- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – July 17, 2013

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

Attendants:

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

City Planners:  Michelle Barness and Emily Shively

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

Chair Arnulf Svendsen and Commissioner Tom Schlehuber 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 Hendrickson moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried.  (3-0)

3.  APPROVE MINUTES MAY 15, 2013: Acting-Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the May 15, 2013 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to approve the May 15, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (3-0)

4.   PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review,  8 Roanoke Road, Angie & Rick Brown; Planner Barness referred to her report dated July 10, 2013 and explained the applicants are proposing to build a new home and attached garage on an existing vacant non-conforming lot of record at 8 Roanoke Road.  She stated that the review by the Commission includes the major site and building plan for the new home and also a conditional use permit review because the subject property is a legally non-conforming lot. She stated that the net lot area is below the current zoning requirement of 2.5-acres, however; the lot was platted prior to adoption of the current regulations and also contains a significant area of steep slopes that may not be included in the lot area calculations.

The Planner stated that the proposed new home would be 2,888 sq. ft. on the main floor and would have a finished basement that is not calculated in the gross floor area of the home.  She further advised that the attached garage would be 880 sq. ft. and the current ordinance allows up to 1200 sq. ft.  She referred the Commissioners to pages 2 and 3 of her report that outline the required building standards for the R-1 and Shoreland Overlay Districts; she explained the property falls within the Shoreland Overlay District for Horseshoe Lake although it does not have frontage on the lake.

Planner Barness explained that the proposed application meets all building setbacks and lot coverage requirements. She further explained that the application also meets all applicable Shoreland Overlay District standards and setbacks; she noted that the maximum impervious surface coverage required is 30 percent and only 6 percent is proposed.

The Planner explained that in the R-1 District a net lot area of 2.5 acres is required that excludes wetlands, drainage ways and steep slopes in excess of 12 percent grade. She advised this parcel is approximately 1.7 acres in net lot area due to a significant area of steep slopes on the southern portion of the lot.  She stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows for a legal, non-conforming, vacant or redeveloped substandard sized lot of record to be developed for single family detached uses with approval of a Conditional Use Permit, based upon the conditions listed in the ordinance.  She noted the following: 1) the lot in question was legally established under the ordinance requirements existing at the  time of its creation in 1991; 2)  the lot in question is similar in size and characteristics to adjacent lots; 3) the lot has frontage on a public or private street; 4) public health concerns can be adequately address with septic and well installation; 5) the parcel is able to meet all other R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District setback and yard requirements; and 6) the lot must meet the standards outlined for approval of a conditional use permit.

Planner Barness explained that the proposed single family home is anticipated to satisfy the housing policies as provided in the Comprehensive Plan by respecting natural contours on the property and enhancing site orientation by using the existing topography in the home design. She stated the architectural features of the home are similar to surrounding homes in the area and would not adversely affect adjacent property values. She advised that the proposed use is compatibility with present and future uses of the area and is in conformance with all performance standards for the R-1 District.  She noted that the proposed single family home would result in the removal of very little existing vegetation and that traffic generated by this use is compatible with current traffic use generated by surrounding properties.  She also explained that no additional public streets or utilities are required as part of the project.

The Planner explained that the building structure does not exceed the 30 ft. height requirement and reviewed how the building height is calculated. She advised that the neighbors will view the home as a single story from the front elevation and the rear elevation would be screened by tree coverage. She stated the building materials include hardy plank siding, stone veneer and architectural shingles for the roof; she noted that the front elevation shows a higher entryway architectural feature in the design. She stated that the City Building Inspector reviewed the plan set and had no comments regarding the application; she explained that a more thorough review will be conducted with the building permit application. She explained that the plans were also reviewed against the City Design Guidelines and met the standards listed.

Planner Barness advised that an attached garage is proposed and no additional accessory structures are proposed at this time. She explained that the Shoreland Overlay District requires driveways and parking to be screened from adjacent properties, however, the driveway and garage are located at the north end of the subject property which is a significant distance from the lake to the south. The bituminous driveway meets all standards and setbacks and will be 15 ft. in width for accommodating emergency vehicle access.

The Planner reviewed the exterior lighting plan and stated that eight (8) cylinder lights are proposed and three (3) recessed soffit lights; she advised that the recessed lights meet the standards; however the cylinder lights direct light upwards and do not appear to reduce reflective glare. She showed the Commission an alternative cottage light proposed by the applicant and suggested that the Commission consider deeming the cylinder light appropriate or requesting the alternate cottage lighting be used.

Planner Barness advised that the City Engineer had reviewed the site survey and requested several revisions; she noted the applicants had revised the site survey to include the Engineer’s revisions and she distributed copies of the revised site survey to the Commissioners. She explained that originally the Engineer had recommended denial of the request, however; after review of the revised site survey, the Engineer now recommends approval of the request with conditions that he will outline in a memorandum prior to Council review of the plan. She noted that the revised plan includes a rock construction entrance and the stockpile location moved to within 50 ft. of a driving surface.

Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the stockpile location proposed is outside of the area where the well is proposed

The Planner responded yes and showed that the stockpile location is just north of the well location.

The Planner referred to the watersheds shown on the revised site survey and explained the areas shown as E-1 and E-2  should not have drainage issues, however, it is recommended that the applicants install a berm in area E-3 to trap water prior to leaving the site.

Commissioner Peters asked if the site is usually wet. The Planner responded no, but noted there are a few low areas on the property where water may pool.

Acting-Chair McCue asked if the applicants had considered installing a rain garden. The Planner explained that this had been discussed with the applicants and they appeared to be open to the suggestion.

Planner Barness pointed out that the Engineer had asked about removal of trees on the site; she noted there was one large apple tree near the driveway to be removed, but she indicated that the Commissioners may wish to request the applicants provide a more detailed plan showing tree removal. She suggested that the applicants work with he City Forester regarding the tree removal and installation of trees.

Acting-Chair McCue asked if the applicants would be installing more trees.

Rick Brown stated he would be willing to plant more trees and asked for suggestions as to what would be appropriate to plant.

Planner Barness commented that oak trees and evergreens provide screening but take a long time to mature; she suggested the applicants work with the City Forester to determine which plantings would be best.

Rick Brown asked if apple trees would be appropriate and the Planner responded yes.

The Planner explained that the landscaping plan shows re-sodding of the area 12 ft. out from the home and installation of holly shrubs in the front area of the home.

Acting-Chair McCue asked if the septic system is shown on the plan.

The Planner responded that both the proposed and alternate areas for the septic area shown. She advised that the applicant was asked to move the well 10 ft. further from the drainfield and they agreed.

Planner Barness stated that no fencing is proposed on the property; however, the applicants plan to install two (2) retaining walls that do not exceed 4 ft. in height. She explained that the applicants would work with the Septic Inspector regarding installation of the septic system and well. She also noted that the City Engineer requested installation of protective fencing around the perimeter of the primary and secondary drainfields prior to any heavy equipment on site. She explained that the City Engineer requests the applicants install erosion control silt fencing around the entire construction area, septic area and also as protection for mature trees.  

The Planner explained that she spoke to the Engineer today and he recommends approval of the plan with the following conditions:

1.  Provide a revised landscape plan showing tree removal and plantings and recommend that the applicant contact the  
City Forester to discuss species for planting;
2)  Show location of silt fencing installation on revised site plan;
3)  Move the Well location 10 feet further away from the drainfield;

4)  Require applicant to have their engineer enlarge the drainage area on the survey where pooling of water occurs and
provide a copy to the City Engineer for review.

The Planner also noted that the applicants should be required to show the one foot candle measurements for the proposed cylinder or cottage style lighting and that this information could be obtained from the manufacturer.

Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and the Conditional Use Permit, based on the findings of fact as listed in her report and with the conditions listed in her report along with the additional conditions as recommended by the City Engineer as discussed and to be provided in a memorandum prior to Council consideration. 

Acting-Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her report and asked if there were any comments from the floor; she noted there were no audience members present for the public hearing.

Planner Barness introduced Planner Emily Shivly and explained Emily would be attending meetings while she was on maternity leave.

There was discussion with the applicant regarding species of trees for planting. Commissioner Peters suggested mixed pine and hardwoods. Commissioner Hendrickson commented that the City Forester could provide recommendations for plantings; he noted that the site is currently well screened and the only area that may have issues is the northeast side of the property.   

Acting-Chair McCue closed the public hearing asked if the applicant or Commissioners had any questions.

Commissioner Peters asked what material would be used for the retaining walls and if an irrigation system is proposed. 

Rick Brown responded the retaining wall would be block material and that no irrigation system is proposed.

Commissioner Peters commented that the attached garage is 884 sq. ft. and the City allows up to 1250 sq. ft. He pointed out that the corner of the garage is currently placed at the required setback and this does not allow for any future expansion of the garage.

Rick Brown asked if he would have to revise the plans to move the home from the required setback to accommodate future expansion and the Planner responded yes. 

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that moving the home may change the height of the building.

The Planner explained that if the applicant chooses to move the setback after the plans have been approved, it would only require a review by staff and not the Commission and Council.

Commissioner Peters complimented the applicants on their plans for the new home.

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

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to approve the Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit application for Angie and Rick Brown at 8 Roanoke Road,  based on the findings of fact and conditions as outlined by the Planner and listed in her report dated July 10, 2013 and with the additional revised conditions as listed in the memorandum from the City Engineer dated July 18, 2013, seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (3-0)


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

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (3-0)

Respectfully submitted,


______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk