Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:30 PM December 28, 2005

Jo Daviess County Planning Commission/Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes for Meeting At the Courthouse-7:30 PM December 28, 2005 Call to Order: Mel Gratton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present: Planning Commission: Staff & County Board Members: Melvin Gratton Susie Davis Tom Heidenreich William Tonne Nick Tranel Dave Jansen (Alternate) Steve Keeffer, Highway Engineer Heather Miller, Environmental Health Terry Kurt, State s Attorney Andrew Sosnowski, Assistant State s Attorney Linda Delvaux, Building & Zoning Ron Mapes, Jo Daviess County Board Member Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Nick Tranel to accept the November 23, 2005 minutes Seconded by Tom Heidenreich Voice Vote: All Ayes Mel Gratton Abstain Public hearing and recommendation on an application by Galena State Bank & Trust Company as Trustee under Trust No 586, (Marvin Hartz), owner, requesting a supplemental special use permit to allow for the substantial expansion of Eagle Ridge Realty. Common Address: 5148 US Highway 20 West, Galena has been continued Public heating and recommendation on an application by Apple River State Bank Trust #1, (Frank & Joanne Fernandes), owners, requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for a single-family home to be used for transient rental. Current Zoning R-P Planned Residential District. Common Address: 446 Territory Drive (ER 20 Lot 38), Galena Territory has been continued Mel Gratton swore in all who might want to testify on any request this evening. Unfinished Business 1

Scott & Neleen Lehman, owners, requesting a 30 foot variance to allow for an accessory building closer to the road than the ordinance would allow. Current Zoning: Ag-1 General Agriculture District with a current Guest Accommodations use. Common Address: 412 East Burke Road, Elizabeth Scott Lehman, owner Requesting a 30 foot variance. Bill Vincent, Vincent Excavating and Cleary Buildings looked at the site and the drop off at the location would create water runoff problems for the adjoining landowner. Only two flat parts on the property, one where the house is and the other is where the old building was and hopefully the new one will be. Reviewed the request with the Road Commissioner and did not see a problem with the request. If we would build the back up in time there would be water problems for the neighbor. The home is an 1832 Log home with red metal roof and the accessory building will be aesthetically similar. Russ Tippett, Cleary Buildings The proposed building is farther back than what the existing house is. Public Testimony None Public Testimony Closed Discussion: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan does not address Variances. Wastewater treatment: Septic system is behind the house. The well is east of the house Access Considerations: This proposal will use an existing entrance off of a township road. Other Considerations: The County Zoning Ordinance would require front yard setbacks from a Township maintained road to be fifty (50) feet from the property line or eighty (80) feet from the center line of the right-of-way, whichever is greater. Petitioner would like to place an accessory building closer than the ordinance would allow resulting in a 30 foot variance request. This request would be in compliance with the side and rear setbacks. This parcel is surrounded by farm ground and sits on a dead end township maintained road. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth certain standards that must be considered before a variance can be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (See attached.) The petitioner must present evidence which indicates that the requested variance qualifies under the terms set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Petitioner states the septic is behind the house and the well is located on the south east corner A motion was made by Tom Heidenreich to approve the request as presented stating the following: 1. The Standards for Variance have been met Seconded by Dave Jansen Mel Gratton read the standards for Variance D. Standards for Variance 2

(1) The Zoning Board shall not vary the regulations of this Ordinance, as authorized in Paragraph A above, unless it shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case that (i) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances; Standard Met (ii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; Standard Met (2) In determining whether the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance creates practical difficulties for, or imposes a particular hardship on, an applicant for a variance, the Zoning Board shall consider the extent to which the following facts have been established by the evidence: (i) The particular physical surroundings, shape, topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship on the owner, as distinguished by a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out This property is on a unique dead end road. Changing topography would create over time water problems for neighbor. Main structure is closer than what they are requesting; Standard Met (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) The conditions upon which the petition for variance are based are unique and would not be applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification The property and road structure is unique; Standard Met The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to obtain higher financial return on the property The variance is for the petitioners use and not financial gain; Standard Met The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property Existing hardships have not been created by the petitioner; Standard Met The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located It will not affect neighboring properties; Standard Met The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish nor impair property values in the neighborhood It will not impair light and air to adjacent property or increase congestion on the roads nor will it impair property values; Standard Met 3

Roll Call: Bill Tonne Aye Dave Jansen Aye Tom Heidenreich Aye Nick Tranel Aye Mel Gratton Aye New Business John & Marna Kunkel, owners, requesting preliminary/final subdivision plat approval to further subdivide Lot 1 of JFK Subdivision. Common Lot Address: Lot 1 in JFK 10 th Addition to Dunleith Township 7344 South Walnut Street, East Dubuque Nate Kieffer, MSA Professional Services representing owner Create two lots from Lot 1 in JFK 10 th Addition. 1.8 acres with existing home and proposed lot 1.68 acres. The west half of the existing lot is not often utilized by the Kunkels so they are petitioning for this proposed split as a business venture The property layout is adequate for a properly sized sand filter septic system Creating this lot split will prevent sprawl in a more rural area. Market for new lots in this area is very strong. All lots in JFK 11 th Addition have been sold, 6 new homes have been built in the last 3 years in the immediate vicinity. Looked up previous research from the access sight distance in JFK 11 th Addition. In 2002 we had determined that stretch had a maximum speed of 31 MPH and that speed would need 250 feet of sight distance. If the traffic study that Steve Keeffer had done in 2002 still holds true then the split of this would meet the requirement. There are two speed limit signs in the area of 20 MPH. The sight distance in this area is not good and still is not great now. The access would be off Walnut Street, at the northeastern corner of the lot. Sight distance from this access point will be 350 feet to the east and 300 feet to the west. Soil investigation done by Tom Golden on 8-22-05, recommends sand filter for proposed lot. To talk about the history of sand filter systems, early 1990 s sand filters were called buried sand filters, these systems had a history of being problematic, did not include a clay liner. Post early 1990 s, the county started requiring that sand filters include a clay liner and discharge into conventional type trenches. According to the health department, throughout the entire county, no sand filter repair permits have been issued for failing sand filter systems in the last five years. The current sand filter systems installed are above and beyond what the state requires. In 2002, sand filter systems were approved by the Planning Commission and the County Board to be used in all six lots of JFK 11 th addition. The soils are the same as in JFK 11 th Addition as in this request. Addressing the further subdividing of other lots in the area. I can not guess what other owners will do, but they have stated they will not at this time. Public Testimony None Public Testimony Closed Discussion: 4

Comprehensive Plan: The request is to further subdivide a lot in an existing subdivision. The Jo Daviess Comprehensive Plan encourages development next to communities. Even though this is an existing subdivision this request is not adjacent to the City of East Dubuque, but, within their mile and half jurisdiction for subdivision. Waste Treatment: Sand filter septic system design submitted for a three-bedroom house with expansion area shown. Kunkel s house is served by a conventional septic system located at the back of the lot. Access Considerations: Access to this proposed parcel is indicated to be from Walnut Street. A driveway onto Walnut Street will have less than 500 feet of sight distance in both directions with no reasonable remedies to improve it. Other Considerations: JFK 10 th Addition to Dunleith Township came through the zoning/subdivision process in 1997. The original request was for nineteen (19) lots. The minutes reflect a concern by the commission about that type of density with the type of soils that exist in the area. The commission did not approve the original request and suggested to the petitioner to reduce the number of lots and increase the lot sizes to allow for conventional septic systems on each lot. The concern was so important that the commission insisted the petitioner have the septic site indicated on each lot on the final plat. There was only one septic site found on each lot. The final approval was given for a ten (10) lot subdivision, almost half the size of the original petition. Just a note: There are approximately five (5) or more other lots in this subdivision that have enough road frontage to possibly come forward for further subdivision. Steve Keeffer states that I concur with what Nate Kieffer presented. Dave asks if speed limit signs are sanctioned by the developer or the township Steve does not know who installed the signs, but they would not be legal because there was not an ordinance passed for the speed limit sign and they would not be 20 MPH. They would be unenforceable. Dave states that plenty of other properties could subdivide because of lot size and house placement. Is the subdividing of the lot an issue and a precedent? Mel talks about the septic soils Heather states that some of the interpretation has changed because the codes have not changed since 1997. The application of the sand filter systems from 1997 to today has not changed. In JFK 10 th Addition they are on conventional septic systems. Mel asks about success or failure of those specific systems Heather states that we have not had any problems that I am aware of. Mel asks about relying on sand filter system in a relatively low density subdivision. Heather states that it could be ideal because you can get a smaller lot because to replace the system would be in the same location. Monetary they are more expensive. Topography would be the biggest limitation for placing a sand filter. Bill asks about the other subdivisions in the area Heather states there is no central sewer system in this area. Heather states that we can not force public sewer. We regulate that it work properly. Tom asked if there is sufficient buildable area on the lot. Lot is sufficient for a single home. Mixed density in the area, but at some point open space would be incorporated in the plan. Linda states that properties without sewer and water there is no open space that is required according to the ordinance. 5

Dave comments on future subdivision of lots and if that diminishes property values and character of the original subdivision Mel asks if 5 years of sand filter systems is enough history to see if they are fail proof. Heather states that the average life on a system is 20 years. For the type of sand filter system that is being installed we should just now start seeing failures. The sand filter system will clog and fail to the surface. Concern if granted then others would subdivide and create what the commission would not approve the first time around. Applying the speed standards of today the request does not meet the requirements Tom states that what we did in 1997 was correct with the reduced lots from the original 19 lots requested A motion was made by Bill Tonne to deny the request as presented stating the following: 1. Concern for the septic system and the density of the RP development Seconded by Dave Jansen Roll Call: Dave Jansen - Aye Tom Heidenreich Aye Nick Tranel Abstain Mel Gratton Aye Bill Tonne Aye Kristina & Robert Borman, owners, requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for the establishment of an in home kennel operation with boarding, training and dog daycare. Current Zoning: Ag-1 General Agriculture District. Common Address: 6 S. Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth Kristina Borman, owner State licensed, initially contacted the department in 2002 and was told nothing is required. Linda Delvaux states that there may have been miscommunication. In our office we do not have state licensing information for kennels. Business is run out of the basement of our home. Have an outside dog run with cement slab and a large corral area for the dogs. Professional company came in and installed fencing that is acceptable for all breeds of dogs. The dogs that are boarded are restrained to the fenced in area. Outside of the corral area is a regular barb wire fence. The neighbors to the north are about 550 feet and the neighbors to the south are about 475 to 500 feet. Currently have a second driveway with a gate and is two car widths. We try to keep noise levels down. We have 5 dogs of our own. The state allows up to 8 dogs maximum at a time. Public Testimony Will Meyer, 10 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth Consistent disregard for neighbors and ordinances. Every structure they built does not meet the setback requirement. They have junk cars in the front yard that could contaminate soil and water. They still continue to operate the kennel business. 6

Oppose the request because on many occasions I have had to chase the dogs off my property. None of the dogs had collars or tags when on my property. Dogs would chase me when jogging down the road. The run of the dogs has been minimal now. The barking and yelping of dogs has continued. The use of the kennel will diminish the enjoyment of my property in the immediate vicinity. The use will negatively impair property values. Letter to submit Mel asks if the experience was with the boarded dogs or their own dogs and did you contact the Animal Control Department. Meyer, states that it was with Borman s own dogs. I tried to be as neighborly as possible. I did contact the Borman s about the dogs chasing me down the road. Linda Delvaux states that I did allow the Borman s to continue the operation during this process. Esther Lieberman, 1515 Hoppe Road, Elizabeth Took my dogs to many kennels in Jo Daviess County, but I have not taken to a place that is as caring as the Borman s. The dogs bark when you drop off and pick up. Judy Meyer, 8 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth Strongly oppose the request. One issue is the devaluation of my property and the noise factor. If the Borman s applied for this permit prior we would speculate what would happen, but I am here to say it is happening. I can t sit on my porch without hearing the dogs. They did fence the property, but didn t do a good job. Had four German shepherd dogs on my property and two ended up in my pool with the solar cover on. Never an apology or questions if the pool was damaged. Allowing this special use will let them further grow their business. Submitted a letter written by Tamara Muller and Celeste Clarke which is opposed to the request. I also have 13 signatures of neighbors that are within a half mile that hear the dogs and oppose the kennel. John Kline, 2-A-20 Hidden Springs Lane, Apple River Utilize the kennel and very impressed with the services. They have done work to improve the area, pens, more secure fences, and gated entrance. Letter to submit Patricia Meyer, 10 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth Opposed to the request We moved to this neighborhood for the peace and quiet. If you put dog kennels here then what could come tomorrow. Will Meyer, 10 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth Some of the people testifying are dropping off or picking up the dogs. We are here 24 hours a day seven days a week. Tom Townsend, 4618 N Pea Ridge Road, Scales Mound It has been quiet when present there and they did try contacting the county for permitting. Deb Studtmann, 11 East Point Drive, Galena 7

Utilize the dog kennel. We hear other noises that come with the country. Mike Cunnings, 683 Western Avenue, Random Lake WI 53075 & 709 Bridge Street, Galena Speak on behalf of the request. They make sure they are up to date on the vaccinations of dogs. Bruce Streicher, 420 East Sycamore, Elizabeth Utilize the dog kennel. The dogs get excellent care. Would like to see a compromise for both sides on the request. Gary Clark, 65 Heatherdowns Lane, Galena Utilize the dog kennel. Take good care of the dogs. Bill Meyer, 8 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth The good care of the dogs does not get rid of the sound of what we listen to. Kristina Borman, owner In the beginning my dogs were getting out and have fixed that problem. The barking is not all day. We start the day at about 6:30 am and end the day by 9 pm. We hear other noises from other properties. Will Meyer, 10 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth We are not dog haters. The other testimony that you are hearing is from customers that are here to drop off and pick up the dogs. Robert Borman, owner They have the idea that we are going to get big, but we can not handle more than eight dogs at a time. The advertising is to keep a constant inflow to get extra income. Esther Lieberman, 1515 Hoppe Road, Elizabeth Collars get them stuck and can get ripped off, that is a safety measure Jeannie Stone Thinks this would be a suitable and ideal kennel for dogs if you want to bring them with when traveling Will Meyer, 10 S Snipe Hollow Road, Elizabeth There are other kennels in the area, or maybe they need a larger parcel. Public Testimony Closed Discussion: Staff Report Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map would recognize this area to be designated as Agriculture. Special Development Considerations: This parcel has lots to the north and south of it with homes on them. There are larger Agricultural pieces to the east and west. The closest home is approximately 450 to 475 feet to the south of the requested home site. 8

The ordinance would require 500 feet distance separation. This can be achieved if the requested operation is run on the north side of the house or to the rear of the parcel. I have enclosed a map with a visual. Waste Treatment: Existing septic system installed in 1991 for a three-bedroom house. System is sized properly by current code. Soil borings completed 9-12-02. Expansion area is available. Access Considerations: The existing driveway has less than 500 feet of sight distance to the north. This could be rectified by removing the trees and brush in the fence line. Other Considerations: Dependent upon the number of dogs housed at the site and the placement of any outdoor runs, noise could be a concern due to the close proximity of the neighboring homes. There appears to be fencing to the side and rear of the house. The fencing appears to consist of different types of materials at different areas. Site visit revealed some of the fencing would not be appropriate for all types of canines. The use separation requirement eliminates a majority of this parcel for the requested use. Great care would need to be taken with use placement if the request is granted and use separation buffers, such as natural screening or privacy fencing, would be desirable. Dave asks about waste disposal. Kristina states that it is double bagged and placed in a sealed container then taken away by the garbage pickup Mel asks about the noise level Kristina states that noise level varies at about a minute or two here and there then stops for extended time. The noise is not constant and I would not allow it. If it is a problem I bring the dogs inside. Mel asks about traffic generation Kristina states that it is minimal. I schedule the arrivals one family at a time. Bill asks when the operation started. Kristina states Spring of 2003 Bill asks Judy Meyer when was the last time a dog was on your property Judy states yesterday that the dogs were on the road and property Dave asks about allegations of junk cars and other debris on property. Robert states I do have cars, but I am working on getting rid of them, but it is not a junk yard. Plan on getting rid of them within the next couple of months. Linda states that I noticed that also and will speak to the Borman s on that issue. Mel refers to the 500 feet of separation from adjoining neighbors. Another issue is the sight distance on Snipe Hollow Road. Steve states that the brush will need to be removed to get the sight distance. The brush may be on the Township property and private property. Speed limit is 55 MPH and sight distance requires 500 feet. We do not have the sight distance now, but it could be provided for if brush is cleared. Dave asks about the 500 feet separation. Linda states that I would say the house seems to be in the triangle corner that is outside of the 500 feet separation. Bill states the comfort issue may have to be addressed Tom states that we are looking at standards going forward not on past experiences. Mel states that the use has the potential to alter the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Barking goes with the use. 9

The sight distance and parking can be provided for. Ingress and egress can be provided for. The 500 feet separation factor applies to standard 6 and does have to be met. Kristina states that we can limit the time that they are outside. Robert states how can we remedy the noise issue with fencing or other options. The sight distance needs to be clear for 500 feet by removing trees and brush. This is a Special Use in an Agricultural District Nick states that it is probably their dogs that are running down the road. Screening was talked about A motion was made by Tom Heidenreich to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. Dogs need to be outside the 500 feet separation requirement, measured by Steve Keeffer and Linda Delvaux. 2. Sight distance cleared to meet the 500 feet 3. Hours of operation: 9 am to 5 pm everyday 4. Outside time for dogs limited to 6:30 am to 8:30 pm 5. More secured fencing on the outside perimeter 6. 1 year limitation pending no violations and if no complaints or violations then the Special Use will be renewed administratively. If the conditions are not met then the request could have to come back to Planning Commission. 7. If the conditions are met then the standards have been met. Seconded by Nick Tranel Mel Gratton read the standards from the County Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed. Standards No special use shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless the Commission shall find: (1) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare The request does not endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare with the applied conditions; Standard Met (2) That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted or substantially diminish and impair values within the neighborhood This use will not diminish the enjoyment of the properties in the immediate vicinity or temporarily impair the values with the neighborhood with the applied conditions; Standard Met (3) That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district Development will not be effected with the applied conditions; Standard Met 10

(4) That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided The property will have adequate parking and access; Standard Met (5) That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designated to minimize traffic congestion in public streets Ingress, egress will be adequately provided with the applied conditions; Standard Met (6) The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the County Board pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Conforms to the applicable regulations of the district; Standard Met Roll Call: Tom Heidenreich Aye Nick Tranel Aye Mel Gratton Aye Bill Tonne Aye Dave Jansen Aye Matt & Kristi Tompkins, owners, requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for a single-family home to be used for transient rental. Current Zoning: R-P Planned Residential District. Common Address: 3 Powder Horn Gap (SH 3 Lot 58), Galena Territory Matt Tompkins, owner 1.66 acres. Would like to build a house and put it into the rental program. This is a horse lot which is a little larger. We can comply with the standards because the house has not been built yet. We have plans that show the grade will comply, parking, septic, and setback. We would like to maintain the woods area on the lot for screening. The house across the road and the two to the northeast would be shielded by the woods during the summertime. To the back we are planning on having a hot tub and will be shielded by the house to the east side and the north will be shielded by a retaining wall. We will be willing to provide extra screening if need be. We have to elevate the driveway to get the grade requirement. Public Testimony None Public Testimony Closed Discussion: Staff Report Comprehensive Plan: Although the Comprehensive Plan does not address transient rental directly it does support tourism. Waste Treatment: Soil borings completed. Septic system design for a six-bedroom house submitted. Expansion area available on lot. 11

Access Considerations: The house has not been built, so conceivably the drive and parking area could be constructed to meet the standards. The lot does have some topographic challenges that will require considerable site work to meet these standards. Design Considerations: This is a request for a 6-bedroom rental on approximately 1.66 acres. Although the request is for 6-bedrooms, the maximum occupancy can only be twelve (12) overnight guests. Other Considerations: The proposed house placement is towards the center of the lot. The outdoor activity (deck) area is located at the rear of the house on the west side. This house hasn t been built yet, so screening would depend upon if any clearing is done to the northeast and southwest. Screening will need to be done around the outdoor activity area. There is greenspace to the west of this parcel. The area map indicates few rentals in the area. Please note the following: The Jo Daviess County Zoning Ordinance states that no ordinance granting a special use permit shall be valid for a period longer than twelve (12) month from the date of such ordinance unless the erection of a building or structure is started or the use is commenced within such period. As with all Guest Accommodations, window egress and hardwired smoke detector standards will have to be met in order to be licensed as well as other guidelines and standards stated in the Guest Accommodations Ordinance. Mel asks if the driveway will have to be elevated to meet requirement. Owner indicates that it will have to be elevated. Bill questions the topography on the survey, but thinks it still can be done. Deb Studtmann, architect, states Paul Brashaw, surveyor, shot the grades on the lot. We will have to build the driveway up to get the driveway grade. Mel states that this is a large lot and the ability to meet the requirements. The request meets the standards and the requirements A motion was made by Nick Tranel to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. Meeting the 10% grade requirement 2. Setbacks from the property line are sufficient 3. Parking can be met 4. Screening to the northwest corner to screen the outdoor activity area with evergreens checked by Staff. Seconded by Dave Jansen Mel Gratton read the standards from the County Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed. Standards No special use shall be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission unless the Commission shall find: (1) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare The request does not endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; Standard Met 12

(2) That the special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted or substantially diminish and impair values within the neighborhood This use will not diminish the enjoyment of the properties in the immediate vicinity or temporarily impair the values with the neighborhood; Standard Met (3) That the establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district Development will not be effected; Standard Met (4) That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or other necessary facilities have been or are being provided The property will have adequate parking; Standard Met (5) That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designated to minimize traffic congestion in public streets Ingress, egress will be adequately provided; Standard Met (6) The special use shall in all other respects conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may in each instance be modified by the County Board pursuant to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Conforms to the applicable regulations of the district; Standard Met Roll Call: Nick Tranel Aye Mel Gratton Aye Bill Tonne Aye Dave Jansen Aye Tom Heidenreich Aye Richard & Kay Dick, owners, Ben & Connie Tate, contract purchasers, requesting rezoning from Ag-1 General Agriculture District to R-1 Rural Residential District. Location: S Curtiss Road, just north of the intersection of Airport and Curtiss, Stockton Ben Tate, contract purchaser The bank is steep and my intention is to cut back into the bank and cut north then come back around with a slight incline. Tom White stated I could put the road in where I have indicated. I do not have a problem cutting back the sides for sight distance. Would like to keep 2.5 acres farm to grow grapes. Linda states that a review was done administratively based on the information given. I look at the actual primary use on the property if it is residential or agriculture. In the future if that use was not permitted and you have been growing grapes then that use can remain as long as you continue to do that. That would be a legal non-conformity. To advance into a retail operation you would be required to pursue either a special use or a commercial district. 13

I would like to grow the grapes and possibly sell to other winery s in the area or have people come and pick there own grapes States that I will still use part of the land as agriculture Public Testimony Bill Brass, 12295 E Airport Road, Stockton Object to the request. Own property to the south of the request. This parcel is the result of a larger parcel being divided up. I would like to see the parcel kept together for agriculture use and not divided it up. The other parcel 13 acres is pasture land or timber. As the increasing division of the property you start not having a rural area. So what was a larger farm could come forward in the future for more homes to be built. This request will isolate the other piece. Richard Dick, owner of the property Tried to sell the whole farm as one, we are being forced to sell it. Public Testimony Closed Discussion: Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan would indicate this parcel to be in the Agriculture Preservation 1 area, and is shown to have important farmland soils with fingers of prime farmland soils. This request is approximately 1.3 miles from the City of Stockton. The Comprehensive Plan would encourage development adjacent to or within a mile and a half of a municipality. Waste Treatment: Soil borings completed. Soils not suitable for conventional septic system. Expansion/replacement area available on the 4 acre parcel. Access Considerations: There is a location on the property frontage where an entrance can be located to achieve 500 feet of sight distance. There is a steep up-sloping embankment at this location which will require significant earthwork to construct a functional driveway. Other Considerations: A LESA has been completed and scored at 192. This parcel is surrounded by Ag land, some of which is being used residentially and the rest being used agriculturally. This parcel is within a mile and a half of the City of Stockton, but doesn t appear to be in their designated growth area in the Counties Comprehensive Plan. This area could be prone to development pressure in the near future. Linda states that Ron Mapes talked with the Road Commissioner and he did not see a problem, but the cutting of the bank is the petitioner s responsibility. Mel states the concern is the sight distance not the incline of the driveway. You will have to meet the sight distance requirements of 500 feet. Steve states that you may have to lay the bank back along his frontage to improve the sight distance. Also you want the driveway to be perpendicular to the road and fairly flat. The driveway is near the middle of the property. The bank is very steep. Mel states that agriculture is a permitted use in residential zone. Linda states that as long as it is a permitted use then you can do that. According to the current ordinance he can grow and have road side stands but how that grows over the years does it get larger and more intense in use could become an issue. Bill states that the primary use would be residential. 14

This parcel is surrounded by other agricultural land. Bill states the LESA score is 192. Linda states the other small parcels in the area were considered non-farm for the LESA score. Bill states that we would encourage buying existing instead of rezoning new parcels. Tom states that I look at what we have done before and the trend of development. A parcel to the southwest and to the north that we have rezoned. The production on the other parcels is not known. Heather states that the soil borings did not match what was in the Soil Survey book. Mel states the parcel would not be economically feasible for someone to farm. Bill states if you approve this then what don t you approve. Tom asks about the old farmstead That was sold off earlier with the buildings. Dave states that I look for consistency. If we rezoned down the road then how can we deny this Bill states that there are other farmsteads that could be improved upon for building. Tom agrees with Dave. We are right on the edge of rezoning. Lester did two different numbers on the PI. With the corrected number the LESA would be 178 Bill states I believe there are other suitable parcels in existence that would better fit the Comprehensive Plan and offer the same wishes of petitioner A motion was made by Dave Jansen to approve the request with the following conditions: 1. Entrance requirement of 500 feet of sight distance including any embankment grading. 2. Erosion control during construction 3. LESA score corrected and is 178 Seconded by Nick Tranel Roll Call: Mel Gratton Aye Bill Tonne Aye Dave Jansen Aye Tom Heidenreich Aye Nick Tranel Aye Jo Daviess County, requesting a text amendment to the Jo Daviess County Zoning Ordinance. Discussion: Linda Delvaux, Zoning Officer The amendment hits on three different issues: Guest Accommodations putting these in a permitted area within the R-1, R-2, and RP District with 6 standards Number of parking spaces required would be the same except changing from 10 feet to 9 feet wide requirement Off street parking area of having no slope greater than 8% opposed to the current 5%. Ingress and egress change was that the access road has no greater than a 15% grade at any point from the required 10% currently and the surface be 15

no less than 10 inches of compacted aggregate. The new proposed requirement for driveway surface is 10 feet wide with 1 foot shoulders being 1/2 inch per foot of different material than the driving surface, from there then a 4 to 1 slope. We have seen projects where they raise the driveway and have made them unsafe for anyone. Sight distance has remained the same. Structure setbacks have been changed a little to a proposed 15 foot setback from side property line and 20 feet from the rear property line. Have a more defined description for the setbacks: Building siting orientation each and every structure as defined in Chapter 2 Section 202 of the 2003 International Building Code as amended including all structural outdoor activity area and excluding fencing, shall be located on the property as to provide a minimum of 15 feet side setback and 20 feet rear setback. Outdoor activity areas: Natural screening to be no less than 3 feet at time of planting and no less than 6 feet at time of maturity. Septic to meet the Illinois Private Sewage Disposal Licensing. Mobile homes in residential area, taking them out of a special use area and disallowing them in an R-1, R-2 and RP District. Amendment to the variances to allow for petitioner to request if they do not meet the guidelines. Parking would be adequate The new ingress and egress requirement would solve a lot of problems of safety that have been created. Access site distance remains the same Siting and orientation: Mel states that if you have a six bedroom the 15 feet does not seem enough of a setback. Bill states that in the new draft of the ordinance the setback increased with the number of bedrooms. Suggestion of 5 feet times the number of bedrooms with not less than 15 feet. If they are adjacent to greenspace then there option could be apply for a variance if they do not meet the requirement. The rear setback to be 30 feet Fencing to be no less than 6 feet and a solid fence of 50% view. Bill asks about the proposal of taking out of the RP District #17 Stables for use by residents of zoning lots and there guests. Linda states that it was moved from the Special Use to an Accessory Use. Why can t you have a private stable for your own horse on your horse lot or anywhere else? Tom asks about the mobile homes for Ag use and what other uses do they have. I oppose to taking them out, because government should not limit housing choices to anyone. Private developers can put clauses in there development for the types of homes they want built. Linda states that I am wanting to take out Mobile Homes from the Special Use in an R-1, R-2, and RP District Bill talks about the property values that could be affected of having a mobile home next to them. Ron Mapes states that in other County Ordinance they have designated area for mobile home parks, but mobile homes have changed over the years Linda states that we have building regulations that allow manufactured housing that have certain standards that they have to meet. Current standards are that they be built to code, 16

certain pitch on the roof, exterior siding in a residential appearance, towing devices and wheels shall be removed, located on a permanent frost free perimeter foundation with bolts, not less than 24 feet in width, and meeting the International Building Code. Mel states that one issue of zoning is to help maintain property values. If you have a mixed use then the property values can be diminished. Ron asks if this is a little premature on bringing this forward. You may be addressing things now that have already been addressed in the new draft ordinance. Mel states that we want to include this new method into the new ordinance. There will not be adjoining neighbor notifications because it will be a permitted use. They can request a review if the ordinance is not being followed. Public Testimony None Public Testimony Closed A motion was made by Bill Tonne to approve the request with the following changes: 1. Building siting and orientation: 5 feet times the number of bedrooms with a minimum of 15 feet setback from the side property line with a 30 foot rear setback 2. Outdoor activity areas: Each and every facility shall provide adequate screening around any outdoor activity area (e.g. hot tubs and decks) as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (Natural screening shall be at a minimum of no less than 3 feet in height at time of planting) & (Fencing shall be no less than six (6) feet in height and shall be a solid fence (no more than fifty (50) percent view through the fence). Seconded by Nick Tranel Roll Call: Bill Tonne Aye Dave Jansen Aye Tom Heidenreich Nay Nick Tranel Aye Mel Gratton Aye Reports and Comments: Nick Tranel made a motion to adjourn at 12:15 PM. Tom Heidenreich seconded the motion. Voice Vote: All Ayes 17