- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – AUGUST 21, 2013

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

Attendants:

Acting Chair:   Andrea McCue        
Commissioners:   Tom Schlehuber and Gordon Peters

City Planner:  Emily Shively

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

Chair Arnulf Svendsen and Commissioner Tom Hendrickson were absent.

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

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

Commissioner Peters moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried.  (3-0)

3.  APPROVE MINUTES July 17, 2013: Acting-Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the July 17, 2013 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Peters moved to approve the July 17, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)

4.   PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit Review, 2154 Charlton Road, John and Shannon Nelson; Planner Shively advised the Commissioners that Planner Michelle Barness would be on maternity leave for several weeks as she had recently delivered a baby boy.  She referred to her report dated August 14, 2013 and explained the applicants are proposing to renovate their existing home and property and construct a new detached garage.  She stated the applicants are also request approval of a conditional use permit to construct the proposed detached garage that will serve as a second accessory structure on the property in addition to an existing swimming pool. She explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for construction of more than one accessory structure on a property.

The Planner stated that the subject property is a shoreline lot that falls within the R-1 Single Family Residential and Shoreland Overlay Districts.  The applicants are proposing a second floor addition to the home totaling approximately 765 sq. ft. and renovations/additions to the first floor front entryway and the northwest corner of the home totaling approximately 490 sq. ft.  She stated the proposed new detached garage would be 820 sq. ft. and that the building footprint of the renovated home with first floor additions would be approximately 4,311 sq. ft. including the attached garage.

Planner Shively advised that the proposed plan meets all requirements of the R-1 Single Family Residential and Shoreland Overlay Districts as shown on page 3 of her report. She explained that the property is legally non-conforming as pertains to the minimum required net lot area; however, the City Code allows the expansion of a conforming use on a substandard size lot as long as the expansions meets all other provisions in the ordinance. 

The Planner explained that the applicants are proposing to adjust the existing driveway and parking area in response to placement of the proposed detached garage.  The ordinance requires a buffer of at least 25 ft. between a surface parking space and the side lot line west of the home; however, the property owners hold an easement that may be used for parking and access which extends 20.5 ft. west of the property line.  With the additional easement the property meets the required 25 ft. buffer. She advised that four (4) trees would be removed to construct the detached garage and to accommodate the driveway renovation. She explained that three of the four trees are spruce and are considered significant as pertain to tree size; the applicants property to replace the three spruce, install one clump of River Birch and some additional trees. The City Forester has reviewed and recommended approval of the plan. Planning staff recommends that the applicants be required to provide fencing for tree protection around any tee whose drip lines fall within the area of construction of he new detached garage or within area of driveway and sidewalk renovations. Staff recommends that the applicant provide a revised site plan showing the tree protection fencing has been provided as described.    
The Planner stated that the City Engineer requested the applicants provide a grading and drainage plan prepared by a qualified engineer of the developed site that indicates direction and rate of storm water runoff and establishes locations for collection and infiltration of runoff. She explained that the Engineer also requested he applicants provide a revised plan depicting proposed grading contours and showing how the driveway removal area on the west side of the site will be restored. The Engineer further asked that silt fencing around the west side of the site be revised and that the plan show silt fence or bio rolls around the soil stockpile to protect surrounding areas from sediment.

Planner Shively explained that the City Engineer also requested the applicants provide a revised site plan illustrating the addition of a storm water management area, either a rain garden or retention basin, located between the principal building and lake, to treat increased storm water runoff from the site.     

The Planner stated that a conditional use permit is required for construction of a second accessory structure on the property. She reviewed the criteria for granting approval of the request as shown on pages 8 and 9 of her report and advised that the proposed accessory structure is in compliance with the criteria as described in the ordinance. 

Planner Shively displayed the existing and proposed driveway adjustment and the elevations for the proposed second story addition to the home. She stated that the proposed addition and the detached garage both meet the building height requirement; the addition would bet 23.25 ft. in height and the detached garage 16 ft. in height. She noted that the building materials match the existing home and are consistent with the City design guidelines.  She displayed the proposed lighting and advised that the applicants would have to demonstrate that the lighting meets one foot candle measurement and do not  impact the adjacent properties. She explained that the property has a shared driveway and that the engineer recommended the applicants be required to document the existing condition of the easement in the event any damage occurs during construction.  

The Planner explained that the applicants are proposing to install two (2) stone landscaping walls at 4 ft. in height and she advised them that the ordinance limits the height of solid fences at three ft.; she requested that they submit a revised plan showing the stone walls reduced to 3 ft. in height.

Planner Shively advised that the detached garage meets the requirements for a second accessory structure and that the Major Site and Building Plan meets performance standards with the changes as recommended to reduce the stone walls by one foot, provide a revised plan for storm water management and elevations for grading and to demonstrate that the proposed lighting fixtures meet the one foot candle measurement and do not impact adjacent properties.

The Planner explained that the applicant provided the location of the proposed septic system on the site; however detailed construction plans and applicable permits would be required when applying for a building permit application. She stated that the applicant is required to comply with the recommendations of the City Septic Inspector pertaining to installation of a new septic and abandonment of the old septic areas.

Planner Shively stated that planning staff recommends approval of both the Major Site and Building Plans and Conditional Use Permit for a second accessory structure based on the finding that the proposed project would have minimal impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration, and neighboring property. She explained that the City Engineer recommended denial of the request from an engineering standpoint; however, planning staff recommends the approval be contingent upon the applicant providing revised site plans to address the engineer’s concerns. She noted that the engineer was delayed in providing his recommendations to the applicant. She discussed the fact that the Engineer was delayed in providing the request for additional information to the applicant, and therefore, she requested an amendment to condition No. 5 that removes the constraint for the applicant to provide the additional information and revised plans prior to review by the City Council. She noted that the applicants may be unable to have the plans revised in such a short time frame and requested the language in condition No. 5 read as follows; “The applicants provide a revised storm water, grading, erosion control and plan to address issues raised by the City Engineer in his report prior to issuance of a building permit.”. She explained that after the revised plans have been submitted and reviewed for approval by the City Engineer a memo would be sent the Building Inspector that the items have been completed to the engineer’s satisfaction. She further noted that the applicants should be able to provide information relating to the engineer’s requests at the Council meeting even though formal revised plans are not available.

Acting Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her report. She asked if there were any comments or questions from the Commission.
Acting Chair McCue questioned if the response to the engineer’s revisions would be provided verbally from the applicant at the Council meeting or if there would be revised plans submitted. 

Planner Shively explained that it may be possible to provide a preliminary drawing, but not a formal design plan.

Leffert Tigelaar, architect for the applicants, was present and advised he would be prepared with a preliminary or verbal plan to address the engineer’s concerns prior to the Council meeting.

Acting Chair McCue opened the meeting for the purpose of receiving comments from the audience; there was no one present to speak and she closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the applicants had changes to the septic system.  The architect explained that the location of the septic system would be included as part of the revised design plan and that he is unsure of the detail at this time.

The Planner showed the proposed location of the septic system on the drawings submitted.

Mrs. Nelson explained that they are waiting for to information to determine if a mounded septic system would block their view of the lake prior to finalizing the location.

Architect Tigelaar explained that their engineer is working on both the storm water issues and septic location and hopefully both would be presented to Council.

Acting Chair McCue explained that both issues are very important to the elected officials and stressed the importance of working out these issues prior to Council review.  She noted that the City will be facing regulations relating to water quality issues with in the next few years from the Lower Mississippi Watershed District and therefore it behooves residents to keep the lakes clean. 

Commissioner Peters agreed that these are sensitive issues and the revisions should be completed prior to Council review.

Mr. Nelson explained that they will attempt to have concrete plans prior to Council review.

Acting-Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Commissioner Peters moved approval of the Major Site and Building Plans and the Conditional Use Permit for John and Shannon Nelson, 2154 Chalrton Road, based on the findings of  fact and conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated  August 14, 2013, with the amendment to Condition No. 5 as requested by the Planner,  seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)

5.   PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review, 21 Salem Lane, Steve and Mary Siedlitz; Planner Shively referred to her report dated August 14, 2013 and explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan Review to allow construction of a one-story master bedroom and bath addition to an existing home at 21 Salem Lane.  She stated the proposed addition totals 991 sq. ft. with a full foundation and adds a master bedroom and bath on the first floor of the home and also a small office. She explained that the proposed addition would have a full foundation that expands the existing basement area of the home.

The Planner explained that the builder, Dick Bjorklund, was present to represent the applicants. She noted that the proposed addition would be located on the east side of the existing home and that the addition meets all ordinance requirements of the R-1 Single Family District. She displayed diagrams of the existing home footprint and the footprint with the proposed addition to the home.  She stated the building materials match the existing brick and metal siding and that the foundation walls would consist of poured concrete and the roofing materials would be asphalt shingles. She advised the plans meet the City’s design guidelines. 

Planner Shively explained that construction of the proposed addition requires minimal re-grading of the site and removal of selected vegetation. The City Engineer recommends relocating the soil stockpile to a location within 50 feet of a paved surface and protected by silt fence. The existing location within the infiltration basin may result in compaction of underlying soils that may compromise the infiltration capacity of the area. She advised that the areas impacted by grading and excavation must be immediately replanted upon completion of construction and the applicants plans to sod all areas around the new addition. She explained that the applicants propose to install a silt fence for erosion control that would wrap around the north, east south and west extent of the construction on the site.

The Planner stated that three Cottonwood trees would be removed from the lot in conjunction with the new addition; the City Forester also recommended removal of some additional cottonwood trees within 15-20 feet of the new addition that lean toward the new addition.

Planner Shively advised that storm water will drain away from the proposed addition and storm water movement to the east of the addition will drain toward a new infiltration system basin via downspouts into drain tile; the infiltration basin will be contained by a one foot retaining wall on the north. The City Engineer reviewed the infiltration area and deemed it to be adequate for controlling storm water; the infiltration basin must be protected from construction equipment to prevent soil compaction.

The Planner advised that the applicant provided the location and elevation of the existing and proposed septic systems on the site. She noted that a new bathroom requires an expansion of the existing septic system with a design recommended by a licensed septic contractor that will add an additional tank and drainfield lines. 

Acting Chair McCue asked if the adjacent properties would be visually affected by the addition.  The Planner explained that the lot is heavily wooded and should not have any negative impact on adjacent properties.

Dick Bjorklund explained that the existing septic system is located on a slope and that he measured for two additional drainfield lines versus installation of an entirely new system.

Commissioner Peters questioned the age of the existing system.

Mr. Bjorklund advised that the home was constructed in the 1980’s; however, he was unsure of the age of the system. He indicated that he had discussed the matter with the City’s Septic System Inspector.

Commissioner Peters suggested that it may be wise to require the applicants obtain an inspection of the system based on its age. 

Planner Shively advised that the City only requires the applicant to obtain a permit for the system and does not require an inspection be performed.

The Planner advised that the proposed addition meets all design and performance standards as outlined in the City Code and staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as outlined by the City Engineer requiring the proposed stock pile to be moved closer to a paved surface to protect the infiltration basin and that it remain as “un-compacted” as possible during construction. The City Engineer further recommended that the existing septic system be reviewed by the City’s Septic Inspector for function and capacity to accommodate the proposed addition. She further noted that staff recommends pre and post construction visits to the site to insure conditions are met.

Acting Chair McCue asked if there would be runoff issues with the additional impervious surface from the building addition.

The Planner explained that the area where the addition is located is not as steep as other portions of the lot and that the runoff would flow into the infiltration system.

Mr. Bjorklund agreed and pointed out that there is only a three foot slope in this area and the majority of the area is flat.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the fill would be taken off-site. Mr. Bjoklund explained that only 300 yards of soil would be moved and that any extra would be removed from the site. 


Commissioner Peters asked if the applicants plan to tie into the existing drain tile in the home. Mr. Bjorklund responded no and advised there would be a separate system pumped into the infiltration system.  

Commissioner Peters expressed concern relating to the age of the existing septic tank and suggested that the applicant be required to verify it is in good condition.  Mr. Bjorklund stated that he plans to inspect the system and verify that it is in compliance with Dakota County. 

There was discussion regarding how the system could be inspected to determine if it is in good condition and the normal life span of a septic system. Clerk Iago explained that the County would notify the City if there was a problem with the septic system.  

Commissioner Peters asked if the Commission could include a recommendation to request an inspection of the system.  

Planner Shively suggested that Condition 2 in her report requires that the applicants comply with any recommendations from the City Septic Inspector.

Commissioner Peters suggested that the Commission require the applicants to pump the tank and have it inspected and certified by a licensed septic inspector.

Acting Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.

Commissioner Peters moved approval of the Major Site and Building Plans for Dick Bjorklund Construction, Inc. on behalf of Steve and Mary Siedlitz,  21 Salem Lane, based on the findings of  fact and conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated  August 14, 2013, and with an additional condition requiring the applicants to have the existing septic system pumped , inspected and certified for future use by a licensed septic system inspector, seconded by Acting Chair McCue and carried. (3-0)

The Planner advised that no new applications were submitted and therefore the September meeting would be cancelled unless the Commission had any other items for discussion.


6.   ADJOURN: Acting-Chair McCue asked if there was any further business or discussion and there was no response.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (3-0)

Respectfully submitted,


______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk