Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040-1144-80-200 (3) j k § e $ 0 2 0 k =\ »\ 0 �k4 / E ;ao k 2'a ; SE fm § ® 2 - } \/§ 8 § R §}2 � 0 f/o ( 2 2 C & e ` °� = ] &28r 2 c § © ,� � 52=a ) r / - 3 'a 4) § JAw ;ƒ$ CL - . ! � w § z 2 $ / k a § \ ( k 7 / $ e ' ® � � § � kf � 7 •� CL 6 Q z C14 R = g E > £ § [ § k E \ \ . § B B -� � o B \ 0 ® a U ■ _j % E k § ® 2 \ \ \ / : c = / o o o co \ If § / § P- 00 k # k f ) ■ / ; ° ° 8 g § ` \ e < - ° § 04 « 00 § 2 p ° : R ) m m a a 8 8 8 3 / $ § N e e e e % g $g d m d { § C) / a )/ )§ o U), � 2 � , 5 L CL J ) 2 J a 2 0 U) J ' 1 1 Q CERTIFIED SURVEY MAP Located in Government Lot Z, Section 12, LEGEND T28N, R20W , Town of Troy, St. Croix County, Wisconsin COUNTY SECTION CORNER `S'T N b BERNTSEN CAP • I" IRON PIPE FOUND %f' b O 1"X 24"ROUND IRON PIPE WEIGHING /�, ° 1.68 LBS./FT. SET iw� EXISTING FENCE N pN 0 1 N ° l0 i0 , \ i� Z n%imm 24.76' o O o p app. r 'g o. ZJ p N o " od �'So ZM H z2 i Z Z\ 8' IOD N_ \ F _ 01 Q oN m c°� D //��6 rn.n o ° o° 34j0 90 �� � 00 O W �'0 3Tp� .- t N OD G? o m1rn , ��o z 11 bD • o rn ao $ ww -4 ro I o�� oo 00 ED IT I 600 p W m N 1� 3 '43"W N1 3 . 9272 92.44 IL -1 290,06 w - 185.43 0 0 `—°_ S N 10 36'4S' 90.75 U) C aRo (o i; �2SS o Al c S O B O ° ww p 0 0 OD 40 i m W S " "U s,� . w \ M N o CCD a P-40 p Z Z O A.N v o OD 0 OD OD P Ln t0 i RI 0) � OR *7 ' . �Opp N O'�"�OO� / �p �0 p m n t%/ O� *0 O W 9 t0 O r- , tr N GO- Z2 ;4m CO / �m o Z M f w w (A to cn ?E .P m N 10 50' 45"Vj N w o Im Z 198.00 O OD Sim m o Ln co cD _ 0 2.4.77'��'- z k--�ll�OUl 0N1°50'41° 50'45"W 208.00 m; NmN 30207' 890 m V aDO- S 1°50'45"E 577.50' 40�40'� Surveyed fcar: George L:indeberg moo Rt. 3, C.T . "F" on,z Hudson, WI 54016 � VQ � . Q3 'HIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTEp BY Page 1 of 7 From: David Fodroczi Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:57 AM To: Jennifer Shillcox; Robert Bezek Subject: FW: 2d copy of Sept 9 OHWM ltr, copied to add'1 people. fyi/df -----Original Message----- From: Bill Tilton [mailto:billtilton @juno.com] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 11:25 AM To: Robert.Baczynski @dnr.state.wi.us Cc: Sa ndra.Wha len@ house.mn;jacobsonn @mac.com;jonesd2 @mac.com; jsieben @minn.net; markh.smith @mmm.com; scdelapp @mmm.com; carlsons @mninter.net; bruce @mnpba.com; LLReynolds82 @msn.com; peggynolz @msn.com; RPROLLE @msn.com; towolf @msn.com; larrykennedy @mymailstation.com; Brian_R_Adams @nps.gov; Kate_Hanson @nps.gov; Tom_Bradley @nps.gov; jcuchna @parksandtrails.org; damondunn @pressenter.com; dgavin @pressenter.com; fogden @pressenter.com; lauing @pressenter.com; malickcw @pressenter.com; mytmsrivr @pressenter.com; nhvill @pressenter.com; dbeaudet @pro-ns.net; gusciapp @qwest.net; jrstanton @qwest.net; shiltgen @repgroupinc.com; joe @rodlibeskar.com; riverway @rowen.org; wberndt @sbcglobal.net; weinberg @skypoint.com; cwatt @spacestar.net;jon @stcroixmarina.com; rrmeierotto @stthomas.edu; bellairs @trancer.com; dawald @usfamily.net; g.agrimson @usfamily.net; oakwood @usfamily.net; utecht @usfamily.net; umwa @uswest.net; manelson @vbe.com; Ispirate @yahoo.com; David Fodroczi; Bill.Dunn @state.mn.us; jamesj @lommen.com; billtilton @juno.com Subject: 2d copy of Sept 9 OHWM Itr, copied to add'I people. Dear Mr. Baczynski, On about August 8, 2005 I requested that you place my name on any email distribution lists for OWHM (and other ) purposes. It seems your email copied below (Sept 8, 2005 re availability of copies of the file from the August 31 hearing) and others have since gone out, without my name included. Please add my name to this and other relevant email lists, as requested. In my August 8 letter I made other requests important to this Lake St. Croix OHWM matter, all of which have also been ignored. I repeat those requests again. For our benefit and for the benefit of those interested people on your 9 Y p P email distribution list, I will copy that letter here, below. Given the information in this August 8 letter (and in the more detailed documents referenced in the letter), I was quite shocked in late August to find that the DNR made the OHWM finding of h evidence f multiple 681.5 feet, since that number is directly contradicted byte d o p biological and physical indices of the OHWM at my property. What explanation do you have for these heads-up contradictions between the DNR's 'findin s' of an OHWM of 681.5' and the facts on m 400+ feet of 9 Y shoreline? Does the DNR hold the opinion that dozens of trees on my property (including several between 36" and 65" thick!) and terrestrial moss are 'acquatic' according to the Supreme Court's definition? Given the DNR's total failure to mention this contradiction and even to mention to the public the expert findings on my property, it seems as if certain DNR personnel appear to be purposely ignoring evidence which conflicts with their desire to set an OWHM as high as possible. I hope that you are not among them. file:HS:\CDD\zonshare\Land Use Permits\2004 LUPs\Floodplain\Tilton, William\FW 2d c... 4/23/2014 Fw Fw ordinary High water Mark Study questions requests and concerns determinations for my property. The DNR has promised that an OHWM determination for my property would be done finally as part of the DNR's present study. Therefore I was a bit when I came to the July 27 meeting to discover that the DNR'S public report of data collection so far did not include any of the data received by the DNR relative to my property. Related to that subject, I want to lodge a protest against the failure of the July 27, 2005 meeting to fulfill its promised purpose of presenting preliminary "findings" . see the Aug 18, 2004 letter of Daniel Bauman which described this session as intended to develop field report identifying OHWM findings, share with partners, compare to historical elevations and data gathered from the public. But there was not any "field report identifying OHWM finding ' presented at the July 27, 2005 meeting. The DNR people present affirmatively refused to make any stab at what thoughts they had regarding any OHWM finding. Since there was no "finding" info, there obviously was not any em made a h meeting to "com are those findings] to historical attempt a e t the e g p [ g ] elevations as had been promised at the beginning of the 'study. ' . p 9 9 Y similarly, the July 27 presentation totally omitted any of the promised "data gathered from the public," including the extensive data for my own property. A couple dozen citizens, including several people with valuable expertise, came to the meeting to talk turkey with government workers about what data was available and what conclusions or `finding' you were tending toward. Instead we were told there that the DNR didn't want to talk about any particular OHWM elevations that night; there would be no finding till Aug 31, by which time a Declaratory Ruling would be made. Public input was discouraged at the very meeting which seemed to be specifically designed as an opportunity for public input before the DNR made another bad OHWM determination. Additionally, at the July 27 meeting it was not clear what criteria the DNR is using to make its OHWM determination. Mention was made of Chapter 40 of the waterway and wetland Handbook for the State of Wisconsin, entitled "Ordinary High water Mark" . But mention was also made of something called 'the Browse Line," whatever that is, "drift lines" and "erosion lines" without any explanation of what implications those vaguely defined issues had on the DNR's OHWM determination. IMPORTANT DATA WHICH APPEARS TO BE IGNORED BY THE DNR TEAM LOOKING AT THE OHWM FOR LAKE ST. CROIX From the July 27, 2005 meeting I understand that your team investigating the OHWM for Lake St. Croix is not taking into consideration the OHWM determination now in existence for the Minnesota shore of Lake St. Croix, nor any of the factual information upon which that Minnesota shore OHWM is based. I request all information, if any, which your team or other Wisc. DNR personnel have collected from the Minnesota DNR or other sources in Minnesota which may be relevant to this OHWM. If you (i .e. your team or other WI DNR sources) have not collected any information from any Minnesota sources, I request that you state so in your response to this letter. For what it's worth, assuming no Minnesota-sourced data has been collected as stated at the July 27 meeting, I would also be curious as to why your team would choose purposely to ignore a potential wealth of information regarding the OHWM issue which you imply you are investigating thoroughly. I also inferred at the July 27 meeting that your team had not yet investigated nor considered the OHWM determination made over the years by the City of Hudson. Is that true and, if so, why not? If you have not collected any information from the City of Hudson or from the experts upon which the city has relied upon in the past, please, state so in your response to this letter. I was very surprised to learn at the July 27 presentation that you had not yet taken an opportunity to look at the detailed OHWM analysis of my own Lake St. Croix property done by Barr Engineering, Ogden Engineering and other experts (at some considerable expense to me) and which provides detailed and overwhelming evidence that the OHWM at my property is between 676 and 677 feet above sea level . Because the DNR ignored my five Page 2 Fw Fw ordinary High water Mark study questions requests and concerns From: billtilton @juno.com sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:33 PM To: dmurr @larsonallen.com; Jeff_cudd @gmitravel .com; foker001 @umn.edu; jamesj @lommen.com; tmacdonald @barr.com; michaelratz @buckthornremoval .com; JML297A @sbwireless.net; Jennifer shillcox; kentilsen @pressenter.com; ltilton @pptplaw.com Cc: billtilton @juno.com subject: Fw: Fw: Ordinary High water Mark study questions, requests and concerns Friends, you may find this of interest. To Be Sent via email to Robert.Baczynski @dnr.state.wi .us Dear Mr. Baczynski , Please forward copies of this email message to Mr. Breese, Mr. Sommerhaus, Mr. Bauman, Mr. Lepak, Ms. Post and any other Wisc. DNR employee or citizen with an interest in these subjects. I want these comments and facts to be part of the record prior to the anticipated August 31, 2005 Declaratory Ruling on the OHWM for Lake St. Croix. As you know, I am a property owner on Lake St. Croix. M property, including over 400 feet of shoreline, is about three miles south of the 194 bridge at Hudson. Please add my name, office mail address and email address to DNR distribution lists for any OHWM matters and for any other matters involving the St. Croix River, Lake St. Croix, Floodplane issues, Shoreline issues or wild and Scenic River matters. I thought I was supposed to have been added to such lists in the past, but it seems several such notices have gone out to others, but not to me. As you promised you could do during the Hudson meeting on July 27, 2005, Please send to me copies of the slides used at that presentation of 'data" the DNR has gathered regarding setting of an ordinary High water Mark (OHWM) for Lake St. Croix and particularly for my property on that lake. if the material is available electronically you can send it to me via email at this address. or you can send it to my office, address below. Is there a tape or memo or DNR memo or other record of the July 27 meeting? If so, I request copies of all such items. I would also appreciate copies of all other data, photos and other information which have been gathered by the DNR and which may be relevant to the DNR's decision regarding the OHWM for my property in particular and for the greater Lake St. Croix area in general . I will pay any copying costs incurred. I thought I'd see a least a listing of such information at the July 27 meeting; but nothing of the kind was presented. This request and all other requests in this letter for information, data or documents should be considered pursuant to your team's promises of disclosure made to the many citizens present at the July 27 Hudson meeting and pursuant to any state and federal laws permitting access by citizens to information in the possession of the DNR. I have developed some very serious concerns as to the accuracy, impartiality and completeness of the data being sought and of the conclusions to be reached by the DNR Team looking into the OHWM for Lake St. Croix, particularly for my own property. Along that line, and for reasons that will be more clear upon a reading of this letter, I formally re-request that the Wisc. DNR make an OHWM determination specifically for my property on Lake St. Croix and that you do so as part of your present ongoing study, i .e. do it before the Aug. 31 release of a Declaratory Ruling on the issue. As your DNR records will indicate, I have been requesting an OHWM determination for my property since 1999. My 400+ feet of shoreline are mostly undisturbed by human hands and in other ways I have a far superior site than several of the sites chosen by the DNR to look at for this OHWM study. Last year the DNR received a volume of data including several expert reports and OHWM Page 1 Fw Fw ordinary High water Mark study questions requests and concerns had told me in the past that they could not describe to me the facts used to support the 682 enforcement level ; every now and then someone talks vaguely of a Dan Koich having determined an OHWM of 682' as part of a Marzoff application years and years ago, but no one has ever provided any data supporting that number; certainly none was mentioned at the public meeting on July 27, 2005; if you talk to Buzz or Mary Marzoff they will tell you that the OHWM "investigation" by Mr. Koich was done totally arbitrarily) . In his Dec. 15, 2004 memo commenting on my Application for Land use Permit, Mr. Lepak is silent on the OHWM issue altogether (he has at other times stated that's not his issue, that he's not expert in that area, tho I found a memo from him from 1983 where he confidently states the OHWM is 688 feet! Finally in a 1999 memo Mr. Leppak admits "This [the long-enforced 688 OHWM level] needs to be verified", i .e. it's wrong; then he simply summarily changes the DNR's OHWM, but in a very tentative way: "the OHWM which I believe to be at 682 feet," [italics added] and Mr. Lepak cites no evidence to suppport it.) . Interestingly, to the extent Mr. Lepak looked at my 2004 data he found it convincing -- i .e. he accepted the conclusion by Barr Engineering on the more-complicated Floodway/Floodfringe Boundary issue. Ms. Post had the DNR job of advising the county on the OHWM issues in my Application, and in doing so she simply ignored the data and expert conclusions altogether. In her Dec. 15, 2004 comments Ms. Post simply summarily said "The ordinary high water mark at the Tilton property is 682 1912 corps adjusted elevation datum." The county was looking to Ms. Post for guidance on the OHWM issue and in so doing Ms. Post misled the county. There are no signs that she even read the Barr Engineering or Ogden Engineering data or looked at the photos or surveys; if so she makes no explanation for why her 682 declaration is contradicted by.all available evidence. Are you aware that Ms. Post was on my property in November 2004, while the stakes placed by the Filkins/ogden and Barr experts were still in place? I asked her to walk to those stakes and see for herself what the other experts were looking to. she summarily refused to do this simplest of investigations, despite my direct request that she do so as part of the DNR's OHWM study and despite that she was just down the beach from the data. Given this history and more, this raises questions about the qualifications and/or objectivity of some of the DNR people doing this study and questions about the care with which data is being gathered and analyzed. From these experiences, from my review of historical documents (see e.g. the Lindeberg and Marzoff files) and from my personal encounters with certain DNR personnel on this issue I get the impression that there is a distinct prejudice within the DNR to ignore any evidence which would support an OHWM level akin to that already determined by the state of Minnesota, the City of Hudson, Barr Engineering, Ogden Engineering and others. Rather it seems that the DNR wants to make an OHWM Determination as high above sea level as possible in order to maximize its own police power and restrict property rights as much as possible. The fact that three of the five official sites looked at by your OHWM team (the Rolle property, Twin springs and the Kinnickinnic area) were all 'investigated' by your team during a week in mid-May 2005 when the river was higher than what the OHWM logically is (e.g. woody vegetation was sticking out of the water; moss was clearly under water at the time of your team's visit) makes me wonder how you can relay on most of the data you have collected. The DNR collectors of data said that their process of gathering data is to start at the water line and go up hill to (or toward) the bluff. so they inherently cannot gather data supporting a OHWM level lower than what the water was on the day of the data gathering. why not do this during the dry season? when the water is at the low pool elevation of about 675 feet (like now) , start at the low pool elevation and work your way toward the bluff. Do it in the next week or two on my property, if Page 4 Fw Fw ordinary High water Mark study questions requests and concerns years of requests that the DNR do it, at my own expense I hired the best experts available to gather relevant data for an OHWM determination at my property. For example, I had a team of surveyors & others do a survey of my property: As part of that Louis Mkins and his associates at Ogden Engineering (a long-established and very well-respected local expert resource) did an investigation and made an OHWM determination, which has been provided to you but apparently ignored. As part of the data gathering, I had that team do a survey which shows the location, diameter, elevation and type of every tree on my property (over 4" in diameter) within 200 feet of their professionally-determined OHWM. YOU have been provided with that map/survey for my 400+ feet of shoreline. It shows over three dozen such trees waterward of the DNR-enforced OHWM of 682' (and over half a dozen of those waterward trees were between 3' thick and 5'5" thick) . It appears no such woody vegetation survey has been done at any of the five DNR-chosen sites; but for some reason it seems that this unique survey-of-trees data provided by me to the DNR has so far been totally ignored. In addition, I hired Barr Engineering, a long-established national firm with 40+ years of experience in analyzing such matters, including extensive work for the Army Corps of Engineers and National Park service, including projects involving the St. Croix. Barr Engineering specifically referred to Chapter 40 criteria for the OHWM. The Barr report specifically addressed physical indicators such as soil , water staining, mud stains, ice scars and erosion lines. In addition, Barr addressed biological indicators mentioned in Chapter 40. For example, it investigated mosses and trees along my shoreline. It so happens that moss is the very first-listed "Indicator" in the DNR Handbook Chapter 40 section entitled "what to look for when making an OHWM Determination." So Barr Engineering did a moss survey on my property. Barr's data and finding based on its moss survey is as follows: Chapter 40 mentions several biological indicators of the OHWM. There were several of these apparent on your property. specifically, there were mosses and trees abundant along your shoreline. According to Chapter 40, ". . .mosses which are located on exposed rocks, stumps, tree roots, etc. , are usually considered terrestrial and the lowermost elevation of these mosses is a good indicator of the OHWM. " we surveyed this transition from moss to no-moss at four locations on your property, designated on the attached survey map as "OHw-1," "OHW-3,"OHW-4, " and "OHW-5." The elevations of these locations, which were up to 325 feet apart, were within 1.8 feet in elevation of each other . All of these moss/no-moss elevations were between 676.0 and 677.8 above sea level , with an average elevation of 677.0. I also presented photos from a helicopter flyover of my property, showing an obvious natural division between the aquatic vegetation in the water and the terrestrial vegetation on the shore. An ordinary person would describe this as barren sand and rock, i .e. -- a beach. This 8+ foot wide area is sort of a "no-man's land" for both terrestrial or aquatic vegetation. If you read the 1914 Diana Shooting Club V. Husting 156 Wisc. 261, 272 and the "reasonable person" test noted in the DNR handbook, one would think that a glance at the flyover photo would indicate that the OHWM must be somewhere on that barren beach separating the woody vegetation (i .e. the forest) from the water. It is in that area, based on fine tuning from moss and tree roots, that one reaches the OHWM of between 676.0 and 677.0 for my property. This data and much more was presented to St. Croix County and the DNR in October or November, 2004. I note that on Dec. 15, 2004 Gary Lepak and Eunice Post provided the DNR'S comments to the county regarding my application, so by then the DNR was clearly aware of (or should have been aware of -- see Ms. Post's comments, below the several expert opinions I had obtained on the OHWM issue. It seems clear that no such detailed analysis of OHWM issues had previously been done by or given to the DNR (and presumably this was clear to Mr. Lepak and Ms. Post, since they both Page 3 it Fw Fw Ordinary High water Mark study questions requests and concerns you do not trust the Barr or Ogden or other info for some reason. You'll get different, more relevant and more reliable data than you did when your team "investigated" at three of your sites in May of this year. As I said toward the beginning of this letter, I have developed some very serious concerns as to the accuracy, impartiality and completeness of the data being sought and of the conclusions to be reached by the DNR Team looking into the OHWM for Lake St. Croix, particularly for my own property. I will be cc'ing this email to several other citizens who I believe may be interested in the fairness and accuracy of the OHWM Declaratory Ruling which is to be issued August 31, 2005. I know there are many more citizens who have an interest in this sub7'ect who are not on this cc list; this is because I simply do not have their addresses on this computer. I encourage people receiving this email to forward it to others who may have an interest. I will appreciate your courtesy in responding to the questions raised and in taking the actions requested in this letter. I am happy to discuss or meet regarding these issues. For phone calls, please first try my office at 651-224-7687 [best place to leave phone messages] . Respectfully, Bill Tilton 278 westgrove Road Hudson, WI 54016 Please send u.s. Mail to my office: C/O Tilton & Dunn, PLLP 101 East 5th Street #2220 St. Paul , MN 55101 Page 5 Under the Shoreland District,any filling and grading within 300 feet of the OHWM of the St. Croix River will require an additional special exception permit pursuant to 17.29(2)(c)3 of the Ordinance,and will also likely require a Chapter 30 permit from the Wisconsin DNR. The Wisconsin DNR and FEMA will review all plans that you submit for compliance with state and federal regulations. As we have discussed, your other option is to build a new home in a compliant building location elsewhere on your lot. Please keep me informed of how you wish to proceed,and feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, - Jenny Shillcox Zoning Specialist cc: Sharon Provos,Town of Troy Gary Lepak, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Eunice Post, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Gary Heinrich,Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Tira Miller,FEMA,Region V David Schein,FEMA,Region V Greg Timmerman, St. Croix County Corporation Counsel Robert Bezek, St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department Jennifer Emmerich, St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department 2 n"r CROIX NO A A UNR CO PLANNING ZONING August 31,2005 File Ref. 04LU19 William L.Tilton 101 E 5t`Street Suite 2220 St. Paul,MN 55101 Code Administrati 715-386-4680 Re: St.Croix County Land Use Application,Parcel ID: 12.28.20.575A Land Information& 278 West Grove Road,Town of Troy Planning 715-386-4674 Dear Mr.Tilton: Real Pr rty I am writing this letter as a follow-up to our meeting on July 19, 2005 and to update you on 715 4677 recent discussions with staff from the Wisconsin DNR and FEMA regarding compliance with R ling federal, state, and local floodplain regulations. Regarding your application, all three agencies 386-4675 concur that the improvements you propose exceed 50 percent of your home's present equalized value and constitute a substantial improvement. Therefore,the entire structure must meet the standards for new residential construction,which require that you apply for a special exception permit to elevate your home on fill pursuant to Section 17.44(3)(a)l.a-f of the Floodplain Ordinance. You may apply for a variance to decrease the required 15-feet of distance that the fill extends from the foundation of your home. Fill supporting the home must be at least one foot above the Regional Flood Elevation (RFE). The finished surface of the lowest floor of your proposed home must be at least two feet above the RFE, or the Flood Protection Elevation(FPE). According to the Wisconsin DNR, variances have not historically been granted to elevate residential structures by means other than the use of fill — including using piers or posts - and in no case shall the surface of any floor of a residential structure be below the Regional Flood Elevation(RFE). However,the Wisconsin DNR has stated that they would review any plans that use a combination of fill and piers to explore this option further. As you are aware, even if you meet the requirements of the Floodplain District (with or without a variance),your proposed improvements may not meet the requirements of the Lower St. Croix Riverway District or the Shoreland District. Staff has identified several areas where the overlapping districts are in conflict with each other. Pursuant to Section 17.36 1.2.e.1)c)of the Lower St. Croix Riverway District, nonconforming principal structures located wholly or partially within 50—75 feet from the OHWM may be expanded only if there is no compliant building location available on the lot. Additionally, the total footprint of the structure cannot exceed 1500 square feet. The foundation can be replaced, repaired, or structurally altered within the pre-existing footprint in conjunction with the expansion. Any retaining walls for stabilizing fill will require additional variances if they extend beyond the footprint of your existing home pursuant to Section 17.36 G.5.c.1 of the Lower St. Croix Riverway District. ST.CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1 101 CARMICHAEL ROAD,HUDSON W1 54016 71 5386,4686 FAX PZ @CO.SA/NTCRO/X.W1,US W W W.CO.SAINTCROIX.W I.US i The Problem It is important to note that both properties are also subject to State and County Shoreland and Lower St. Croix Riverway codes and ordinances, which adds to the complexity of the requests. We have strongly encouraged both applicants to consider building conforming structures on more suitable portions of their properties; however, neither applicant wishes to do this. They both feel that they are allowed to reconstruct and expand in their present locations based on the language in our Ordinance. That said, after reviewing both applications and corresponding with DNR staff we concluded that, since improvements to the nonconforming structures would exceed 50 percent of their present equalized assessed value, both the Murrs and Mr. Tilton would have to bring their entire residences into conformance with the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance.We initially felt that flood-proofing would bring them into compliance pursuant to Section 17.45(3)(a)of Ordinance,which reads: "No modification or addition shall be allowed to any nonconforming structure in a flood fringe unless the modification or addition is placed on fill at or above the regional flood protection elevation ar is flood proofed in accordance with Section 17.46(flood proofing standards)." Upon more recent discussions with FEMA staff and further review of NR 116 and the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance, we have since learned that only elevating on fill, not flood-proofing, will bring a nonconforming residential structure into compliance with the floodplain requirements. Furthermore, we understand that any reconstruction or alterations over 50 percent of the present equalized value of a residential structure would be considered a "substantial improvement" that in turn would be subject to the same standards for new residential construction that require elevating on fill pursuant to Section 17.44(3)(a)l.a-f of the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance. This section states that a variance may not be granted to this requirement, which we believe is also consistent with NR 116. Based on this new information, we have informed the Muffs and Mr. Tilton that they must either elevate their residences on fill or keep all alterations and additions under 50 percent of their present equalized assessed values.Both applicants object to the requirement that they must elevate on fill because: • the residences are located on flat naturally sandy beaches that would re q uire a considerable amount of fill that could be detrimental to the natural appearance and ecology of the shoreline; • the residences are located close to the OHWM and administrative floodway boundary where there is concern of wave action washing away the fill; • the residences are surrounded by numerous mature trees that would have to be removed to accommodate the fill; and • in the Murr case, the residence is located too close to an adjacent property line to meet the fill requirements without encroachment or the need for retaining walls. We agree with the applicants that fill is not the appropriate measure for elevating the structures due to the unique physical characteristics of these two properties. We feel that a combination of fill and flood- proofing would be better. As such,we would like to discuss the following questions with you: 1. Are we accurate in our understanding that only elevating on fill, not flood-proofing, will bring a nonconforming residential structure into compliance with the floodplain requirements? 2. How can the State or the County prohibit variances from standards like elevating on fill? Do the applicants have any other alternatives for reconstruction/expansion if they can't elevate on fill? 3. Under what conditions can we allow a residential structure to be elevated by a method other than fill such that it complies with our ordinance? 2 MEMO To: Dave Schein,FEMA Tira Miller,FEMA Gary Heinrichs,DNR Gary Lepak,DNR From: Jenny Shillcox, St.Croix County Zoning Specialist Robert Bezek, St.Croix County Code Administrator Date: August 3, 2005 Re: Nonconforming Structures in the Floodplain Thank you in advance for agreeing to participate in a conference call with us next week,August 11 th at 9:00 AM,to discuss floodplain issues. Specifically,we would like to discuss two similar land use permit applications that we received in October 2004. Given that we are both still relatively new to Wisconsin's Administrative Code on floodplain development and, due to the fact that there are some inconsistencies both within the St. Croix County Ordinance and between it and DNR and FEMA guidelines,we are requesting your guidance on how to proceed with these two applications.We would also like clarification on several more general floodplain issues.Below are summaries of the applications and questions for discussion during the conference call. Murr Application The Murr family owns a nonconforming residential home located in the flood fringe of Lake St. Croix. The Murrs have explored several options for renovating and expanding this home. First they a pp lied for a land use permit to convert the lower story of their home to access/storage/parking and add vertically within the footprint.Now, they want to tear down the existing home and foundation in its entirety and rebuild the home in the same footprint. They want to be able to elevate on fill up to the administrative floodway boundary(687 feet)and flood-proof the remainder of the home in accordance with FEMA standards and those outlined in our Ordinance.Total improvements will exceed 50 percent of the present equalized assessed value.Attached please find the file titled"Murr Proposal",which includes: • Murr plans. • Murr property photos. • Staff response letter dated January 5,2005. • Staff response letter dated April 28,2005. • Murr close-up plans showing outer limits of proposed fill and trees to be removed. Tilton Application—A Summary Mr. Tilton owns a nonconforming residential home located within the administrative floodway(687')of Lake St. Croix. Tilton submitted a land use permit application to add another story to his existing home and convert the lower story to access/storage/parking. The lower story will be flood-proofed according to FEMA standards and those outlined in Section 17.46 of our Ordinance.He also submitted an engineered study that shows that his home is in the flood fringe,not the floodway. Total improvements will exceed 50 percent of the present equalized assessed value. Attached please find the file titled"Tilton Proposal", which includes: • Tilton plans. • Tilton property photos. • Staff response letter dated January 27, 2005. 4. How is flood insurance affected by elevating other than on fill? Is the structure considered properly elevated for flood insurance purposes? Can the structure be removed from the floodplain and what is the appropriate process to do so? 5. Is our understanding of the 50 percent rule and"substantial improvement"accurate? 6. On a more general note, many property owners want to know exactly what costs may be excluded from the 50 percent standard for flood proofing. Do you have a list, or is this something we'd have to review with you on a case-by-case basis? Also, do you have or know of a spreadsheet for tracking improvements based on the present equalized assessed value? �I �I I I 3 • ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN PLANNING&ZONING DFpARTMpNT 111/111118 sell ST.CItO1X COUNTY QOVmtNMBNT.cmB n 1101 Cam9obael.Road Hudson,W1 54016-7710 Phone: (715)386-4680 Fax(715)386-4686 FAX . • �l�� / Mro , Date. GT d a � Co Q Urgent C,7 For Review ❑Please Comment O Please Reply ❑Please Recycle r r II \� ct f, i CIO) /• a "4" i O°• 0 I � aZ 4 t AD k FTH - _ r , _, T F TF iI _ t . ° �' is�� - 'P�• — _ '. >i Eby # o h i CO Z it t�7 3 a ' Cpl ELL t S t. x E m - :ig o � r � Z m O zm g x A u+= z gHl E7] i 7 OF or OS -T Ell, , J, >1 r q 0 AM 0 � . � . � _ --- . { , .. . ! HfffflHF , . • \ .. yd Ld , . � . � Z � o ,»!; §,@ Q |-jtI �|p . � / |ski| `5/ ) §k § � h q � � � \ 7 f|■ z 5j. . , e !, /' 'i ,� , ,} ' I�V `�• \ a�<cam. XA\ Sys !/ t { - c Y`� a x =' Mi E�y cn L M p 33FF r� m %�� I ( �• � �� IZ 0 2 i��3 • _ 0 2'i5 07y A S2 33 i j I _ I — I fj ELI m M m $ o t O to $1 o C D¢ 2 � O Z L 'V z� 0;0 I i i I '� -0 0 3< CD M o 0 > m to O'0 Z F 0) 6 i h 1 f ip 1 1 Ti l Y j L i . . _._ 77—F i IL-_- o ,z 1 3 a a ..r a vx; y U) $m2&c _�• P,y p �x i�3 �c�a o 3 1 a � � YJ Z n Z A e3 z o_ �o a o. N s z .� II R„ 3 e� ----.._._ ....._..._.__. - .. -----........ _.__... _....._........ -....___- _ G .....__ ... ;9..._.. 14 CD 'l ' 'U _ t i•/ i w t ^ I t _ I 1 Ifs"'—j I e - Ir � � n u g ti i ! u _M9 0 f___ o Za9� --� Fly m i � N� mS� n o w o � X To a z gg c �ga Utz g � � c as } ri I LJ4 n S 2� is �z 1 ,411 .y !i w , Iq _ A ; K L { C r #n i I i �• ,r n t , I .I.: , { C � � l I t a _ ��77 •t a a I j A P a S 1 ( A j (.„ I I � I o4 --� EaH o "Z 8o Z i4 En m � z n r O�T A R3 Z O O zm z3s ;u �•, _ a� A z� 9 I-1 III 0 0 1 '04 2 D „ a � � s � G1 c- s , Mt mot. f C7 ' �£�•. Y 6, F 1� � K,_ b '� i Ate• . k A � N g r CD s` t99 � �:•. , x ��e C? N . I� CU rn 1 �x �i A O � fi+ f b ry r a s f il.Y a F b t'e F A-. d -- v t ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ~ ZONING OFFICE ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road - Hudson,WI 54016-7710 (715)386-4680• Fax(715)386-4686 January 27,2005 File Ref: 04L,U 19 William L.Tilton � 00 t 101 F. Fifth street Suite 2220 St. Paul,MN 5510I Re: St.Croix County Land Use Application,Parcel ID: 12.28.20.575A 278 Nest Grove Road,Troy Township Dear Mr.Tilton: I am writing to update you on the status of your land use application submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department on October 29, 2004. As you are aware, your house is located within the St. Croix County Shoreland District,the Lower St.Croix River Valley District,and the St.Croix River.Floodplain. As such, it mast comply with the zoning regulations for all three districts as outlined below: Shoreland District,Subchapter III,St.Croix County Zoning Ordinance: Your house is located approximately 64' from the OHWM elevation of 682 feet and thus does not meet the required 75'setback of the St.Croix.River O1IWM pursuant to Section 1731(2),making it a nonconforming structure in the Shoreland District. Eunice Post, Wisconsin Department of Natural `r Resources,has reviewed your application at the County's request and has responded in an e-mail,dated December 15,2004,that the Department is in the process of reviewing the Ol-1WNI of the St. Croix River through the declaratory ruling process,and that any change to the 01.1WIM on your property will be changed through that process. The current Shoreland Ordinance(toes not contain language specifically addressing the expansion or extension of nonconforming structures,only uses. Past County policy has allowed the expansion of nonconforming structures within the 75' Ol-1WM setback with a land use permit,provided that: I. The footprint is not enlarged or expanded. "Footprint" is defined as the land area covered by a structure at ground level,measured on a horizontal plane.The footprint for a residential building includes attached garages and porches,but excludes decks, patios,carports,and roof overhangs. 2. Any expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the building. Vertical expansion within the building footprint is not considered increasing the nonconformity if the building does not exceed the allowed height of 35' as measured from the Iorvest Ground elevation to the highest point of the roof for a residential building(15' for an accessory buildin g), .in(] does not detract from the natural beauty of the shoreland area as vie%seal from the water during summer, leaf-on conditions. 3. The spirit and intent of the Shorcland Ordinance is met, the intent of which is to preserve shore cover and natural beauty through restricting the removal of natural shoreland cover, preventing shoreline encroachment by structures, controlling shoreland excavation and other earth-moving activities, and regulating the use and placement of boathouses and other structures. To meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, applicants may be required to implement mitigation measures such as landscaping/native vegetation management plans, storrnwater management plans, and erosion control plans to address visual, ecological, or environmental damage from a nonconforming structure that is located too close to a navigable body of water. II � Any proposed addition, modification. or expansion that does not mcc/ these criteria will require u variance approved hv the St. Croix County Board ofAdjustment. St.Croix River Valley District,Section 17.36,St.Croix County Zoning Ordinance: Your house encroaches approximately 136'within the required 200'setback of tile OHWNI of the St.Croix River pursuant to Section 17.36(4)(c)(1),making ita nonconforming structure in the River Valley District Tile current St. Croix River Valley Ordinance does not contain language specifically addressing the expansion or extension of nonconforming structures,� nyK o.PuytCnuotypo|icyhumul1orvcdtke expansion oy nonconforming structures within the 200` {}I-yWMsct6uck with o land use permit,provided lbeymcet the following provisions: ' l. The footprint is not enlarged or expanded. "Fooh/rint` is doGnc6 as the |uud area covered by structure at ground level, measured on ubodzuntu| plane. Tile footprint for uresidential building includes attached garages and porches, but excludes decks, patios,carports,and roof overhangs. 2. Any expansion (toes not increase tbc nonconformity of the building. Vertical expansion within 1he building footprint is not considered increasing the nonconformity if tile building does not exceed the allowed height of 35' as measured from the lowest ground elevation to the hiA)xcot point of the roof for o residential building(l5` for un accessory hoi|djng),and is not visually conspicuous from the water during summer,leaf-on conditions. 3. Tho spirit and intent of the Lower St. Croix River Valley Ordinance im met,the intent o[which is to reduce the adverse effects of poorly planned shocc|ondand bluff area development, prevent pollution arid contamination of surface and groundwater and soil erosion, minimize flood damage, maintain property values, and preserve and maintain the exceptional scenic and natural characteristics of the water and related |uud of the Lower 8C Croix River lru)loy in u manner consistent with the National Wild and Scenic River Act, Federal Lower St.Croix River Act, and the Wisconsin Lower 8t. Croix River Act. 7o mumt the spirit and intent of' tkc (]»diouooc, opp|inuoie may be required to implement mitigation measures such as landscaping/native vegetation management plans, stomuwotcr management plans, and erosion control plans to address visual, ecological, or environmental damage from u nonconforming structure that in located too close inu navigable body o[water ortu steep slopes. Any proposed addition, modification, or expansion that does not meet these criteria will require u variance approved 6y the St. Croix County Board ofAdjustment. FlowdpYuimDiutn{ot,Sobehopter IV,$t'Croix County Zoning Ordinance: Your house is |oo/und within the Doodp|uin of the St. Croix River, v/hid` is measured at th* 100-yeor regional flood elevation of69l.6 feet mean sea level(MSL)pursuant to Section 17.42(2). Sc Croix Count), does not currently have u map differentiating the Oondwuy boundary hnm (tic Dmud firingo, and has historically used the elevation nf68Bfeet INISLus tile administrative boundary. Upon further evaluation of 1987 FE&1/\ flood profiles for the St. Croix River,County and IDNTl staff have conic to an agreement that dle 10-yeor flood elevation is more representative mfthe Uoodnuy and shall be used usthe administrative boundary until udetoi\ed hydrologic and bydmu}icanalysis ofthe Onodwuy is done. The 10-year flood elevation ix6D7 feet&8GL for most of tile County. | In the event that an applicant provides detailed hydrologic and hydraulic uno|yxiu hnm u professional � engineer indicating that the structure in question is not increasing flood elevations,as you submitted from � Barr En .�ne*ring,then tile structure will beconsidered Uobc outside oftile floodwuy. i � 2 � � According to Section 17.45(1),nonconforming structures located in the floodplain may not be expanded in a way that increases their nonconformity and must meet the standards for substantial improvements in the Code of Federal Regulations on floodplain management (44CFR60.3, formerly 42USC4001 to 4129). Additionally, Section 17.45(3)stipulates that nonconforming structures located in the flood fringe shall not be modified or added onto unless the modification or addition is placed oil fill at or above the flood protection elevation(measured at two feet above 691.6 feet MSL,or 693.6 feet NISL)or is flood proofed in accordance with Section 17.46 of the Ordinance, and all septic systems and wells shall be in compliance with applicable County regulations and State codes. According to NR116.15(I)(c), the State Administrative Code for the floodplain, no modification or addition to any nonconforming building, which over the life of the building would exceed 50 percent.of its present equalized assessed value,may be allowed unless the entire building is permanently changed to a conforming building in compliance with the applicable requirements of this chapter. Flood proofing the entire building,not just the addition,would bring it into conformance. Upon review of your application,County staff has made the following findings: I, The building footprint of the residence will not be enlarged or expanded. 2. The proposed vertical addition to the house will not increase the nonconformity of the house in the Shoreland, River Valley and Floodplain Districts as it will not encroach further into required setback and will not further obstruct flood flows. The height of the house upon completion of tlue proposed expansion is 34'9". This meets the 35' maximum as measured from the lowest base elevation to the highest point on the roof and does not appear to be visually conspicuous from tine water if painted in earth tone colors that match the surrounding landscape and if additional vegetative screening is planted as needed to fully screen it during summer,leaf-on conditions. 3. Staff needs additional information to determine if the proposed additions meet the spirit and intent of the Shoreland and River Valley Ordinances, particularly with respect to the reestablishment of native shoreline cover, erosion control measures during construction, stormwater management.and screening the house from the shore.To determine this,staff requests that you submit to the Planning and Zoning Department the following items: • Samples of the colors you plan to use to paint the house and trim. • A landscaping plan, to be rep-iewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Department,showing the establishment of a native}vegetation buffer—including a mix of trees, shrubs, 'grasses,and perennial forbs - between the shoreline and the house as needed to screen the house from the river during summer leaf-on conditions, enhance the natural beauty of the property, infiltrate and store runoff, and provide additional shoreline habitat for aquatic and terrestrial animal species. The plan should show location,species, and size of all plants to be installed, it should also indicate how you plan to protect existing trees from damage during construction. (Vote- It may be dflicult to determine how inuch additional screening, you will need until the construction ofthE:addition is complete. As such, this item could be made a condition of the land use permit wheof it is approved rather than submiuing the plan ahead of tithe.Please work with staf}fto determine ishen this plan should be submitted) • An erosion control plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Land and Water Conservation Department,showing grading limits and best management practices such as silt fence,berms,and safety fencing to be used during construction. • A stormwater management plan,to be reviewed and approved by the Land and Water Conservation Department, showing how runoff from the house will be diverted away 3 froin the river or intercepted before reaching the river and retained on-site during a 2- year,24-hour,Type 11 storm event. 4. fused on the hydraulic and hydrologic analysis done by Barr Engineering, staff review, and feedback from Gary Lepak, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in an e-mail dated December 15, 2004, staff has determined that your house is outside of the floodway but within the flood fringe. 5. Staff needs the additional information to determine if the proposed expansion meets the provisions in Sections 17.45(1) and (3) of the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance. To determine this, staff requests that you submit to the Planning and Zoning Department detailed plans from a registered professional architect showing and describing exactly how your entire home, with all proposed additions and alterations, will be flood proofed in accordance with 44CF1160.3(c)(5) (enclosed), and FEMA Document 347, May 2000, titled Above the Flood. Efewithkq your /loodprone. house. As part of these plans, you must elevate electrical and mechanical utilities to at or above the flood protection elevation of 694 feet NISL Since you are proposing to elevate your home by converting the existing lower floor to a non-habitable space, removing some wall space and replacing it with pilings, and building two additional stories for living space above a portion of tine existing home,you should review"Technique 2" listed in this document, which can be downloaded for free from the FENIA website. Staff can also e-mail it to you as a PDF document upon request. 6. Due to the fact that you plan to flood proof your entire house,you will be bringing it into compliance with the Fioodplain Ordinance and NR 116,thus the 50 percent provisions in NRI 16.1 S(l)(c)will not apply. Upon receiving all of the above-requested information, staff will resume processing, your land use permit application. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns,or would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the items above at 715-336-4642. Sincerely, Jenny S ' ox,Zoning Specialist l cc: Sharon Provos,Town of Troy Pete Kling,LWCD Eunice Post and Gary Lepak, Wisconsin Department of`Natural Resources 4 FYI on Rolland Page 1 of 1 From: Post, Eunice A. [Eunice.Post @dnr.state.wi.us] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:48 PM To: Lepak, Gary T.; Jennifer Shillcox Subject: RE: Tilton Jenny, please accept this email as the Department comments for the Tilton property. Floodplain The Tilton property is currently in the floodway of the St. Croix River. Floodway means no residential development is allowed. In addition, any fill or structure expansion in the floodway will likely cause an increased obstruction to flood flow and increase flooding on others. For that reason, expansion of existing floodway structures are strictly regulated by state and federal regulations which are reflected in St. Croix County's Floodplain Ordinance. Within the Ordinance there are steps that allow the developing property owner to supply detailed hydraulic analysis. If the analysis shows an alteration to the floodway location wouldn't cause increased flooding to another property, the project may proceed after the floodway maps are amended following the steps within the Floodplain Ordinance. Increases in the flood elevation may occur if all the impacted property owners enter into a legal agreement with the developing property owner. Barr Engineering has supplied the required floodway re-alignment analysis for the Tilton property. It shows that by re-aligning the floodway to allow for the 15-ft perimeter fill around the structure as required in the Floodfringe section of the Floodplain Ordinance,there isn't any change to the flood elevation. To complete the floodway re-alignment, Mr. Tilton should request the County to proceed with amending the floodway location and adopt an appropriate map that represents the new floodway location at the Tilton property. If the Tilton property is altered or expanded beyond 50% of the structures value, the entire structure needs to be floodproofed or elevated to 2-ft above the regional flood elevation that is at 691.6 ft MSL. OHWM The ordinary high water mark at the Tilton property is 682 1912 Corps adjusted elevation datum. The Department is currently in the process of reviewing the ohwm of the St Croix River through the declaratory ruling process. If the ohwm at the Tilton property changes, it will be changed through that process. Given that the Tilton house is within the ohwm setback of the St Croix Riverway ordinance, it is a nonconforming structure. It is my understanding that the county's position is that it does not regulate nonconforming structures. If that is the case, then how will Mr. Tilton's proposed alterations to the house be reviewed so that compliance with the purpose of the riverway ordinance is obtained? If my understanding is not correct, please let me know. Jenny, I apologize for sending this on such short notice and thanks for your patience. Eunice file://S:\CDD\zonshare\Land Use Permits\2004 LUPs\Floodplain\Tilton, William\RE Tilto... 4/23/2014 ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ZONING OFFICE loop mean ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road ,- Hudson WI 54016-7710 (715) 386-4680• Fax(715)386-4686 November 1,2004 File Ref: 04LU19 Eunice Post and Gary Lepak Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 890 Spruce Street Baldwin, WI 54002 Re: St. Croix County Land Use Application,Parcel ID: 12.28.20.575A William Tilton,278 West Grove Road,Troy Township Dear Eunice and Gary: Enclosed please find a land use application submitted by William Tilton for improvements to an existing non-conforming dwelling located within the floodplain and OHWM setback of the St. Croix River. Specifically,Mr.Tilton wishes to: 1. Elevate a portion of an existing home on piers to reduce the existing obstruction to flood flows, 2. Flood-proof the home pursuant to Section 17.46 of the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance,and 3. Add a second story to the elevated portion of the home within the existing footprint. The proposed addition will not exceed 35 feet in height and will not be visually conspicuous from the river. The home is located on the edge of the boundary elevation (688 feet) between the floodway and flood fringe. According to Section 17.45 of the St. Croix County Floodplain Ordinance, Mr. Tilton's proposed improvements are allowed even if it is located within the floodway,provided that they do not increase the home's non-conformity, increase the amount of obstruction to flood flows, and are floodproofed in accordance with Section 17.46 of the Ordinance by means other than the use of fill. Gary,please let me know if you have any concerns regarding this request. Mr. Tilton also raises questions on the applicability of the 50% rule for non-conforming structures, which I admit I am not entirely clear on. According to Section 17.70(4)(a)3 of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance, improvements to a non-conforming structure over the life of the structure cannot exceed 50% of its market value at the time it became a non-conforming use. Although the Ordinance does not state this, it is my understanding that under past County and State policy, this 50% rule only applies to structures within the 75' setback from the OHWM (not within the floodplain or 200 foot Riverway setback), and that it does not include floodproofing measures. Can you please clarify this for me? Mr. Tilton's home is currently located within the 75' setback from the OHWM using the 682.5 foot elevation as the measure. He argues that, according to research he has had conducted by professional engineers,the OHWM on his property should be between 676-677 feet. If this were the case, his home would fall outside the setback and not be subject to the 50% rule. Mr. Tilton requests that the DNR make a determination of the OHWM on his property pursuant to Section 17.26(4)(b)of the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance. Please review the enclosed application and supporting documents at your earliest convenience and give me a call at 715-386-4682 with any questions. If possible, I would like to schedule a meeting with you both, at which time we could review Mr. Tilton's application together and potentially schedule a site visit to Mr. Tilton's property. Sincerely, ' "J y S cox Wing ecialist Cc: Dave Fodroczi,Director of Planning and Zoning 2 1 GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Applications will not be accepted until the applicant has met with department staff to review the request to determine if additional information is needed. It is important to note that some information may be waived by the Zoning Department following review of the plans and/or a site visit by staff. general written statement that specifically identifies the request. 7A statement indicating whether or not a private water or sewage system is to be installed. �J SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN A complete site plan showing at a minimum the location of the following: ■ Identify all slopes of 20%and greater. ■ (Riverway)Identify all blufflines(any slopes 12%or greater)and show setbacks from blufflines, ■ Lot dimensions—total area, • Location of any structures with distances measured from the lot lines and centerline of all abutting streets or highways, • Location of any existing or proposed on-site septic system or private water supply systems, ■ Location of the ordinary high water[nark(OH WM)of any abutting navigable waterways and show all setbacks from the OH WM. • Location and landward limit of all wetlands,specifications and dimensions for areas of proposed wetland alteration. ■ Existing and proposed topographic and drainage features and vegetative cover, ■ Location of floodplain and floodway limits on the property as determined from the County floodplain zoning maps. ■ Location of existing access roads,and recorded easements, • Any other unique limiting condition of the property RATN For projects that involve land disturbance requests the following information may be required: ❑ Detailed Drawings(scale should not be greater than 1 inch to 200 feet) ❑ Grading Plans(Pre and Post Contours) ❑ Project Schedule ❑ Erosion Control Plans(Best Management Practices) ❑ Storm water Management Plan stamped by an engineer and including all calculations ❑ Vegetation Plan(Seeding rates and species type) ❑ Landscaping(Screening)Plan.(Include the species,size and location) ❑ Other documents SIG NATURE By signing the application,the applicant is stating the application materials are true and correct,and allows the zoning staff the right to conduct a site visit of p pert. Providing mco ct info a on may cause a delay i the pe it process and/or denial. f Signature of owner: Date �v 6 ` ew - if approved,the Land Use Permit shall be valid for one to two years from the date of permit issuance,depending on which Ordinance the permit is granted approval. The applicant may also be required to apply through the Town for a local building permit. ESE f31C ^> Application accepted and complete: By: "Zoning Compliance: Non-Compliance: Fee paid: ! / Permit Number: Y The application materials will remain on file in the Zoning Department. 2 of 3 ST. CROIX COUNTY r ....f'. WISCONSIN ZONING OFFICE T ��...w..� ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016-7710 (715) 386-4680 • Fax (715) 386-4686 St. Croix County Land Use Permit Application This application is to be used for projects that require or qualify for a St. Croix County land use permit. Property owner: WII,LIAM L- TILTON Contractor/Agent(if not owner:) Mailing address: 101 E. FIFTH ST. , STE 2220 Mailing address: ST. PAUL, MN 55101 Daytime phone:(6 51 224—7 6 8 7 Daytime phone: S" 'aw" Property location: 1/4,S5-� 1/4,Sec. f?r,T. 2�2 N.,R.) _W.,Town of TROY Siteaddress: 278 WEST GROVE ROAD, HUDSON, WISCONSIN 54016 Computer#: 040 - 1 1 4 4 - 80 - 0 0 0 Parcel#: 12 - 28 - 20 - 5 7 5 A Zoning District: (Check One) O AG. ( )AG. II ( )AG.RES. (RESIDENTIAL ( )COMMERCIAL ( )INDUSTRIAL Overlay District:(If applicable) SHORELAND (ARIVERWAY FLOODPLAIN Type of Land Use Permit Reques/t: (Check One) O Animal Waste Storage Facility ( ) Wireless Communication Service Facility(co-location) ( ) Signage ( ) Lower St.Croix Riverway District(Zoning Compliance) O Nonmetallic Mining Operation ( ) Shoreland O Floodplain ( )Other Rev. 8/21/03 1 of 3 LAND USE PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE Sign $150.00 Temporary Occupancy $150.00 Rip Rap $150.00 St.Croix River Valley District $150.00 All Others $150.00 I Non-Metallic Mining $200.00 Towers $200.00 Animal Waste Storage Facility $200.00 FQiY1 IS u. JSE*CON TCT • St.Croix County Highway Department Jeff Durkee, Highway Engineer 715-796-2227 hwype @scchwy.org Brian Halling(Stuveyor) 715-796-2227 • St.Croix County Land&Water Conservation Department Pete Kling-Land Specialist—Urban 715-684-2874 ext. 131 pkling @co.saint-croix.wi.us Steve Olson-Land Specialist—Rural 715-684-2874 ext. 135 steveo @co.saint-croi.x.wi.us • Wisconsin Department of Transportation(District 6) Diane Schermann,Access Coordinator 715-836-3905 dianeschermann@dot.state.wi.us • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Eunice Post-Water and Zoning 715-684-2914 poste @.dnr.state.wi.us Jim Devlin-Wastewater Specialist 715-684-2914 James.Devlin @dnr.state.wi.us • U.S.Army Corp of Engineers Daniel Seemon, Ecologist 651-290-5380 daniel.j.seemon(Dusace.army.mil • Wisconsin Department of Commerce Nicholas Charles-Comm.Building Insp. 608-789-5657 ncharles @commerce.state.wi.us 3 of 3 INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS TO APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT & OTHER MATTERS 278 WEST GROVE ROAD, TROY TOWNSHIP TAB DESCRIPTION 1 James D. Filkins, Ogden Engineering Co. -- Tilton House Floodproofing -- topographical survey of my property dated 10/19/04; 2 Thomas Whitcomb Architect, Inc. - Existing Site Plan--topographical, elevations and floor plans; i 3 Thomas Whitcomb Architect, Inc. - Proposed Site Plan-topographical, elevations and floor plans; 4 Thomas Whitcomb Architect sketch showing a footprint of the house if it were to be moved 25 feet east (away from the river) dated 10/10/04; 5 Lewis Filkins/Ogden Engineering survey dated October 19, 2004 showing location and identification of trees (same as #1, but with tree identification and diameters added); 6 Photographs of the existing structure taken from approximately 250 feet from the shoreline from several angles, including from upstream and downstream of the home. These exhibit that under leaf-on conditions this structure is virtually invisible from the waterway and the proposed addition(which would be immediately behind the existing high portion of the structure) would in no way be visible from the riverway; 7 Aerial photographs of the subject property, again, showing that it is virtually invisible under leaf-on conditions; 8 Certification of Thomas Whitcomb Architect that floodproofing improvements will be done in accordance with applicable regulations; 9 Letter from Barr Engineering, Thomas McDonald, with miscellaneous attachments described therein, including the following items 10-14: 10 Photos taken by Tom McDonald of stakes placed in the ground for purposes of his ordinary high water mark evaluation; 11 Copy of the 1971 report "Flooded Area of Afton, Minnesota" prepared by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; 12 11x17 copy of a map of Lake St. Croix with riverbed depths and river valley topographical elevations, showing the locations of S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, and S6, the locations of the valley used by Barr Engineering for its flow analysis; 13 HEC - RAS computer model data regarding the water surface elevation at six profiles of the valley under present conditions compared to conditions if fill were used to floodproof the Tilton home at 278 West Grove Road and if at the same time equal encroachments were to be assumed on the opposite side of the river at six locations as identified on the accompanying map; and 14 Copy of"Waterway and Wetland Handbook CHAPTER 40 ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARKER (OHWM)" and attachments, 19-page portion of Wisconsin DNR publication. Rod Eslinger From: Post, Eunice A[PostE @mai101.dnr.state.wi.us] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:04 PM To: Lepak, Gary T Cc: 'rode @co.saint-croix.wi.us' Subject: BILL TILTON i just got off the phone with bill tilton. he wants floodplain study info for st croix river to substantiate floodplain elevations he apparently got from you. i told him to call you, i don't have those. he also wants an ohwm done at his property. i told him that south of i94 bridge an ohwm of 682 had been established and as level of water is controlled by redwing dam, is a wide pool from bridge all the way to prescott, 682 probably applied to his property. he disagreed---vehemently, adamantly and loudly and said he wants an ohwm on his site. i told him about the need for natural shoreline and he says he has that. i want to put this to rest from all sides once and for all. i think you two guys and i should all go to tilton's and set ohwm. what day next week shall we do this? 1 rom: DNRWD: :LEPAKG "Gary T. Lepak, WD, (715)-839-3761" o: EACLA: :KOICHD C: BOURGE, LEPAKG ubj: ELEVATION vs DURATION CURVES FOR THE ST. CRIOX xcellent news! ! ! ! ! ! .ore data to support the OHWM on the St. Croix Ri. he COE has supplied the ELEVATION(stage) vs DURATION cures for the Mississippi Ri in POOL 3 which effects the St. Croix Ri. 'hat it shows is that the elevation of the Mississippi Ri is at or above elevation 680 ft for at least 32 days in a given year. This is the average .ime in any given year. Some years could be considerably more or less than the average 4.5 weeks. ;levation 681 ft would be 27 days average or almost 4 weeks. :levation 682 is 23 days. Again, in an average year, the water would be at or above 682 ft far more than 3 weeks. 'lease remember that these are taken at the Mississippi Ri. A SLOPE FACTOR seeds to be figured in to get the St. Croix Ri stages as you approach Hudson. :'m going to review these curves a little more than supply you with copies for tour file. ?rom: KOICHD Po: DNRWD: :LEPAKG :C: koichd 3ubj: RE: ELEVATION vs DURATION CURVES FOR THE ST. CRIOX Iary, please send data which substantiates this info. will put it in the marzoff file, thanks. r` 1 A` ST. CROIX COUNTY :'= = WISCONSIN -.- ZONING OFFICE a I s. ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson,WI 54016-7710 (715)386-4680 Fax (715)386-4686 March 15,2000 Bill Tilton 101 E.5t'Street,#2220 St.Paul,MN 55101 RE: 278 West Grove Road Dear Mr.Tilton: Per our discussion on Marc h 9 2000 regarding y our plans to expand your existing structure,I have the following comments. I i f the St.Croix River Lake St.Croix),in the St. located in the flood lain o ( As you are aware,your house is p Croix County River Valley District,and in the St.Croix County Shoreland District. Note:You are subject to comply with all of the St.Croix County Zoning Ordinance provisions related to Floodplain Zoning, Shoreland Zoning,and the St.Croix County River Valley District. On March 10,2000,I met with Gary Lepak,DNR engineer,to review your protect. Mr.Lepak pointed out that the floodway elevation for the St.Croix River,south of the I-94 Bridge,corresponds to the 688 foot contour line. The regional flood elevation(RFE)is listed at 691.6 feet above mean sea level(msl).The floodway determination is an acceptable floodway delineation by the county and the DNR. Mr.Lepak also indicated that Dan Koich of the Department of Natural Resources established the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)at 682 feet above mean sea level for the St.Croix River south of the I-94 Bridge. The Department of Natural Resources can establish the OHWM according to section 17.26(4) (b.). These elevations for the OHWM and for the floodway for the St.Croix River,south of the I-94 Bridge,have been applied to other projects along this portion of the St.Croix River(Lake St.Croix). According to your site plan submitted by James Filkens,it is very clear that your house is shown at an elevation which is below the identified floodway elevation of 688 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, you must comply with Sec. 17.47(2)of the Floodplain Ordinance. . Furthermore,your structure does not meet the dimensional setback requirements as established in the St. Croix County Shoreland Ordinance(75 feet from the OHWM)and St.Croix County River Valley District Ordinance(200 feet from the OHWM). The proposed additions,as shown on your site plan,do not meet the provisions listed in the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons: 1. It is found that your structure is located in the floodway of the St.Croix River. 2. Your structure is located 65 feet from the OHWM. This does not comply with the dimensional setback requirements as established in the St.Croix County Shoreland Ordinance.(Sec. 17.31 (2)-75 feet from the OHWM)and the St.Croix County River Valley District(Sec. 17.36(4)(c)(1.)-200 feet from the OHWM). a. The deck addition as shown on the plot plan,increases the size of the existing deck.By adding on to the deck you are increasing the nonconformity of the structure. You may apply for a variance,however the applicant must prove hardship. b. The house additions(#2&#3 as shown on the plot plan)on the southeast side of the house also increases the nonconformity of the structure by adding onto the footprint and will not be considered with this project. You may apply for a variance,however the applicant must prove hardship. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Rod Eslinger Zoning Specialist Cc: Louie Filkens Gary Lepak,DNR engineer State of Wisconsin \ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WISCONSIN [DEPT.OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1300 West Clairemont Avenue Rv a-W EV P. O. Box 4001 Eau Claire,WI 54702.4001 Carroll Secretary Besadny J b 1�(�°�' 7ELEFAX 715-839-6076 W , 9 August 27, 1992 o File Ref: 3550 St. Croix County Mr. Thomas Nelson . St. Croix County Zoning Administrator 911 4th Street Hudson, WI 54016 Subject: Marzolf Development in the St. Croix River Floodplain Dear Mr. Nelson: In 1983 , a project was reviewed that established the St. Croix River floodway as corresponding to the 688 foot contour. The regional flood elevation (RFE) was listed at 693.4 ft MSL. To my knowledge, the 688 foot contour, or a delineation that is roughly the 688 foot contour could still be an acceptable floodway. Some variation from the contour line would be needed to allow the flood flow smooth transition. Since 1983, the St. Croix Riverway Ordinance has been amended and the RFE has been lowered to 692 ft MSL. I'm not aware of the floodway being changed. It is important to note that all fill should be landward of the floodway line. With the RFE at 692 ft. , the top of fill should be at 693 with the first floor, including basement, at 694 ft. MSL. Let me know if you need additional information. Sincerely, <ary L ak Floodplain Engineer cc: Al Lulloff - WZ/6 �D. Koich - ECA - , a � p � �� � � � . . � �, z � � � � � . . � � � � � � s � � . . � � � -� � � � � � � � � � � , �, . � � , � � �� � �� �- �. � �� �� �� s � , Rod Eslinger From: Post, Eunice A[PostE @mail01.dnr.state.wi.us] Sent: Monday, March 06,2000 3:51 PM To: 'Rod Eslinger' Subject: RE: Bill Tilton's property yep,jim thompson and i were there.he is in floodplain and does not meet ohwm setback.he is subject to 50%of assessed value,35 height limitation and can only add on to the landward side of house.if he has to floodproof for floodplain zoning,all floodproofing measures count towards the 50%. he is an attorney and has talked to me a couple of times.let us not get into the he said,she said,ok? Eunice Post Water Regulation and Zoning Specialist Department of Natural Resources West Central Region-Baldwin (715)684-2914,ext. 119 email address: poste @mail0i.dnr.state.wi.us > ---------- > From: Rod Eslinger[SMTP:Rode @CO.Saint-Croix.WI.US] > Sent: Monday,March 06,2000 3:42 PM >To: Post,Eunice A > Subject: Bill Tilton's property > <<File:Chess.gif>> > Eunice, > Do you recall your visit to Mr..Bill Tilton's property in Troy township a >year ago about this time? What was the reason for your visit? >The reason I'm asking,Bill is proposing an addition on to his house, >which is nonconforming because the structure is in the floodplain,and may > not meet the setback to the OHWM of the St.Croix River. I have not been >to the property nor have I seen any plans regarding the site. > Bill said he hired Louie Firkins to put together a site plan with some > elevations,OHWM,and floodplain boundary. This will help. > Let me know if you recall your conversations with Bill. >Thanks > Rod Eslinger >Zoning Specialist > 1101 Carmichael Road > Hudson,WI 54016 > ph.715-386-4680,fax 715-386-4686 1 ST. CROIX COUNTY WISCONSIN ZONING OFFICE r r r N n r p■ ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER rrr� R _ 1101 Carmichael ad o Hudson, WI 54016-7710 = (715) 386-4680 January 11, 1999 Mr. Dean Albert Troy Town Chairman 296 Hwy. 35 N. River Falls, WI 54022 Re: Building permit for proposed addition to existing residence in the Riverway district Dear Mr. Albert: Mr. Tilton has notified me that he wishes to obtain a building permit to allow a second story addition to his legal nonconforming home that is located within the boundaries of the St. Croix Riverway district. I have not seen a copy of the plans for this proposed addition nor have I seen the property. Accordingly, I can not specifically address Mr. Tilton' s situation. In general terms, an . addition to a legal nonconforming structure can possibly proceed if the proposed addition is located on the side of the house that is away from the river, will remain within the footprint of the existing structure, will be less than 35' in height from the lowest floor to peak of roof, and will not increase the visibility of the structure from the river. If an addition of this sort could proceed, it must comply with the50% rule. The total costs of improvements, including all labor and materials, cannot exceed 50% of the current fair market value of the structure. Before a permit can be issued for a project of this nature, someone form this office must review the building plans and visit the site. If you have any questions or concerns which I can answer for you, please contact me at this office between the hours of 8 :00 a.m. - 5 : 00 p.m. , Monday - Friday. ms e . Thompsc3n Zoning Specialist CC: Bill Tilton File 0`ro, it+-690 -ODD m .2T, 2a- s IGA IState of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Cerro//D.Besedny r ad uarters West Clairemont Avenue st Central Dist ict He q Secrete secretary Call Box 4001 Eau Claire, WI 54702-4001 January 13, 1984 File Ref: 3590-8 VV Mr. Harold Barber 'V Zoning Administrator County Zoning Office Hammond, WI 54015 Dear Mr. Barber: For some time now, the several parties involved have been discussing the proposed Lindeberg subdivision. On November 17, 1983, Mr. Robert W. Mudge, attorney for the Lindeberg"s, sent us a letter outlining their reasoning for approval of the subdivision. Mr. Mudge s letter addresses ' WU _;4 ntS: first, t:.c :�quirment that any lot created on the riverway must contain at least one acre of net project area; second, whether a lot containing less than one acre of net project area, i.e., an unbuildable or noncomplying lot, can be created. I have discussed this matter with our Bureau of Legal Services. Their opinion is that the requirement that there be one acre of net project area cannot be waived or a variance granted. They have also indicated that a nonconforming lot cannot be created. In addition, as defined in the St. Croix County Zoning Ordinance, all lands between the base of the bluff and the normal high water elevation are considered part of the bluff area (3.12-D-2-b). Mr. Mudge also raised some questions regarding the definitions of "floodway" and "floodplain." Our District floodplain engineer, Mr. Gary Lepak, has reviewed the situation. Mr. Lepak felt that the floodway delineation for the St. Croix River is reasonable. Attached is a copy of his comments. Also, note that the 75-foot setback requirement from the normal high water elevation would appear to further compound the problems in this situation. This setback require- ment is contained in the St. Croix County Shorel.and Ordinance, not the St. Croix Riverway Ordinance. Based on the above facts, we will not be able to approve a subdivision of this ownership into two lots, one on top of the bluff and one below the bluff face. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me at (715) 836-2941. Sincerely, ��//� L t/� ?ake ande rVoort Community Services Specialist At tanh. .YVT228 l,l�JlnSInSL�yIrVINUL�INL.I�/ IMJuIMll�Jlt��1WlJUUiU Date: November 30, 1983 File Ref: 3550 To: (St. Croix County) File From: Gary Lepak Subject: Lindeberg Subdivision Proposal In reviewing the November 17, 1983 letter from the Lindeberg's attorney Robert Mudge, I've noted the following: 1. The floodway delineation previously presented by the county and described by Jake VanderVoort as being the 688 ft. MSL contour is reasonable for this area. Since the floodway would not correspond directly to the contour line in all oases (i.e. flowing water does not make sharp turns), I've attempted to show a floodway delineation on the attached USGS topographical map. If a more detailed topo map is available, a more definite flooway delineation can be given. 2. The evidence presented by Mr. Mudge is inadequate to alter the floodway delineation given by the county. The floodway definition requires the floodway to be established using the regulatory flood which is at elevation 693.4 ft. MSL for this portion of the St. Croix River. Therefore, the flood waters would be 5.4 feet above elevation 688 feet. Flood waters would be flowing downstream in the area Mr. Mudge indioated to be baokwater. Also, the river is less than one mile wide at the project site. 3• The proper steps for changing the floodway delineation are out- lined in Sections 4.3(C), and 9.8 of the St. Croix County's ordinance. Specifically, the capacity of the floodway cannot be altered by existing or future uses unless it is shown that the combination of existing and future potential uses will not adversely affect the efficiency of the floodway. Section 9.8(F) ctatas comPutatia s tc increases much be based on equal degree of encroachment for a sigr,'L;ivant reaoh on both sides of the stream. Adverse effeot according to Section 9.8(F)(2b) is any measurable increase based on the equal degree of encroachment. 4. More important than the floodway delineation is the shoreland setback requirement of 75 feet from the normal high water elevation (Section 3.7). According to Section 3.10) the normal high water elevation on the St. Croix River is 688.0 ft. MSL. All structures must be at least 75 feet from the normal high water elevation. AD-75 Tot File - November 30, 1983 2 Conolusion: The shoreland setbaok appears to be more restriotive and should be addressed in addition to the floodway question. GL:sz Attaoh. J. VanderVoort ao E. Bourget D. Koioh R. Roden - WRZ/5 GLT150