SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – APRIL 15, 2009

7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

-DRAFT-

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen, JoAnn Wahlstrom, and Tom Schlehuber.

City Planner:  Laurie Smith           
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
  and members of the general public.

Commissioner Tom Votel was absent.

I.    CALL TO ORDER:         Chair Andrea McCue opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. and asked staff and Commissioners to introduce themselves to the public.   

II.  MINUTES:           Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the September 17, 2008 minutes and there was no response.

     
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to approve the September 17, 2008 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried.  4-0

III. Public Hearing:  Site & Building Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Construction of an Accessory Building at 336 Salem Church Road.

Chair McCue introduced the agenda item and asked the Planner to review her report.

Planner Smith explained that the applicant is requesting approval to allow a detached accessory building located on their property which consists of approximately 2.5 acres. She stated the proposed accessory building will be located in the rear yard to the southwest of the existing home. She noted that the applicant has an in-ground swimming pool within the rear yard of their property, which is considered an accessory structure, and therefore, the City Zoning Ordinance requires approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of more than one accessory structure on the property.

The Planner explained that the existing home complies with setback requirements from all property lines and the existing pool is located in the rear yard south of the house and is enclosed by a fence. She stated the septic drainfield serving the property is located within the rear yard south of the home and no changes to the house or existing septic area are proposed. The Planner advised that all existing and proposed lot requirements and setback are compliant with the R-1 District standards.

Planner Smith explained that private garages are permitted accessory uses in the R-1 District provided they are used for the storage of domestic supplies and equipment, located in the rear yard and do not exceed 1,000 sq. ft. in area and 16 ft. in height. She stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 988 sq. ft. detached garage in the rear yard to the southwest of the existing house. She advised the plans indicate that the proposed building meets setback requirements from all property lines. She stated the building will be 15 ft, 10-1/2 inches in height with a 12/7 roof pitch; the exterior will be constructed of primarily brick with additional accents and asphalt shingles. She noted the proposed garage’s exterior will match the exterior of the house and three (3) overhead garage doors are proposed along the front elevation. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to extend the existing driveway to the south in order to connect the proposed garage with the existing driveway.

The Planner stated that the applicant has planted seven (7) 15-ft. high Black Hills Spruce trees to the west of the proposed garage location to provide screening of the garage from adjacent properties; no additional landscaping to the south and east are planned. She noted that existing trees along the south property line are primarily deciduous and may not provide adequate screening of the proposed garage.  She explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that accessory buildings shall be screened from neighboring properties and positioning of any such building shall minimize the impact on abutting properties.

Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant additional trees to provide screening of the garage structure from the adjacent properties to the south; she suggested evergreen trees that are at least four (4) feet tall.

Planner Smith advised that the applicant is proposing to add four (4) recessed lights in the soffit of the building, above the overhead garage doors; the proposed lighting is for safety and security purposes and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on adjacent properties.|

The Planner referred the Commission to the site and building plan review criteria listed in her report dated March 10, 2009 and advised that the application meets all the criteria as listed in the report. She also reviewed the factors listed in the Zoning Ordinance for consideration and review criteria for an application for a Conditional Use Permit that the Commission should consider in conjunction with their review.

The Planner explained that the proposed applicant is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance criteria and is not explained to have any negative impacts to natural resources or surrounding properties. Staff recommends approval of the proposed site and building plans and the conditional use permit, subject to the five (5) conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated March 10, 2009.

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her review and opened the public hearing to receive comments.

Gerald Moriarity and Patricia Penovich were present. Mr. Moriarity explained that they are adjacent neighbors to the west and that they have no objection to the proposed structure. He pointed out that the size of the structure will be similar to a commercial auto repair garage and that it will be located only 80 ft. from his existing garage. He expressed concern that the existing trees will not provide sufficient screening from his property and suggested that Mr. Peters plant four (4) additional evergreens in between the existing trees to provide screening in the visual gaps and also plant an additional tree at each end of the existing tree line. Mr. Moriarity offered to share the cost of planting these trees with the applicant. He also suggested that the trees be placed on the Peters property versus his side of the fence.

Chair McCue asked if Mr. Moriarity wished to see trees lining the entire length of the garage structure adjacent to his property. Mr. Moriarty drew a picture of the suggested plantings for Commission review.

Gordon Peters was present and stated he would agree to planting the additional trees, however; he pointed out that due to the elevation difference on his property in the area between the existing trees, the additional trees may not provide adequate screening since the property slopes downward. He noted that the existing trees were planted on the level portion of his property.

Chair McCue referred to a letter received from the Commers, Moriarity/Penovich and Votel families and asked if the applicant had considered installing a berm as suggested in the letter. Commissioner Svendsen asked the applicant which he would prefer to do, install a berm or additional trees.

Mr. Peters stated he is willing to work with Mr. Moriarity to resolve the matter, but noted that due to the slope on his property a berm may not be as effective in screening the structure as the trees. He commented that if he trims the trees on an annual basis they will grow wider. He also noted that he had planted some lilac bushes near the fence on the Moriarity property. He suggested a mixture of plantings on both properties may work to provide screening.

Mr. Moriarity suggested he could work with Mr. Peters to resolve the issue and asked if it had to be decided this evening. Commissioner Wahlstrom explained that the Commission should include a recommendation to resolve the matter this evening.

Mr. Moriarity stated he prefers to have the additional trees planted in between and at each end of the existing tree line.

Chair McCue asked if berming would also help to provide screening and if the City Engineer would have to review the matter. 

Mr. Peters agreed with planting the trees; he stated that in his opinion a berm would be ineffective.

      Planner Smith explained that the City Engineer would have to review the berm since there are certain design requirements.

Chair McCue referred to the Zoning Code which requires that the structure must be screening from adjacent properties; she noted that screening must also be provided to the Johnson property to the south of this parcel.

Mr. Peters stated he would comply with Mr. Moriarity’s suggested placement of the additional trees. He further agreed that he would provide screening for the Johnson property to the south and indicated that the only way screening would be effective in this area would be to place the trees closer to the east side of the garage due to the sight distance between the properties.

In discussion, the Commission concurred that placing the trees closer to the garage would be more effective.

Mr. Moriarity suggested that slightly more mature trees would be more effective and offered to share the cost of the trees with Mr. Peters.

After further discussion, it was determined that 12 additional trees would be placed between the Moriarity and Peters property.  The Commission and Mr. Peters agreed that four (4) trees would also be placed next the garage to screen the structure from the Johnson property.

Chair McCue pointed out that the City Engineer mentioned the installation of a rain garden downstream from the new structure to infiltrate runoff from impervious surfaces. She questioned if the City Engineer would be required to calculate the amount of runoff prior to the applicant installing the rain garden.

Mr. Peters suggested that he could increase the existing rain garden by 25 percent since he is only adding 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface; be noted that the existing rain garden works well on his property.

Planner Smith pointed out that the Engineer recommends the rain garden be placed downstream from the structure.

Commissioner Schlehuber commented that expanding the existing rain garden may not take care of the runoff.

Mr. Peters pointed out that the runoff goes through 140 ft. of grass and woods before it reaches the pond. Mr. Schlehuber agreed that is a large distance to travel before reaching the pond.

Chair McCue commented that the 25 percent increase in the existing rain garden may cover the runoff from the structure and the driveway.

Mr. Peters noted that placing an additional rain garden to the south would not be effective, but he agreed to increase the existing rain garden by 25 percent for the additional runoff.

Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the City Engineer was merely suggesting the applicant consider installation of the additional rain garden and did not recommend it be a condition of approval. He noted that the rain garden would benefit the property owner.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments.

Mr. Moriarity stated he had no comment on Mr. Votel’s letter.

Mr. Peters asked how Mr. Votel would be affected by the proposal. Chair McCue stated Mr. Votel was concerned about noise; she asked if there was a noise issue.
Mr. Peters explained that he has a standby generator on the property that can be heard for approximately 15 minutes each Monday afternoon; he indicated that may be the noise issue.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if Mr. Moriarity and Ms.Penovich can hear the generator and both responded yes.

Mr. Peters stated that he travels a lot and he installed the generator because it is not uncommon to lose power in the area on occasion.

      Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments.

Mr. Peters stated he would be willing to do whatever it takes to screen the structure from the adjacent parcels of land and will continue to work with the neighbors to insure they are pleased with the results. 

Mr. Moriarity commented that he and Mr. Peters get along well and they would work together to resolve any issues.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and hearing no response she closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.

There was discussion regarding how to word and where to place the condition relating to the installation of the additional screening for the two adjacent properties and the sizes of the trees to be installed.

After discussion, Planner Smith recommended the following:

Condition No. 3 be amended to read as follows:

“ Four (4) 8-ft. tall Coniferous trees shall be planted along the southeast building elevation and twelve (12) 14 ft. Coniferous trees shall be planted along the west property line to provide adequate screening of the structure from adjacent properties, subject to staff approval”.

Condition No. 6 read as follows:

”The applicant shall increase the size of the existing rain garden by 25 percent to infiltrate runoff from the additional impervious surfaces, subject to staff approval.”

Chair McCue asked if there was any further discussion.

Mr. Peters stated that due to the location of the plantings, he would install the trees prior to beginning construction of the project. 

Chair McCue reviewed the conditions with the applicant and Mr. Peters agreed with the conditions as outlined.

Commission Svendsen moved to recommend approval of the following:

A Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of more than one accessory structure based on a finding that the request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the request will be compatible with surrounding land uses, and;

The site and building plans for the installation of 988 sq. ft. accessory building, subject to the conditions as listed in the Planner’s report and as above-amended, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. 4-0

VI. OLD/NEW BUSINESS:    

A.  Adopt Resolution Setting 2009 Planning Commission Dates:  Planner Smith stated that the Commission annually adopts a resolution setting the Planning Commission Dates for the year.

Commissioner Svendsen stated he will be out-of-town for the September meeting and Commissioner Wahlstrom stated she is unable to attend the August meeting and might not be at the June meeting.

Commissioner Svendsen moved to recommend adoption of Resolution 90-01 titled: Resolution Setting the Dates for the Planning Commission Meetings for the Year 2009, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom, and carried. 4-0

B.   Discuss Setting Joint Workshop Meeting with City Council/Planning Commission:            Planner Smith explained that Council had recommended scheduling a joint workshop meeting with the Commission; she asked the Commission to provide dates that they would be available to attend the meeting. She noted that Council had suggested the meeting be held prior to either a regular Commission or Council meeting.

After a brief discussion, Planner Smith suggested May 13 or prior to the Commission or Council meeting in June. She offered to discuss the issue with Council and send an email to Commissioners.  

Chair McCue asked the Commissioners if they had any issues they wished to address with Council. 

Chair McCue stated she wished to raise the issue of follow-thru on building projects to insure they are done correctly and to adopt penalties if they are not done in a timely manner or correctly. Commissioner Wahlstrom recalled that the Building Inspector was directed to provide information on this matter and penalties such as holding money in escrow until the project has been completed. Chair McCue agreed that the inspector was to provide the information; however; she wished to have the matter resolved in a timely manner.

Commissioner Schlehuber suggested that it be a pre-requisite for any major building, landscaping or remodeling project to have the property researched for invasive plants; he indicated that it would be appropriate to insure that the property is free of Buckthorn prior to beginning construction. He commented that he agrees with the Forester that Buckthorn will never be totally eradicated; however, he believes it can be controlled. Commissioner Wahlstrom agreed and suggested it including Burdock also. 

Chair McCue asked if there were any further suggestions and there was no response.

Planner Smith stated that the City Attorney had compiled an informational packet for each Commissioner from the League of Minnesota Cities relating to Commission duties and statutory regulations; she distributed the packets.

Chair McCue asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

V.  ADJOURN:  Commissioner Svendsen moved, to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. 4-0

      Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk