- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – MAY 21, 2014

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

Attendants:

Chair:   Andrea McCue             
Commissioners:   Tom Schlehuber, Tom Hendrickson, Ginny Beckett, and Shari Hansen

City Planner:  Michelle Barness

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

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

2.         ADOPT AGENDA: 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 Beckett and carried.  (5-0)

3.   APPROVE MINUTES August 21, 2013: Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 21, 2013 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to approve the August 21, 2013 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (5-0)

4.   PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review and Two (2) Conditional Use Permits, 1 Grieve Glen Lane, Joel & Jolene Owens ; Chair McCue opened the public hearing for the property at 1 Grieve Glen Lane and reviewed the procedures for conducting the public hearing.  She asked that anyone wishing to speak introduce themselves in order to record the information in the minutes.  She asked the Planner explain the requests.

Planner Barness stated that the application for a Major Site and Building Plan review and two (2) Conditional Use Permits (CUP) to construct a new detached garage, a front entry addition, and a rear patio addition for the existing home located at 1 Grieve Glen Lane.  She stated that the proposed detached garage would be considered the second accessory structure on the site in addition to an existing in-ground pool.  She further explained that the proposed height of the garage exceeds the permitted accessory structure height in the Shoreland District and, therefore, also requires CUP approval. The maximum height allowed is 12 ft. and the applicants are proposing 16 ft. in height, which is allowed by CUP.

The Planner stated the proposed detached garage is 947 sq. ft. and would be located in the front yard west of the home near Delaware Avenue. She advised that a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. is allowed. She explained that an extension of the existing driveway will loop around to the existing driveway to provide access to the detached garage.  She advised that the front entry addition would not require any excavation or grading and would not add any additional square footage to the existing structure as it only consists of columns and a roof.  The rear screened patio would be placed on a poured foundation and is 28 ft. x 16 ft. in size. She advised that the building materials for the screened porch would match the existing structure.

Planner Barness reviewed the R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District criteria as shown on pages 2 and 3 of her report and advised that the application meets all standards with the exception of the accessory building height requirement for the Shoreland Overlay District. She noted that the height requirement in the Shoreland Overlay District was instituted to insure sightlines on property abutting the lakes, however, this property in the Shoreland Overlay District is not located adjacent to the lake and would not impact sightlines. She stated that all setback requirements are met, the building coverage on the lot would be 2 percent, 10 percent is allowed, and the building height with the new front entry would be in conformance.  She advised that the detached garage size meets requirements and that the maximum lot coverage by impervious surface with the improvements would be 10 percent, and 30 percent is the maximum.

The Planner advised that the building materials conform to the City standards and would be brick and stone with shingles matching the existing structure. She advised that the lap siding on the rear would also be in compliance. She asked the builder if the proposed columns at the front entry would be wood and he responded that they would be a composite material.

Planner Barness advised that the CUP is required for the height of the accessory structure and explained that the increased height was proposed so that the pitch of the roof matches the existing home structure.  She reiterated that the increased height would have no negative impact on lake view because the property is not located on the lake.

The Planner displayed the proposed garage and explained that the floor of the structure must be 3 feet above the normal high water mark for the lake in the Shoreland District.  She spoke with the contractor and was advised that the structure would meet that requirement. She also advised that the placement of the new driveway would meet setbacks and would be bituminous material and that the lighting also meets requirements.

Planner Barness stated that the contractor would be working with the City Engineer to insure that all recommendations listed in the Engineer’s report are met. She noted that the Engineer recommended approval of the requests and pointed out that only one item remains to be changed prior to issuance of a building permit, related to grading of the driveway extension near the proposed garage. She noted that the Engineer requested a 16-1/2 ft. buffer around the stormwater ponding area and the contractor and applicants agreed to install erosion control as requested. 

The Planner stated that a few retaining walls that do not exceed 4 ft. in height are proposed and do not require review or approval because of their height.  She further explained that six (6) pine trees shown on the landscape plan may be moved from the NW area of the new garage to the NE area to provide better screening and a buffer for the adjacent neighbors.

Bob Moser, contractor for the project, stated that no trees would be removed and none of the existing trees should be impacted by construction. He also stated that the requirement for a 50 ft. construction buffer from existing trees would be met.

Planner Barness reviewed the Evaluation Criteria listed on page 6 of her report for the Site and Building Plan Review and stated that all the requirements have been met with the exception of the height of the detached garage. She noted that the applicant agreed to implement erosion control and that no significant vegetation would be removed.  She further advised that the criteria items mentioned in conjunction with the CUP for the second accessory structure, the detached garage, have been met.

The Planner stated that the criteria for the CUP relating to the height of the detached garage are met with the exception of the increased height. She noted that she received one call form a neighbor who was unable to attend this evening.  That person expressed some concern over the increased height of the proposed garage. They did not express any additional recommendation for screening and advised they would leave it to the discretion of the Commission to determine if any additional screening would be necessary and if approval should be granted.

Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the neighbor was identified and the Planner responded that the person stated they were the neighbor to the north of the property.

Planner Barness pointed out that requests for additional accessory structures on properties in the City are common because in-ground pools are considered accessory structures and also pool houses. She advised that they are permitted by Conditional Use Permit to allow the City to consider imposing additional conditions to protect views from neighboring properties. She further noted that the City Zoning Code contains nothing that prohibits both attached and detached garages on properties in the City. She stated that the proposed garage would not be used for a home occupation and that the ordinance requires the applicant to maintain the high quality of the structure.  She offered to respond to questions.

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her report. She opened the hearing for comments or questions from the audience.

Steve Shaller, 6 Grieve Glen Lane, asked if the sole reason for the 16 ft. height requested was to be in conformance with the roof pitch of the existing home. He also asked if the City would prefer the roof for the structure remain at 12 ft.  

Commissioner Hansen asked how reducing the roof height to 12 ft. would impact its design.
Mr. Moser explained that he attempted to be consistent with the current design of the roof on the existing home.

Planner Barness pointed out that 16 ft. is allowed in the R-1 District, however, because this property is in the Shoreland District the height increase is only allowed by CUP. She again noted that normally the height restriction was imposed for maintaining views for lots abutting the lake and this lot is not adjacent to the lake.

The Planner stated that staff recommends approval of the requests based on the conditions listed in her report dated May 14, 2014. She advised that Condition No. 2 was met by the applicant and should be removed and that the Engineer’s recommendations listed in his report dated May 5, 2014 should also be included with a recommendation for approval.  She stated that the Septic Inspector had not sent any comments, but if any recommendations are required from the inspector they should be met.

Commissioners Hansen asked if there was a minimum height requirement on the trees to be planted for screening on the north area of the property. 

The Planner advised that there are some size requirements for screening listed in the City Code.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions or comments and hearing no response she closed the public hearing. She asked for a motion on the proposed application.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved approval of the Major Site and Building Plans and the Two (2) Conditional Use Permits for Joel and Jolene Owens, 1 Grieve Glen Lane, based on the findings and conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated May 14, 2014, with the removal of condition No. 2 that has been met, and the Engineer’s report dated May 5, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber.

In discussion, Commissioner Hansen suggested increasing the number and height of trees on the north side of the property for screening purposes.  There was discussion regarding the minimum number of trees and what size trees should be placed on the north portion of the property for screening.

Commissioner Schlehuber suggested that a landscaper would be most qualified to recommend the number, size and placement of trees that would provide the most effective screening.

Mayor Park indicated that the City Forester could work with the applicants to determine the number, size and placement of the trees for screening.

Chair McCue commented that the use of a rain garden and silt fencing would be important to protect the storm water drainage on site.

Commissioner Hendrickson as maker of the motion recommended an amendment to request that the City Forester determine the number, size and placement of trees on the north area of the site to provide sufficient screening from the neighboring property. Commissioner Schlehuber as second for the motion agreed to the amendment. 

Motion as amended carried. (5-0)

5.   PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, 240 Salem Church Road, Dan & Brenda Vansteenburg; Chair McCue opened the public hearing to consider the Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit  for 240 Salem Church Road, Dan and Brenda Vansteenburg. She asked the Planner to explain the request.

Planner Barness referred to her report dated May 14, 2014 and explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow construction of a new home, garage, driveway and accessory structures consisting of an in-ground pool and tennis court on the undeveloped lot located at 240 Salem Church Road. She stated that a CUP is required for two (2) accessory structures the pool and tennis court.  She noted that the lot is 10-acres, however; the buildable area of the lot is 2.5-acres due to its topography. 

The Planner advised the applicants wish to construct a two-story home with a walkout basement and both a main level and lower level garage. The building footprint of the principal structure would be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. She noted that the basement level of the home is not included in the overall floor area calculations and that the total square footage without with the basement would be approximately 11,000 sq. ft.

Planner Barness referred to pages 2 and 3 in her report and stated that all the R-1 Single-Family Residential District Building Standards are met with the application.  She commented that the property also falls within the Aircraft Noise Abatement Zone and the applicants have been in contact with the Building Inspector to insure the building standards for this zone are met. She advised that the pool and tennis court also met the standards and requirements for accessory structures. She explained that no fencing was proposed for the tennis court at this time; however, the applicant may submit a CUP application in the future for a chain link fence up to ten(10) feet in height, which is permitted to enclose a tennis court. She explained that the plan conforms to building height and percentage of lot area coverage; she noted that the maximum building structure coverage may not exceed 10 percent and the proposed structure is at 2 percent coverage. She
stated that the proposed building materials also meet City Code standards  

The Planner stated that the east portion of the lot is adjacent to Musser Park and there are existing homes to the north and west of the proposed building site. She advised that the lot is very hilly and the City Engineer’s report contains several recommendations for grading, drainage, and erosion control methods due to the steep topography.  She displayed the plat for the property which showed the two buildable areas identified for construction of the home and tennis court and commented that the applicants adhered to the buildable areas identified to reduce grading impacts. She stated that the driveway entrance would be from the north and that the proposed driveway winds along a steep slope and follows the drainage easement. She explained that the driveway installation would require construction of a retaining wall due to the topography.  She stated that the driveway near the home would be circular with a port between the main house and the carriage house to allow access to the rear portion and attached garage.  She displayed an elevation drawing of the front of the home and explained that the driveway loops in front of the carriage house portion of the home. She noted that although this portion of the home exterior resembles a garage it would be used for hobbies, not a garage and that the driveway in front of this portion of the home would be used only for guest parking.  She also showed an elevation drawing of the rear portion of the home with a large terrace, and the placement of the pool; she commented that the design the home was configured to fit into the sloping topography.

Planner Barness explained that the City Engineer expressed some concerns regarding drainage near the lower garage near the rear of the home and this concern was addressed with a proposed increase in the size of the drainage pipe in this area.  She also explained that the applicants agreed to work with the City Engineer regarding placement of the pathway within the drainage easement that leads to the tennis court.  She advised that the applicants had also addressed the issue of how the removal of a number of trees from the top of the slope and 20 trees near the tennis court would impact sightlines from neighboring properties by creating a view-shed analysis that showed the existing tree coverage would provide sufficient screening to adjacent properties. She indicated that although the analysis shows that sufficient screening would exist even with the removal of the trees, Commission has the option to further discuss this matter.  She explained that small shrubs are proposed for decorative purposes on the site.  She advised that the City Forester indicated that approximately 140 trees would be removed during construction and he noted that several of these trees were ash trees that should be removed given the prospect of the loss of ash trees due to the Emerald Ash Borer invasion. The Forester also noted that the other tree species proposed for removal were in moderate condition and he had no concerns with their removal. She advised that the Forester suggested the applicants consult an Arborist for methods to preserve and protect the trees that will remain during the construction process, and that a 50 ft. buffer should be maintained between construction machinery and the tree roots.

The Planner explained that originally no lighting plan was submitted, but the applicant provide a proposed lighting diagram showing the placement of  hooded coach lights, pedestal lights and safety lights near the pool; she explained that the proposed lights appear to meet the standards in the ordinance. She further advised that the applicants are not proposing any flood lights or lighting of the tennis court. She stated that staff recommends a final lighting plan must.be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Planner Barness advised that the City Engineer reviewed the plans and explained the City Code mandates that land disturbance on slopes in excess of 18% grade are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City Council with recommendation from the City Engineer. She stated that the applicants shall be required to comply with both the steep slope requirements and grading recommendations provided by the City Engineer in his report dated May 6, 2014.  She displayed a diagram showing the proposed installation of the silt fence along the entire length of the construction sites for both the home and tennis court.

The Planner stated that staff recommends application of erosion control blankets during construction on steep slopes of 12% or more that also be required to adhere to all required erosion control measure as provided in the City Zoning Code. She also explained that the Engineer noted in his report that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Permit will be required since over an acre of land would be disturbed.

Planner Barness advised that the City Engineer reviewed the proposed storm water infiltration system to be installed east of the pool area and south of the home and recommended approval if the revisions he outlined in his report were made prior to issuance of a building permit. She pointed out that the retaining walls proposed in conjunction with the driveway installation must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. She stated that after final grading and prior to final approval the applicants must provide an actual planting schedule to determine if the plantings meet Code requirements and also provide a plan listing what ground covers would be installed.  She stated that natural vegetation should be used to restore steep slopes to help infiltrate water and prevent erosion.

The Planner stated that the applicants provided the location of a primary septic field on the site and the City Engineer requested a proposed location and extent of a secondary septic flied be provided.  She explained that the Engineer further asked that all trees impacted by both septic field locations be indicated in the project plans and listed additional requirements for protection of septic areas in his report dated May 6, 2014.  She stated that the Septic Inspector would provide his analyses and approval after approval of the plan. 

Planner Barness explained that the property is in the Aircraft Noise Abatement Zone and the applicants have been in contact with the Building Inspector regarding building requirements within the zoning district; the applicants agreed to provide detailed construction plans to meet the building standards for this zoning district when submitting the final building plans for issuance of a building permit.  

The Planner reviewed the criteria for Major Site and Building Plan Evaluation as shown on pages 8 and 9 in her report. She stated that the applicants had taken steps to provide sufficient erosion control measures and that they were cognizant of tree removal to maintain existing screening. She noted the proposals provides quality architecture and meets building materials standards and design guidelines and also provides protection for future use of the lot by considering preservation of natural areas.

Planner Barness also reviewed the Conditional Use Permit criteria for Multiple Accessory Uses as shown on pages 10 and 11 of her report. She noted that the need for two structures is debatable however, both are permitted accessory uses in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and the pool and tennis court will be used as recreational facilities. She commented that two such structures on property within the City are not uncommon and that the applicants are asked to maintain both accessory uses so as not to present a hazard to public health safety and general welfare. She noted that the City Engineer reviewed the proposed storm water treatment systems for the site which included an infiltration field connected to the proposed pool; his recommendations are provided in his report.  She further explained that no fencing of the tennis court was included with this application, and that she advised the applicants a Conditional Use Permit for fencing would be required if they wish to fence the court in the future. She also noted that additional screening may be required with a request for fencing the tennis court. She stated that the proposed accessory structures appear to meet the standards described in the Zoning Code so as not to pose any danger to the community.

The Planner recommended approval of both the Major Site and Building Plans and Conditional Use Permit based on the finding that the proposal meet the R-1 District lot area and setback standards, and is of high quality design in conformance with the City’s performance standards and similar in character to development on surrounding properties. She further recommended that a recommendation for approval should be conditioned upon the conditions as listed in her report dated May 14, 2014 and the City Engineer’s conditions as listed in his report dated May 6, 2014. She noted that staff requested the applicants contact the Planner and Engineer to arrange pre- and post-construction site visits so that staff can confirm that site and building plans and associated approval conditions have been implemented. She noted these site visits are separate from other inspection that may be necessary and the cost would be $75 per visits to be paid by the property owner. She stated that applicant Dan Vansteeburg and Adam Burrington and Peter Eskuche from the Eskuche Design firm were present to respond to questions.   

Chair McCue asked if the planting scheduled should be submitted prior to the Council meeting so the applicants did not incur any delay with approval.

The Planner explained that some the applicants may be able to adhere to some conditions prior to Council approval, however some conditions they may be unable to complete prior to submission of a final building plan and those could be tied to the issuance of a building permit.

Chair McCue asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience.

Commissioner Beckett stated her opinion that the site visits by staff would be beneficial.

Steve Shaller, 6 Grive Glen Lane, stated he was pleased that there would be no lighting on the tennis courts or the pool area; he explained that he owns property to the west of the site.  He commented that in his opinion the proposed tennis court appears to be too close to the park.  He also noted there are steep slopes on the westerly portion of the property and questioned where the pool drainage would be directed.  He commented that if natural prairie plantings were installed on the westerly slopes, it would be better for controlling runoff in that area.

Adam Burrington showed a diagram of the proposed infiltration system to manage the drainage and Peter Eskuche explained that the system was designed to also manage the drainage from the home.

Dan Vansteenburg explained that the pool is never completely drained and that the runoff when lowering the water level in the pool would actually flow away from the west portion of the property.  He also commented that he would be open to taking efforts to address steep slope and runoff concerns.

Mayor Molly Park noted that the property gains access from a private driveway and she asked if the applicant had worked out an agreement with his neighbors for access to his property. 

Dan Vansteenburg explained he only met his neighbor this evening and provide information so that he could be contacted to discuss access issues; he commented that in his opinion an access easement should be obtainable. He noted that his neighbor was aware of the project and that the general contractor would keep them informed on the construction schedule.

Commissioner Hansen commented that it appears the plan addresses the grading and erosion issues.

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

Commissioner Hendrickson questioned if the silt fencing would be of a higher standard or reinforced to maintain the steep slopes on the site. He suggested the applicant may wish to consider reinforced silt fencing on the “down” sides of the slopes during the construction process.

Peter Eskuche explained that the staking for the silt fence would be 12 inches below grade and that the fencing meets MnDOT highway construction specifications.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that he could foresee substantial erosion occurring during a large storm event.

Commissioner Schlehuber explained that his property is adjacent to the site on the south and questioned whether the silt and erosion control issues relating to the entire site have been sufficiently addressed.

Commissioner Hendrickson stated that in his opinion the person best qualified to determine if these issues are addressed would be the City Engineer and he would defer to the Engineer’s recommendation.

The Planner explained that for previous home construction sites she recalled the Engineer recommending double erosion control measures to insure erosion control (e.g. silt fence and biorolls) and also that roadways be maintained in good condition with grading of the site. She suggested that she could contact the Engineer to insure all areas with steep slopes are sufficiently protected.  

Commissioner Hendrickson agreed that it would be appropriate to have the Engineer review the erosion control materials and areas; he noted that when the property was platted there was extensive grading and storm water drainage construction done on the site to maintain the property drainage easement. He indicated that the current City Engineer was on staff and should recall what was done.

Commissioner Schlehuber agreed and commented that the previous owner of his home had issues with drainage.

Chair McCue suggested requesting the Engineer highlight the areas that should require additional protection and enhanced erosion control.

Commissioner Schlehuber questioned who determines if the erosion control methods are working or if the integrity of the fencing was compromised.

Adam Burrington explained that the general contractor would manage the site and the Building Inspector could also review the silt fencing when conducting other inspections at the site. 

There was discussion relating to who should be responsible for insuring that the erosion control methods were working. It was suggested that the general contractor could provide a monthly report to the City Engineer.

Commissioner Schlehuber stated he would prefer to have someone independent of the project conducting the review.

The Planner suggested Commission could request the City Engineer to provide a review of the property to insure that the erosion control was working.

Commission concurred to request the City Engineer conduct a monthly site visit to insure the erosion control has not been compromised.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked the length of the driveway from the cul-de-sac to the proposed home. He commented that as he walked the proposed driveway site this evening he noted the steep incline on the slopes. He expressed concern that the property owner, visitors and/or emergency vehicles may have problems accessing and leaving during winter months. He explained that he also has a long driveway and that he has had problems with sliding off the driveway when icy conditions occur. 

Adam Burrington explained that some of the driveway stakes were incorrectly placed and that the actual slope of the driveway has not been determined. He noted that the plan attempts to have a gradual slope to the home and that the driveway would be 12.5 to 13 ft. wide with an additional 2 to 3 ft. of buffer for snow removal storage area. He noted that the length of the driveway would be approximately 540 ft.

Mayor Park questioned if the Fire equipment would have sufficient area for staging to fight a fire.

Dan Vansteenburg stated that he has considered installation of a sprinkling system in the home.

The Planner explained that the driveway was proposed to be 13 ft. wide and that she would check with the Fire Chief to determine if that is sufficient for access and staging.    

Commissioner Beckett commented that trees and shrubs should also be setback from the roadway to accommodate access and snow storage.

Commissioner Hansen asked if the tennis court would be visible from Salem Church Road and if sufficient screening is proposed. Mr. Vansteenburg stated that additional plantings are proposed for screening in addition to the existing trees in the area.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked what material would be used for the path between the home and the tennis court and how far the court is located from the park. Mr. Vansteenburg advised the court is 75 ft. from the park and that mulch or other organic material is planned for the pathway.

The Planner explained that the Forester had asked that some damaged trees near the park be removed in conjunction with the construction. Peter Eskuche advised that he had reviewed the trees the Forester asked to be removed and he did not foresee any issues with removing them in conjunction with the construction.


Chair McCue asked the height of the retaining walls. Adam Burington explained that several of the walls adjacent to the driveway would be over 4 ft. tall and would be approved in conjunction with the final building plans.   The Planner advised that there is a condition in the Engineer’s report addressing the retaining walls.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if there were any comments from the neighbors and the Planner responded that she received no comments with the exception of those this evening from Mr. Shaller.

Mr. Shaller asked if there was an easement for driveway access from the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Vansteenburg explained that there should be an easement in place when the land was platted and that he has been paying for snowplowing the road access from Salem Church Road since he purchased the property.

Commissioner Schlehuber questioned what impact the construction vehicles might have on the existing road access.

Commissioner Hendrickson noted that the Engineer recommended a condition to require documentation of the current roadway condition prior to construction so that it may be repaired to its existing condition after construction.

Commissioner Schlehuber commented that the wooded area has had problems with Buckthorn and indicated that he has attempted to eradicate this invasive species from his property to allow young trees to grow; he asked that the applicant also attempt to keep the wooded areas of his property healthy. The Planner pointed out that the City Forester would be available to assist with identifying invasive species on the property and provide informational materials for eradication.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response. She indicated that a motion for approval should include the items discussed relating to the City Engineer conducting erosion control checks and highlighting areas of sensitive slopes for additional or enhanced silt fencing, the applicant submitting a plan to restore natural vegetation on steep slopes versus grass in these areas, and the applicant submitting a lighting plan and landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit.

Commissioner Hansen moved approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit for                  Dan and Brenda Vansteenburg, 240 Salem Church Road, based on the findings and conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated May 14, 2014, and the City Engineer’s report dated May 6, 2014, with additional conditions and amendments to conditions as follows:

1.  That the City Engineer be requested to review the current erosion control proposal and provide
recommendations for supplementary erosion control measures on sensitive slopes;

2.   That the City Engineer or a designated representative engineer monitor the erosion control on site monthly
during construction;

3.  That Condition No. 2 in the Planner’s report be revised to include language that requires natural vegetation be
installed on steep slopes rather than grass;

4.  That Condition No. 4 in the Planner’s report be revised to include language that requires submission of a

revised and approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit; and,

5.   That Condition No. 5 in the Planner’s report be revised to remove the requirement for submission of a lighting

plan but to retain the condition for submitting lighting details.

6.   That Condition No. 3 in the Planner’s report be removed, as the applicant provided viewshed analysis was considered by the Planning Commission and existing screening on the subject property was found to be sufficient to help block views to the development.

seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)

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

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (5-0)

Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk