SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
– AUGUST 16, 2006
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair Tom
Votel
Commissioners: Eberhard Bulach, Arnulf Svendsen, Joanne Wahlstrom,
Andrea McCue
City Attorney:
Timothy Kuntz
City Planner:
Laurie Shives
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and
Members of the General Public.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Votel opened the meeting at 7:00
p.m. and introduced the new City Clerk to the members. Commissioner
McCue arrived at 7:10 p.m.
II.
APPROVE AGENDA: Chair Votel asked if there were any comments
regarding the June 21, 2006 minutes. Commission Bulach moved to approve
the minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried.
Commissioner Svendsen asked for an update of Council action on the
McFadden kitchen project. Ms. Shives explained that Council agreed with
the recommendation by the Planning commission to include a condition
that the shed be removed from the property but extended the time period
to February 1, 2007. She advised that Mr. McFadden indicated it would
be easier to move the structure in the winter across the ice and Council
agreed to extend the time deadline.
Commission Bulach questioned what would happen if they were unable to
move the structure because there was not sufficient ice in February.
After a brief discussion the members agreed that there should be
sufficient ice to remove the structure.
Commissioner McCue arrived at the meeting.
III. Site and Building Plan Review
Amendment: To consider a request to review the grading plan and to allow
for a pond partially within the existing drainage and utility easement
located on the Schadegg property at 3 Grieve Glen Lane.
Chair Votel explained that the new home
building project for the Schadegg’s property has been proceeding and
with the grading changes as approved in May, 2006. He advised that the
homeowners now wish to create an enhancement to the property by creating
a pond in the drainage easement. He noted that the City Attorney had
prepared a report regarding some legal issues related to the request,
however; the City Engineer had not completed his report relating to the
request. He suggested that the Planner and City Attorney proceed with
their presentation although the matter may have to be tabled to the
September meeting so that the Commission has an opportunity to review
the Engineer’s report prior to making a recommendation. He explained
that he had been approached by the property owners who advised they
wished to move the request forward so that the pond could be installed
in conjunction with the building project this year.
Planner Shives advised that the property owners had indicated they wish
to put a pond on the property the new easement area established as a
part of the minor subdivision (lot consolidation) when the new home
request was originally reviewed by the City Council in November 2005 .
She stated that a portion of the pond would be located in the City’s
easement and that the property owner was advised and understands that if
the enhancements create any problems it would be their responsibility to
correct the problem at no cost to the City.
Chair Votel explained that he met with the Planner to view the property
and the proposal and he believes the pond would be a nice amenity,
however; he noted that he would defer support of the project until such
time as the Commission receives the Engineer’s report.
Bob Moser, builder for the Schadegg property, was present and displayed
a diagram showing the original grading plan and the proposed revisions
to accommodate the pond in the City’s easement. He explained that the
property owners did not anticipate the appearance of the property after
the grading plan was completed and that they hired a landscaper prior to
submitting the revised grading plan that incorporated some berms for
privacy. He advised that there is substantial drainage through the
easement area adjacent to Delaware Avenue and they have had problems
while attempting to install the septic systems due to the high water
table. He indicated that he believes the new design for the ponding area
may help alleviate the water table issue and assist with the
installation of the septic system. He noted that he talked to Engineer
Sterna today and he indicated he believes the Engineer would support the
proposed plan. He stated that Mr. Sterna indicated it may be an
appropriate infiltration area for the runoff before it flows to the
wetland area. He noted that Mr. Sterna also advised him of the proposed
easement agreements. He also stated that this modification is much less
significant that the prior grading change request.
Mr. Moser thanked the Commission for accommodating discussion of request
without the City Engineer’s report.
Chair Votel asked for comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Bulach stated he viewed the area and it appears as if the
pond has already been created.
Mr. Moser explained that the area may have been excavated to relieve the
pressure for installing the septic system.
Chair Votel explained that it appears to
be rough contour of the proposed pond.
Commissioner McCue asked if the neighbors have been informed of the
proposal. Chair Votel stated he does not believe the City is required to
inform the neighbors; however, he would prefer to discuss it with them
since he also lives in the area.
Commission Svendsen questioned if the ponding area would become a
protected wetland and require review by other agencies.
Chair Votel responded no and explained that the spring runoff flows to
the north along Delaware to the Commers pond.
Mr. Moser pointed out that Engineer Sterna indicated that the pond would
have a positive effect on water quality issues since it would provide an
area for infiltration for the runoff.
There was a brief discussion regarding how the infiltration system works
to treat the runoff.
Commissioner Bulach agreed the pond would provide aesthetics to the
property if it does not encroach or create problems for other property
owners.
Commission Svendsen asked if the pond would create any problems with
runoff along the road or affect the road.
Mr. Moser responded no. Chair Votel agreed that he does not believe it
would create problems, but noted that the City Attorney would address
the fact that the property owner is responsible if this type of problem
occurs and would have to pay for restoration.
Attorney Kuntz distributed his report consisting of three agreement
documents and reviewed each.
Drainage and Utility Easement Agreement: Mr. Kuntz stated that
the Engineer would recommend the area
where and easement would be necessary to accommodate the changes and the
amended easement would have to be recorded. He noted that there is no
legal description for the area at this time and requested that Mr. Moser
advise the property owner they would have to hire a surveyor and provide
a legal description of the new easement area for recording purposes.
Storm Water Facilities Maintenance Agreement relating to Lot 2, Block 1,
Grieve Glen: Mr. Kuntz explained that this document would provide that
the landowner assume responsibility for maintenance of all of the storm
water facilities located within the property, including culverts, ponds,
wetlands, etc. and also any within the public easements. He noted that
the City must retain an easement so water can flow and not create
problems and since the property owner wishes to create the pond they
should be responsible for maintaining the easement area and all storm
water facilities on their property. He also noted that the property
owner would be required to perform the maintenance according to City
standards as defined by the City Engineer’s recommendation. He explained
that if the property owner does not perform the maintenance as required,
the City would do so and bill the property owner, and if the owner does
not pay the bill, the costs would then be attached to their taxes. He
further noted that he is unsure if the City currently has maintenance
standards established, but he noted that the Engineer would establish
maintenance requirements. He indicated the Engineer had established
requirements for other developments such as Nancy Pine Meadows.
Agreement Relating to Landowner Improvements within City Easement on Lot
2, Block 1, Grieve Glen: Mr. Kuntz advised that the homeowner must
define the items proposed to be included in the easement enhancement,
such as the type of water feature, vegetation, etc. He stated that those
items would then be listed as the only items that may be included in the
easement area and that must be maintained by the homeowner at their
expense. He further noted that the agreement would state that the City
would not be liable if any items are destroyed due to any improvements
made by the City in the easement area or that the homeowner must remove
or relocate an item that interferes with drainage. He advised that if
the owner does not remove or relocate the items, the City would do so
and bill the property owner for the expense or, if not paid by the
property owner, attach the costs to their taxes.
Mr. Kuntz also recalled that the Ward property on Windy Hill Road has a
pond adjacent to the roadway and the Commission and Council allowed the
pond with similar agreements attached.
Mr. Kuntz noted that the documents indemnify the City for placement of
items in the pond or failure of the pond to operate as designated. He
advised that he has no comments on the reconfiguration of the easement
or its aesthetics. He stated that he would only recommend approval of
the request, pending a favorable report from the City Engineer,
submission of the appropriate documentation from the property owner and
execution of the agreements as outlined. He gave Mr. Moser two copies of
the proposed documents for review with the property owner.
Mr. Moser stated he does not believe the agreements are unreasonable and
that the property owner would be agreeable to the conditions as the
proposed. He also noted that he believes the proposed pond would assist
with drainage issues in the area and with the installation of the septic
system.
Mr. Kuntz asked the depth of the proposed pond. Mr. Moser stated he has
not been involved in the landscaping designs, but he believes the pond
would be approximately 6 feet deeper than the previous grade.
Mr. Votel pointed out that by dropping the level of the grade, there
should be sufficient berming for the spring runoff to proceed west on
the property and agreed it may improve drainage on the property.
Mr. Moser explained that the property owner is not relying on the
proposed ponding area to fix the septic issues and that they may have to
install a new lower profile tank. He advised the property owner is
working with the City Septic Inspector to redesign the system, but he
does not believe it will require an amendment or review by the
Commission.
There was discussion regarding the drainfield and its alternative
location.
Mr. Votel noted the pond area is visibly well protected from adjacent
properties and he believes the property owner will maintain the pond.
Mr. Moser explained that the property owners are aware of the fact that
the modifications to the landscape plan must be resubmitted and they are
working with the landscaper to do prepare the redesigned plans.
Commissioner Bulach asked to what degree the landscape revisions would
change the elevations on the property.
Chair Votel pointed out that Mr. Moser
indicated he was not part of the revised landscaping plans and suggested
requiring the Schadegg’s to provide a revised landscape plan for
Commission review at the September 20 meeting. He noted that this is the
third significant change and that it appears as if the property owner
requested the grading revisions to provide substantial berming for
privacy. He indicated that he believes the property owner misunderstood
how the initial grading plan was going to change the aesthetics of the
property. He stated that he prefer to have a review of the property
landscape plan in conjunction with the ponding area. He noted the
property owner would be required to submit a revised landscape plan, as
well as a listing of the features and items to be placed in the easement
area and that those items must be reviewed by the City Engineer.
Commissioner Bulach stated he has concerns relating to changes in
elevation and the landscape revisions; he indicated that it is strange
that the pond appears to already be excavated.
Chair Votel stated he agreed that it appears the property owner has not
followed the appropriate steps for changing the design; however, he
indicated that they are attempting to “fast-track” the matter to
coincide with the home construction. He advised he would support the
proposal subject to a favorable report and recommendation from the City
Engineer and agreement by the property owner to submit the appropriate
documentation of the changes as well as agreement to execute the legal
documents. He noted the City Engineer may support the changes based on
the positive impact to the septic system issues and the storm water
runoff.
Mr. Moser explained that the only grading revisions would be in the
ponding area.
Commissioner Bulach excused himself at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked the dimensions of the pond and if there
would be any safety issues that would require fencing. Mr. Moser stated
he believes the pond would be approximately 100 ft. x 35 ft. and that
there would be no safety issues.
Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that if the matter is tabled until
September 20 the property owners would not receive a determination from
Council until October.
Chair Votel suggested that since the property owners are so far advanced
in the construction of the home it may be appropriate for the Commission
to make a recommendation for approval to Council with the following
stipulations: 1) Require the property owners to provide a list of items
to be included in the easement area and to execute the three legal
documents prepared by the City Attorney; 2) The City Engineer favorably
recommends approval of the plan with no outstanding issues; and, 3) The
property owner must submit a revised landscape plan at the September 20
Commission meeting and may move forward with the grading of the pond
area and the septic system installation.
Commissioner McCue stated it appears that the pond is already graded and
she does not support the precedent.
Chair Votel pointed out that although procedures were not followed, it
does provide a visual concept for the Commission.
Mr. Kuntz asked if the reconfiguration of the easement area would cause
a redelineation of the wetland area.
Mr. Moser stated he is unsure, however, he noted that the easement was
not a protected wetland area. He noted he was been working on a
development in Shoreview with retention ponds and there was no
requirement to file any documentation on wetlands for the ponds.
Chair Votel asked the attorney if the
agreement document provides for changes in the water flow to be
corrected. Mr. Kuntz responded that would be determined by the City
Engineer.
Chair Votel suggested that the Commission also request the document
includes a provision relating to the flowage issues and stresses the
fact that there is no obstruction of flow since the spring runoff is so
substantial.
Mr. Kuntz suggested language be included that requires the inspection of
the culverts and removal of vegetation that would prohibit the natural
water flow.
Chair Votel stated he wishes to insure the wetland stays intact and that
the seasonal runoff flows on its natural course.
Commission McCue asked if the Commers are aware of the proposal. Mr.
Votel stated he believes the Commers are aware of the fact that the
natural runoff eventually comes to their pond.
Mr. Kuntz stated the City Engineer could incorporate the recommendations
into his report and recommend conditions which address the flowage
concerns.
Chair Votel moved to recommend approval
of the request, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, subject to the
following conditions:
1)
The property owner submitting a listing of items to placed in the
easement area for incorporation into the legal agreement and a legal
description of the easement area, and that the property owner execute
the three documents as prepared by the City Attorney;
2)
The recommendation for approval is subject to a favorable report
and recommendation from the City Engineer and that there are no
outstanding issues relating to the request;
3)
The property owner submit a revised landscape plan for review at
the September 20, 2006 Planning Commission meeting;
The City Attorney suggested a fourth
condition be included that incorporates language relating to the
recommendation regarding the flowage functionality and maintenance
related to the flowage into the Maintenance Agreement for the pond.
Chair Votel and Commissioner Svendsen as maker and second agreed to the
amendment.
Mr. Kuntz questioned if the property owners downstream understand how
much water is needed to keep the pond area as proposed full. Chair
Votel indicated that it is important that the City Engineer establishes
standards in his report to insure the wetlands, the properties
downstream and the westerly portion of the property is protected.
Mr. Moser pointed out that the runoff flow would slow in the culvert.
Chair Votel indicated he wishes to insure that language within the legal
documents identify the necessity to maintain the existing flowage
patterns. He further stated that all the properties are aware of the
flowage pattern to the Commers property and pond.
Chair Votel called for a vote and the motion carried.
Mr. Moser asked if the property owner could proceed with the approved
landscaping that was consistent with the original plan such as near the
home and pool area. Chair Votel responded yes, but reminded Mr. Moser
that a final revised plan would be required to be submitted for staff
review prior to the next meeting.
Planner Shives stated the deadline for submitting the document would be
Monday, August 21, 2006.
Commissioner Svendsen asked if the pond could be used for irrigation.
Mr. Moser stated he does not believe the capacity of the pond would be
sufficient for irrigation; he stated the home was plumed for that
purpose.
Chair Votel thanked Mr. Moser for his
attendance.
Chair Votel thanked the Commission for their review of the matter
without benefit of the Engineer’s report. Planner Shives stated she
would forward the report to the Commissioners as soon as it is sent to
her.
Commissioner McCue stated that when the landscape plan is approved, she
would prefer to have a specific date for completion of the landscape
installation. She noted that some properties have been lax in this area.
Planner Shives stated the City requires that the landscaping be
installed prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy and the builder
must submit a $5,000 escrow to cover the costs of installation if the
property owner does not complete the plan.
Chair Votel noted that other residents have made substantial changes to
their property without required approvals and in this instance the
Commission is at least getting an opportunity to review the plans.
Planner Shives also noted that the City requires a two-year guarantee on
landscaping. Chair Votel stated he believes enforcement is the issue and
the City may wish to explore enforcement.
Chair Votel asked if there were further comments and there was no
response.
IV.
ADJOURN: Chair Votel moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.,
seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried.
Catherine Iago, City
Clerk
BACK to News