- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – DECEMBER 19, 2012

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

Attendants:

Chair:  Arnulf Svendsen   
Commissioners:   Andrea McCue, Tom Schlehuber, Gordon Peters, and Tom Hendrickson.

City Planners:  Alan Brixius and Michelle Barness
City Clerk: Cathy Iago

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

2.         ADOPT AGENDA: Chair Svendsen asked if there were any additions to the agenda. Planner Brixius stated he wished to add discussion of a lot line adjustment for property at 2154 Charlton Road to the agenda under Other/New Business.

The Chair asked if there were any further additions and there was no response.

Commissioner McCue moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried.   (5-0)

3.  APPROVE MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2012: Chair Svendsen asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 15, 2012 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to approve the August 15, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (Ayes: 5-0)

4.  Review the 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Dates: This item was discussed at the end of the meeting.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.

6.   OTHER/NEW BUSINESS: A.  Discuss Ordinance Pertaining to R-1 House Size in Relation to Shoreline Setback Variances: Planner Brixius explained that at the August meeting there was extensive discussion relating to the proposed expansion of the existing home at 345 Salem Church Road and issues relating to the Shoreland Ordinance setback regulations.  He noted that the applicants withdrew their application for expansion of the home prior to submitting it to Council for their review.  He advised that the home has been sold and that he was approached by the new property owners to initially discuss only interior remodeling of the home. He stated that since the initial discussions, the property owner had contacted him to discuss the possible addition of a breakfast nook, attaching the garage to the home and adding a third garage stall to the existing garage.

The Planner advised that if the property owner does only the interior remodeling, no applications are required and remodeling would only require obtaining a building permit for the work. However, any expansion of the existing home would require the property owner to make application for a variance.  He further advised that the property owner also discussed replacing the flat roof with a hip roof, which would add approximately 9 ft. to the height of the home, but would not include any additional living space. He explained that he discussed the alternative plans with the applicant’s architect and he advised the architect that a variance would be required for the expansion. He noted that the expansion of the home would not change the existing setback from the lake.

Chair Svendsen asked what the height difference from what the previous applicant proposed if a hip roof is added to the property.  Planner Brixius responded that the hip roof would be approximately 9 ft. shorter than the previous application.

Chair Svendsen asked if the property owner had begun work on the property and the Planner responded that only internal remodeling had been done at this time.
The Planner advised that he had also received inquiries regarding proposed construction for the property at 2250 Delaware Avenue.

Commissioner Peters asked why the discussion was proceeding for another property when discussion had not concluded for the 345 Salem Church Road property.

The Planner pointed out that the properties are similar in some respects and that he was merely reviewing his discussions with the property owners of both parcels; he stated that he wished to gain some perspective from the Commission regarding how to advise the potential applicants to proceed.

Commissioner Hendrickson asked if any formal applications had been submitted for either of the properties.

The Planner responded that no formal applications have been submitted at this time. He noted that the owners of the property at 345 Salem Church appear only to be modernize the existing home and he advised them that any expansion of the home would require a variance.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if any septic work is proposed for the property. The Planner stated he has no information regarding septic work at this time.

Planner Brixius referred to the property at 2250 Delaware that was previously the Roe property.  He explained that the original parcel was subdivided into three (3) lots, but all three lots are still under one owner. He stated there is an existing home and barn and advised that the property owner wishes to tear down the original home and re-build it.

Commissioner McCue asked why the tear down of the original home. The Planner explained that the property owner indicated the interior of the home has no continuity between the rooms and was apparently constructed over a period of time.

The Planner explained that the home is setback from the lake approximately 141 ft. from the shoreline in one area and approximately 131 ft. in another area; he further noted that the two adjacent homes are setback 116 ft. and 64 ft.  He advised that the Shoreland Ordinance has a provision that allows the setback of a home to be the average of the setback of the two adjacent homes from the shoreline. He pointed out that the property owner indicated they do not wish to move the home forward from the original setbacks and that they wished to build within existing house footprint.  He noted that if the home is constructed on the same footprint after the tear down, the property owner would be required to submit a Major Site and Building Plan application, but no variance would be required.

Commissioner Peters asked if the property owner plans to relocate the septic system to the front yard and the Planner responded yes.

Planner Brixius referred the Commission to the provision in the Shoreland Ordinance relating to setbacks under Section 1243.03; he noted that the property owner does not plan to move the home or expand closer to the lake. He stated that he advised the property owner of all the information that would be required under the Major Site Plan review process and asked for submission of detailed plans showing the construction area, erosion controls, and grading and landscaping.

Commissioner McCue recalled that when the application for the subdivision was submitted for review, the property owner had problems with erosion and that approval of the subdivision required the installation of rain gardens. 

The Planner concurred and explained that he had reviewed the file on the subdivision application prior to talking to the property owner.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the lots have easements to the lake. The Planner advised that he does not believe the other two lots have lake access. 

Commissioner Hendrickson explained that two lots had access from Delaware Avenue and one lot has access from Salem Church Road; he believes there is only one lot with lakeshore access.

The Planner displayed the proposed construction plans for the house on this property and noted that the expansion of the garage with one additional stall and a small “mud room” in the same area would not be on the lakeshore side of the property. He advised that the setback from the lake would remain at 148 ft.

Commissioner McCue asked the height of the garage addition and the Planner responded that it would be limited to the 30 ft. height standard.

The Planner explained that many of the older homes around the lake do not meet the required 200 ft. setback and, in the future, the City may be faced with reviewing tear downs of existing homes with some expansion. He advised that staff required discussion of these proposed applications this evening to gain some advice and direction from the Commission as to how to advise potential applicants.

Chair Svendsen pointed out that the Baillon project at 345 Salem Church Road was approved by the Commission.

Commissioner McCue commented that in her opinion there are huge differences between the proposed project for the property on Delaware Avenue and the property at 345 Salem Church Road; she pointed out that Delaware Avenue has more land and different setbacks.

The Planner noted that the property to the north of the existing home on Delaware Avenue is only setback 63 ft. from the lake and the regulations provide for the applicant to use the average setback to calculate moving the home closer to the lake. He pointed out that although this is possible; the property owner has not stated they wish to move the home closer.

Planner Brixius further advised that in his opinion, the proposed remodel and minor expansion with a breakfast nook and hip roof for the property at 345 Salem Church Road are reasonable expectations for the property owner to have approved by the City.

Commissioner Peters commented that enforcement of the rear yard setback to prohibit the garage expansion would only save one tree.  The Planner explained that during discussion of the previous application, the neighbors expressed concern regarding tree removal on the site.  He agreed that it could be appropriate for the City to consider the variance for the rear yard setback in order to save  a significant tree(s).

Commissioner McCue commented that the neighbors agree that the property was originally granted a variance for construction of the home.

The Planner explained that staff had researched the property and found no variances were granted to the property.

Chair Svendsen asked the proposed height of the garage and the Planner stated it would be the same height as the  proposed principal structure and would have to match the exterior building materials.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked the square footage of the proposed breakfast nook addition and how it compared with the previous application for expansion of the home.  The Planner stated the addition would be approximately 205 sq. ft., and the previous addition was for 150 sq. ft.; however, he noted the previous application included a second story to the home, which made a substantial increase in the house volume.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that he understands the staff quest for guidance, but pointed out that the City has ordinances in place to guide applicants. He noted that the regulations do not include a maximum square footage amount, only a minimum square footage. He asked if the only variance requested for the 345 Salem Church Road property was for the setbacks.  The Planner noted that the proposed vertical expansion of the home increased the size of a non-conforming use and that also triggered the variance process.

In conclusion, the Planner advised that he would continue to refer applicants to the existing ordinance regulations. He stated he would advise the property owner at 345 Salem Church Road that if the application for expansion falls below the volume that was previously approved it would most likely receive the same outcome, but that it must meet the criteria for approval of a variance.  He stated that he expects a formal application for the property at 2550 Delaware to be submitted in January for Commission review at their February meeting. 
The Planner advised that no applications had been submitted prior to the deadline for the January meeting and, therefore the meeting in January would be cancelled.

B.   Discuss a Numerical Cap on the Number of Allowed Accessory Buildings: Planner Brixius explained that when reviewing the application for the property at 2400 Delaware Avenue, the Council advised the applicant that historically the city allowed  only one accessory building in addition to the garage on a property. He distributed copies of Section 1217 of the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory buildings and noted that the ordinance allows an attached garage of up to 1,250 sq. ft. and a detached garage that shall not exceed ,1000 sq. ft. He noted that no more than one accessory structure is allowed, except by Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with the exception of related pool accessory buildings no larger than 200 sq. ft.

The Planner asked for direction from the Commission as to what number of accessory buildings they would be comfortable with allowing. He noted that attached garages may have three or four stalls, but that residents appear to be seeking additional storage buildings. 

Commissioner Hendrickson asked if a detached garage is considered an accessory structure and the Planner responded yes. 

Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that residents could have a detached garage, a garden shed, a building to house pool equipment, and a gazebo on their property; he commented that would be four accessory structures.

The Planner explained that the detached garage would be allowed if less than 1,000 sq. ft. and the building to house pool equipment would be allowed if less than 200 sq. ft. and the remaining buildings would require a CUP.

Commissioner Peters asked why Council did not approve the pool dressing rooms for the property at 2400 Delaware Avenue.

The Planner explained that Council advised they historically only allowed one accessory structure and they asked the applicant to consolidate the dressing rooms into one building; the applicant revised the plans to comply with the request.

Chair Svendsen pointed out that the Commission approved the original plan and Council then asked for it to be revised; he questioned why Council did so.

Commissioner Hendrickson pointed out that the Commission viewed the dressing rooms as an integral part of the fence and not as individual buildings. 

Commissioner Peters asked the size of the garage at 2400 Delaware and the Planner responded that it was approximately 1,150 sq. ft. 

The Planner noted that in his opinion, 2,200 sq. ft. of storage buildings on a 2.5 acre lot would not adversely impact the property, but it is still a large amount of storage. He asked if the number of accessory structures should be limited to one.

Commissioner McCue asked if all the storage buildings or accessory structures are less than 1,000 sq. ft. would permits be required.

The Planner advised that one accessory structure is allowed less than 1,000 sq. ft., but more than one requires a CUP.  

Commissioner Hendrickson stated in his opinion the City should not put a number in the ordinance so that residents must submit an application for review; he noted that there is criteria listed in the ordinance relating to CUP approval and that it would not be difficult to submit an application.

There was discussion relating to clarification of the ordinance regulations.  The Planner clarified that an attached garage that does not exceed 1,250 sq. ft. is not considered an accessory structure and therefore a resident may have one additional accessory structure that does not exceed 1,000 sq. ft.

Commissioner Peters stated he is not comfortable with approving an accessory structure that exceeds 1,000 sq. ft.

Commissioner Hendrickson expressed concern relating to barn structures if accessory buildings are limited. 

The Planner explained that if the barn is an existing structure, it would be protected as a legal non-conforming use and could be re-built if a permit was obtained within a certain time period.

Chair Svendsen expressed his opinion that there appears to be no need to go above 1,000 sq. ft. for an accessory building. 

Commissioner McCue agreed and stated her opinion that the current regulations are fine and that the City maintains control and has reasonable criteria for granting a CUP if requested.

There was discussion relating to the proposed dressing rooms that were requested at 2400 Delaware Avenue and why the Council requested revision of the plan.

The Planner commented that in his opinion it was an innovative use of the fence line by the architect.

Mayor Williams was present and explained that he was not in attendance at the meeting and therefore was not aware of why it was required to be revised.

Commissioner McCue explained that the Council did not wish to set precedence for future applications by allowing more than one accessory structure.

Commissioner Hendrickson commented that in his opinion it never occurred to the Commission that the dressing rooms were individual structures, but merely part of the fence line.

In conclusion, the Commission agreed to leave the current regulations relating to accessory structures as is.     

C. Discuss the Conditions under which a Solid Wood Fence should be Allowed by Variance: The Planner distributed copies of Section 1218 of the Zoning Code relating to fencing and screening. He explained that on page 18-2, under section C.3.; “Solid fences are prohibited except under circumstances where practical difficulties can be shown to justify approval of a variance under the terms and conditions of the City Zoning Ordinance…”.   He noted that in his opinion the City cannot apply the variance criteria to an architectural feature. He further explained that a solid fence should be considered the same as a structure and therefore should meet the same setback requirements as a structure on the property. He recommended that this provision be eliminated from the code or amended to include a condition that the solid fence maintains the same setback as a structure on the property.  He commented that the current ordinance language gives the impression that a variance may be acceptable and technically an applicant cannot meet the criteria for granting a variance. 

Commissioner McCue asked if the Planner recommends eliminating solid fences from the ordinance. The Planner stated that he would either recommend elimination of solid fences or he could draft criteria for installation of the fences which would be considered the same as a solid building.  

Commissioner Hendrickson asked if they would be approved by CUP; the Planner responded yes.

Commissioner Schlehuber stated he would be comfortable with the Planner drafting criteria for approval of solid fences as there may be a property owner who wishes to install one.

The Planner stated he would draft a sample document for review at the February meeting and explained that the fences would not be allowed within the Shoreland Districts.

Commissioner Peters asked if there are provisions in the ordinance for maintaining fences and noted that he has seen fences that could use repair. The Planner referred to the provision listed and suggested Mr. Peters could file a complaint with the Building Inspector with the address of the fence or contact him with the information and he would refer it to the inspector.     

Review the 2013 Planning Commission Meeting Dates: The Planner asked the Commission to review the proposed resolution scheduling the dates for the 2013 Planning Commission meetings and, if they concur with the dates as listed, adopt the resolution.

Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-01PC titled RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE YEAR 2013, seconded by Commissioner McCue and carried. (5-0)

Discussion of 2154 Charlton Road, Lot Line Adjustment: The Planner explained that he has had discussions with the property owner at 2154 Charlton Road regarding expansion of the garage on the property. He pointed out that there are two lots in the subdivision and that when the lots were platted the property line was supposed to follow the existing fence line; he noted that this did not occur.  He explained that there was an exclusive easement granted and recorded, but that the property owner does not have fee ownership of the easement and therefore, it cannot be used to calculate the setback for the proposed garage expansion.

Commissioner Hendrickson suggested that the property owner acquire a Quit Claim deed for the parcel.

The Planner indicated that the adjacent property owner does not wish to give up fee title to the property and therefore, the property owner at 2154 Charlton Road wishes to pursue a variance.  He explained that he told the property owner the variance would not be granted since this occurred due to a man-made action and they would not meet the criteria for a variance.   

Mayor Williams suggested that the adjacent property owner may be amenable to splitting the easement and granting a Quit Claim deed for the parcel, rather than selling them the entire easement.  He noted that the land use or value of the land would not dramatically change if the easement is equally split between the two property owners.

Commissioner McCue asked if there was any other place to put the expansion of the garage. The Planner responded yes, but explained that this area is the least intrusive location.

The Planner stated he would advise the proposed applicant that he had discussed this with the Commission and that they indicated there is no apparent hardship for granting the variance since it is a man-made action that caused the problem.  

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if there were any other major applications pending or if there had been any inquiries relating to the vacant property on Windy Hill Court.

Mayor Williams explained that he had received an inquiry from a person wishing to construct multiple-family housing on the property. He stated that he informed this person that in his opinion the city would not support this type of request since there is no multi-family zoning within the city.  He suggested that the person should talk to neighbors to receive their input prior to submitting an application.

There was a brief discussion relating to the sewer line stubbed into this property. The Mayor explained that the sewer line for the parcel must have been installed when the car dealerships were built along Robert Street and Mendota Road and that the City did approve the installation of the sewer line to the property.

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

7. ADJOURN:  Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Peters and carried. (5-0)

Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk