- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – JUNE 22, 2011

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

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen and JoAnne Wahlstrom  

City Planner:  Stephen Grittman and Former Planner Carie Fuhrman
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
Commissioners Tom Schlehuber and Tom Votel were absent.

1.         CALL TO ORDER:   Chair Andrea McCue opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She announced that Commissioner Tom Votel had submitted his resignation and that Commission Tom Schlehuber was absent due to a death in his family.  She explained that Mayor Williams would be appointing a resident to fill the position vacated by Tom Votel.

2.   APPROVE MINUTES:  Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the May 18, 2011
minutes and there was no response.
     
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to approve the May 18, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried.  (3-0)

Planner Carie Fuhrman explained that she had taken a new position with the City of Princeton as the Community Development Director. She introduced Stephen Grittman of Northwest Associated Consultants (NAC) and explained that he would be reviewing planning items for the City.

On behalf of the Commissioners, Chair McCue commended Carie for doing such an excellent job for the City as the planner and stated it was a pleasure to work with her. Carie thanked the Commission for their support and commented that it has been a wonderful experience working with the Commission, Council and staff.

Stephen Grittman explained that he is one of the principals of NAC and that he previously had done work for Sunfish Lake and was familiar with the City.     

3. A.  Public Hearing: Variance and Major Site & Building Plan Review – Arcedo Property, 2600 Angell Road:

Chair McCue asked the Planner to review his report on the application.

Planner Grittman stated that Dr. Arcedo is requesting approval of Setback Variance and a Major Site and Building Plan Review to construction a second-story addition onto his home located at 2600 Angell Road; the proposed addition will be approximately 800 sq. ft. He explained that as originally reviewed, the application would qualify for a minor site and building review. However, the proposed addition will be constructed above an existing portion of the home which encroaches into the required 100 ft. setback area, with an actual setback of 80 ft.  He noted that a variance would be required to allow the addition, even though the addition would not encroach any more than the existing building. He advised that according to Section 1241.06 of the city Code, the front yard setback is required to be no less than 100 feet.

The Planner stated that previously variances were granted based on identifiable hardships and the fact that the property could not be put to reasonable use without granting a variance. He explained that the recently adopted new legislation now requires cities to consider variance requests based on “practical difficulties” in putting the property to reasonable use; cities are no longer required to find a hardship in conjunction with granting a variance. He further explained that the requests are now measured by unique conditions that exist with the property that are not the fault o the property owner and were not created by the owner; he provided the example of an unusual lot configuration.


Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the Commission would still consider the property “grandfathered in” for the purpose of granting a variance.

Mr. Grittman explained that the existing building would be considered “grandfathered in” since it was most likely granted a variance when it was originally constructed. He explained that the new addition would be taken out of its non-conforming status when the City grants this variance request. He pointed out that the Commission should consider unique conditions relating to this request such as the orientation of the lot with access from a private driveway and the placement of the existing home on the lot which determined the front setback. He commented that the adjacent lot to the east is public property and therefore the addition should have little impact on that property. He explained that since the addition is only 5 or 6 ft. higher, it should also have minor impact on the adjacent lot to the west. He noted that the total building height would is proposed at under 29 ft. and therefore meets the 30 ft. maximum height as defined in the City Code. He further advised that the addition would have no impact on storm water runoff due to the fact that there is no increase in the building footprint nor any additional hard surface proposed.

Planner Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the variance request based on the six (6) findings as listed in the staff report which support the approval and identify that the applicant has shown practical difficulties in meeting the requirements of the ordinance. He also noted that staff found the proposal to be in keeping with the existing conditions in the neighborhood and that the property continues to be consistent with the intent of the City’s zoning regulations.

The Planner advised that if Commission recommends approval of the variance, staff also recommends approval of the Major Site and Building Plan, based on the finding that the proposed will have little or no impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration or neighboring property. He advised that staff has requested two conditions be attached to this approval; 1) incorporation of the City Engineer’s recommendations to install a silt fence at the perimeter of construction activity; 2) install delineation fencing to protect the septic system drainfield (if needed), and, 3) require an inspection of the septic system by the City Inspector for consistency with requirements related to addition of a bedroom to the existing home.        

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for his report.

Chair McCue asked if the there would be any exterior lighting and the applicant responded that there is no exterior lighting proposed.

Chair McCue opened the public hearing and asked if there were any comments from the public or applicant.

Dr. Arcedo was present and explained that in his opinion the project will enhance the aesthetics of the property. He explained that he has had to remove some dead trees on the property and will be removing one additional tree. He explained that he has struggled with the decision to remain in the community or sell the property; he indicated that he enjoys the City and wishes to improve the property at this time.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if any more trees would be removed due to the construction. Dr. Arcedo responded no and explained he has only removed dead trees.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. She closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Svendsen asked if the Commission should use the new criteria when considering the variance request.

Mr. Grittman responded yes and explained that all cities are required to use this criteria based on the new law. He
explained that the City is currently considering amending its zoning ordinance to address these changes in a separate planning agenda item. The variance standards to be utilized by the city are defined in amendments proposed by the City Attorney’s office.  

Commissioner Svendsen asked the planner if the application meets the new criteria. Mr. Grittman responded yes.

Chair McCue pointed out that the footprint of the existing structure has not changed, only the height of the structure.

Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to recommend approval of the Variance based on the six (6) items identified in the Planner’s report of June 15, 2011 to support the request and approval of the Major Site and Building Plan Review based on the findings that the proposal will have little or no impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration or neighboring property, subject to the conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report and recommended by the City Engineer and City Septic Inspector, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (3-0)

 4.  A.  Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit, Overland Contracting (AT &T) – Wireless Service Tower at St.
            Anne’s Church Property, 2035 Charlton Road:

Chair McCue asked the planner to review his report..

Planner Grittman explained that Overland Contracting, on behalf of AT & T, is requesting approval of a Conditional use Permit (CUP) for the co-location of a personal wireless service antenna on an existing wireless service tower owned by T-Mobile and location on the St. Anne’s Episcopal Church property at 2035 Charlton Road. He stated that the property is zoned INS, Institutional District, and personal wireless service towers and antennas not located on a public structure are allowed in the district by CUP. He advised that AT & T currently has six (6) antenna structures mounted on the tower and plans to remove the existing antennae array on the lower portion of the tower and replace them with nine (9) similar antennas in the same location. He stated that the applicant advised the new antennas are being installed to improve coverage and to handle the new technology. He further explained that there would also be changes to the ground equipment that is located inside a shelter at the base of the tower along with new cabling installed between the equipment shelter and the pole.  

The Planner reviewed the criteria for granting a CUP as listed in his report dated June 15, 2011. He advised that the City Engineer has reviewed the request and recommended approval, with a notation that he had not reviewed the structural capacity of the existing monopole at the time of his review. The Planner explained that the applicants have submitted the structural information to the City Engineer for his review and he found that the structure is more than sufficient to handle the additional antennae.

Planner Grittman stated that staff finds the request to be consistent with the intent of the City Code and recommends approval of the CUP as submitted, subject to two conditions; 1) A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and installation; and, 2) The City Engineer should verify the tower capacity representations submitted by the applicant.
He noted that the applicant provided additional information on coverage analysis relating to the need for the new antenna and equipment, and also provided maps showing the coverage areas.

Chair McCue asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if there would be any increase in the height of the tower and Planner Grittman responded no. 

Christina Warr of Nexius Solutions was present representing AT & T. Christina explained that the request for the additional antennae is to expand the band width to meet the needs of new technology and improve coverage. She offered to respond to questions.

Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned the size of the new structure and where it would be located. Ms. Warr explained that currently there are currently six antennae mounted on a triangular structure – two antennae on each leg of the structure. The applicants propose to add one additional antenna on each of the three sides of the triangular structure, for a total of nine antennae, and that the triangular structures would be placed at the same height on the tower. She commented that the change would be minimal and most likely not noticeable once the installation is completed.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the equipment building would be altered. Ms. Warr stated that there would be no change to the exterior of the equipment building, the only change would occur inside the existing structure.

Chair McCue asked if the new equipment would accommodate the new technology such as the I-Phones and Ms. Warr responded yes.  
Chair McCue opened the public hearing for comments and noted no persons were in attendance at the meeting. 

Planner Grittman stated he received a telephone call from Dede Smith at 2162 Charlton Road who stated her objection to the visual impacts of the proposal; he advised that Ms. Smith was concerned that the tower height would be increased.

Chair McCue commented that the applicant has explained there would be no change in the height of the tower.

Ms. Warr reiterated that the visual impact of the additional antennae would be minimal; she also noted that the existing tower is mostly surrounded by trees and therefore any changes should not be noticeable from neighboring properties.

Commissioner Svendsen pointed out that the current AT & T antennas are at 63 ft. and that the T-Mobile equipment is located higher at 78 ft.

Chair McCue asked if there were further comments and there was no response. She closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Svendsen moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for co-location of a personal wireless service antenna by Overland Contracting/AT & T as described on the submitted site plans, subject to the two conditions as listed; 1) A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and installation; and, 2) The City Engineer should verify the tower capacity representations submitted by the applicant, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)

5.   Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revision to the Sunfish lake City Code Addressing the
      Standards by which Variances are Considered:

The Planner advised that State Legislators adopted a new law that restores the variance authority back to cities. He explained that this new law removed the language requiring cities to establish an “undue hardship” when seeking a variance and changed the language to require that cities determine “practical difficulties” relating to the applicant’s proposed use of the property in a reasonable manner.  He stated that the League of Minnesota Cities and the Builders Association lobbied for changes in the language to more closely match language that was used by County government when considering variance requests. He pointed out that the new law allows for the City to determine that even if a property owner has options that would meet all zoning regulations, a property that requests a variance may still be a reasonable way of using that property and the City may approve the request if the City chooses to do so. He noted that the City is required to update the language in the City Code to reflect the changes in the State law.

Planner Grittman explained that the City Attorneys’ office drafted an ordinance amendment that would update the Zoning regulations to comply with the new statutory language and bring the City Code into compliance.  He pointed out that the new language will change how variances are reviewed by the City with a “softer” approach when considering variance requests. He offered to respond to questions.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if all cities must abide by the new law. Mr. Grittman responded yes. He commented that some cities had already used this language when considering variances and were told by the State Supreme Court to cease doing so; he indicated that the State then supported the new language and that is how the legislation was adopted. He explained that the old language made it relatively clear that if any alternatives were available to accommodate the request, the cities should not expand the non-conforming use. He pointed out that the request earlier this evening was an example of how the new language provides for granting the request and explained that the variance was justifiable since there was no increase in already non-conforming footprint of the structure, only the height of the existing structure changed.  

The Planner explained that each request would have to be considered on a case by cases basis and findings for the uniqueness of each request should be documented. He commented that the legislature has expressed their belief that the new language may reduce lawsuits relating to variances; however, in his opinion, the lawsuits could increase.
Commissioner Svendsen asked if the City is required to adopt the new legislation. Planner Grittman responded yes.
Clerk Iago noted that the City is also required to conduct a public hearing since it is an amendment to the City ordinances.

Commissioner Svendsen asked if the public hearing had been properly noticed. Planner Grittman responded yes; he pointed out that the notice was placed in the newspaper, on the City website and posted at the Church, but no individual notices were sent to property owners.

Chair McCue stated that she prefers the new language and commented that it is her belief that people should be able to improve their homes if the change does not negatively impact adjacent properties. She supported the more flexible language as presented.

Chair McCue opened the public hearing for comments from the public. She noted that no one was present and closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Wahlstrom recommended approval of the proposed ordinance amendment as drafted by the City Attorney to bring the City’s Zoning Ordinance language relating to variances into conformity with the relevant State Statutes, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (3-0)

Planner Grittman noted that it will be particularly important that the City include findings to support the uniqueness of each request when granting approval of a variance. 

6.   OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:  A. June City Council Update: Planner Fuhrman reviewed items from the June Council meeting.  Planner Grittman advised that there would be three items for consideration at the July Planning meeting.  

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

7.   ADJOURN:          Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (3-0)


Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk