Members Present: Ray Knapp, Jan Cuccia, David Wolf, Bob Rolle, Mark Mitchell,
Paul Mahler,
Joe Duerre
Members Absent: None
Staff Present:
Rob Jones, Cedar Corp.
Recording Secretary: Becky Lopez
Others Present:
Mark Warnken, Louie Filkins, Charlie
Macdonell
Call to Order
Ray Knapp called the meeting
of the Town of
AGENDA:
1. Approve Minutes;
2. Acknowledgement of
applications for action as regulated by SDO;
3. 2nd Riverway
conceptreview/public hearing for ordinary repair & maintenance
determination-Mark Warnken,
4. Building Permits/Utility
Permits;
5.
Discuss proposed
revisions to Troy Subdivision Ordinance;
6. Committee Reports &
correspondence;
7. Adjourn;
1. Approve Minutes;
Minutes of
the
bolding of one sentence on page 5
relating to a motion being made.
Mark Mitchell moved to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2008 Plan
Commission, with above mentioned change. Bob Rolle seconded. Motion
passed, all
in favor.
2. Acknowledgement of applications for
action as regulated by SDO;
There
were none.
3. 2nd
Riverway concept review/public hearing for ordinary repair & maintenance
determination – Mark Warnken,
Ray
asked Rob Jones to summarize the thought from Cedar corporation. Rob said that
this application was before the PC at the January meeting. At that time the
Applicant was proposing some alterations to the roof, and some repairs to a
shed, which is an accessory structure. Since that time, they have elected not
to go forward with trying to obtain a Riverway Permit or a variance, and have
decided to do only what is deemed ordinary repair and maintenance. They have
since contacted the building inspector, and asked that the Plan Commission
verify whether all of the proposed changes would fall under ordinary repair and
maintenance. The Applicant is now asking the PC to determine what parts of this
project are allowed under ordinary repair and maintenance. Rob then called the
PC’s attention to the definitions listed on his report, which were:
·
“Ordinary
maintenance and repair” means any work done on a nonconforming structure that
does not constitute expansion, structural alteration or reconstruction and does
not involve the replacement, alteration or improvement of any portion of the
structure’s foundation.
·
“Expansion” means
an addition to an existing structure regardless of whether the addition is
vertical or horizontal or both.
·
“Structural
alteration” means the replacement or alteration of one or more of the structural
components of any of a nonconforming structure’s exterior walls.
·
“Reconstruction”
means the replacement of all or substantially all of the components of a
structure other than the foundation.
Rob stated that the appropriate
course of action would be for the PC to obtain clarification
from the Applicant as to what they
are proposing, and then make a determination on what
would be considered ordinary repair and
maintenance. The PC would then be able to
make a recommendation to the building
inspector for the issuance of a building permit.
Anything more than ordinary maintenance and
repair would most likely require the
issuance of a variance.
Rob further stated that he believes that the
Applicant has decided to limit their project to
replacing the shingles, and sheathing, and doing
an inspection on the roof trusses to see if
they are damaged and need
replacement. They also are proposing some siding and
window changes, and they would have
to meet Riverway standards.
Ray then asked Rob if he had
received any guidance from the Town attorney on what
would be considered a structural
alteration. Rob stated that he had, and that she is fairly
confident that replacing structural
components of exterior walls means exterior walls, and
does not mean roof trusses.
Joe Duerre then asked if the
building inspector told him why he was not ready to issue a
building permit. Rob said that the
building inspector said that he did not have enough
information as to the extent of the
work being considered pertaining to the roof
trusses, and other work being
proposed.
Ray then asked the Applicant and
his representative to identify themselves and to clarify
the components of their
application.
Louie Filkins then spoke,
explaining why the Applicant had altered his request to only
ordinary maintenance and repair.
Mr. Filkins stated that the project was growing, and
therefore determined by the
Applicant as not important enough at this time to put off the
main reason for the request, which
was to repair the roof before any substantial damage
was done. He further stated that
the primary repair needed involved the shingles, possibly
the sheathing, and possibly some of the end
trusses, but certainly no alteration of the
exterior walls. Ray then asked for
clarification that the shingle colors would
be in earth tones, and the roof
pitch would not be changed, to which the Applicant agreed.
Ray then asked the Applicant what
other modifications are being requested.
Mark Warnken then explained that some
of the horizontal decking boards are split and
they would like to replace those.
The deck will stay the same, only a few boards need
replacing. Also, about three-quarters of the windows have rotting of
the wood frames,
and they
would like to replace those. They would like to replace some of the
windows
with windows that are larger than
the current ones in order to let in more light and
maintain the same type of
horizontal and vertical look the current windows have. The
siding is in need of repainting and
is currently a gray-blue color, the soffits will need to be
replaced. The shed has been removed from the
application.
Jan Cuccia asked the Applicant if
replacing the windows with larger windows would
be considered structural
alteration. Mr. Warnken explained that this would involve cutting
studs and adding headers. Rob Jones
stated that he believed that according to the
definition- this very likely would
be considered structural alteration.
Ray then opened the public hearing for
a 2nd
Riverway concept review/public hearing for
ordinary repair & maintenance determination-Mark Warnken,
there
was anyone from the public who wished to speak, there was none, so he closed
the
public hearing.
Ray then
led the Plan Commission through the application requests item by item to
determine
which ones the Plan Commission felt fell under ordinary repair and
maintenance.
Each item was then clarified and discussed, and the consensus
was that the following would be
considered ordinary maintenance and repair:
·
Repairing the roof-including shingles, felt, possibly some of
the sheathing, and
possibly replacing some rotted trusses to repair the roof.
·
Replacing the soffits which are rotted.
·
Repaint the siding in an approved earth tone color.
·
Replace existing rotted windows with non-reflective glass windows of
the same size and structural opening.
·
Replacing a few split boards on the deck floor.
It was determined by the PC that adding larger
windows which would require cutting
exterior wall studs and adding headers, would
fall under structural alteration. This
would require a variance. The
interior modification of the home can be done with a
building permit.
Ray then asked if we were ready for
a motion regarding this matter. The Applicant then
asked the PC what obtaining a
variance would entail in terms of time, as he does not want
to put off the repair of the roof, thus
risking major water damage. Ray explained that he
would have to have another concept
review before the PC, and probably two months later,
it would go before the Board of
Appeals. Realistically, it would take about three months
to go through the entire
application process.
Bob Rolle moved that the PC recommend to the building
inspector the issuance of a
permit
for Mark Warnken at
1) That all shingles on the existing roof
may be replaced
2) That all sheathing on the existing roof
may be replaced
3) That damaged ceiling trusses may be
replaced
4) That
soffits may be repaired or replaced
5) That
the existing siding of the house may be repaired and repainted in an earth
tone satisfactory to the town building inspector
6)
That existing windows that are damaged may be replaced in kind and size
7) New windows may be added provided that no
structural work is done including
cutting studs, adding headers, or adding
jack studs
8) Repair of the interior as requested
9) Replace
damaged deck boards
Motion was seconded by David Wolf. Ray asked
if there was any other discussion.
Mark Mitchell commented that it maybe should
say remodeling and repair of the
interior as requested. Ray asked if Bob accepted
this friendly amendment. Bob
confirmed
that he would like it to read “Repair and remodeling of the interior.” Jan
Cuccia said that on the “Replace the damaged deck boards” I think we
need to
capture
that it’s a few boards, not a whole new deck. The notes will reflect that this
was
our intent and the building inspector will receive that guidance. All in favor.
Motion
passed.
Mark Warnken then asked about the Riverway
Permit Application fee wondering if there
could be a refund of the original
application fee? Ray directed the Applicant to write a
letter to the Town Board describing
what kind of refund he is requesting and why he
thinks the fee should be refunded.
4.
Building Permits/Utility Permits;
There was one building permit for a
new home. There were no
utility permits.
5.
Discuss proposed revisions to
Mark Mitchell reminded the PC that in
September they had held a special meeting to go
over the
in
blue on the draft copies supplied to Plan Commission members and copy printed
in
green were Mark’s additional comments
and questions. The PC then spent approximately
11/4 hours going over the Subdivision
Ordinance, discussing changes, wording, and
clarifications. All changes agreed
upon were noted by Mark Mitchell. A question arose
regarding subdivision landscape
standards, and it was decided that this was an area
requiring further discussion by the PC
in order to create the appropriate standards and
language. Ray requested that this item
be put on the Agenda for the April PC meeting.
6.
Committee Reports &
correspondence;
Bob Rolle is expecting a
decision on the legal questions they sent to the Attorney
General by the end of this month.
Ray mentioned that next Tues., March
10 at
reconstruction of
attend that.
He met with St. Croix Electric and
the DNR last week. The County was to be there, but
was unable to attend, to talk about
Riverway utilities, and this will probably be on the PC
agenda in a couple months.
Ray also reminded the PC that next
month there will be Public Hearings at 6:30, prior to
the Plan Commission Meeting to take
public comments on the Comprehensive Plan.
7.
Adjourn;
Jan Cuccia moved to adjourn. David Wolf seconded. All in favor. Motion
passed,
meeting adjourned at