- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – DECEMBER 17, 2014
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
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 Hansen moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (5-0)
3. APPROVE MINUTES NOVEMBER 19, 2014: Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to November 19, 2014 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved to approve the September 17, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)
4. PUBLIC HEARING; Conditional Use Permit - Antenna Update, 2035 Charlton Road, SAC Wireless/AT&T: Chair McCue opened the public hearing for purpose of reviewing the Conditional Use Permit application for property at 2035 Charlton Road and asked the Planner to present the application.
Planner Barness stated the applicants are requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for new personal wireless service antenna on an existing wireless service tower located on the St. Anne’s Episcopal Church property at 2035 Charlton Road. She stated that the property is zoned Institutional District and personal wireless service towers and antennas not located on a pubic structure are allowed in the district by CUP. She advised that AT&T currently has nine (9) antenna structures mounted on the tower at 65 ft. and the proposed project consists of resituating existing antennas and adding three (3) new antennas to the existing tower at the same height. She explained that the second component of the project is the addition of equipment within the existing AT&T shelter at the base of the antenna tower.
The Planner explained that the screening, setback and design standards are met with the proposed application. She stated that a capacity analysis was submitted for the general area of Delaware Avenue and Highway 110 which supports the need for additional coverage. She noted that the City strongly encourages new personal wireless service antennas to locate on existing towers or support structures and because the applicant is proposing to co-locate on an existing tower, they are not required to submit information on alternative sites.
Planner Barness advised that the application was reviewed by the City Engineer and he recommended approval with no additional conditions or recommendations. She reviewed the seven (7) criteria listed in her report dated December 10, 2014 and found the following:
1) The application is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in the INS Zoning District;
2) The proposed use is compatibility with present and future land use in the area;
3) The proposed antenna is in conformance with performance standards provided all conditions of approval are met;
4) The proposed antenna will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare as they do not emit hazardous radio waves, nor do they create noise glare or vibrations;
5) The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative effect on property values in the area;
6) The proposed antenna will require routine but infrequent site visits for maintenance and it is not anticipated to create additional traffic; and,
7) The proposed antenna is accessible to emergency vehicles and will not impact water, sewer, drainage or other utilities necessary for its operation.
Planner Barness advised that staff recommends approval of the request based on the “Findings of Fact” dated December 17, 2014 that support the request and any conditions as listed.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner and opened the public hearing for comments or questions from the floor. She asked that anyone speaking provide their name and address for the record.
Richard Krueger, representing AT&T Wireless, was present to respond to questions. He explained that the proposal is to update the existing antenna and that the project would be completed after a few hours of work.
Chair McCue stated she supports the proposal since it is an upgrade for wireless service.
Chair McCue asked if there any further comments and hearing no response, closed the public hearing.
Chair McCue asked if the Commission had any further comments and there was no response.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application from SAC Wireless/AT&T to Update Antenna for the property located at 2035 Charlton Road, based on the Findings of Fact and any conditions as listed in the memorandum dated December 17, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (5-0)
5. PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review, 2035 Charlton Road, St. Anne’s Church: Chair McCue opened the public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the Major and Site and Building Plan application for the property at 2035 Charlton Road and asked the Planner to review the request.
Planner Barness explained that St. Anne’s Church had submitted an application for improvements to the church property that include the addition of more than 1,000 sq. ft. of hard surface to the parcel and modifications to the site grading and drainage which requires a major site plan review by the Planning Commission and approval by City Council. She stated the proposed project consists of parking lot redesign, improvements and expansion of the site sidewalks, the creation of an outdoor gathering area and play yard, reconfiguration of an existing outdoor gather area and play yard, reconfiguration of an existing outdoor worship space and updates to site lighting, electric utilities and septic systems.
The Planner explained that the Industrial District zoning requires that churches provide a minimum of one (10 parking space for every three (3) seats provided for the congregation. She stated the applicants proposes that the redesign of the parting lot would provide 76 parking stalls and 6 accessible stalls, which exceeds ordinance requirements. She explained that redesigned parking lot would be surfaced and would provide curbing for storm water management. She noted that the parking area maintains the required 25 foot setback from adjacent property lines. She advised that off-street parking areas of five (5) stalls or more are required to be screened from abutting residential districts and that existing tree coverage on the east, north and west of the property would help screen the redesigned parking areas. She noted that tree screening on the south property line is inconsistent, however the residential parcel to the south has a significant amount of tree coverage which continues to buffer church uses from the neighboring property. She further noted that the home on the parcel to the south sits almost 500 ft. from the proposed church parking area which further reducing any visual impact. She explained that twelve (12) trees would be removed to accommodate the parking redesign and that the City Forester reviewed the applicant’s tree removal and plan and has no further recommendations.
Planner Barness stated that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing rectory home on the site and no new structures are proposed therefore, the site meets building coverage and setbacks. She advised that the two new accessory uses on the property, a concrete patio on the south side of the church for outdoor gatherings and a play yard on the west side to serve as a structured play area for families, are permitted uses. She stated that both accessory areas meet setback and location requirements and that existing landscaping and tree coverage on the church property is anticipated to screen the accessory areas from surrounding properties. She explained that an aluminum fence is proposed to surround the proposed play area on the west wall of the church. The fence is five (5) ft. tall and no more than 50 percent solid matter. She stated the fence would be approximately 85 linear feet and meets ordinance requirements for standard fencing. She noted the fence would be screened by existing landscaping and tree coverage on the property. She indicated that the fencing would not be installed right away.
The Planner stated that exterior lighting of the property is allowed as necessary for safety purposes and must be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance so that impact on surrounding properties is minimized. She explained that the applicant’s exterior lighting plan includes two (2) LED light standards in the parking lot and four (4) LED light bollards along an existing sidewalk. The proposed lighting features are hooded and provide down lighting as required.
Planner Barness stated that the City Engineer had provided comments pertaining to parking lot design as described in the “Site Grading and Parking Lot” section of his report labeled Exhibit E. She explained that the engineer identified two (2) easement requirements for access to the communication tower through he existing and proposed parking lot area on the northwest corner of the parcel. She stated he recommended the easement be modified or revised to follow the new drive path or that information be provided to the City if the easement is to be vacated or rededicated. She further noted that the site has a flow path from the east of the property to the north property line from an existing culvert under Charlton Road. The flow path should be encompassed by a drainage and utility easement based on City policies and WMO policies; this easement is required to be dedicated at this time. She stated the City Engineer would work with the applicant on the size and the alignment of this easement. She further advised that the City Engineer requested that both easement issues be addressed prior to presenting this matter to Council for approval and that the easement modification must be recorded with Dakota County should the City grant approval of the application.
The Planner explained that there are three (3) septic system on the subject property and that the oldest was built in the 1960’s and does not meet present standards. She noted the newest septic system was built for the rectory home on the property that the applicant proposes to demolish and the applicant wishes to remove the oldest system and reroute the newer system after the demolition occurs. She explained that the plans for removing the old system and rerouting the new system are contingent upon review and approval of required permits by the City Septic Inspector. She further noted that he City Engineer requested that the site plan be revised to provide additional septic information and the revision must be reviewed and approved by the engineer prior to City Council review of the project.
Planner Barness referred to page four of her report dated December 10, 2014 and reviewed the Site and Building Plan Evaluation Criteria. She stated that the improvements are compatible with adjacent properties, preserve the character and nature of the surrounding area, are not to be constructed of improper materials, would not adversely affect any natural recourses in the community, will not negatively impact surrounding properties and the improvement comply with drainage requirements. She stated that the new parking lot and site amenities will improve use of the site by visitors and church attendees and that materials for parking and site improvement are of quality in appearance and function. She further advised that the project would have minimal impact on the extensive tree cover on the property and trees being removed are within the immediate vicinity of the rectory demolition site or near the parking/sidewalk improvements.
The Planner stated that the City Engineer recommend approval of the project with minor plan modifications and/or information requirements that shall be addressed prior to Council consideration.
Planner Barness advised that staff recommends approval of the request based on the “Findings of Fact” dated December 17, 2014 that support the request and conditions as listed. She noted that staff would make both pre and post site visits to insure conditions are met.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner and opened the public hearing for comments or questions from the floor. She asked that anyone speaking provide their name and address for the record.
JoAnne Wahlstrom 2108 Delaware Avenue, explained that she has no problem with the proposed improvements, but stated that in her opinion there is a need to clarify the types of lighting and fencing that are to be installed. She pointed out that chin link fencing is not allowed and that she preferred the lighting and fencing be clarified prior to submitting the proposal to Council. She also requested the removal of trees from the site be clarified.
Chair McCue explained that the Commission walked the site prior to the meeting and that the applicants plan to install 15 feet of grass in the play area where trees are to be removed. She noted that the City does not allow chain link fencing with the exception of dog runs or tennis courts.
Planner Barness explained that the applicant proposes to install an aluminum fence in the play area, not a chain link fence.
JoAnne Wahlstrom asked what type of playground equipment would be installed in the play area.
The Planner advised that the applicants had provided diagrams of the proposed lighting fixtures, however, she had not sent them with the Planning packet since it was an extensive amount of information for all the cases to be heard this evening. She noted that she would include photos of those when the report is sent to Council.
Denny Thompson, representing St. Anne’s Church, asked what type of detailed information the City requires on installation of the playground equipment.
JoAnne Wahlstrom suggested that general photos of the proposed equipment would be sufficient.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments from the floor and hearing no response, she closed the public hearing. She asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Schlehuber questioned when the septic review would take place.
The Planner advised that the applicants plan to remove the oldest system from the site since it was installed in the 1960’s and does not meet current standards. She explained that the applicants would work with the City Septic Inspector on the removal of the old system and reconnecting the newer system.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the size of the newer existing system would accommodate the proposed improvements.
The Planner stated that the applicant had provided information on the location of the systems as part of the review process and noted that the City Septic Inspector would conduct the inspection and work with the applicants to insure the new system meets all requirements. She indicated that he may require additional information such as soil boring samples.
Chair McCue asked if there was a rain garden proposed on the site.
Commissioner Hendrickson stated that the rain garden as proposed on the west side of the property.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Commissioner Schlehuber moved to recommend approval of the request from St. Anne’s Episcopal Church for a Major Site and Building Plan Review for site improvements at 2035 Charlton Road, based on the Findings of Fact as listed in the Planner’s report dated December 17, 2014 and subject to the five (5) conditions as listed in the report, seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)
6. PUBLIC HEARING; Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit Review, Lot 2, Block 1, Windy Hill Road, Bancroft & Riley Property: Chair McCue opened the public hearing for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a Minor subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for Lot 2, Block 1, Windy Hill Road, the Bancroft and Riley properties and asked the Planner to present the application.
Chair McCue took a moment to honor Commissioner Tom Schlehuber for his dedicated service as a member of the Planning Commission. She commended him on his initiative to start the buckthorn eradication program and thanked him for his outstanding contribution to the Commission.
Planner Barness explained that Dick and Deborah Bancroft and Jon Riley had submitted an application for a minor subdivision and conditional use permit (CUP) for Lot 2, Block 1, Windy Hill and that the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential and Shoreland Overlay zoning districts. She stated that the minor subdivision requires Council approval and the CUP requires review and approval by both the Commission and Council. She noted the applicant provided a set of plans for both the minor subdivision and the CUP and approval of the CUP for the subdivided property would be contingent on approval of the minor subdivision.
The Planner stated that Paul McGinely of Loucks and Associates, Dick Bancroft and Jim Riley, brother of Jon Riley were present to respond to questions. She explained that Jon Riley wishes to purchase property from Mr. Bancroft, and Mr. Bancroft would like to provide a lot line adjustment to increase the size of the property. She noted that the minor subdivision would be reviewed by staff and then submitted to Council for their review and approval. She explained that the CUP approval would be contingent upon approval of the minor subdivision.
The Planner advised that the lot owned by Mr. Bancroft is substandard with regards to required net lot area due to steep slopes, wetlands and driveway easements. She noted the Zoning Ordinance requires lots to be a minimum of 2.5 net acres excluding wetlands, easements and steep slopes and Lot 2, Block 1, Windy Hill is current 2.58 gross acres and only .59 net acres. She stated the requested minor subdivision would improve the buildability of the parcel by increasing it in area to 3.0 gross acres and .70 net acres. She stated the additional land would improve the lot by providing more flexibility in regards to the application of building setbacks and future house pad location. She pointed out that the lot does not have to meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) since it is not adjacent to a lake. She noted the lot was established in 1977 and is a recorded lot of record.
Planner Barness explained that the proposed subdivision would result in the subject parcel having a net lot area of .70 acres (excluding slopes of 12 percent or greater, wetland or drainage areas, and road right of ways). She stated that the new lot area would not meet ordinance standards, but the parcel is an existing lot of record which would be increased in size to make it more buildable as opposed to increasing a non-conforming condition. She further explained that the Zoning Ordinance states that “a lawful non-conforming use of a building, structure, or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the non-conformity.” She pointed out that She discussed the proposal with the City Attorney and it was determined that the site is zoned R-1 for Single Family development and in his opinion the City would encourage development of the lot as a single family parcel.
The Planner stated that the lot would continue to be in conformance with the lot frontage requirement onto a City approved private drive if the subdivision is approved. She further explained that access to the subject property is via windy Hill Road that lies within a 33 ft. wide private access easement. She noted that the easement currently services the properties and 100, 55 and 75 Windy Hill Road and several homes east of the site. She stated that access agreements with the shared driveway must be obtained with adjacent property owners.
Planner Barness explained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that easements of a minimum of 10 ft. wide centered on rear and other lot lines be provided for drainage and for public and private utilities and the City would require the landowners involved in the minor subdivision to grant the public drainage and utility easements required to the City at no cost to the City.
Dr. Lamey, 55 windy Hill Road, questioned if the lot was grandfathered in when it was platted in the 1970’s.
The Planner responded yes, but noted that a CUP would be necessary if the minor subdivision is approved since the net acreage does not meet current standards.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked for clarification that the Commission was not reviewing the minor subdivision, only the CUP.
Planner Barness responded yes and explained that the CUP approval would be contingent upon approval of the minor subdivision. She stated that at the present time Mr. Riley has no plans to develop the lot but wished to know if the City would support development of the lot in the future. She noted she had discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he suggested that the Commission could include a deadline to extend the recommendation for approval of the CUP for 3 to 5 years and if building plans submitted during that time period adhere to standards, the applicant would not have to submit another application for the CUP, only for the Major Site and Building Plan review.
Commissioner Hendrickson commented that this was an unusual request.
Chair McCue asked where the septic and well would be located on the property.
The Planner reviewed the building standards for the R-1 Single Family Zoning District as shown on page 23 of her report dated December 10, 2014. She pointed out that the lot would meet setback requirements of 50 ft. from wetland areas and was not required to meet setbacks from the lake. She noted that the only requirement that the applicant would be unable to meet would be the 2.5 net acres. She explained that S & P Testing was hired by Mr. Riley to perform soil testing and to lay out areas for two feasible septic systems meeting system design for a typical five (5) bedroom house. She further stated the location of potential primary and secondary septic areas are provide on the site layout plan and when a home is proposed, the applicants would work with the City Septic Inspector obtain the necessary permits for installation.
Planner Barness stated that the applicant would remove several trees from the center of the property to build the proposed home and the City forester would review the landscaping plan when the Major Site and Building Plans are submitted.
The Planner stated that the City Engineer reviewed the grading, drainage and erosion control plan and had recommended approval. She noted that the City Engineer required some minor revisions be submitted prior to Council review, but noted that a full review of the plans would be done when the applicant submits them in the future.
Commissioner Hansen asked if the well location was shown on the plan submitted.
Planner Barness responded yes and pointed out that the plans show the location of rain gardens, a wetland buffer, an infiltration basin and other storm water management measures.
The Planner stated she had discussion with the City Attorney regarding whether or not the adjustment of the lot lines would create a new parcel and the Attorney determined that the applicants are merely adjusting the lot lines of legal parcels.
Commissioner Hansen asked if there were other parcels around the lake that did not meet the required acreage for building. The Planner responded yes.
There was discussion relating to the driveway access easements. Dr. Lamey explained that Janet Riley owned the easements for 75 and 55 Windy Will Road.
Planner Barness reviewed the CUP analysis listed on page 8 of her report and stated that staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based on the Findings of Fact dated December 17, 2014 and contingent upon several conditions as listed. She noted that the applicant requested extending the time period for the CUP approval to five (5) years and the City Attorney recommended an extension between 3 to 5 years. She further noted that the City Engineer also recommended that the Conditional Use Permit is feasible but he requested that the items listed in his report dated December 8, 2014, be submitted for his review and approval prior to the next City Council meeting.
Chair McCue asked what would be included in the report to the City Engineer.
The Planner explained that additional information relating to grading and drainage easements, septic system and well location verification, labeling of contours, flow paths and elevation slopes for the infiltration basin, storm water calculations, drainage from the southeast pond and overflow calculations, and access agreements for the shared driveway. She noted that site grading cannot be submitted until plan for the home are submitted for review.
Chair McCue asked what size home would be proposed for the site.
Planner Barness stated that Paul McGinley was present and could respond to the question.
Paul McGinley of Loucks and Associates indicated that the site would support a five-bedroom home or it may be slightly smaller; he explained that it would be designed to fit into the building envelope. He advised the home could be 70 to 80 ft. in length, with a 3-stall garage.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her presentation and opened the public hearing for comments from the floor.
Paul McGinley stated that the subject lot was platted in 1977 and was a buildable lot of record. He advised that the lot meets all requirements with the exception of net lot area. He explained there is a steep slope adjacent to the lot that Mr. Bancroft stated was of no use to him and offered to sell a portion of the parcel to allow more flexibility to build on the Riley lot. He explained that Mr. Riley was unsure if the lot could meet CUP conditions and that prompted the request at this time for future building on the site. He further noted that there would be two septic system locations and that their locations are determined in a certain area of the property due to the steep slopes. He advised that no building plans for a future home were submitted since the shape or size has not been determined yet, but he noted that the building area would not change. He also noted that rain gardens and other storm water management items have been shown on the lot to insure they are workable.
Mr. McGinley commented that he was unclear in the discussion if Mr. Bancroft had granted easements to Mr. Riley’s and Dr. Lamey’s properties for access. He noted that technically the driveway could be built anywhere on the parcel, but most likely the existing driveway access would be used in the future versus constructing a new access. He stated that it is Mr. Riley’s understanding that any other significant changes to the CUP plan would negate approval of the request and the applicant would have to resubmit the request. He noted that if no significant changes occur to the plan within the extended time period, the applicant would only have to submit the Major Site and Building Plan review documentation. He stated that he would compile the necessary information for the City Engineer prior to the Council meeting.
Dick Bancroft, 100 Windy Hill Road, commended the Planner on a fantastic job in presenting the request.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and hearing no response, closed the public hearing.
Dr. Lamey questioned the fact that the lot was platted correctly in 1977 and should be grandfathered in and be allowed to be developed without the additional property.
Chair McCue agreed that it could have been developed, but the extra amount of land would provide more flexibility.
Commissioner Hendrickson explained that new regulations were adopted since the lot was platted, but agreed it is a legally non-conforming lot and would be enhanced by the minor subdivision.
Chair McCue pointed out that the property owners submitted their request to determine whether or not the proposal was feasible and if the plan would work; she commended them for being proactive.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked the size of the other two lots owned by Mr. Bancroft.
Mr. Bancroft responded the two remaining lots are 10 and 12 acres.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the driveway easements would be granted.
Paul McGinely explained that the access easement was granted by the owner of Lot 2 and remains in perpetuity, therefore it would stand as granted and no further permission is necessary.
Commissioner Beckett questioned what would be an appropriate time extension, three or five years.
Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that it the time puts no burden on the City and the applicant requested five years.
Planner Barness stated that she received an email today from a neighbor concerning development on a substandard lot and she explained that the lot was a legally non-conforming lot.
Commissioner Hansen stated that initially she had concerns, but the plan appears to make sense based on the additional information she received.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow single family development of the substandard sized lot located at Lot 2, Block 1, windy Hill, Jon Riley, based on the Findings of Fact dated December 17, 2014 and subject to the conditions as listed, seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)
The Commission took a brief recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit, 240 Salem Church Road, Vansteenburg: Chair McCue opened the public hearing for the Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, 240 Salem Church Road, Vansteenburg and asked the Planner to review the request.
Planner Barness explained that this application was previously approved by Council in June, 2014 and the applicants have since substantially revised the original approved site and building plans. She stated the revised plans include the following:
1) Removing the lower level garage and requesting a new detached garage;
2) Removing a large parkingdrive area on the west side of the attached garage;
3) Reducing the overall building footprint of the home by approximately 2,200 sq. ft.;
4) Adjusting the design of the front drive/courtyard area;
5) Removing the tennis court; and
6) Adjusting grading, drainage, stormwater and tree removal related to the other proposed changes.
The Planner explained that the changes are significant enough to require full review by staff and the Planning Commission and approval by Council. She stated that in addition to a major plan review of the revised plans, the applicants are requesting to amend the approved CUP for a second accessory structure (originally approved for an in-ground pool and tennis court), to permit a detached garage in addition to the pool and removing the tennis court. She noted that the amended CUP also requests approval of the detached garage to be constructed larger in size and height than is permitted by Ordinance. She pointed out that the reduced home size lessens the runoff impact on the site.
Planner Barness stated that the proposed detached garage would be to allow a structure 1,400 sq. ft. in size and 29 ft. in height; the Ordinance allows only 1,000 sq. ft. in size and 16 ft. in height for a detached garage.
The Planner stated that the proposed home remains centered on the site and meets setback requirements. She noted the proposed detached garage accessory structure also meets setback requirements. She pointed out that the entire site is wooded and the 80 trees would be removed in the area of the home construction, which is a lesser number of trees than previously submitted for removal. She explained the building materials remain the same brick, stone and composite that meet all design requirements and that a revised set of plans was submitted to the Building Inspector, which would be reviewed if Council grants approval of the revisions. She noted that the applicant would have to work with the Building Inspector to insure that the Aircraft Noise Abatement requirements for construction of the home are met.
Planner Barness advised that the pool location was adjusted due to the changes in the home, however, the pool must adhere to conditions previously included relating to safety regulations.
The Planner stated that the carriage house/detached garage proposed would be two stories high with a lower level garage, a main level garage, and an upper office. She explained the gross floor area of the structure would be approximately 1,400 sq. ft., however, the Zoning Ordinance limits detached accessory structure to 1,000 sq. ft. except by CUP approval. She stated the main level of the carriage house would be 830 sq. ft., but once the second floor office is factored in, the gross floor area exceeds the maximum size limit by 400 sq. ft.
Planner Barness explained the location of the driveway was slightly adjusted where it meets a revised front courtyard. She noted the back parking area was removed and the front slightly changed but the front changes to not impact the driveway shape. She commented that she requested the applicant review the changes with the Fire Chief to insure that emergency vehicle access is maintained.
The Planner explained that the exterior lighting plan was provided and includes pool safety lighting and step lights for safety purposes. She advised that the applicants are required to provide lighting details/cut sheets for the design of the coach and pedestal lights so the City may determine whether the fixtures meet requirements, She noted that upon installation all lights must not exceed one foot candle as measured from the edge of the subject property. She asked the applicants to provide photos of the proposed lighting prior to the Council review.
Adam Burrington, Architect for the project, stated he had emailed the lighting photos to staff and that the coach lights may contain seeded glass. He offered to email them to staff again.
Planner Barness explained that the applicants had submitted a full set of revised grading, drainage and erosion control plans for the City engineer’s review and where conditions have not changed, the applicants will be held to the site design and restoration techniques approved in June. She noted that the City Engineer found that volume control requirements for the site are in conformance with the City policies, but several grading and drainage issues exist in the area of the revised driveway/front courtyard and the proposed detached garage. She stated the findings by the Engineer are provided in his report, Exhibit E, dated December 10, 2014 and there are several changes pertaining to the driveway grading and storm water drainage overflow plans in the area of the garage. She noted the City Engineer recommended tabling the matter to receive more information; however, the applicant has worked with the Engineer to address these issues and submit revised plans. She further explained that the applicants have provided additional items the Engineer requested relating to soil testing and emergency overflow to insure the homeowner would not have flooding problems. She stated that the Engineer has now recommended approval based on the conditions listed in his email response dated December 17, 2014
The Planner stated that the applicant submitted a revised tree removal/landscaping plan that was reviewed and approved by the City Forester. She noted that the previous conditions relating to tree protection and restoration measures should be adhered to with the revised plans; this includes marking trees for removal, silt fencing for protection, and restoration with sod and a mix of native plants.
Adam Burrington explained that when the plan was initially approved the City Forester reviewed the site and that the adjacent neighbor was contacted to address her concerns. He noted that the previous plan included removal of significantly more trees, however, the plan now has only 80 trees slated for removal mostly near the driveway area.
Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out that the site abuts his property and that he had walked the area in November and found that many of the trees removed were storm damaged; he commented that it is a beautiful site.
Commissioner Beckett asked if the proposed screening for Musser Park was no longer an issue.
Planner Barness explained that with the removal of the tennis court, the screen for Musser Park was not necessary.
Chair McCue asked if the carriage house proposed could be made into an apartment or used for business purposes. She pointed out that the City does not allow use of the facility for rental purposes.
Dan Vansteenburg explained that the facility would include a toilet and sink, but no shower. He explained it would be used for an office space, but not for business purposes or as a rental space.
Commissioner Hansen asked if a kitchen would be included and the applicant responded no.
Chair McCue asked if the applicant had plans for a pool house on the property.
Adam Burrington responded no.
The Planner referred to the CUP request relating to the size of the second accessory structure and reviewed the listing of possible factors for consideration of approval of the request. She explained that the factors include demonstrating need and potential use of the accessory structure and the applicant proposes use of the structure for office space and additional storage. She advised that other properties have been granted approval for similar requests, some structures were attached and some detached. She noted that the adjacent Flynn property requested and received approval for a similar detached structure that was comparable in size to the one proposed by the Vansteenburgs. She explained that the Flynn structure was also two-stories high which would establish precedence to allow the Vansteenburg structure. She further advised that there are no issues related to public health. She stated that the site has sufficient screening so that the view shed would not impact neighboring properties.
Adam Burrington explained that the adjacent neighbor’s driveway is located at a level at the top of the proposed roof line for the Vansteenburg home. He commented that he had sent copies of view sheds with the initial application and pointed out that the carriage house would be located behind the proposed
home on the site and therefore would be further screened from neighboring views.
Planner Barness stated she had prepared “Findings of Fact” for a recommendation for approval of the request which include the conditions originally listed in the application; these include additional measures for an erosion control blanket installed on the steep slopes of 12 to 18 percent within the construction zone and protection of the sanitary sewer and well. She indicated that the condition relating to lighting details could be removed. She advised that the site restoration conditions and the City Engineer’s final conditions as listed in Exhibit E and his email should also be included as part of the recommendation for approval. She stated that the Septic Inspector’s recommendations pertaining to the location and installation of the primary and secondary septic areas must be met.
Chair McCue commented that she was pleased the applicant had addressed all the issues raised by staff and recommended that any remaining issues should be addressed in a timely manner prior to the Council review.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions or comments and hearing none, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hansen explained that originally she had concerns relating to the height of the carriage house, but after the review, it was her opinion the structure would not be seen from adjacent properties.
Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out that the Flynn’s carriage home appears to be larger and cannot be seen from his property. He stated that in his opinion the densely wooded area would prohibit view sheds. He further commented that he would have concerns if the lot were smaller or could be divided in the future. He advised that his main concern relates to drainage and runoff since his home is located downhill from this site. He requested that the stipulation for a monthly review of the site by the City Engineer to insure that erosion control measures remain in place continue to be included as a condition.
Adam Burrington explained that the original condition required reinforced silt fencing be installed and reviewed monthly by the City Engineer and the applicant would agree to include the condition.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Commissioner Schlehuber moved to recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plans and Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of Two (2) Accessory Structures, a pool and a carriage house/detached garage at 240 Salem Church Road, based on the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the memorandum dated December 17, 2014 and with the conditions listed in the City Engineer’s Exhibit E and email dated December 17, 2014 and to include the condition for installation of reinforced silt fencing that would be reviewed by the City Engineer on a monthly basis, seconded by Commissioner Hansen and carried. (5-0)
ADJOURN: Chair McCue asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
Commissioner Schlehuber moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)
Catherine Iago, City Clerk