- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – April 17, 2013

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

Attendants:

Chair: Arnulf Svendsen

Commissioners: Tom Schlehuber, Tom Hendrickson and Gordon Peters

City Planner: Michelle Barness

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

Commissioner Andrea McCue was absent.

1.  CALL TO ORDER: Chair Svendsen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2.  ADOPT AGENDA: Chair Svendsen asked if there were any additions to the agenda and there was no response.

Chair Svendsen moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (4-0)

3.  APPROVE MINUTES MARCH 20, 2013: Chair Svendsen asked if there were any additions or corrections to the

March 20, 2013 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to approve the March 20, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (4-0)

4.  PUBLIC HEARING; Ordinance Amendment Section 1218.01.C Pertaining to Solid Wall Fences: Chair Svendsen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and explained that staff would provide an overview of the proposed amendment and then comments from the public would be heard.  He asked that persons speaking provide their name and address for the record.

Planner Barness stated that the discussion of solid wall fences arose from a recent review of an application for a variance; the applicants had applied for a variance to have a solid wall fence in their design, and had found it difficult to demonstrate “practical difficulties” as a result of deviation from architectural standards. She advised that at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners determined that it may be appropriate to allow solid wall fences based on limited height that would not negatively impact neighboring properties.  She explained that the current ordinance prohibits solid wall fences except under unique circumstances where practical difficulties can be shown to justify a variance.

The Planner reviewed the proposed amendment to Section 1219.01.C, Section 1.3. and advised that the amended language would allow freestanding solid fences up to three (3) feet in height within the buildable area of a lot, but shall not exceed two hundred (200) total linear feet on a property and if they exceed three (3) feet in height, are prohibited.

Commissioner Hendrickson questioned the difference between a landscape retaining wall and when does a fence become a wall.

The Planner explained that retaining walls are addressed in the zoning ordinance and that the upcoming application proposes a solid wall fence in addition to the retaining wall.

Commissioner Hendrickson stated that in his opinion the proposed application wall falls under landscaping rather than a solid wall fence.

Commissioner Peters noted that the proposed language limits the length of the fence and questioned the logic behind limiting the freestanding solid fence to 200 linear feet.

The Planner explained that she incorporated that language based on the other fence conditions listed in the code and that she was unsure how the number was determined.

Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that property owners could place a split rail fence on their property and there is no restriction on the length.

Commissioner Schlehuber commented that a split rail fence is different because it is not a solid wall fence. Commissioner Peters asked if this ordinance would apply to existing fences within the City and what would happen if a

resident wished to add on to an existing fence.

The Planner indicated that existing fences would be “grandfathered” in.

Commissioner Hendrickson stated his opinion that the proposed fence is more architectural and that it is wrong to legislate architectural or landscaping features of this nature.

Commissioner Peters pointed out that a property owner could place a fence on a retaining wall as was done in the application previously considered by the Commission where the applicant placed a retaining wall around the pool area with a seating area placed on top of the wall.

The Planner explained that was the first time this type of request had come before the City and in the future that type of wall would most likely be considered as a solid wall fence.

Commissioner Peters questioned what the linear footage restriction was based on and commented that it is not much length for a solid wall fence.

Planner Barness sated she was unsure how the linear footage restriction was determined. She explained that the upcoming application does not exceed the linear footage restriction.

Commissioner Hendrickson stated he does not object to the height, but he does object to restricting the length of the fence. He suggested that the Commission may wish to table the proposed amendment until staff researches the rationale for limiting the length of the fence or the Commission could eliminate the reference to the length in the amendment.

Adina Overbee, 425 Salem Church Road, commented that in her opinion 200 linear feet is extremely long.

Commissioner Peters pointed out that lots within the City are 2.5 acres and have extremely long lot lines; therefore, in his opinion 200 linear feet is not long.

The Planner noted that the same length applies to regular fences such as 50% solid matter fences.

Jason Aune, Landscape Architect for the Schacker’s, stated that both the retaining wall and solid wall fences proposed in the application are on the interior portion of the lot at 393 Salem Church Road and that the solid wall fence is approximately one (1) foot higher than the retaining wall.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that in his opinion this is a landscape feature, not a solid wall fence.

Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further comments from the public and hearing no response, closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to approve the Ordinance Amendment with removal of the language that limits the length of fences to two hundred linear feet under Items. 1 and 2 in Section 1, seconded by Commissioner Peters.

In discussion, Commissioner Schlehuber stated he does not favor striking the length restriction and indicated that there must be some rationale for placing a restriction in the ordinance. He advised he would prefer to table the matter until staff has had an opportunity to review why the length restriction was included. He commented that it would be cost prohibitive to build a long fence.

Commissioner Hendrickson stated he would withdraw the motion to allow staff to research the length restriction and Commission Peters agreed to withdraw the second.

Planner Barness stated she would research how the length restriction was originally placed in the ordinance and indicated that the Commission could also consider including a more liberal number for the length as an option.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to table the proposed ordinance amendment to allow staff to research the length restriction, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson.

In discussion, Commissioner Peters asked how it would affect the upcoming application review and Commission

Hendrickson indicated it could delay the request for a month.

Chair Svendsen asked if there was further discussion and, hearing none, called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried. (4-0)

5.  Major Site and Building Plan Review, 393 Salem Church Road, Schacker; Planner Barness referred to her report dated April 10, 2013 and explained the applicants are planning to remove an existing home and construct a new home and garage at 393 Salem Church Road, which requires review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council.  She stated the applicants would demolish the existing home and rebuild a new home at a higher elevation on the site. The building footprint of the existing home is approximately1,858 sq. ft., including the attached garage and the proposed two story home would be approximately 4,600 sq. ft. She advised that the new home would include an attached garage, courtyard terrace, and an extended driveway. She noted that the proposed new home meets the R-1 Single Family District Standards and the Shoreland Overlay District Standards. The new home also meets the building height and lot area, width and building area coverage requirements. The Shoreland Overlay District limits the impervious surface coverage of lots to not exceed 30% in lot area; the existing home and drive result in approximately 4% coverage and the new home and garage will result in approximately 10% impervious surface coverage.

The Planner reviewed the design elements as listed in her report and explained that the proposed elevation for the home is approximately 25 ft., which is below the 30 ft. height requirement; she noted that the applicants were trying to work with the existing topography on the site and positioned the home into the natural slope on the lot. The building materials of stucco and siding, reinforced concrete block and asphalt shingles all meet the current zoning requirements.

Commissioner Peters asked if the foundation would be CMU or poured concrete forms. The project architect responded that CMU is proposed for the foundation.

The Planner advised that currently there is a substantial amount of tree coverage that screens the home from the lake and that the forty-six trees are proposed to be removed to construct the new home and driveway; she noted that a significant amount of trees will remain on site and that the applicant proposed to plant 54 trees. The City Forester reviewed the tree removal and landscaping plants and found that appropriate trees are being removed and agreed the trees to be planted will help diversify the woodlands in the area. He further indicated that the applicants have provided adequate protection for the trees to be conserved.  She explained that the Forester requested that any proposed trees be installed prior to the project undergoing final site inspections.

Planner Barness stated that the extended portion of the driveway would be decreased in size to minimize impact on neighboring properties, but that it would meet standards to accommodate emergency vehicle access.

The Planner advised that the lighting identified would be hooded or recessed and meets the standards as outlined in the zoning ordinance.

Planner Barness explained that the construction of the new home would requires extensive re-grading of the site, in addition to demolition of the existing home and surrounding elements. She stated that the City Engineer reviewed the grading, drainage, erosion control plans and the retaining wall installation. She advised that the applicants are proposing to install erosion control silt fencing on the north, south, and west areas of the site. She stated that the City Engineer

requested that additional erosion control fencing be placed around the existing septic system. She noted that the applicants do not propose to demolish the existing septic system and advised that the City Engineer requested the applicants meet all

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements for abandonment of the existing septic system. The City

Engineer also requested that the applicants construct a rock entrance of approximately 50 ft. in length and 20-50 feet wide

at the point where the contractor is leaving the paved surface and entering an exposed dirt area for the entire construction period. The applicants provided revised site plans illustrating the requested rock entrance, in addition to expanded areas of erosion control fencing around proposed septic system areas, and existing and proposed wells.

Commissioner Peters pointed out that the silt fence appears to run through the soil stockpile area.  Commissioner

Hendrickson commented that it actually does not and referred to the actual line for the silt fencing as shown on the plan.

The Planner explained that the applicants are actually taking strides to improve the impervious surface by installing native plants on the site. She advised that the City Engineer had also requested additional information on infiltration and the applicants had provided this information to him; therefore, the Engineer recommends approval of the plans based on the applicants providing the requested information.

Planner Barness explained that the City Forester visited the site and reviewed the trees to be removed. She stated that Forester found that many of the trees to be removed were Ash trees and agreed to their removal due to the impending Emerald Ash Borer infestation.  She referred to the Landscape Plan and showed areas where trees would be removed, areas where trees would remain, and areas where planting would occur. She stated that detailed species of trees are listed on the plan along with a listing of shrubs and perennials to be planted.

The Planner identified the areas where the applicants are proposing a combination of freestanding stone walls and also the retaining walls and planting beds. She advised that the two-foot tall stacked stone wall is proposed around the perimeter of the courtyard adjacent to the east side of the new home. The courtyard wall extends for a length of approximately 60 ft.. A

4-ft. tall stepped stone wall with a freestanding dry stack gravity wall section is proposed to the east of the driveway in connection with an extended retaining wall along the north end of the driveway; the stepped stone wall is approximately

15-ft. in length.  A 4-ft. tall freestanding dry stack gravity wall is proposed in the terrace to the west of the house

approximately 12-ft. in length and at the entrance to the home as a feature for displaying the address, approximately 8 ft. in length.  She advised that since the City is considering an ordinance amendment pertaining to solid wall fencing, technically the solid wall fences should be removed from the plan or the applicants must seek a variance for their installation.

Chair Svendsen questioned the linear footage of the proposed solid wall fences on the application and the Planner responded the walls proposed are less than 100 linear feet. The landscape architect for the applicant indicated they are at approximately 75 linear feet.

The Planner advised that the property owner to the north of this parcel had expressed concern relating to the removal of trees and screening from his property. She explained that she did an analysis on the north side of the property and found there are existing evergreens and sufficient trees to provide adequate screening on the north. She noted that there may be concerns for properties to the west; however, there are no existing homes in that area. She also noted that the property to the north is separated by a distance of 500 feet and that the home to the north would be at approximately the same elevation as the proposed new home. She pointed out that the Commission may consider additional screening be installed to provide a buffer for the property to the west. She noted that this matter is open to interpretation and that additional language could be included in the findings of fact for screening to the west.

The Planner reviewed the site and building plan evaluation criteria listed in her report. She noted that the proposal meets all R-1 Single-family standards, Shoreland Overlay District Standards, and reviewed the items that need to be addressed

as follows: 1) the revised grading plan should be listed as a condition of approval; 2) the solid wall fencing as proposed in the plans must be amended or applicants must apply for a variance; and, 3) the septic inspector must provide approval of

the plans.

Planner Barness advised that the City Engineer had sent additional conditions to her today that should be included as part of the action taken by the Commission this evening. She stated the conditions from the Engineer as follows:

1) Extend the silt fencing around the proposed tree planting areas and the existing septic system.

2) Calculations of the retaining wall to be provided by a registered Engineer.

3) Infiltration and or retention needs to be developed and incorporated into the final drainage plans for the .19 acres of new impervious area.

Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of the request, based on the findings of fact and the conditions as listed and amended to include the City Engineer’s conditions as above-listed. She also noted that a condition to require a photometric plan for the lighting be included to insure the lighting does not impact neighboring properties and that the applicant be encouraged to maintain contact with City staff during the construction process to insure all requirements are met.

Chair Svendsen thanked the Planner for her report and asked if there were any comments from the applicant or the audience.

Adina Overbee, 425 Salem Church Road, asked what trees are proposed for planting on the west of the property, deciduous or evergreens and what size.