Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Case 25 033 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council receives file on revised plans for Hackamore stable; planning commission recommended approval
Summary
City planning staff presented Zoning Case 25-033, a multi-step application for a residential stable that was reduced from roughly 2,000 to about 1,859 square feet and lowered on the lot to reduce view impact. Staff recommended the council receive and file the planning commission materials; council voted to receive and file the item.
The Antigo City Council received and filed planning materials for Zoning Case 25-033, a residential stable and associated site work in the RS-1 zone at the corner of Hackamore and Eastfield Drive.
Planning staff told the council the proposal has been through multiple revisions at the planning commission and that neighbors who had raised view concerns worked with the property owner to reduce the footprint and move the stable farther onto the lot. "The footprint of the stable also moved back on the property, towards the back 9 feet, and then it also moved 15 feet back in the final rendition," planning staff said, describing iterative reductions in height, grading and footprint to reduce impacts.
Staff said the project now proposes a roughly 1,859-square-foot accessory structure with a 19-foot height, an expanded building pad to accommodate changes, and grading increases to lower the pad; the project remains subject to a conditional use permit because the stable exceeds 200 square feet. Planning staff noted the project was found exempt from CEQA and recommended the council receive and file the planning commission report.
Council asked whether adjustments such as widening a decomposed-granite (DG) path for access would require further approvals; planning staff replied that ordinary grading or path adjustments could be handled through traffic commission review and would not necessarily require returning for a new council vote. Several council members asked whether neighbors' concerns had been resolved; planning staff said property owners had worked together and that the final design reflected those accommodations.
No public comment was offered on the item. A council member moved to receive and file the planning commission materials; the motion was seconded and the council approved the action without recorded opposition.
Planning staff will continue to monitor implementation and return to council if additional approvals are required during building-permit processing.
