SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
– APRIL 18, 2007
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Acting Chair
Arnulf Svendsen
Commissioners:
Andrea McCue and Joanne Wahlstrom.
City Planner:
Steve Grittman
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and
Members of the General Public.
Chair Eberhard
Bulach and Commissioner Tom Votel were absent.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chair Svendsen opened the meeting
at 7:10 p.m.
II.
APPROVE AGENDA: Acting Chair Svendsen asked if there were
any comments or corrections to the March 21, 2007 Commission minutes as
presented and there was no response.
Commissioner McCue moved to approve the March 21, 2007 Planning
Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and
carried 3-0.
III.A. Public Hearing/Consideration of Site and Building Plan
Review/Conditional Use Permit/Variance
for Construction of a New Home and Related Accessory
Structures on a Vacant Lot at 230 Salem
Church Road: Flynn.
Chair Svendsen explained that the public
hearing on this matter was tabled from the March 21, 2007 Planning
Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant time to submit
revised plans. He asked that the Planner review the revised plans for
the proposed home construction at 230 Salem Church Road.
Mr. Grittman explained that the main change is the relocation of the
home 60 ft. further west than previously proposed; the house design,
carriage house design and landscape plan have remained unchanged. He
distributed the revised report from the City Engineer, dated April 18,
2007. He stated that the relocation of the home affects the driveway
location and the location of other proposed structures and the sports
court. He advised that the home location is consistent with setback and
lot coverage requirements; however, the main issue for discussion
relates to the height variance being requested. He explained that the
City Code limits the maximum building height to 30 ft. and the revised
plan submitted was within the allowed height requirement; however the
applicant had concerns relating to grading and proper drainage around
the foundation of the home. The Engineer indicated that the lot has
unique topography and limited building site availability and he
concurred with the concerns raised by the applicant relating to
providing proper drainage away from the home and minimizing tree loss.
Mr. Grittman stated that the applicant is now requesting a height
variance to raise the structure three-quarters of a foot above the
height requirement to accommodate providing proper drainage and to
lessen the number of trees that would be removed from the site.
Staff suggests that if the Commission recommends granting the requested
variance they should state criteria unique to this property to support
the approval. The Planner further recommended that action for denial
should state findings that literal interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of the right to reason use of
the property without the need for a variance.
Mr. Grittman indicated that the applicant have indicated that the
hardship is caused by the existing topography and vegetation on the
property; the applicant also cited that request would provide proper
drainage without the adding of additional fill, extensive grading and
additional tree removal.
Mr. Grittman noted that from the City’s point of view there would be
concern with granting height variances as that action may establish
precedence for future requests. He suggested that the Commissioners
review conditions that are unique and exist on this parcel that would
not be found on other properties where a similar request might be
submitted. He noted that an extensive list of supporting findings that
pertain to the uniqueness of this parcel should be included in action
for approval of the request.
The Planner advised that the application
includes a request for approval of four (4) Conditional Use Permits and
the Site and Building Plan. Staff recommends approval of the four CUP’s
as all applications are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements and also the Site and Building Plan.
Mr. Grittman noted that the home would be well hidden from view due to
the relocation of the home on the property. He further explained that
the applicant has stated he believes the home would be well-hidden from
view and would have no negative impact on adjacent neighbors. The
applicant also pointed out that due to the height of the trees on the
parcel, the three-quarter foot height variance would not be visible from
other properties.
Chair Svendsen thanked the Planner for
his presentation and opened the public hearing for comments from the
floor.
Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant wished to clarify a few items
listed in the staff report; the applicant has explained that no fill
would be added to the parcel from other sites and that only on-site soil
material would be used for construction. He also pointed out that on
page 12 of the Planner’s report it states that the builder indicated the
proposed grading plan would allow for the necessary drainage away from
the house; the builder wishes to clarify that he does not believe that
statement and he did not make that statement to the Planner.
Kyle Hunt, General Contractor for the
applicant, explained that he was also provided a revised report from the
City Engineer and he asked if the report would be read. He pointed out
that in the report Mr. Sterna agrees that the proposed drainage/grading
plan and raising the first-floor elevation would provide a superior plan
and that the Engineer supports the grading/drainage solution as
presented.
Chair Svendsen asked if the Engineer’s comments are a variation from his
comments on the original plan submitted.
Planner Grittman responded yes and noted
that the Engineer’s report states his belief that this is a better
design.
Chair Svendsen asked if there were any comments from the floor.
Chuck Chesney, resident, questioned if
the previous concerns raised by the Engineer regarding the plan have
been addressed.
Mr. Grittman stated that the Engineer’s report does not mention other
areas of concern; however, there are conditions attached to the Site and
Building Plan request that requires the applicant to submit final plans
that meet requirements and that would be reviewed by the staff.
Dr. Chesney pointed out that there were concerns relating to the pond,
the road, and the septic system location; he asked if those items have
been addressed. Mr. Grittman responded that those items remain open.
Kyle Hunt explained that the septic system locations cannot be resolved
until percolation tests are completed and those cannot be accomplished
until the road restrictions are lifted.
Mr. Grittman noted that those items are listed under the conditions of
approval for the applications and would be reviewed by staff to insure
compliance.
Commissioner McCue asked if any comments were received from the adjacent
neighbors. Mr. Grittman responded not to his knowledge.
Michael Kampmeyer stated he was the owner of this parcel and lives
adjacent to the property. He agreed with the staff assessment that the
home will not be visible from his property or the road and that it would
not detract from any neighboring properties. He stated he supports the
variance as requested and that he is pleased to have Mr. Flynn as his
neighbor/
Steve Bulach, 118 Salem Church Road, commented that he agrees that the
City should establish rules and that setting precedence should be a
concern; however; in his opinion each request should be reviewed
individually. He noted that this parcel has different characteristics
than other areas of the City; he explained that the lot is secluded and
has extremely tall trees to hide the house. He stated that the request
has been reduced from two feet to 9 inches and he supports the variance.
He stated that he believes the other issues will be resolved by the
applicant and that he and his wife look forward to having the applicant
as a neighbor.
Kyle Hunt commented that he was trying to
understand the intent of the height restriction. He stated there was an
explanation given a previous meeting that the height restriction was
established due to a home that was built several years ago. He pointed
out that if this proposed house were positioned closer to the Kampmeyer
property, it would not require a variance, but it would definitely have
an impact on the neighbor’s privacy. He discussed the fact that certain
styles of architectural roof pitches are essential to the design of the
home and although the roof pitch could be modified, insuring that the
drainage flows away from the home remains the basis for the request.
Chair Svendsen asked if there were
further comments and hearing none he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McCue indicated that she was not opposed to the variance
request based on the drainage issues. She stated for the record that the
applicant should be aware of the fact that the guest house cannot become
a rental property and that she wished to insure this will not be an
issue in the future.
Mr. Flynn stated that he is aware of the fact that the City Code
restricts rental property and noted that he does not plan on selling the
home for a long time. He pointed out that if the neighbors noticed the
property was being used for rental purposes they most likely would
report it to the City.
Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned why the
guest house differs from a pool house and if the structure was moved if
it would be more in compliance.
Mr. Grittman explained that the guest house is allowed in the front yard
of the property under a Conditional Use Permit so that the City retains
the right to review the plans and establish appropriate conditions for
its use; he noted that the Code does not prohibit this type of structure
in a front yard.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked for clarification that additional trees
would have to be removed from the lot if the structure complied with the
height requirements.
Planner Grittman explained that moving the structure to meet the height
requirement would require the removal of additional trees and loss of
privacy for neighboring properties.
Kyle Hunt explained that most cities have
height restrictions in place, although not as restrictive as Sunfish
Lake; he also noted that the City’s method for calculating the structure
height is somewhat different from other cities.
Commissioner Wahlstrom indicated that it appears the Commission is being
asked to review architectural design versus function as part of the
variance request.
Mr. Flynn pointed out that he could build a three-story home with a flat
tar roof and the structure could maintain the 30 ft. height requirement;
however, he prefers to construct a home that would be an asset to the
community.
Commissioner Wahlstrom stated she does
not disagree that it will be a beautiful home, but she explained her
concern relates to setting precedence for future variance requests.
Mr. Flynn asked if variances had been granted in the past based on
drainage issues.
Chair Svendsen responded yes and explained that it appears the applicant
is requesting the height variance based on the drainage concerns and the
loss of trees.
Commissioner Wahlstrom stated that she would prefer the plan work for
everyone and she asked if the floor level design could be reduced to
accommodate the height regulation.
Commissioner McCue pointed out that the request appears to be based on a
hardship that relates to drainage issues.
Mr. Flynn commented that this process has been arduous and that after
witnessing the discussion at the last meeting relating to the height
restriction, he questioned his decision to live in Sunfish Lake. He
agreed that the height requirement could be met if the structure is
moved closer to the Kampmeyer property, but that would infringe on his
neighbor’s privacy and require removal of additional trees.
Sue Gleeva stated she also purchased a lot next to the Kampmeyer
property and indicated that she most likely will be in the same position
as Mr. Flynn with a year. She agreed that most cities have height
restrictions, but she pointed out that the City of North Oaks has set
the height limit at 32 ft. She asked how the ordinance could be
changed.
Commissioner Wahlstrom pointed out that
the Council has to consider an ordinance amendment and that this
commission must work with what is currently in place.
Commissioner McCue commented that the applicant does not appear to be
making the request based on the architectural design of the home, but
rather on the drainage issues. She further noted that Mr. Flynn wishes
to construct a home that will be an asset to the City. She stated that
in her opinion she would prefer to see the variance granted so that the
home does not infringe on the neighboring properties and to limit the
removal of trees on the lot.
Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned how future requests would be reviewed
if the architectural design for the structure does not fit on the site.
Kyle Hunt explained that he agrees height restrictions are necessary and
in his opinion the current ordinance as it relates to the measurement of
the structure height could be better written. He discussed the fact that
certain styles of architecture include design features and different
roof pitches. He noted that the City should review each future
application on its own merits. He commented that most likely an person
would not submit an application to change the current ordinance;
however; he believes that if this type of request is happening on a
frequent basis, it may be appropriate for staff and the City to review
the Code as it relates to height restrictions.
Commissioner Wahlstrom agreed with Mr. Hunt that the City may wish to
review the regulations; however, she noted that at this time the
Commission must make a recommendation based on the current regulations.
Chair Svendsen stated that each review is
site specific and the Commission should focus on this particular
property. He pointed out that the Engineer’s report supports this
location for the structure.
Commissioner McCue agreed that this
request appears to be based on the drainage issues.
Mr. Flynn pointed out that the architect
designed the structure to meet the 30 ft. height requirement; however,
when the structure was moved to this location on the lot it no longer
met the requirement. He stated Mr. Hunt did not design a taller home.
Commissioner McCue agreed that the topography of the lot in the location
on the structure is unique.
Commissioner Wahlstrom commented that the point of her argument was
related to the fact that she did not wish to set precedence and she
wanted to insure that each request is reviewed on its own merits.
There was a brief discussion between the Planner and the builder
regarding how much of a height variance was needed. Mr. Hunt explained
that although a variance for 9 inches would suffice, he believes a one
foot variance would be preferable to allow for a slight margin of
error.
Mr. Grittman agreed that the variance request be for a one foot
variance.
Chair Svenden asked if there were any further comments and there was no
response. He suggested that each request be considered by separate
motion.
Commissioner McCue moved, seconded by
Commissioner Wahlstrom, to recommend approval of the Height Variance of
one foot above the maximum first-floor elevation based on the fact that
a non-economic hardship has been demonstrated due to the following
Findings of Fact:
1. The variance as requested would provide for proper drainage away
from the foundation of the house
and minimize the necessity for drainage swales;
2. The variance as requested would minimize grading and tree loss on
the property;
3. The requested is supported by the unique topography and limited
building site availability on the lot;
4. The variance as requested would not negatively impact the
surrounding properties;
5. The building site would not be
visible from any of the surrounding property or the public street; and
6. The slopes on this property distort
the measurement of height since the same structure could be placed
on the property at the same elevation and meet the standard.
Motion carried. 3-0
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved,
seconded by Commissioner McCue, to recommend approval of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow construction of an Accessory Structure (Carriage
House) in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. in area and 16 feet in height, based
on a finding that the request is consistent with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses, subject to the four (4)
conditions as listed in the Planner’s report and with the understanding
that the structure would not become a rental property in the future.
Motion carried. 3-0
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved, seconded by Commissioner McCue, to
recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
an Accessory Structure within a front yard, based on a finding that the
request is based on a finding that the request is consistent with the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Motion carried. 3-0
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved,
seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to recommend approval of a
Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a second Accessory
Structure (Sport Court) based on a finding that the request is based on
a finding that the request is consistent with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses, subject to the condition that no
light of the sport court shall be allowed.
In discussion, Chair Svendsen asked if some type of retaining wall
would be constructed. Mr. Hunt responded yes and indicated that there
may need to be a retaining wall on one edge of the court if the drop
exceeds 4 ft.; he noted that the City Engineer would review the final
plans.
Motion carried. 3-0
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to
recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of
a Security Gate, based on a finding that the request is based on a
finding that the request is consistent with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses, subject to the six (6) conditions
as listed in the Planner’s report.
In discussion, Chair Svendsen
pointed out that there are no drawings of the gate.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the drawings should be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Hunt explained that the applicant is aware of the conditions and
agrees to adhere to them; he noted that the gate has not been designed
at this time.
Chair Svendsen noted that the conditions allow for staff approval of the
final design plan.
Commissioner McCue asked if the gate would be continuous on the property
or only for the main entrance.
Mr. Flynn stated the gate would be only at the main driveway entrance to
stop in-coming traffic. He indicated he has not made a final
determination on the gate at this time.
Commissioner McCue noted that Mr. Flynn would have to consider emergency
vehicle access.
Motion carried. 3-0
Commissioner McCue moved, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom, to
recommend approval of the Site and Building Plan to permit construction
of a new home on a vacant lot located at 230 Salem Church Road, subject
to the six (6) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report.
Chair Svendsen asked if the items listed in the Engineer’s report
should be incorporated into the conditions.
Mr. Grittman stated the items are already part of the conditions as
listed.
Motion carried. 3-0
Mr. Flynn and his staff thanked the Commission for their time.
Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further items for business and
there was no response.
VI.
ADJOURN: Commissioner Wahlstrom moved, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:00 p.m, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. 3-0
Catherine Iago, City Clerk
BACK to
News