- DRAFT –

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING – OCTOBER 17, 2018

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


Attendants:

Chair: Tom Hendrickson

Commissioners: Ginny Beckett and Shannon Nelson
City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

Commissioner Alan Spaulding was absent.

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

2. ADOPT AGENDA: Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any additions to the agenda and there was no response.

Commissioner Beckett moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commission Nelson and carried (3-0)

3. APPROVE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2018: Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the

September 19, 2018 Minutes.

Clerk Iago advised that her name was listed as submitting the minutes but should have the Planner’s name listed since she was absent from the meeting.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further corrections and there was not response.

Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the September 19, 2018 minutes as corrected, seconded by Chair Hendrikson and carried. (3-0)

4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SETBACK VARIANCE GRANTED IN 2016, 331 Salem Church Road, Sena Kihtir:

Chair Hendrickson opened the meeting for the purpose of a Public Hearing to review the amendment to the conditions of approval for the Setback Variance that was granted in 2016 to the property located at 331 Salem Church Road. He explained the Planner would first review the application and then he would open the Public Hearing for comments from the audience. He asked that anyone wishing to speak provide their name and address, or their relationship to the applicant.

Planner Grittman referred to his report dated October 10, 2018 and stated that the applicant is seeking approval for an amendment to the conditions of approval relating to painting the home. He referred to Condition No. 2 of the approval which states “The exterior building materials used must match existing exterior building materials in material type and color.” He explained the applicant is seeking an amendment to paint the existing home and addition a new color.

The Planner explained that at their September meeting, Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the previously approved conditions so that the applicant could paint the entire home one color. He noted that a public hearing is required and that is the reason this matter was referred to the Planning Commission. He advised that the applicant indicated they would prefer to paint the existing home a new color since the existing color is outdated and faded. He stated the original condition in the resolution stated that the addition must match the existing home and that the amended condition would state that the home must be painted “the same color” to be chosen by the applicant.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any questions from the Commission. He noted that one condition of the 2016 variance approved stated that the building materials must match in type and color and that the intent of that condition was to have the home addition painted the same color as the existing structure.

Planner Grittman agreed and explained that the approval granted in 2016 was that the addition match in materials and color. He stated that the addition appears to be horizontal lap siding and he was unsure what material was used for the existing siding. He noted that the original home was built in 1920 and it appears that there were other additions to the home.

Sena Kihtir, 331 Salem Church Road, thanked the Commission for their review of this request. She explained that when she submitted the original application in 2016 she was told that the City cannot enforce paint color and that she was told the addition should match the existing home. She stated that it wasn’t easy to match the existing color since it was old and faded and she pointed out that one of her neighbors has a two-toned color on their home. She reviewed the letter she received from the Planner dated January 3, 2018 stated the project was in compliance and then she was told that Council revoked the original approval based on a complaint from the neighbor at the March 8, 2018 Council meeting. She pointed out that her home is not visible to the neighbors except for one two-story home. She displayed photos of the road leading to her home which showed the vegetation blocked the view from neighboring properties. She referred to her letters dated October 1, 2018 and stated that her neighbors had been harassing her and that she was disappointed that Council would revoke their original decision based on a complaint from a neighbor.

Sena Kihtir stated that at this time she requests that the City honor their original decision because it was based on a complaint from the neighbor and allow her to leave the home as it is. She explained that she found it would be two times more costly to paint her home than she had expected and that it would be a financial burden. She commented that the complaint from her neighbor came 21 months after the construction was completed on her home and that it is her opinion she is being harassed by the neighbor. She referred to the letters she submitted to the City that outline the harassment from the neighbor.

Planner Grittman explained that the letter he send in January to the contractor that stated the addition was in compliance was his opinion that the addition construction was in compliance. He advised that he was not reviewing the home as it related to the paint color and that issue arose later. He pointed out that Council has the authority to disagree with his analysis of the situation and that occasionally Council may disagree with staff opinions.

Chair Hendrickson stated he understands it may be a financial burden for the applicant, however, the financial impact cannot be considered as rationale when the City reviews a variance request.. He stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to Council and that there is very specific criteria to consider when reviewing a variance request. He pointed out that when a variance is granted by Council there are conditions attached and one of the conditions of approval of this variance was that the color of the addition match the existing home. He advised that the City has the authority to impose conditions when granting a variance and that the intent is to insure that there is no negative impact on the surrounding properties and that by granting the variance they are not creating something out of the ordinary.

Sena Kihtir stated it appears that she misinterpreted the information in the Commission minutes which stated that the City cannot regulate the color.

Chair Hendrickson advised that the conditions in the resolution were clear and that she did not fulfill those conditions to match the lighter color on the existing home. He noted that he is in the constructions business and occasionally the paint on a home addition will not exactly match, but can be close to the original color. He explained that regardless of the Planner’s notification that the project was compliant, the direction from Council was clear in the conditions listed in the 2016 resolution and that her contractor should have adhered to them. He explained that Council was offering an amendment to the conditions so that she could have the home painted all one color of her choice. He advised that financial burden has no bearing on whether or not a variance is granted and explained that it cannot be used as a reason to vary from the original approval.

Commissioner Beckett agreed and explained that this review has to do with the property owner adhering to the conditions of approval of the requested variance and are not based on the complaint from the neighbor.

Sena Kihtar explained that she was told at the Council meeting the reason it was done was due to a complaint and noted that the complaint was 21 months after the project was completed. She commented that she wished to live in peace without feeling harassed by her neighbors.

Planner Grittman explained that he had received complaints from neighbors, but he had deferred them and that contributed to the delay for Council action on this matter.

Heidi Goldstein, friend of the applicant, asked if new construction was allowed to have two-colors on their homes.
Clerk Iago explained that new construction may be allowed to have two-colors, however, that would be requested and decided by Council when the home was constructed.

Commissioner Nelson recalled that the variance was due to the proximity of the home to the lake and how the addition would impact the lake views.

Chair Hendrickson explained that it is hard to get approval of variance requests because they may set precedence for future requests.

Planner Grittman agreed and advised that each request variance request is reviewed as a unique project.

Chair Hendrickson pointed out that the City cannot regulate the exact color however, they can regulate the tone. He pointed out that the contractor for the project should have read the conditions prior to painting the addition.

Sena Kihtir asked if there must be a single trim color on the home. She noted that the home has columns and soffits that are older and it may be hard to keep the trim color all white. She questioned if some could be grey; she stated she would prefer that the trim color not be included in the condition.

Planner Grittman explained that he had mentioned the trim in his report, but had not included it in the proposed resolution.

Chair Hendrickson noted that the proposed condition does not include the trim color, however, he suggested that the applicant attempt to maintain the same color for the trim.

Sena Kihtir stated that she was unsure if she could complete the painting of the entire home by June 15, 2019 and that she would prefer extending the date to the end of August, 2019. She commented that she has a graduation next summer and it may be difficult to schedule the painting.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further comments from the audience and, hearing no response, closed the public hearing.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there was any further discussion from the Commission and there was no response.

Chair Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of the request to amend the conditions of the variance approval, with an amendment to proposed conditions read as follows:

1. The repainting of the home be completed by August 31, 2019, and;

2. The main color of the existing home siding and the addition siding be painted the same color to be chosen by the applicant.

Seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (3-0)

Clerk Iago advised that the Council would consider this matter at their meeting held on November 13, 2018; she explained that the meeting was delayed one week due to the election.

ADJOURN:

Chair Hendrickson asked if there was any further business and, hearing no response, adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk