- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – FEBRUARY 20, 2013

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

Attendants:

Chair:  Arnulf Svendsen   
Commissioners:   Andrea McCue, Tom Schlehuber, and Tom Hendrickson.

City Planners:  Alan Brixius and Michelle Barness
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
Commissioner Gordon Peters 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.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried.  (4-0)

3.  APPROVE MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 2012: Chair Svendsen asked if there were any additions or corrections to the December 19, 2012 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to approve the December 19, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (4-0)

4.  PUBLIC HEARINGS: Shoreland Setback Variance, 345 Salem Church Road, Schaefer: Chair Svendsen outlined the procedures for conducting the public hearing on this matter. He asked the Planner to review his report and explained that the applicant would then be given a chance to speak, after which the public would be able to provide input. He stated that after the Commissioners discussed the application, the public would again be offered an opportunity to comment and afterwards the Commission would take action on the application.

Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a variance to allow construction of a small addition to the existing home at 345 Salem Church Road which would be 56 sq. ft. and consists of enclosing a open, roofed walkway that currently exists between the house and the garage. She stated that the addition would function as a mudroom entry into the home and advised that no excavation is required since the addition would occur over an existing built surface. She further explained that the proposed hipped roof would replace approximately 792 sq. ft. of an existing flat rubber membrane roof on the home and also requires removal of a small skylight in the same area. She noted that the applicants also propose to install new stone columns at the front of the home.

The Planner explained that the existing home is legally non-conforming because it does not meet the Shoreland Overlay District Ordinary High Water Level setback requirement of 200 feet.  She advised that the City Code allows legally non-conforming residential buildings that do not meet setback requirements to expand to improve liability and she noted that the proposed expansion would not increase the non-conformity beyond the existing conditions on the lot. She pointed out that because the proposed home addition and hipped roof will increase building size within an area that does not meet setback requirements; a variance is required for construction to proceed. 

Planner Barness stated that the home meets all R-1 Building Standards, as outlined in her report dated February 13, 2013, with the exception of the Shoreland setback. She explained that the existing home is setback 85 ft. from the lake, however, the home is compliant with the remaining Shoreland Overlay District Standards as shown in her report. She explained that City Code requires that no building structure shall exceed 30 ft. in height above the existing grade and noted that the average grade at the perimeter of the home is approximately 946 ft. in elevation. She stated that the top of the principal building, including the proposed hipped roof does not exceed 968 ft. in elevation and that the hipped roof would only increase the total height of the building by 3 feet.  She commented that the view-sheds from other properties should not be significantly impacted.


The Planner advised that the proposed building materials on the addition would be the same as the existing materials; she noted that the hipped roof would be constructed with asphalt shingles and that the stone columns proposed for the south entry to the home also meet approved exterior building finishes.  She explained that the back of the home would have larger windows and patio doors that also meet City Code requirements. She advised that no footings or foundations are proposed so no excavation, grading, or vegetation removal would occur. She pointed out that the lot currently has 6.75 percent of impervious surface coverage, which meets requirements in the Shoreland Overlay District, and the impervious surface would not increase with the proposed changes.

Planner Barness explained that the City Engineer indicated that the applicant should provide a plan to describe how the proposed walkway addition will be constructed so as to provide positive drainage of 2 percent away from the existing and new addition. She stated that the City Engineer also required the applicant to install a silt fence around the back of the house to seal off the construction area and to contain any surface runoff. 

The Planner advised that no vegetation will be removed, however, she explained that a stairway on the east side of the home that leads to the water will be removed and staff recommends the applicant consider plantings on this slope to stabilize it and to help screen the addition and garage from the lake. She further advised that there are no changes proposed for the existing septic system; however, the City Engineer indicated that the existing septic drain field, secondary drain field and the well must be protected with orange construction fencing during the construction activities on the site. She further recommended that all debris from the roof construction must be placed in a dumpster to contain the demolition debris.

Chair Svendsen thanked the Planner for her presentation and asked if the applicant had any comments.

Joe and Linda Schaefer responded no.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked that the Planner clarify the roof area that would be altered and asked if it would be along the entire length of the home.

The Planner showed the area of the roof that would be altered and Commissioner Hendrickson suggested the Commission review Exhibit D showing the roof alteration.

