BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Administrative Center – Room 3220

7:00 p.m. –  7:38 p.m. 

CALL TO ORDER

Howard Raymer, Jr., Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Let the record show that this meeting is called in full compliance with the requirements of Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL #2008-01

Jeffery & Mary Scheel   2565 Edgewood Pl.   LaCrosse   WI     54601

Part of the fractional NE¼ of the NE¼ of Section 10, T 16 N, R 8 W, more particularly described in a lease from the US Army Corps of Engineers to Jeffery and Mary Scheel.  Tax parcel 4-1422-0.  Town of Campbell.  Located at 3549 Lakeshore Drive.

Appearing in Favor:  Charles Felker   1516 Cliffview Ave.   Onalaska   WI     54650

I am here representing Jeff & Mary Scheel in regards to this variance appeal concerning their property at 3549 Lakeshore Dr.  I have handed out two sets of the house plans, but first, more important are the other four sheets you have in front of you.  The first sheet is part of the registered survey.  It is intended to show what is existing on the property.  The hatch marked building is a mobile home with an addition and also a shed attached to it.  This sits on a 30’ wide concrete pad.  There is also a deck attached and an asphalt driveway.  This property really belongs to the Corps of Engineers.  The Scheels have a lease with the Corps which ends at the end of 2019.  The lease is reviewed every 5 years.  The Corps has stated that the lease will always be renewed so we don’t have to be nervous about investing a considerable amount of money on this property.  The Corps is also very interested in this project and are watching it closely so we will make sure that everything is in order so that they can approve the project.  The buildings on site are well below the base flood elevation.  They will need to be removed along with the additions.  The asphalt driveway and concrete slab will also be removed.  There are two underground tanks which are utilized for wastewater.  They will also be removed from the site.  The second sheet is the plot plan of the project. It shows a new dwelling, 24’ x 60’, connected by a breezeway to an attached garage which is 26’ x 22’.  Both the dwelling and the garage are two stories.  The DNR requires that we place the building 75’ from the ordinary high water mark(ohwm) at the edge of the lake.  This is the result of many meetings with the DNR.  They also confined our structure to the 30’ corridor as shown on the plan.  The outside walls are actually Rockwood retaining walls.  That is our limit of where we can work on this property.  The adjacent land is below the ohwm, so we are not allowed to place any fill on the site.  Only what is needed for the driveway to get from the road elevation to the garage floor.  This results in a grade of 9.4%.  I am showing this on the next sheet, which is the profile sheet.  The driveway is shown on the right side.  As I mentioned, the property on each side is below the ohwm.  On the left side, you will see the elevation 650 and right below it is the regional flood elevation of 647.30.  Right below that is a line that shows the ohwm of 642.75.  Below that is a line that shows the actual elevation of the water in the pool, 639.  I am also showing the existing ground elevations on this profile.  Where the existing ground elevation comes up a couple of feet is where the mobile home is sitting right now.  As I said, the pool is 639 and that means that the lower property floods if the lake level rises two or three feet above 639.  In order to comply with flood fringe regulations we need to set the first floor of the structure at 649.30.  But we are going to set it at 649.50 to give us a little extra safety.  That will also be the elevation of the attached garage floor.  This will be accomplished by constructing a 7’10” high retaining wall with a footing of 9’8” wide and 10” thick.  This is shown on your last sheet.  The foundation will be as shown.  It is very heavily reinforced to withstand the flood forces of a regional flood event.  The footing extends 7’ inside the vertical stem.  The compacted fill inside the structure will bear on the footing to resist sliding and overturning forces.  In addition to this complex foundation we intend to construct a Rockwood retaining wall that is 4’ high along the north and south sides of the foundation.  This is shown on the second sheet or the plot plan sheet.  This is intended to protect the foundation from scouring under flooding conditions.  There will be a lot of pressure under the toe of this foundation.  It is designed to operate to withstand 1400 pounds per square foot of force.  I used 1500 in my calculations, so it is within the design limits.  A secondary reason for the retaining wall is to break up the look from the side of the property.  We may do something to enhance the remaining 4 feet of wall that will be visible to make is visually pleasing.  That has not been decided yet.  The two large drawings show the first and second floor plan of the structure.  This also shows the north elevation of the structure and shows what it will look like from the north.  Of course, tonight we are requesting the variances which were read into the record earlier.  First, we are asking for alternate floodproofing measures with an engineered foundation in lieu of providing the required 15’ of perimeter fill.  This is impossible because the DNR says that we can’t put any dirt on that site.  On the last drawing of the four sheets, the existing grade on the left hand side is the height of the blacktop as it exists right now.  We will have to try and meet that grade.  We are going to use the blacktop and concrete to traverse the property for as long as we can.  I have recommended that the property owner also place rip rap along the shoreline to protect their property.  I will try to make a judgment on that once the snow melts.  What I am saying, is that we will start the project at the waters edge and then make our way back to the road to minimize the impacts on the property and the adjacent grades.  We are also requesting the lower flood/floor elevation because the additional foot would cause the driveway to exceed 10% grade.  Also, if this is not granted, the engineered wall would be over 9 foot.  It would be considerably more expensive.  We did some soil borings and found nothing but clean sand.  The geologist did look at my drawings and asked that we place more insulation along the wall.  We always put the 2” rigid insulation on the inside.  This is why the 1’ consideration is important.  We are also requesting the front setback consideration.  Typically we would be required to have a 50’ setback from the county road.  We are requesting an 11’ variance which will place us 39’ from the right of way.  The 75’ requirement from the ohwm forced us to move closer to the road.  Thus, we can’t make the 50’ setback.  The property is a very unusual lakeside property.

Remarks Raymer:  Just for the record, we should note that the sheet that we received tonight has been revised since the application was made.  It shows a wider footing. 

Remarks Felker:  That is correct, we had to do that because of the second story.  We looked at the plan again and explained to the architect that I was going to put about 600 pounds on top of that footing because of the compacted fill behind it.  We will have a beam, within the depth of the floor system with one bearing point on the floor plan.  That took off about 600 pounds off the stem load.  This came up to about 2300 pounds of load and it came out quite well.  This was the reason for the revision.

Question Houlihan:  I do have a question regarding the rods and how they will attach to the floor/wall?

Answer Felker:  The rods are shown on the diagram.  The rod from the wall and the footing with overlap 3 feet and that is acceptable practice.  The rods are 12” on center, the vertical ones.  We also included, on 6” centers, extra hooks so there is a very good connection between the two.  We also included a keyway because we needed more anchoring.  This all came about through the program we used in designing the wall and foundation.  Waldenberger does all my foundations and they will do good work and we will be right on the money.

Question Frank:  This here is all loose fill?

Answer Felker:  Yes, from the wall to here we are three feet and that is exactly what the DNR is allowing.  We are going to tie that Rockwood wall into the foundation.  We will put sleeves and eyebolts in and we will tie it in with the geogrid which will stabilize the wall.  I’m pretty amazed at what that wall can do. 

Question Houlihan:  So, these are interlocking blocks?

Answer Felker:  Yes, they are all interlocking.

Question Frank:  Is this a new type of technology?  I don’t recall ever seeing this.

Answer Felker:  Well, that is only there because I am protecting this point.  That is the point of the footing and I don’t want any velocity from a flood to get to that.  If we had any washing out along there, that would be bad.  It is a very expensive wall, about $22 per face foot and we are running it quite a ways.  It may even go further or be a little less than what is shown.  We will also have wing-walls which are not shown.  They will be just like the foundation wall, maybe out 18 feet or so.  It will start tapering down to meet grade at some point and blend real nicely.

Question Raymer:  Any other questions from the board?

All:  No

Raymer:  Calls for anyone else in support.

None

Raymer:  Calls for anyone in objection to the appeal.

None

Weibel:  Reads correspondence into record.  Letter from the Town of Campbell, dated February 13, 2008.  The Town Board met on February 12, 2008 and took action on this appeal.  The town did not have any objections on this appeal.  An email was received on February 15, 2008 from Gordon Stinson at the DNR.  He does not have any objections but the owner needs to provide for dryland access to this site.  He would like to make a dryland access and/or emergency access agreement made a condition of the approval of this appeal.  Also received an email from Carrie Olson at the DNR.  She does not have any objections and also states that a permit is not required from the DNR in this case.

Remarks Raymer:  I guess that I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t approve this.

Remarks Houlihan:  It is definitely a unique property.

Motion Houlihan:  I would make a motion to approve this variance.

Frank:  Second.

Remarks Raymer:  I think that we should add the conditions which were outlined by the DNR.

Question Weibel:  So, a condition of dryland access and emergency response agreement?

Answer Raymer:  Correct. 

Question Raymer:  Remind me again what the City of LaCrosse has to do with this proposal?

Answer Weibel:  They would be the one’s providing emergency services to the site.  They have the vehicle that could provide for emergency access to the site, a wheeled vehicle.

Remarks Weibel:  I might also suggest that the Corps of Engineers would be an approving authority in this case.  So, another condition might be that the plan proposal also get approval from the Corps of Engineers.

Remarks Raymer:  Charlie eluded to that fact earlier.

Question Frank:  I am curious to know a little more about the lease agreement.  You stated that it will always be renewed…in perpetuity?

Answer Mary Scheel   2565 Edgewood Pl.   LaCrosse   WI     54601     I did a lot of research into this when we were buying the property.  The Corps of Engineers holds the lease to these properties.  It is a 20 year lease which is reviewed every 5 years.  They typically raise the lease rate every five years.  Every 20 years the lease is re-written.  The lease is federally mandated that they will extend it.  They could take it back if they wanted to use the land for park area or navigation purposes.  The Corps of Engineers has stated to me that the chances of them taking the land back are very small.  They have that clause in there for people who mainly do not pay their lease payments.  If they let the land go and don’t take care of it, they may not renew the lease.  Federally mandated is the term that they used when they were talking to me.  There is a park right next door, so I don’t see why they would need it for park purposes.

Remarks Frank:  I think that I had heard somewhere where the corps took some property back for flood storage.

Remarks Felker:  I would like to ask that Richard Otto, who is here from the Corps of Engineers, to further address that question.

Remarks Richard Otto:  What she stated was pretty much correct.  This comes from public law which came about in 1986.  It was written as national policy.  The property can be leased as long as the property is maintained by the lessee.  The policy states that we can take property back only for a higher purpose.  Our purpose for the Mississippi River is basically for navigation.  For this property, there would never be a need to obtain it for navigation purposes.  Parks and recreation is another reason or another higher purpose, but I don’t think that would be used here as there is a park next door.  The last one would be fish and wildlife management purposes.  There are already homes out there, so it really doesn’t fit here, either.  I thought that the leases were 25 years, but they do tend to get renewed at the end of the term.  We do re-evaluate and re-rate the leases every five years.

Question Raymer:  I would assume for tax purposes, you would claim the buildings on the property as personal property because it is on leased land?  The land would be taxed through the Corps of Engineers.

Answer Scheel:  That is correct.

Remarks Raymer:  Ok, we have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion?  We have added a couple of conditions as well.

Remarks Weibel:  The two conditions that were added are:  a dryland access agreement and also that the final project plans are subject to Corps of Engineers approval.

Question Raymer:  They will also need an erosion control permit, correct?

Answer Weibel:  That is correct, but that will be part of the permit procedure.

Raymer:  All in favor of the motion, say “aye”.

All:  Aye

Raymer:  I would make a motion to adjourn (7:38pm)

Houlihan:  Second

All:  Aye