SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
– SEPTEMBER 20, 2006
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair Tom
Votel
Commissioners: Arnulf Svendsen, Joanne Wahlstrom and Andrea McCue
City Planner:
Laurie Shives
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and
Members of the General Public.
Commissioner
Eberhard Bulach was absent.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Votel opened the meeting at 7:00
p.m.
II.
APPROVE AGENDA: Chair Votel asked if there were any comments
regarding the August 16, 2006 minutes. Commissioner McCue moved to
approve the minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and
carried.
Chair Votel suggested that the Schadegg request be reviewed first since
Mr. Nayes was not present at this time.
Commissioner Votel moved to revise the agenda to consider the Schadegg
request first, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried.
IV. Site Plan Amendment: Consideration of a revised landscape plan
for the Schadegg property (3 Grieve Glen
Lane).
Chair Votel explained that he would abstain from voting and
suggested Commissioner Svendsen serve as Acting
Chair during this review.
Planner Shives explained the applicants
were granted approval by the Council of a site and building plan review
for the construction of a new home at 3 Grieve Glen Lane on November 21,
2005. She advised that the property owner had requested a number of
revisions to the approved plans during the construction of their new
home and the Planning commission and council have granted approval for
two separate revisions to the grading plan and a deck addition was
reviewed and approved through the Minor Review process.
The Planner explained that the Schadegg’s are now requesting a revision
to the previously approved landscape plan and the City Zoning Ordinance
requires that amended site and building plans must be reviewed in a
manner similar to that required for new site and building plans. She
noted that the reviewed landscape plan remains very similar to the
originally proposed and approved plan; the major differences between the
two plans are the addition of another large berming area along the
southwest side of the property adjacent to the driveway and the
realignment of the berming areas in the southwest and southeast corners
of the property. She stated that other changes include a revised
swimming pool pad, a larger pergola off the rear of the home and the
addition of a bridge within the landscaping area off the rear of the
house. She explained that the revised landscape plan is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance requirements in terms of plant selection and plant
location as well as provision of screening and buffering of the new home
from adjacent properties.
Planner Shives explained that a final site inspection was done on
September 19, 2006 and noted that one condition of approval was that
soils removed during enhancement of the drainage easement must be kept
on site and placed in the rear yard. She advised that both she and the
City Engineer believe the applicant met this condition.
Staff recommends approval of the revisions which include the addition
and lengthening of berming areas, which will provide more screening and
buffering of the site than what was previously approved, subject to the
two (2) conditions as listed in the staff report dated September 13,
2006.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the Planner knew how many yards of
excavated material was moved to the rear of the site. Ms. Shives stated
she is unsure of the exact amount of soil moved.
Commission Wahlstrom stated that the original plan showed a higher berm
in the rear of the property on the northeast portion of the lot to
maintain privacy and to shield the sightlines for the adjacent property
owners. She explained that during the review of the property this
evening she does not believe the rear berm is sufficient to maintain
privacy for the adjacent property owners and that it should be higher.
She also noted that the screening from Delaware Avenue is good.
Mr. Schadegg explained that he has not completed the tree planting on
the rear yard yet and that approximately 12 additional evergreens would
be installed later this week.
Commissioner Walhstrom asked what size evergreens would be planted. Mr.
Schadegg responded 6 to 8 ft. trees would be installed.
Commissioner McCue questioned the height of the existing berm in the
rear yard and if it is lower than as shown on the original plan. Mr.
Schadegg advised that his engineer believes it is the same height as
shown on the original plan or slightly greater.
Commissioner McCue commented that the applicant has proceeded to install
the changes requested prior to review by the Commission and that she has
concerns regarding trust that the applicant would follow the approved
plan. She noted that the home is beautiful; however, the Commission has
a responsibility to protect the neighbors and insure the plan proceeds
as approved.
Mr. Schadegg explained that it was not his intent to substantially
change the plan and that the pond enhancement came about during
discussions with his engineer regarding sediment and drainage issues. He
also advised that the landscaping plan has not changed dramatically and
is mostly due to irregularities of the lot. He stated that too much fill
may have been taken out during construction and that he may have to
bring in some additional fill to build up the rear portion of the lot.
Commissioner Svendsen asked where the additional fill would be placed.
Mr. Schadegg stated it would be close to the rear portion of his home.
Commissioner Wahlstrom pointed out that the sightlines of the neighbors
should be protected and the original berm provided that protection. Mr.
Schadegg agreed that the privacy of the neighbors should be protected.
Commissioner McCue pointed out that with the current plan there is a
direct sightline to the neighbors patio from the Schadegg residence; she
asked Mr. Votel to comment on the matter.
Mr. Votel stated that during the home construction there was a large
berm placed in the rear of the property and then the plan was revised
due to the exposure from Delaware Avenue. He explained that when the
plan was reviewed he questioned what amount would be taken from the rear
berm on the property and was told it would not be a substantial amount.
He indicated that his concern as an adjacent neighbor relates to whether
or not the berm is sufficient in height to protect the privacy of the
adjacent property owners, the Kootz residence and his home, as well as
the Schadegg’s. He further explained that he believes this is an interim
plan and that the applicant wishes to proceed so that the plantings can
be installed as soon as possible.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked the height of the berm in the front of the
home. Mr. Votel stated approximately 6 to 8 ft. in height and that the
land was originally flat along Delaware Avenue.
Mr. Schadegg advised that the additional landscaping would be extended
for screening and he would note be opposed to installing additional
evergreens to provide an additional buffer; he noted there would be
approximately 24 trees installed.
Mr. Votel stated he has one additional concern relating to the fact that
the Schadegg’s home is stone and he believes that this poses a noise
factor with sound bouncing off the hardscape. He explained he would
prefer to have a large berm installed in the rear yard, similar to the
previous berm that was placed in the yard during construction, to reduce
noise and provide privacy for the adjacent neighbors. He noted that he
would also prefer conifers planted to provide year round screening. He
stated that the three homes are fairly close in proximity.
Diana Kootz stated that she supports the concept of the plantings;
however she agreed that the original berm that was in place provided
adequate screening and she would also prefer a larger berm on the
property.
Acting-Chair Svendsen stated that at a meeting last fall the Commission
questioned Mr. Moser as to why the home was sited in this location on
the lot and they were advised that it was due to the topography of the
lot. He noted that at that time the Commission was given assurances that
an extra effort would be made to provide adequate screening for the
adjacent neighbors. He noted that the Commission agreed it is important
that the property owner maintain privacy from Delaware Avenue; however
it is also important to provide privacy for the neighbors. He noted that
the fruit trees as proposed do not provide sufficient screening and he
would prefer additional evergreens be installed.
Mr. Schadegg explained that the trees on the bermed areas would all be
evergreens and that the additional fruit trees would be placed
sporadically to infuse color.
Acting-Chair Svendsen stated he believes the north and northeast berm
areas should have more evergreens.
Mr. Schadegg stated there would be a minimum of 24 trees at
approximately 8 ft. in height. He explained that the placement of the
home was due to topography and that it has been challenging to maintain
the original plan for the property. He noted that it was not his intent
to belie the trust of the Commission and that he would insure there are
sufficient plantings; he advised that he would install more plantings
than shown on the plan submitted.
Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned if a revised plan would have to be
approved. Ms. Shives responded yes and pointed out that staff must have
an accurate plan approved for enforcement.
Mr. Schadegg stated he wished to plant the trees this fall and that he
was not aware that the installation of additional trees would pose a
problem.
Commissioner McCue questioned if the applicant was aware of he fact that
floodlights are not permitted.
Mr. Schadegg stated he was not aware of that fact until Ms. Shives
pointed it out during the final site review.
Planner Shives stated the lights were not shown on the plan and she
requested they be removed or angled down.
Mr. Schadeggg stated he would redirect the lights down.
Commissioner McCue asked the neighbors for their input regarding the
lights. Mr. Votel stated that he would have no problem with the lights
if they are directed down. Ms. Coots stated she is not aware of how the
lights would affect her property, but she also has no problem if the
lights are directed down.
Mr. Votel asked if conditions could be attached to the landscape plan so
that the applicant could proceed with the plantings this fall.
The Planner advised that conditions were attached to the Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy and must be met prior to the applicant
proceeding.
Mayor Park explained that the Councilmembers receive a number of calls
relating to lighting and she appreciates the fact that the applicant
agreed to adjust the lights.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if there would be lighting near the pool
area. Mr. Schadegg stated there would be only one light within the pool
itself.
Acting-Chair Svendsen referred to the noise issue raised by Mr. Votel
and questioned if the landscaping would be sufficient to address the
noise or if the berm should be increased.
Mr. Schadegg explained that when the higher berm was located in the rear
of his home it appeared as if the home was placed in a “bowl”. He
stated there was not sufficient room to accommodate a higher berm on his
property.
Acting-Chair Svendsen suggested broadening the width of the berm. Mr.
Schadegg stated he is unsure if that can be accomplished without some
encroachment onto the adjacent properties.
Mr. Votel and Ms. Kootz stated that some minor encroachment to
accommodate the berm would be agreeable. Mr. Votel stated that he
believes it would be beneficial to have the encroachment since with the
higher berm he was afforded more privacy. He further stated that it
would also be beneficial to the Schadegg’s if the berm was higher for
privacy purposes.
Acting-Chair Svendsen asked if there was
any consensus from the Commission.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the applicant still had to provide a
list of items that were placed in the pond area. Ms. Shives stated that
was addressed in the easement documents.
Commissioner McCue moved to accept the plan with the following
conditions: 1) that the floodlights on the rear of the property be
deflected in a downward position or removed; and, 2) that the Commission
encourage the applicant to increase the bermed area to approximately 10
or 15 ft. along the easterly to southeasterly portion on the rear of the
property and install additional evergreen trees on the berm.
In discussion, Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned if the applicant should
be required to submit a revised plan.
The Planner noted that in order for staff to enforce the plan, it must
delineate what was actually approved. She suggested an additional
condition be included regarding a fence that was previously shown on the
plan, but was supposed to be removed.
Commissioner McCue agreed to add a condition that the fence be removed
from the plan. Mr. Schadegg explained that the fence was removed from
the plan document.
Commission Walhstrom stated she would prefer to see the berm continued
to insure privacy. Mr. Schadegg stated he wishes to preserve access to
the remaining acreage of his rear yard. He stated that with the
additional evergreen plantings the privacy should be preserved and
extending the berm would cut off access to his land.
Mr. Votel suggested wrapping the berm to the east would not impair Mr.
Schadegg’s view and would assist with noise abatement.
Commissioner McCue stated she believes the berm was originally higher
than it is at this time.
Mr. Schadegg stated that the existing berm is not different from the
height originally approved. He noted it may appear different due to the
fact that excess soils were stockpiled in the area during construction.
Mr. Votel disagreed and stated that when the Commission viewed the
revised grading plan he questioned how much material would be taken from
the berm and Mr. Schadegg responded approximately 1 foot. He stated he
believes that approximately 4 ft. of material was removed since the area
is now very open and noise has become a concern. He further stated he
was concerned about the proximity of the new home to the adjacent
neighbors when the plan was first reviewed and although the home is
magnificent, he encouraged the applicant to increase the berm to enhance
privacy for all the property owners.
Commissioner McCue asked if the applicant would be willing to raise the
berm 2 feet. Mr. Schadegg stated he would be willing to discuss
increasing the berm with his landscaper and that he wishes to insure
privacy for himself and the neighbors. He stated it is a balancing act
since he respects the neighbors’ opinions; however, he does not wish to
place a large tree on a small berm.
Ms. Kootz suggested Mr. Schadegg meet on
her property to view his home and discuss the privacy issues. Mr. Votel
stated he would prefer the berm be bolstered and curved slightly towards
the east; he noted that he believes this would also enhance the
Schadegg’s property.
Mr. Schadegg stated he has concerns that pushing the berm too far north
or encroaching on the neighboring properties.
There was discussion relating to whether or not a specific number should
be attached to increasing the size of the berm. Ms. Shives explained
that staff would prefer to have some specific direction for comparison
purposes when attempting to enforce the plan.
The Commission discussed the time frame for meeting the applicant’s need
to discuss the changes with his landscaper and to install the plantings
this fall.
Mr. Votel noted that before any work is done on the property, the
applicant must receive approval from Council at their October 3 meeting.
He suggested the Commission could recommend general conditions and then
Council would have the option to provide final approval at their meeting
or send the matter back to the Commission for further review.
Commissioner McCue suggested holding a brief meeting to view the
landscaper’s revised design prior to the Council meeting.
Mr. Votel stated he would be back in town by October 2 if the Commission
wished to set a special meeting. He indicated that generally the
Commission discussed increasing, widening and extending the berm along
the easterly portion of the property and installing additional conifers
along the berm with deciduous trees as fillers for color.
Commissioner McCue withdrew her motion.
Planner Shives suggested the Commission could take action by one of the
following methods: 1) recommend approval of the plan subject to the berm
area be lengthened and additional height be added subject to review and
approval of the City staff and with concurrence of the neighbors; or 2)
table the matter to a special meeting prior to the October 3, 2006
Council meeting to review the revised plan.
Commission Svendsen moved to accept the revised plan with the
conditions as outlined by Mr. Votel and subject to review and approval
by staff and the neighbors, and further that the conditions to redirect
the floodlights and remove the fence from the plan also be included.
Motion failed due to lack of second.
Mayor Park asked if new drawings must be
submitted prior to the meeting. Ms. Shives responded yes.
Mr. Schadegg asked if it would be possible to proceed with the landscape
plan so that the plantings are not delayed until next year.
Commissioner Wahlstrom pointed out that action by this Commission would
not delay the project and that Council approval is necessary prior to
beginning the project.
Mr. Schadegg asked if he could install the plant materials originally
approved. Ms. Shives responded yes, but indicated that the additional
plantings should wait for Council approval.
There was discussion regarding tabling this matter. Staff suggested a
meeting be held prior to the Council meeting.
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to table the request of Mr. Schadegg to
October 3, 2006 at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner McCue and
carried.
Acting-Chair Svendsen asked if there were further comments and there was
no response.
III. Public Hearing/Site and Building
Plan Review : To consider three variance requests for the construction
of an attached garage at 5900 Zehnder Road.
Planner Shives explained that the
applicants wish to construct a new attached garage on their property.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is located
within the Shoreland Overlay District of Horseshoe Lake as well as the
Aircraft Noise Abatement Zone. She also noted that the subject site
abuts Horseshoe Lake and according to Dakota County records, the site
contained 1.97 acres, not including water acreage
Planner Shives stated that the property owners are requesting approval
of three variances because the proposed location of the garage does not
meet required front yard, side yard or shoreline building setbacks. She
advised the required setbacks for an attached garage are 100 ft. for the
front yard, 200 ft. from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of
Horseshoe Lake and 50 ft. for the side yard. The applicants are
proposing to place the garage 87 ft. from the front yard property line
(13 ft. variance), 126 ft. from the OHWM of the lake (74 ft. variance
and 12 ft. from the side yard line (38 ft. variance). She noted that
the applicants are proposing the garage construction as the first step
in a multi-step remodeling plan for their home. She stated the garage
request must be carefully evaluated as it may potentially lead to a
two-story building addition which would encompass the garage area that
is being proposed now and permitting the requested variances would allow
for the applicants to expand upon the new footprint by adding a second
story about the garage and the covered walkway that attaches to the
home.
The Planner noted the exterior material would be stucco which is allowed
in the code; however the submitted plans do not indicate what color the
stucco will be or the color of the existing home’s exterior. The
building height is proposed to be 15-feet 3-inches, which is compliant
with the height requirements. She stated that the grading, drainage and
erosion control plan are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Ms. Shives stated that staff has a concern relating to the individual
sewage treatment system, which is shown at nine feet from the proposed
garage. She explained that State Statutes require the setback for sewage
tanks from occupied buildings to be 10-feet and therefore, she requested
that the site plan be revised to show compliance with the 10-foot
setback requirement. She also advised that the applicant is not
proposing any new landscaping or screening as part of the project and
only one tree is being removed to accommodate the realignment of the
driveway; the removal of this tree is subject to review and approval of
the City Forester. She also explained that there are existing trees
located along the southern property line which would provide some
screening of the proposed garage from neighboring properties; however,
the Commission should determine if the existing screening is adequate.
The Planner reviewed the Site and Building Plan Criteria and the
Variance Review Criteria and her comments relating to each item as
listed in her report dated September 12, 2006. She explained that under
Item No. 6 in the Variance Review Criteria, the proposed garage
construction does not violate the intent and purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan; however permitting construction of the garage in the
proposed location will violate the setback requirements of the R-1
Zoning District. She explained that under Item No. 7 a), the applicant
represents that the hardship is caused by the non-conforming status of
the subject site in that the garage cannot be reasonably accommodated
elsewhere on the lot without violation of the required setbacks. She
advised that while staff agrees that the application could not meet all
setback requirements, the side yard setbacks could be met. She further
advised that under Item No. 7 b) Staff believes that the literal
interpretation of the Zoning Ordiannce would prohibit the applicant from
building the garage in a place and/or designed in a way that would be
most convenient and desirable for them, but alternative locations and/or
building designs are feasible that would lessen the need for a variance;
moving the garage closer to the garage closer to the home would lessen
the variance requested.
Staff does not recommend approval of all three variances; 13-feet from
the front yard, 38-feet from the side yard, and 74-feet from the OHWM of
the lake. Staff believes there are options for the building design or
location to lessen the impact for the adjacent neighbors south of the
property. She stated that staff does recommend approval of the front
yard and shoreland setbacks as requested and that the applicant revise
the plan to lessen the side yard setback; she explained that there are
three decisions with possible actions listed in her report for
Commission consideration.
Chair Votel asked for comments from the
public. He noted that an email was received by the Planner from the
Tams, 5940 Zehnder Road, and they supported the staff recommendation to
lessen the side yard setback variance since it would directly impact
their property.
Gary Sommerland stated that one of his neighbors, residing in Inver
Grove Heights, is conducting a business with dump trucks parked on the
property and his concern relates to whether or not the applicant plans
to conduct a business at this location. He also noted that Mr. Nayes has
completed substantial improvements to the property and that all of the
lots in the area do not meet the acreage requirements and all have
received variances. He explained his main concern is that the property
does not become commercial and agreed that maybe the garage could be
redesigned to lessen the side yard setback impact on the neighbors.
Jim Nayes advised that although he does landscaping, he has no large
equipment and he has no plans for commercial use of the property.
Mr. Sommerland noted that one of his neighbors placed a boat in the
front yard and asked Mayor Park if a formal written complaint is
necessary to have the boat removed. Mayor Park suggested a written
complaint be sent to her and she would forward it staff for enforcement
purposes. She explained that staff would review the matter to determine
if the property owner is in violation of the City Ordinances.
Chair Votel stated he shares Mr. Sommerland’s concerns relating to City
Code violations throughout the City.
Commissioner McCue noted that the placement of the new garage is
actually farther away from the property line and she questioned how
staff would propose to relocate the garage structure. She also
questioned if landscaping would be required to lessen the impact to the
neighboring property.
Ms. Shives stated that the applicant could eliminate the covered area
and move the structure closer to the existing home or lessen the length
of the walkway area. She further advised that the Commission has the
option to require landscaping.
Commissioner Svendsen indicated that would only provide a few additional
feet and he pointed out that the applicant is lessening the
non-conforming use with the new structure.
Commissioner McCue questioned if the applicant agrees with 10-foot
setback requirement for the septic system. Mr. Nayes agreed and stated
he believed the setback was 10-feet.
Chair Votel asked the applicant if he
would be opposed to an additional condition to relocate the garage an
additional 5-feet to the north to lessen the variance request. Mr. Nayes
stated he was not opposed to the relocation as long as he can still
maintain access to the septic system for maintenance.
The Chair asked if there were any further comments and there was no
response.
Chair Votel moved to recommended approval of the following, based on
the findings of fact as and subject to conditions as listed:
Decision No. 1, The 13-foot front yard
setback variance as requested;
Decision No. 2, The 74-foot variance from the building setback from the
Ordinary High Water Mark of Horseshoe Lake;
Decision No. 3, A reduced side yard setback variance of 38-feet, with
two conditions: 1) that the applicant move the garage placement an
additional 5-feet to the north in order to achieve the 33-foot setback;
and, 2) that additional screening be placed along the entire length of
the garage to lessen the impact to the adjacent neighbors, based on the
fact that the proposed construction is clearly an improvement to the
property and that the replacement of the garage increases the setback
for a non-conforming use.
Seconded by Commissioner McCue.
Planner Shives suggested that the 33-foot
setback be listed under Decision No. 3 and that the recommendation for
additional screening, as well as the number of plantings, be added as
Decision No. 4.
Chair Votel and Commissioner McCue agreed to the amendments to the
motion as proposed by the Planner.
Chair Votel suggested 8 to 10 Conifers be placed along the property line
for screening purposes. Mr. Nayes indicated that Japanese Upright Yews
may be the only plantings that would work in the area due to the narrow
space. He reiterated that he has no objection to the reduced setback as
long as he is able to access his septic system for maintenance.
Chair Votel called for a vote and the motion as amended carried.
Chair Votel asked if there were further comments and there was no
response.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Chair Votel expressed concern that the applicants do not
appear to understand the fact that the Council has final determination
on the planning applications. He pointed out that recently the
applicants have begun their projects prior to receiving approval from
the Council and that this puts the consulting staff in an awkward
position when they attempt to enforce regulations. He noted there are
two types of issues; one being the soft issues relating to such items as
lighting and landscaping, and the other being the hard issues such as
construction, grading and making improvements without notifying the
City. He indicated that the application process should be clarified by
the consultants and possibly in the newsletter to inform property owners
that they cannot begin projects prior to receiving Council approval. He
suggested a joint meeting with Council and Planning Commission be
scheduled to discuss these issues.
Mayor Park pointed out that last year
Council revised the deadlines for submission of applications as
recommended by the Commission and she agreed that a joint meeting would
be in order.
Mr. Nayes pointed out that he was not aware of the fact that he could
not begin until a Council decision was received this evening; he asked
if a letter would be sent to him that outlines the action taken this
evening. Ms. Shives responded yes.
After discussion, the Mayor and the Commission agreed that a joint study
meeting with Council and the Planning Commission should be scheduled to
discuss the application process, follow through by staff and listing
more specific direction to the applicants.
Chair Votel asked if there were any further items for discussion and
there was no response.
V.
ADJOURN: Chair Votel moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.,
seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried.
Catherine Iago, City
Clerk
BACK to News