Chair Svendsen opened the public hearing to receive comments and hearing none, he closed the public hearing.

Planner Brixius advised that a written comment was received and should be added to the public record.

Chair Svendsen asked the Clerk to record that an email was received from resident Roger Conant stating he had no objections to the proposed request and that the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to make the house more attractive without substantially increasing its footprint or impact on the lake.

Planner Barness advised that the home was constructed prior to the City’s adoption of the 200 ft. Shoreline Setback requirement. She reviewed the variance standards that were recently adopted by the City Council and advised that the applicant must show use of the property in a reasonable manner and identify practical difficulty that prohibits reasonable use of the property.  She displayed a drawing of the site with the existing setback requirements imposed on the property and pointed out that the property would be rendered unbuildable if all setbacks were met. She further explained that the proposed variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the ordinance, that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan, that it will not impact public safety, and will not alter the essential character of the locality.  

The Planner stated that staff recommends approval of the variance based on the items identified on page 10 of the Planner’s report and subject to the conditions as listed on page 11 of the report.

Commissioner Hendrickson asked when construction would start on the project. 

Joe Schaefer responded that they plan to start construction soon after approval of the application; he commented that the roof is currently leaking. 

Chair Svendsen explained that the applicants are currently working on remodeling the interior of the home.
Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that it may not be possible to install silt fencing while the ground is frozen; he suggested that the applicants be required to use bioroll as an alternative to the silt fence to protect the construction areas.
He explained that this is a role of absorbent material that will stop sedimentation runoff and would be less costly to install.

Chair Svendsen stated that he was opposed to the previous application submitted for this property; however, he has no objections to this proposal as it will not significantly increase the size of the existing home and would not negatively impact the surrounding properties.

Commissioner McCue agreed with his comments and explained that she was also opposed to the previous application, but in her opinion the applicants are proposing a wonderful plan for the property.

Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. He asked if the action should include approval of the site and building plans as well as approval of the variance. The Planner responded yes.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of the Shoreland Setback Variance request and Site and Building Plans as presented, based on the items identified as supporting the variance on page 10 of the Planner’s report and subject to conditions as listed on page 11 of the Planner’s report, with an amendment to condition 3.b. to require the installation of a bioroll around the back side of the house instead of a silt fence, seconded by Commission Schlehuber and carried. (4-0)”

5.   Major Site and Building Plan Review; 2250 Delaware Avenue, 2250 Delaware LLC: Planner Brixius referred to the proposed application for a Major Site and Building Plan review that is required by City Code for new construction. He stated that the applicant proposes to tear down the existing home and build a new home on generally the same building footprint. He advised that the Shoreland District Ordinance requires a minimum 200 ft. setback from the Ordinary High Water Level; however he noted there is an exception where adjacent principal building have setbacks less than those required, the ordinance allows construction to be no less than the average setback of the two adjacent principal structures. He pointed out that the two adjacent properties to this site have an average setback of approximately 100 ft. and the applicant propose to build the home in the approximate location of the existing home at approximately 139 ft. from the shoreline, therefore a variance is not required.   

The Planner explained the building footprint of the proposed home and attached garage would be approximately 907 sq. ft. larger than the previous structure and attached garage.  He stated the existing home is a two-story, and the total floor area on the first floor with attached garage is 3,497 sq. ft.; with the basement included the home would be 6,732 sq. ft., with the garage proposed at 1,357 sq. ft. He advised the proposed house plans meet the R-1 Standards for setbacks and building height. He noted that the Shoreland District Standards for setbacks are met based on the above-mentioned exception. He displayed a diagram showing the existing home with an overlay of the proposed construction and he noted that the expansion of the property occurs on the west side of the property, away from the lake. 

Planner Brixius stated that a three (3) car garage is proposed and the applicant plans to remove the existing driveway and place it farther from the lake. He noted staff recommends incorporating some shrubs or perennials into the landscape plan to the east of the driveway to provide a more immediate screening and to slow stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. He further explained that the average existing grade around the proposed home is 960.8 ft. in elevation so that the proposed principal building does not exceed the 30 ft. height limit; the proposed home is 1.3 ft. taller than the existing home.

The Planner stated that the proposed building materials of brick, stone, hardy plank siding and fiberglass shingles are all in compliance with the Zoning Code design standards; he noted that a more thorough review of the materials would be conducted with the building permit application.

Planner Brixius explained that the Zoning Code limits the size of an attached garage to 1,250 sq. ft. and the proposed building plans show the attached garage at 1,357 sq. ft. He recommended that the attached garage be reduced in size to comply with City standards.  He displayed a picture of the proposed light fixtures to be placed near the main entrance and along the garage and explained that the Zoning Code requires any exterior lighting must be arranged to deflect light away from any adjoining residential property. He recommended submission of a photometric to determine that the lighting meets all requirements once it is installed.

The Planner stated that the City Engineer reviewed the site plan and recommended silt fencing around the perimeter of the building site that drains toward any wetland and/or the lake; the Engineer further recommended a six-inch bioroll be placed along the bottom of the silt fence that is cable of filtering fine silts. He noted that all the recommendations from the City Engineer would be incorporated as conditions of approval of this request.

Planner Brixius advised that the City Forester recommended additional plantings along the driveway to shield headlights from cars and also suggested that more robust fencing be installed during the construction period to insure that construction traffic does not impede on the mature trees that the owners wish to save.

The Planner noted that at this time it is unclear whether the mowed area of the lawn in the direction of the lake meets the shoreline and to what degree the mowed area extends along the shoreline. He noted that the Shoreland ordinance allows only up to 20 percent of the Shoreland Impact Zone to be mowed to the shoreline. He explained that staff recommends the installation of a 20-ft. ground level vegetated buffer strip along the shoreline consisting of native grasses, forbs and shrub species. Staff further recommends a revised site plan be provided for the City Forester that includes the three items identified on page 8 of the Planner’s report dated February 13, 2013.

Planner Brixius advised that the applicant provided the location of the primary and secondary septic system mounds on the site and noted that the proposed location of the septic mounds does not meet the required setback.  He advised that the applicant must comply with the recommendations of the City Septic Inspector when submitting detailed construction plans for building and septic permit applications. He stated the applicants would pump and remove the existing septic system.

The Planner stated that staff recommends approval of the Major Site and Building Plan application based on the findings listed in the Planner’s report dated February 13, 2013 and subject to conditions also listed in the report. He noted that the City Engineer did not recommend installation of a rain garden due to the fact there is adequate storm water drainage and the impervious surface would be reduced.   

Chair Svendsen thanked the Planner for his report and asked if the applicant was present and wished to speak.            

Bob Moser stated he was present to represent the applicant. He explained that he had discussed the staff recommendations with the applicant and they agreed to adhere to the recommended changes. He advised the only concern from the applicant relates to the size of the attached garage. He explained the applicant wishes to have a shop in the garage area, however; he indicated that the shop could be incorporated into the rear portion of the garage.

Chair Svendsen opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak.

Ibby Ginkel-Hammett, 2196 Charlton Road, asked if the proposed shop would be for the applicant’s personal use or for business. She also asked for clarification of the new driveway location and if the access from Delaware Avenue would remain the same.   

Mr. Moser explained that the shop would be for personal use only. 

The Planner showed the proposed driveway location and stated the access would remain the same.

Stephanie Stowell, 389 Salem Church Road, asked if the existing barn on the property would remain. She commented that the proposed plan is fabulous.

Mr. Moser responded the barn would remain on site and noted it is in sound condition.

Ibby Ginkel-Hammett questioned the original square footage of the existing home and new square footage. She asked if the proposed home meets all other setback requirements and how far it would be setback from the lake.

The Planner advised the original square footage of the home is 3,671 sq. ft. and the proposed square footage for the three stories is 6,732 sq. ft. He further advised that the proposed home meets all setback requirements for the R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District.  He explained the existing home is setback 189 ft. and the new home would be 199 ft. from the north.  
There was discussion relating to the increased size of the new home and Commissioner Hendrickson calculated that the new home would be 1,132 sq. ft. larger than the existing home.

Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further questions from the audience and there was no response. The Chair closed the public hearing.

Commissioner McCue asked if it would be possible to use the barn for the shop and reduce the size of the garage.

Mr. Moser explained that it would be hard to heat the barn since it is very large and that the garage would be better.

