SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
– OCTOBER 17, 2007
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair Eberhard
Bulach
Commissioners:
Andrea McCue, Tom Votel, Arnulf Svendsen and Joanne Wahlstrom.
City Planner:
Laurie Smith
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and Members of the General Public.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Bulach opened the meeting at 7:00
p.m.
II.
APPROVE AGENDA: Chair Bulach if there were any comments or
corrections to the June 20, 2007 Commission minutes as presented and
there was no response.
Commissioner Svendsen moved to approve the June 20, 2007 Planning
Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and
carried. 5-0.
III.A.
Public Hearing: Consideration of Site & Building Plan Review/Conditional
Use Permit/Variance for
Construction of a New Home on a Non-Conforming Lot
of Record located at 120 Salem Church Road,
Richard and Tracy Noble.
Chair Bulach opened the public hearing to
consider the request for a Site and Building Plan Review, a Conditional
use Permit and a Variance for construction of a new home on a
non-conforming lot of record at 120 Salem Church Road. He explained the
procedures for conducting the public hearing and asked the Planner to
describe the request.
Planner Smith explained that the JMS Custom Homes LLC, on behalf of the
property owners are requesting approval of site and building plans to
allow construction of a new home on an existing non-conforming lot of
record. She stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential
and is not located within the Aircraft Noise Abatement zone or the
Shoreland Overlay District. She advised the site currently contains a
single family home and a detached garage and the locations of the
buildings do not comply with required setbacks, thus rendering them
non-conforming. She noted the lot contains 2.52 gross acres, but after
accounting for the Salem Church Road right-of-way and slopes in excess
of 12 percent, the lot is less than the required 2.5 acres. She
explained the applicant wishes to tear down the existing structures and
construct a new home with an attached garage on the site; the request
requires approval of a CUP to allow for redevelopment of a substandard
lot.
The Planner stated that the applicant is also requesting approval of a
50-foot variance from the side yard setback, along Salem Church Road,
for construction of the new home. She noted that the although the home
accesses off of Salem Church Road along the north lot line, the front
lot line is actually the east lot line; she explained that based on the
Zoning Ordinance definition of a front lot line, the boundary abutting a
public right-of-way or private access road having the least width is
considered the front lot line. She stated that the proposed new home is
consistent with the front, south side and rear setbacks; however, the
proposed home does not meet the required side yard setback for the north
side and thus the applicant is requesting a variance from both side
setbacks. She further explained that the proposed home is consistent
with the lot coverage and height requirements; the height distance over
grade being 29.84 ft.
Commissioner Votel questioned the current setbacks on the existing home
location. Planner Smith stated the existing home is 27 ft. from the
Salem Church Road right-of-way.
The Planner reviewed the building materials and lighting plan for the
proposed new home. She explained that the landscape plan shows15 trees
would be removed to accommodate the new home and that the City Forester
has reviewed the tree removal plan and finds no issue with the proposal;
she noted that the applicant proposes to add a significant number of
trees to the site, 27, along with other plantings as shown on the
landscape plan. She also advised that the site will be landscaped using
natural stone retaining walls and outcroppings to provide adequate
screening from adjacent properties. She stated that the plan meets the
ordinance criteria.
Commissioner Votel asked if most of the tree removal would occur to the
south and west of the existing home location. The applicant responded
yes.
Planner Smith stated that staff has found the proposal meets the Site
and Building Plan Review Criteria and also the Conditional Use Permit
criteria for a substandard lot, as outlined in her report dated October
10, 2007. She stated the Variance request does not violate the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages redevelopment efforts of
substandard and/or non-conforming buildings and properties. She advised
that staff found the identifiable hardship based on the shape of the lot
and the lot’s location adjacent to two roadway right-of-ways which
reduces the buildable area of the lot to an unreasonable amount for
construction of a new home. Staff also suggests that the hardship would
be due to the narrowness of the lot and the insufficient buildable area
when all required setbacks are applied. She stated that literal
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district, due to
the narrowness of the lot and granting the variance would not create an
inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses since the existing and
proposed topography and vegetation will adequately screen the home from
adjacent lots.
Staff recommends approval of the requests, subject to the conditions as
listed in the Planner’s report dated October 10, 2007.
The Planner noted that the City Septic Inspector had reviewed the design
for the septic system and found it to be in compliance with the
regulations; she noted there were 12 recommendations listed in the
inspector’s report dated October 10, 2007.
Planner Smith also reviewed the Engineer’s report dated October 10, 2007
and noted that following recommendations:
The existing structure be reviewed and certified for hazardous materials
and that all materials identified must be removed and disposed of
according to current requirements.
The existing well and septic tanks must be property abandoned.
Due to the fact the proposed site work
disturbs more than an acre an NPDES Permit for grading is required.
The proposed well site is located
adjacent to the driveway and is beyond the setback limits from the
septic drain field; the well site is located within the drainage swale
from the driveway and needs to be located so that drainage is away from
the well site.
Any retaining walls over 42 inches in height must be certified by a
structural or soils engineer.
Chair Bulach noted the Engineer’s
recommendation that no vehicles shall be parked on Salem Church Road
during construction and that all vehicles and materials shall be within
the limits of the applicant’s property. He asked if the applicant was
aware of this recommendation.
Andy Porter of JMS Custom Homes stated he was aware of the
recommendation. He explained that he worked with the City Planner to
design the home on the lot and attempted to meet the City criteria based
on the narrowness of the lot. He stated that he believes the home is
sited in the best location on the lot.
Chair Bulach asked when applicant proposes to start construction of the
home due to the demolition.
Mr. Porter advised that his company prides itself on moving quickly and
that normally construction of home is accomplished within six months
from the start date; he indicated that as soon as the demolition occurs
and a building permit is issued he plans to begin construction.
Chair Bulach asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Steven Bulach explained that he is an adjacent neighbor and that he
believes the home will fit well in to the neighborhood. He stated he
does not believe the location of the home will disturb his privacy and
he supports the variance request based on the fact that the new home
would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Chair Bulach noted that on Exhibit E-3 the plan shows drainage going
towards the home and asked if this was an error. Mr. Porter stated it is
an error and he would correct the drawing.
Commissioner Votel asked the Planner if the City Engineer had suggested
some type of remedy for the drainage swale location as discussed in his
report or if a condition should be attached to require this be
clarified.
Planner Smith explained she is unsure of the Engineer’s recommendation
but that she would attempt to clarify his intent prior to Council
review. She noted that the applicant works closely with staff on such
issues when an application is made for the building permit.
Commission Votel explained that he had received an email from a resident
objecting to the variance request and that he had forwarded the
information to the Planner. He stated he asked the Planner to compile a
map showing contiguous properties and the setback location of the homes
on these parcels which would show other variances in this area; he
thanked the Planner for the map she distributed. He pointed out that
based on the diagram he would support the variance request since other
homes in the area had more options for building location. He indicated
that he believed it would be helpful for the Commission to see the
setbacks for other homes in the area that did not have to deal with
setbacks from two roadways. He stated he believes the hardship is
clearly evident and that one of the neighbors most affected by the
variance supports the request.
Planner Smith agreed and noted that other properties front on Salem
Church Road have more acreage than the applicant’s lot. She explained
she tried to find information on other variances in the area, however,
since her firm was not serving the City in earlier years, it was
difficult to find information.
Commissioner Svendsen asked if the 50 foot variance on the north side of
the home was from the base of the foundation or to the covered porch.
The planner explained that the porch is part of the structure and
therefore the measurement was from the porch.
Chair Bulach asked if the swimming pool was considered as part of the
application.
Andy Porter indicated that the applicant had not determined if the pool
would be installed due to budgetary considerations and therefore
approval with or without the pool would be fine.
Planner Smith explained it was an option however she noted the applicant
would still need to obtain a permit for the pool. She advised that if
approval is granted with the pool in its present location the applicant
would not have to revise the plan or return for further approval.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the pool could be approved without
specifications. Planner Smith explained that the pool fits in as part of
a Major Site Plan review and therefore either way the plan is approved,
staff believes the pool location would not present any issues.
Chair Bulach asked if there would be any accessory buildings for the
pool. Mr. Porter responded no.
Commissioner Svendsen asked how the applicant would prefer to proceed
with the approval.
Commissioner Votel indicated it would be preferable to include the pool
as part of the approval.
Chair Bulach pointed out that if the pool is not constructed within two
years the applicant would need to reapply.
After discussion the Commission concurred that it would be appropriate
to include the pool aas part of the application.
Commissioner McCue asked if the pool location would affect the watershed
and if the City Engineer had reviewed the pool as part of the grading
plan. She noted that when the Commission granted approval of another
building plan with a pool a rain garden was included as part of the
requirements. She indicated she would prefer to require a rain garden on
the site as suggested by the City Engineer.
Mr. Porter explained that he read the recommendation of the engineer and
he believes it is a good idea to capture drainage; he stated he has no
objections to installing a rain garden.
Planner Smith explained that the City Engineer did review the drainage
plan which included the pool. She pointed out that the Engineer’s report
noted the total imperious surface area of the lot does not exceed
requirements for the installation of storm water management facilities
and that he encouraged the applicant to construct a rain garden or small
ponding area for collection of runoff from the driveway. She stated she
could clarify the matter with the City Engineer.
Chair Bulach asked for further comments
and there was no response. The public hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Votel moved, seconded by
Commissioner Wahlstrom, to recommend approval of the following requests
for property located at 120 Salem Church Road:
1) A Conditional Use Permit to allow the redevelopment of a
non-conforming lot of record known as 120 Salem Church Road based on the
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.
2) A 50-foot Variance to allow the construction of a new home 50 feet
from the side yard property (right-of-way) line abutting Salem Church
Road based on a finding that non-economic hardship has been
demonstrated, as outlined in the Planner’s Report dated October 10,
2007.
3) Site and Building Plans to permit the construction of a new home at
120 Salem Church Road, subject to the eight (8) conditions as listed in
the Planner’s Report dated October 10, 2007.
and further recommended, that the above-listed approvals are subject to
the Planner’s confirming with the City Engineer the issues related to
the proposed drainage swale and also confirmation that the swimming pool
was reviewed as part of the plans.
In discussion Commissioner McCue stated she preferred to include the
rain garden as part of the conditions.
Motion carried unanimously. 5-0
Planner Smith advised this
matter would be heard before Council at their meeting on November 6 and
advised the applicant that the meeting would not begin until 8:00 p.m.
due to the election.
IV. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS
- November Meeting Date& Comprehensive Plan Update Open House:
Planner Smith explained that the regular planning meeting in
November is scheduled on the Wednesday prior to the Thanksgiving
Holiday; she suggested an alternate date be selected. She also noted
that an Open House to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Update should be
scheduled in November or December since she would be on maternity leave
in January, 2008.
Chair Bulach asked if there were any applications submitted for that
meeting; Planner Smith responded no, but explained that Council had
requested the Commission conduct a public hearing regarding the proposed
ordinance amendment relating to requiring only escrow accounts and
removing the letter of credit option from the City Code.
Commission concurred to schedule the Open House for the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment at 7:00 p.m. on November 28, 2007 and the regular
Planning Commission meeting would be rescheduled to the same date at
6:30 p.m.
Chair Bulach explained that in his opinion the City regulations should
designate a reference point on the property from where the building
height is measured to insure that structures do not exceed the 30 ft.
height requirement. He suggested that the architect should designate a
reference point on the property and questioned if anyone ever checks to
insure that structures do not exceed the height requirement.
Planner Smith explained that the height measurement is taken from the
first floor elevation to the peak of the roof of the structure.
Commissioner Votel asked if the measurements are taken during pre and
post construction. He suggested the structure should meet the 30 foot
requirement from the existing grade.
Planner Smith explained the calculation is from where the actual first
floor elevation is located to the peak of the roof.
Chair Bulach pointed out that landscape plans are not always correct and
the first floor elevation could change.
The Planner explained that the plan denotes the first floor elevation
and that does not change.
Chair Bulach stated that when a bridge is constructed the surveyor has a
reference point.
Commissioner Svendsen suggested that the Commission may wish to pose the
question to the City Engineer as to whether or not a reference point
would be appropriate.
Chair Bulach suggested that the contractor would mark a reference point
on the site prior to construction. Commissioner Votel agreed that once
the home is completed the reference point would not change.
Planner Smith suggested that she would discuss the issue with Engineer
Hanson and have him contact Chair Bulach. She reiterated that the first
floor elevation is shown on the plan and does not change.
Commissioner Votel noted that the landscape plan for his neighbor’s home
had changed and now includes an entire yard of grass when it was
supposed to be left natural; he indicated he would have strongly urged
berming of the property if he had known the neighbor was installing
grass and golf tees.
Commissioner McCue indicated that requiring a larger escrow amount when
making application for new home construction may discourage deviating
from the plan.
Planner Smith indicated the major problem with plan deviation is
enforcement and that staff would need support from Commission and
Council to proceed with enforcement.
Commissioner Wahlstrom commented that other communities would make the
residents remove items that were not part of the original plan.
Chair Bulach asked how the Commission would assist with inspections to
insure that the plans are not changed.
Commissioner McCue suggested that the Commission discuss the inspection
process with Russ Wahl.
Commissioner Votel commented that the Commission could recommend to
Council to review the enforcement issue and provide better enforcement.
Planner Smith explained that an inspection is completed prior to issuing
a Certificate of Occupancy, but no measurements are taken; she indicated
that Council should determine to what extent they wish to have staff
scrutinize each site.
Commissioner Votel also noted that his neighbor’s pool shifted
substantially north and closer to his property; he believes there are
too many “loose ends” in the inspection process. He commented that he
believes the City needs to decide to aggressively pursue the violations.
Planner Smith pointed out that the City would have to hire a surveyor to
verify the location of structures and pools.
Commissioner McCue pointed out that it should be the homeowner’s
responsibility to verify that the locations are correct as shown on the
plans and approved by the City.
Planner Smith stated that normally staff can determine if the plan is
similar to the one approved, however; staff cannot determine if the
locations are surveyed properly.
There was resolution or further discussion on the matter.
Chair Bulach asked if there were any further items for business and
there was no response.
V.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McCue moved, to adjourn the meeting at
8:05 p.m, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. 5-0
Catherine Iago, City Clerk
BACK to
News