil problems became apparent. 10. I expect the main consideration overall is visibility from the river. As pointed out in #5, most everything sYiould be obscurred within a few years even if partially visible now. Even tilough DNR approved only trees for coverage I expect that, if necessary, some creeping Ivy can be planted which would further reduce frontal visibility of the railings and support posts while the trees grow. Thanks again for your time and consideration - I R.A. Thompson t P N - 'CIO y Y% 41 316 R �^ n J t -4 T N V\ b : � Vlf tA M P n �- x r X I�j x � r L o _ H 7� f h' n Uf . 0-a- v7� Oj 1 AU X ry 6 CQ " I Ile "0.......... o rj May 15, 1984 17 8 Mr. Harold Barber Administrator of Zoning & Civil Defense 17y St. Croix County �,'rip �� 1030 Davis , Box 227 Hammond, Wisconsin 54015 Dear Mr. Barber, I am writing because we are concerned about the continued existence of two large decks built by Richard Thompson, Riverview Acres, Rural Route #2, Hudson. Wisconsin. We were told that they were to be taken I down by April , 1984. At this time, the larger deck, approximately 18 x 24' , has had some of the planks removed but is still there. The second deck, approximately 9 x 18 � is still completely intact. Last week you told me Mr. Thompson was requesting a permit for a stairway leading to the deck. I assume from this that he plans to use the lower deck that projects 30 feet out past the bluff line. We strongly object to this. The old zoning ordinance called for a 35 foot setback for any structures and thought our privacy was secure. Now we find, because this building project was allowed, we have lost considerable privacy. The newer zoning for the scenic wild river is more strict than the old ordinance and yet we still have this problem. Supposedly, these decks were to serve as a lift platform. A number of us in the area have lifts and the platforms are all small and unobtrusively set back. I hope that the decks will be removed and the area replanted to avoid erosion problems: Yours truly, y�" - ! �� Kathryn M. Nelson Rural Route #2 Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 cc : Mr. Benjamin George Route #1 St. Joseph , Wisconsin 54082 Mr. Robert Stephens Route #3, Box 353 New Richmond, Wisconsin 54017 Mr. Milton Meinke Route #1 St. Joseph, Wisconsin 54082 Mr. Jake Vandervoort Department of Natural Resources Call Box 4001 Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702 ow F i State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES West Central District Headquarters 1300 West Clairemont Avenue Carroll D.Besadny Call Box 4001 Secretary Eau Claire, WI 54702-4001 July 2, 1984 File Ref: 3590-8 _1�4 Mr. Harold Barber <O� 6' P�O1nBoxd227istrator ��,,`irc Hammond, WI 54015 d, Dear Harold: At the June 26, 1984 meeting of the St. Croix County Board of Adjustments, several riverway appeals were heard. In regards to the Thompson appeal for approval after-the-fact for a deck he installed, our Department objects to issuing any permits for this structure. If Mr. Thompson needs a stairs to gain access to the top of his lift, he may submit designs once the existing structure has been removed. Any structure built to gain access to his lift must meet the standards for stairways contained in your zoning code. Field review of the Weekes request for a bluff line setback variance shows the structure would, in fact, be visually inconspicuous from the river. However, Section NR 118.06(3)(b) states that counties "may grant a variance to the setback requirements . .. for pre-existing parcels only." Because this lot was platted after the riverway ordinance went into effect, a variance cannot be granted in this situation, regardless of the merits of the proposal. Also, based on our field review, I have no objection to issuing a lift permit as specified in the Griswold request. If you have any questions about my comments, please contact me at (715) 836-2941 . Sincerely, (�24 aa,� ��� Jake VanderVoort Community Services Specialist JV:sz cc: J. Lissack K. Christopherson - WRZ/5 J. DeLaMater JVT327 SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE' PLEMI'1 APPL,1.CATION 1`ult S'T'_ CI;U1X COUNTY ndersigned hereby applies to .thc S'1'. CltU1 X COUNTY BOA1tD OV pursuant to Chapter 9 of the S'1'. C1tO1X COUNTY ZONING 01,wI.NANCE special xception use ,�er[�[i� and re1)rc::c:nt5 a:, 10110w6 VLICANT aV a Sad ADDRESS— 27` TL- 2 A OWNER of SIT , C�14 &- o Sorb ADDRESS `z`7'`• ' `� 2. �. aAJ �.�.a� � d l� ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, CONTRA TOR Tri M F Msw' 1 —+- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE G , ADI)RESS OF SITE ` ICJ 2_�► ut 1 T M4►-s et / wo TYPE OF STUCTURE_/1 . _, �- _ PROPOSED USE OF STRUCTURE O�R( SITE nP ZONING-. DISTRICT 01, � SECTION OF ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH IL)LiL—LI T'l s "11-1lS u6E AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT .� `� PLAT OR SURVEY OR SCALE MAP MUST ACCOMPANY T11IS APPLICATION. T� The applicant must submit , as part of ulzis application , those items of information identified in Lite following; checklist as being; relevant to the ordinance standards applicable to the proposed use . SIGNED q �/1 . DATE �g M. Applicant Ag uaL Payment of $100.00 payable to St . Croix County Zoning; Administration is due at, time of submittal to Zoning; Office o ` . , M ' l4tion• � OlyVt�19 � 1.4 6? 4 s 1 SPECIAL EXCEPTION, USE PERMIT CHECK-LIST NOTE: The following checklist identifies information to be included with the application for a conditional use permit. The applicant is required to submit to the zoning office all of those items of information marked with an "X." I . A Title sheet which includes the following information: a. project location map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. total lot area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. building/dwelling unit information: I . number of buildings per parcel . . . . . . . . . .� 2. number of dwelling units per building . . . . . .[� 3. average square feet of lot area per dwelling unit provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. usable open space per dwelling unit provided. . .� 5. total usable open space provided. . . . . . . . .0 2. A General Development Plan which .includes the following information: a. statement describing the general character of the intended development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. accurate (to scale) map of the project area in- cluding its relationship to surrounding properties and existing topography and key natural features . . C. number of parking spaces provided. . . . . . . . . . .[� d. underground electric and telephone service . . . . . .Q 3. Complete description •of existing utilities adjacent to site a. Existing and workable proposed grades (contour lines at two foot contour interval minimum) and surface drainage. Supplement the contour lines with spot elevations along drainage swales where necessary. If the project is adjacent to an existing improved street, elevation of the top of curb and sidewalk shall be indicated at 50 foot stations. If the street and/or sidewalk is riot existing, proposed elevations shall be shown . .Q a b. Complete existing and proposed storm sewer and sanitary sewer information including pipe sizes, invert elevation of, manhole inlets etc. . . C. Property lines, building sizes, locations and distance between both existing and proposed. . . . . LANJ d. Location of all easements, existing or proposed. . E-1 e. Location, type and size of all existing trees, utility poles, fire hydrants and other structures, etc. , both on-site and in all street terraces adjacent to the site. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 f. Parking lot information: I . A scaled drawing plot plan of I" = 20' or larger of all on-site surface, structure or underground parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Location of driveway approaches--existing, proposed and adjoining. . . . . . . . . . . . . � 3. Rate of slope or grade or approaches and driveways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Indicate number, arrangement and size of parking stalls and drive aisles. . . . . . . . � g. Vehicular access to inner courts for emergency servicing of buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q h. Pedestrian walks connecting buildings, other buildings, and on-site parking areas and with . public sidewalks. (Walks shall be kept separate from drive aisles and driveways. ) . . . . . . . . . . [� 1 . Building floor plans and elevations. . . . . . . . . 4. Statements regarding the impact of the proposed project on a. schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �] b. roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �] C. police and fire services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. groundwater supply and quality . . . . . . . . . . . 0 e. surrounding uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f. local Qconomy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [� g. local cIovernmant fiscal situation. . . . . . . . . . C] c. 5. Site reclamation plan (mining, quarrying and drilling operations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �� 6. Shoreland Impact statements as described in Section of the County Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . . . . � 7. Floodplain Impact Statement as described in Section of the County Floodplain Zoning Ordinance. . . . . . . . . . � 8. Shore Protection Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Erosion/Runoff Control Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Other items as specified by the zoning office: 11 . Ngme.A and add.APAAPA n4 aJ0Y adjoining tandownenb . x �. z4 - .