Planner Brixius asked if the shop could be incorporated as part of the principle structure, rather than part of the garage, to meet the garage size requirement.

Mr. Moser responded that could be done. 

Commissioner Hendrickson explained that the shop would have to be designed to be part of the principle structure and commented that it would be difficult to show hardship for a variance in this care.

Commissioner Schlehuber stated his opinion that the plan looks good and Commissioner McCue agreed.

Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that rain gardens are not required by ordinance and that the 20 ft. buffer recommended by the Planner may not be valid since the buffer area on this property would be grandfathered in; he commented that in his opinion it would not be right to impose these conditions and suggested that the Commission could encourage or suggest the applicant consider them versus making them conditions of approval.

The Planner explained that due to the snow cover it is not possible to determine the previous buffer area at this time.

Commissioner Hendrickson suggested that it may be possible to view a satellite photo of the property, but pointed out that there is no way to determine the previous buffer area and therefore it should not be limited if it was grandfathered in.

Planner Brixius suggested that the condition could be modified to stated that “areas that were previously undisturbed remain undisturbed” and this language would prohibit mowing areas that were not previously mowed.

Commissioner Hendrickson agreed that would be appropriate.

Commissioner McCue explained that she sits on the Lower Mississippi Watershed Commission and she vigorously supports preserving the lake water quality; she suggested recommending the installation of a rain garden and noted that there are problems with water quality in Sunfish Lake.

Planner Brixius pointed out that because this is new construction, the Commission may provide additional conditions or suggestions in conjunction with approval of the application.  He recommended that Condition l.c. be amended as follows: 

“All areas within the shoreline buffer impact area that are currently undisturbed are to remain undisturbed and staff will identify the area to remain undisturbed for the property owner when it becomes visible after the snow melts.”  He further recommended that Condition 2.b. be removed and that language be attached to approval that encourages the installation of a rain garden by the applicant.     

Commissioner Hendrickson referred to Exhibits E & F and noted that the dormers shown on Exhibit F are not shown on Exhibit E.

Mr. Moser explained they are false dormers and agreed to correct the plans to show the dormers on Exhibit E.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that the applicants have done a nice job with plan and that the home is very beautiful.


Chair Svendsen asked when the applicant plans to begin construction. Mr. Moser explained that construction would most likely begin in the spring when the load limits are removed.

Commissioner Hendrickson asked how long the project would run and Mr. Moser responded approximately 10 months.

Chair Svendsen asked if there were any further comments or questions.

Planner Brixius explained that Council had expressed concern that the applicant had attempted to occupy new home construction on a previously owned property prior to completion of all conditions of approval; he suggested that Mr. Moser make the applicant aware of the fact that the City expects strict adherence to all regulations and conditions if this plan is approved.

Stephanie Stowell asked if the barn would be historically preserved.  Chair Svendsen pointed out that the barn is not owned by the City; therefore the applicant would make that determination.

Chair Svendsen noted this is a 9-acre site and asked if there are any plans build on the other two lots. Mr. Moser stated not at this time.

Commissioner Schlehuber suggested that the City should review the historical significance of the barn.  Planner Brixius stated he would check with the historical society, but noted that the barn is privately owned and that the City might have to pursue historical protection to preserve it.  

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

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plan application for 2250 Delaware Avenue, based on the findings listed in the Planner’s report dated February 13, 2013 and subject to the conditions as amended or removed, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (4-0)

Commissioner McCue asked if the amended language in Condition 1.c. would be presented to Council.  Planner Brixius explained that staff would prepare a resolution that incorporates the amendments for Council consideration at the March meeting.

PENDING APPLICATIONS: The Planner explained that he received an inquiry for the property at 392 Salem Church Road for a possible tear-down and rebuild; he indicated the matter may be submitted for review in April. He advised that discussion for this property included installation of a small solid wall courtyard area on the interior portion of the property and suggested that the Commission may wish to revisit the solid wall fence regulations.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that he would consider this a landscaping aspect rather than a solid fence

The Planner stated that a Minor Lot Split application might be forthcoming and also that Council asked staff to draft criteria and performance standards related to tree removal/harvesting operation. 

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

6.   ADJOURN: Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (4-0)

Respectfully submitted,


______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk