SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – JUNE 17, 2009

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

-DRAFT-

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen, Tom Votel and Tom Schlehuber.

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

Commissioner JoAnne Wahlstrom was absent.

I.    CALL TO ORDER:         Chair Andrea McCue opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.    

II.  MINUTES:           Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the April 15, 2009 minutes.

Commissioner Votel explained that the letter regarding the Peters application was sent by three families; he asked that references to the letter in the April 15 minutes be amended to state “the letter from the three families” instead of “Mr. Votel’s letter”.  Clerk Iago stated she would make the corrections. 

     
Commissioner Svendsen moved to approve the April 15, 2009 Planning Commission minutes as amended, seconded by Commissioner Votel and carried.  4-0

III. Public Hearing:  Preliminary/Final Plat for a 2-lot Single Family Residential Subdivision located south of
Salem Church Road and West of Horseshoe Lane; Mullery Acres

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

Planner Smith explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat to allow platting of two existing parcels containing approximately 9.5 acres into two single family residential lots. She stated there would be no creation of additional lots. She advised the property is located south of Salem Church Road and west of Horseshoe Lane. 

The Planner stated that the lots are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and also with the lot area, width and setbacks as required in the R-1 zoning district. She stated the lots are proposed to access off a private driveway from Salem Church Road and the applicant has submitted documentation of the existing access rights to the two parcels included in this plat. She noted that the City has some concerns with the private drive’s ability to handle additional traffic due to its width and general condition; however the City Attorney has advised it is a private road and therefore the responsibility for the road lies with the easement owners.

Planner Smith explained that the Septic Inspector reviewed the information submitted by the applicant relating to the soil and percolation tests and found the proposed locations meet ordinance requirements. She further explained that the proposed well locations for Lots 1 and 2 are shown on the grading and erosion control plan as required.

The Planner advised that a tree inventory and preservation plan is required to be incorporated into the grading plan; however, the applicant is not proposing any grading at this time. She stated that the tree inventory/preservation plan requirement may be waived subject to the approval of the City Council and would be submitted with the application for new home construction on the lots.

Planner Smith explained that the applicant submitted a grading and erosion control plan that has been reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicant is proposing the installation of 4 (four) rain gardens on the lots to handle additional runoff and will be installed when construction occurs. She stated the ordinance requires drainage and utility easements ten feet wide along all lot lines; these will be required as a condition of approval.

      The Planner stated that the proposed preliminary/final plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the five (5) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated June 10, 2009.     

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

Brent Baskfield, 90 Salem Church Road, stated that his property abuts the private driveway and that it is a 33-ft. wide easement. He commented that when the 11-ft. bituminous surface was installed it was placed adjacent to his property rather than closer to the Mullery property or in the middle of the easement. He stated that the Mullery property has enjoyed 20-ft. of grass and trees versus the bituminous surface adjacent to their property. He further noted that there are buried utility lines that go to the Bulach home. He stated that he does not believe there are easements for these utilities or that it is possible to place pavement over the buried utilities. He indicated that these utility lines are within two or 3 feet of the access driveway and that he has photos of where the lines are buried.  He commented that he also believes the electric cable is deteriorating and that the transformer on Salem Church Road has “blown out” on several occasions. He expressed concern that if the access road is widened to accommodate emergency vehicles some large trees may be affected and he commented that the access drive should be located equally between the properties.

Chair McCue asked if the City has any easement rights. Planner Smith responded no and explained that it is a private road within the 33-ft easement to serve the existing properties. She explained there is no proposal by the applicant to widen the road at this time and pointed out that the City Attorney advised her that the City has no authority over private roads and that this situation occurs throughout the City.

Commissioner Schlehuber questioned if the City has any authority relating to the removal of trees to accommodate the road. The Planner responded no and indicated the City may act in an advisory capacity regarding the tree removal or the road design, but the City cannot impose any requirements on the road construction.

Commissioner Votel indicated there should be covenants in place for the development.

Brent Baskfield stated he heard the City Engineer had expressed concern regarding the width and deterioration of the road and asked if this was true.  Planner Smith responded it was true, however, she noted that during her discussion with the City Attorney he pointed out that it is a private road and the City does not have the authority to impose any conditions relating to the road.

Joel Bennett, 7 Roanoke Road, explained that when he was a Councilmember Paul McGinley presented a sketch plat for this property and there were concerns relating to how a home could be placed on each parcel; he questioned if the newly configured lots were buildable. He also questioned if the triangular parcel to the north could meet all the necessary setbacks for home placement. Planner Smith responded yes to both concerns; she noted that the proposed plat shows possible locations for the home sites that meet all setback requirements.

Mr. Bennett asked if Mr. Mullery is the applicant and if Mr. Kampmeyer is involved; he noted that during previous discussions Mr. Mullery indicated that he would deed one of the lots to Mr. Kampmeyer and would be building his   home on the remaining lot.

Mike Kampmeyer was present and advised that he would own one of the lots and Mr. Mullery does plan to build on the other lot.

Planner Smith noted that the original plan submitted to Council did not include the Kampmeyer property and agreed that there were concerns relating to the buildable area of the lots meeting setback requirements.

Paul McGinley and Mike St. Martin of Loucks & Associates were present representing the applicant. Mr. McGinley showed an aerial photo of the property and pointed out the existing access driveway and Bulach Home. He showed an aerial view of the property with the final plat superimposed and the wetland areas defined.  He also shoed the road easement that was originally granted by five property owners and all retained easements for access to their properties. He noted that the property owners also entered into a maintenance agreement for the access easement.
Mr. McGinley explained that in later years the Zehnder property was platted and a road was installed in that development to serve the lots; therefore the adjacent Zehnder property was omitted from the previous access easement to these parcels.

Brent Baskfield asked if the applicant had plans to pave the road. Mr. McGinley responded there are no plans to pave the road at this time.

Mr. Bennett explained that he believes Mr. Mullery now has sole ownership along one half of the easement and the remaining half is owned by three parties. He questioned if Mr. Mullery would be responsible for maintenance of the road.

Mr. McGinley explained that he believes there are four parcels that retain ownership of the easement and would be responsible for maintenance.

Commissioner Votel recalled the history of the property and indicated that a small portion of the plat was owned by Mr. Kampmeyer. Mr. McGinley explained that Mr. Mullery initially wished to divide into two parcels and he would retain one and Mr. Kampmeyer would own the other. He stated that now the properties owned by Kampmeyer and Mullery would be combined to make two buildable lots.

Commissioner Votel asked if Mr. McGinley was familiar with the utility issue and if there are utility easements.

Mr. Baskfield displayed where the utility lines are buried and pointed out that the buried cables are deteriorating underground and that no easements are in place for the buried utilities; he noted that the lines cannot be moved or removed unless road construction occurs. He pointed out that there is a 33-ft. road easement however the paved road is located adjacent to his property.

Mr. McGinley agreed that the 33-ft. easement is equal to properties on either side of the road but the pavement appears to be on the easterly portion of the easement only.  

Mr. McGinley noted that although it is a private road, the proposed plat meets all setback standards from a standard roadway as defined in the ordinance.

Mr. Baskfield asked if trees would be removed to install the rain gardens. Mr. McGinley responded no and showed the proposed placement of the rain gardens.

Mr. Baskfield asked if the property lines had been changed within the last five years and indicated he was told that a swimming pool was located within the property line. Mr. McGinley responded that no property lines have been changed.

Chair McCue asked if the rain gardens are located near any culverts. Mr. McGinley explained that his associate would address that issue during his presentation.

Mr. Baskfield asked if there were easement for the culverts; Mr. McGinley responded he is not aware of any easements for the culverts.

Mr. Bennett sated that his pond was installed approximately 6 years ago and that he is currently in the process of selling his home. He questioned if the rain gardens would collect silt or have any negative impact on his pond.

Mr. McGinley responded no and commented that most people have concerns relating to increased runoff while Mr. Bennett’s concern relates to whether or not there is sufficient runoff to eliminate potential silt buildup.    

Mr. Bennett advised that Mr. McGinley was the engineer who assisted with his property development and stated he has no objection to the proposal if all setbacks are met; he only concern relates to the road condition and its potential expansion.

Mr. Baskfield stated he also has no objections to the proposal; however he expressed concern that he prefers not to be surprised regarding possible road improvement.

Dave White, 5 Roanoke Road, agreed and stated he also had concerns relating to the road.

Engineer Mike St. Martin described the drainage patterns for the lots; he explained that one of the lots is a natural walk-out lot with a 10 ft. drop from the front to back. He explained the driveway location for this lot was placed in an area to accommodate runoff and that an additional culvert could be placed under the driveway to intercept drainage. He noted that the rain gardens would assist with slowing the runoff process and could be incorporated into the landscape plans for a home on this site. He noted that drainage from the second lot would be accommodated by the two rain gardens.

Chair McCue asked if there was any other way to access the lot and Mr. Kampmeyer responded no and indicated the lot was too steep for any alternative driveway location.  

Brent Baskfield asked if there would be mosquito problems with the wetland and Mr. St. Martin responded that if it occurs there are treatment methods. 

Chair McCue stated she was pleased to see the rain gardens but expressed concerns relating to maintenance; she asked who would be responsible to maintain the rain gardens.   

Mr. McGinley explained that a usually developer’s agreement is prepared by the City Attorney and could include a stipulation requiring the property owner to maintain the rain garden and also to allow the City to inspect the gardens to insure they are maintained.   

Chair McCue asked if the neighbors would call the City if they have concerns regarding the rain gardens. Mr. McGinley responded yes and indicated that the City Engineer would most likely be required to inspect the areas.

Mr. Bennett asked if there were any immediate plans to sell the lots; he suggested that is would be preferable to have the rain gardens installed prior to development of the lots. Mr. Kampmeyer responded there are no plans at this time to sell the lots.

Mr. McGinley noted that when the Roe property was developed the City required one rain garden be installed to accommodate runoff on the Roe property and the remaining rain gardens installed when building permits were issued for the other parcels. He suggested that a condition could be attached to require installation fo the rain gardens at the beginning of construction for these parcels.

Mr. St. Martin noted that the SWPP permits require building sites to be circled with silt fencing; he advised that a rocked entrance pad on each driveway could be installed to contain silt.

Chair McCue asked if there were any comments received from Mr. Bulach and the Planner responded no other comments were received with the exception of those present this evening.

Mark Kampmeyer asked if the building locations shown on the preliminary/final plat were locked-in with approval from the City. Commission Votel responded that he believes these are merely suggested building sites.

Planner Smith advised that the applicant must prove the lots are buildable and stated that the locations could change as long as all setback requirements are met.

Mark Kampmeyer asked if the driveway locations are movable and if the rain gardens may be installed in conjunction with construction on the lots. Commissioner Votel responded yes to both questions.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments from the audience and hearing none the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Votel noted that the main concern appears to be the road issue otherwise the lots are conforming and the drainage issues have been addressed. He pointed out that the City does not appear to have any authority over the private road and that the property owners must get together to address the roadway issues.

Planner Smith agreed and noted that this situation is similar to several areas of the City where property owners access their residences via private roads. She explained it is the responsibility of the property owners to get together and discuss the issues.

Commissioner Votel suggested those present should get together with the developer to discuss the road issue and questioned if there was any formal way the City could be involved.

Planner Smith stated she is not aware of any authority the City may have and that the only way the City could be involved would be to assist with the issue to insure that a proposal does not have any negative impact on the adjacent property owners.     

Chair McCue indicated that the City may have some authority regarding the utilities. She noted that the utility placement or road construction cannot occur on adjacent properties without their permission.

Commissioner Schlehuber stated he empathized with the property owners concerns relating to the road.

Commissioner Svendsen also agreed with their concern and pointed out that as soon as construction begins on the new home sites the road will further deteriorate; he also noted that it would not be possible for two cars to pass each other on an 11-ft. wide road.

Commissioner Votel commented that if a condition relating to the road is attached it cannot be enforced. The Planner agreed and explained that was the opinion of the City Attorney. She also noted that the Attorney indicated it would not be wise to impose a condition since this situation occurs throughout the City and
 
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the neighbors have an association or had held any meetings regarding the road.

Mr. Baskfield responded no and indicated there is no formal association. Mr. Kampmeyer explained that he plows the road and then the costs are split between the property owners.

Commissioner Svendsen asked who would analyze safety conditions relating to the utility lines. Planner Smith stated she is unsure.

Chair McCue suggested the City Engineer check into the matter. Planner Smith pointed out that the Commission could request the City Engineer to review the matter.

Mr. Bennett indicated that if it is possible he would request a copy of the easement agreement that was submitted.

Mr. McGinley offered to mail a copy to Mr. Bennett.

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

Commissioner Votel  moved to recommend approval of the Mullery Acres Preliminay/Final Plat subject to the five (5) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated June 10, 2009, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber.

In discussion, Commissioner Svendsen asked for an explanation of Condition 3. Planner Smith stated that easements are required along all property lines and the rain gardens; she noted this was a carry-over from the Engineer’s recommendation.

Chair McCue called the question.

Motion carried.  4-0

The Commission also recommended that the City Engineer be directed to review the location of the gas and electric utility lines in relation to the proposed plat in order to identify and safety issues.

Commissioner Votel commented that if the road is improved, the residents should insure that it is brought up to standard with the location of the utility lines.

Brent Baskfield stated that he hopes that everyone involved will be good neighbors and work toward a resolution that benefits all of the property owners.

VI. OLD/NEW BUSINESS:    

A.  July Meeting Cancelled:  Planner Smith stated no new applications were received for July and therefore the
      meeting will be cancelled.

B.   Discuss Possible Ordinance Amendment for Removal of Invasive Species Prior to New Construction:   
Commission Schlehuber commented that at the last meeting he mentioned the possibility of discussing an ordinance amendment at the joint meeting with Council relating to removal of invasive plants, such as Buckthorn, prior to new home construction. He indicated that a policy requiring developers to eradicate invasive species prior to construction of new homes would be beneficial to the property owner and the City. He also noted that a general policy relating to removal of these species would also be beneficial.

Commissioner Votel noted that it could be incorporated into the Arbor Day activities and indicated that it would also benefit existing property owners.

Planner Smith stated that the Commission could make a formal request to ask Council to consider an amendment and Council would most likely refer the matter to staff for research. She noted that Council had indicated the joint meeting should be held in the fall due to summer vacations.

The Commission unanimously concurred to request Council consider authorizing the Commission and staff to study an amendment to the City Code requiring the eradication of invasive plant species at the time of new home construction and a general policy plan for eradication of invasive plant species from the City.     

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

V.  ADJOURN:  Commissioner Votel moved, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. 4-0

      Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk