- DRAFT-
SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – FEBRUARY 23, 2011

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

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen, and Tom Schlehuber.

City Planner:  Carie Fuhrman
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
Commissioners Tom Votel and JoAnne Wahlstrom were absent.

1.   CALL TO ORDER:   Chair Andrea McCue opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.    

2.   Council Re-appointments of Planning Commission Members: Planner Fuhrman advised that members
       Svendsen and Votel were reappointed to serve three-year terms and that Chair McCue was reappointed to serve as
       Chair in 2011.

3.   Adopt Resolution Setting the 2011 Planning Commission Meeting Dates: Chair McCue suggested delaying
       action on this item until later on the agenda.

4.   APPROVE MINUTES:    Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the July 21, 2010
      minutes and there was no response.
     
Commissioner Svendsen moved to approve the July 21, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried.  (3-0)

5.   A. Public Hearing – Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Exterior Building Materials:    Chair McCue opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to be heard.

Contractor Jon Maltby of American Home Remodeling explained that he has been hired to replace the siding on Ibby Hammett’s home due to storm damage. He advised that Ms. Hammett had received approval from Council for the use of vinyl siding for the project. He stated that the Planner had contacted him to request information relating to other products that are used for siding and also to appear at this meeting to answer any questions about these products.

Mr. Maltby explained that he was told the Sunfish Lake Building Official was opposed to the use of vinyl siding when the ordinance was first adopted in 1994 due to the fact that the vinyl was of poor quality. He stated that the vinyl material used for siding today is much more resilient; he explained it is hail resistant, won’t break or fade and that installation now requires the use of backing and insulation to make it energy efficient. He discussed the R-value, fire rating and thickness of the current vinyl products.

Chair McCue questioned if it would be appropriate for the City to specify the thickness of the vinyl material that is used.

Mr. Maltby explained that the building code does not specify a standard, however; he would recommend that the minimum thickness be at least .35. He stated that the vinyl he will use on the Hammett property is .44 or 44/100th of an inch thick.        

Planner Fuhrman explained that Ms. Hammett had appeared before Council to request the use of vinyl siding as a replacement for the existing steel siding on her home after it sustained damage from a recent storm. She advised that Council approved the use of the vinyl siding on her property based on the age of the structure and the fact that it was built prior to the adoption of the new regulations. She also noted that the Building Inspector had stated that although he was initially opposed to the use of vinyl siding, it was now his opinion that vinyl materials had improved substantially since the adoption of the regulations in 1994.
The Planner further explained that after Council approved the use of vinyl for the Hammett residence, they discussed whether or not they should amend the existing ordinance to allow the use of vinyl and other materials for siding. Council directed the Commission conduct a public hearing and review other siding materials for possible inclusion in the ordinance.

Planner Fuhrman advised that since the Building Inspector was not able to attend the meeting this evening due to health problems, she had obtained information from Inspector David Neameyer, who serves as the inspector in Mr. Wahl’s absence. She explained that she compiled Mr. Neameyer’s comments on the use of Vinyl, Cement/ Concrete Composite Board, Stone, Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS Systems) and Metal Siding (Aluminum and Steel. She noted that Mr. Neameyer agreed that today’s vinyl siding product is much better and that most issues with the product previously related to installation.

Mr. Maltby agreed that previous issues related to installation and noted that State Law now requires a secondary water barrier to be installed under the vinyl siding.

The Planner explained that the Cement/Concrete Composite Board, also known as “Hardie Board”, simulates wood, real stone or stucco. She advised that these products achieve a high level of appearance, durability, quality, and fire/hail/wind resistance at a fraction of the cost for traditional options. She stated that cultured stone, also known as “lick and stick” is applied much like ceramic tile and reduces additional structural considerations associated with real stone veneer. She advised that the Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems, commonly referred to as “EIFS” are most typically used on commercial buildings. She explained that although these systems are approved by the building code, it is her understanding that there are no qualified EIFS inspectors in the State of Minnesota.   She pointed out that Mr. Neameyer   has stated he is merely a hired field inspector working for Mr. Wahl and that Mr. Wahl’s comments should be obtained on these products.

Mr. Maltby displayed examples of the different products above-mentioned and stated that he agrees with the assessment provided by Mr. Neameyer on these products. He noted that steel siding is also higher quality now, although it is slightly more expensive than vinyl siding. He advised that “Hardie Board” and stone are the most expensive. He further explained that vinyl siding can now be purchased in 25 ft. sections so that the installation appears seamless and the foam backing makes the siding more rigid as well as energy efficient.

The Planner stated that a Councilmember suggested modifying the wording to include specific criteria for the products instead of listing specific materials, however; she pointed out that she is not aware of other cities that use such a list and would recommend maintaining the specific material list to help remain objective.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments.

Mr. Maltby stated that the options discussed, with the exception of the “EFIS” products, would be acceptable for inclusion in the ordinance. He commented that residents would most likely update and make improvements to their property with the inclusion of the more affordable options in the ordinance. He further commented that some of the newer products are made with recyclable materials and have a lifetime warranty. He advised that he would be using Mastic products on the Hammett home and suggested that the Commission view the products on the Mastic website for further information.

Ibby Hammett stated that she is looking forward to the installation of the vinyl siding as she was informed it will reduce heating and cooling costs on her property.

Chair McCue thanked Mr. Maltby for his comments and asked if there were any further comments from the audience. There was no response.

Chair McCue stated that she had discussed the granting of a variance to install the vinyl siding on the Hammett property with a prominent contractor from Edina; he provided information on a Supreme Court decision relating to variances. She noted that in the future, the Commission should use caution when granting a variance, due to the fact that a new legislative bill modified the standards for granting variances. She explained that the term “hardship” has been eliminated as a reason for granting a variance and that a variance should not be granted unless a property cannot be put to reasonable use without granting the variance. She stated that the information she received from the contractor reported that “city authority to issue a variance is limited to those very rare cases where the property cannot be put to use without the variance.”

The Planner explained that the granting by the City Council of Ms. Hammett to install vinyl siding was not a variance request. She advised that the new rule regarding variances, as referenced by Chair McCue, was passed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in June, 2010 and she apologized for not brining this to the attention of the Commission. The new rule basically states that a city cannot grant approval of a variance unless a property owner can show that they do not have reasonable use of their property without the variance.  She notes that the League of Minnesota Cities is working to have the legislature grant the authority back to cities and she further advised that she has explained to residents requesting variance applications that it may be appropriate to wait and see if any change occurs. She agreed that the Commission and Council will have to be more diligent when considering variance requests.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked how Council granted permission to Ms. Hammett and why this matter was before the Planning Commission if permission has already been granted.

Planner Fuhrman explained that Ms. Hammett’s request was approved by the authority granted to the Council by Section 1219.03B7, which states “other materials as determined by the City Council.” She further explained that Council suggested these other materials be considered for inclusion in the ordinance since they have improved since its adoption.

Chair McCue explained that she had discussed this matter with the builder from Edina, who deals exclusively with distinctive homes, and he suggested that the City should be far-sighted with the regulations since residents may wish to cut costs on exterior materials while maintaining the aesthetics of the property.  She indicated that it may be appropriate to add one or two of the materials, but that the language allowing Council to determine if a material is appropriate should be retained.

There was discussion regarding the possibly use of an “architectural board” to review requests for materials other than those currently allowed.

Commissioner Svendsen indicated that several years ago Council discussed the possibility of an architectural review board, but they could not find anyone to serve on the board. He stated that he does not have a problem with the existing language in the ordinance that allows for Council and the Building Inspector to approve other materials as he does not have the expertise to determine what materials are appropriate.

Commissioner Schlehuber agreed and noted that some of the products, such as the cultured stone, do not appear to be   as high quality as natural stone.

Commissioner Svendsen asked if it would be possible to look back on the last 6 to 10 homes built to determine what type of products were used for the exterior. He indicated that he is uncomfortable with making a decision this evening without some input from someone with expertise.

Chair McCue stated that in her opinion what is in place currently is fine and provides Council the authority to allow other materials if they deem them to be appropriate. Commissioners Svendsen and Schlehuber agreed.

Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out that if a resident wishes to use the concrete composite board, he would prefer someone with expertise decide and Council could then determine if they wish to allow its installation.

Chair McCue questioned if such requests would come before the Commission and Council. The Planner explained that new construction, such as a major site plan review, would come before the Commission, but requests for re-siding of existing homes would only need Council approval if the material is not on the existing list of allowed products.

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

Commissioner Svendsen moved to close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., seconded by Commission Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)
Commissioner Svendsen moved to recommend that the Council retain the existing language of Section 1219.03B of the Zoning Ordinance regulations due to the fact they determined that the ordinance that is in place is sufficient as it establishes a high standard of architectural and aesthetic standards for the City, but still provides an avenue for residents to seek approval from the City Council for materials not on the currently approved list,   seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her presentation.       
 
B.  Public Hearing – Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Establish Timeframe for Completion of Exterior Work:    Chair McCue opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. There were no persons present at the hearing.

Planner Fuhrman explained that the proposed ordinance amendment requires the completion of all exterior work authorized by a building permit within one year from the date of issuance of the permit, or within a timeframe set by the building official at the time the permit is issued, not exceeding two (2) years from the date of issuance, whichever is greater. She stated that the ordinance also provides that the building official may grant an extension of time to complete the exterior work for a period not to exceed six months in the event of unavoidable delays. If the exterior work is not completed before the expiration of the permit, a new permit must be obtained for completion of the exterior work.

The Planner explained that in 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that City building code provisions requiring the completion of exterior work within a certain timeframe following the issuance of a permit was not valid since the State Building Code did not have a deadline. She noted that during the last legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature changed the law and now allows cities to impose a time limit for completion of exterior work after the municipality adopts an ordinance establishing the time limit. She stated the proposed ordinance amendment also provides that the deadline for completion of exterior work applies to both new building permits as well as previously-issued permits and extends the completion date to March 15, 2012.

Commissioner Svendsen asked if it would apply to roofing and siding permits and questioned the timeframe for extending existing permits.

The Planner responded that it would apply to roofing and siding permits also. She explained that currently issued permits must be completed by March 15, 2012. She noted that there is currently a property that has exceeded the one year time period and that she has contacted the owner who has indicated the project should be finished this spring. She indicated that if the project is not completed, the next step would to be contact the City Attorney regarding pursuing other options such as a misdemeanor violation.

Planner Fuhrman explained that Council directed the City Attorney to review the possibility of instituting an Administrative Penalty for persons who proceed with projects prior to obtaining a building permit. She stated that this will be discussed at the March 1 Council meeting and maybe referred to the Commission to conduct a public hearing.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if a complaint had been received on the property and the Planner responded no.  He asked how these properties are identified.

Planner Fuhrman explained that if the escrow funds remain open on a project it is usually a red flag that the project has not been completed in the allotted time period. She noted that Council had included language to specify that the extension not exceed two-years.

Commissioner Schlehuber stated his opinion that the time period for completion is more than sufficient and agreed with the proposed language. Chair McCue and Commissioner Svendsen agreed.

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

Commissioner Svendsen moved to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., seconded by Commission Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)

Commissioner Schlehuber moved to recommend that Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment establishing a timeframe for completion of exterior work pursuant to a building permit as presented, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (3-0)

6.   OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:  Planner Fuhrman referred to the resolution establishing the Commission meeting dates for 2011 on the third Wednesday of each month.

Chair McCue asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.

Chair McCue moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-01PC titled, RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE YEAR 2011, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (3-0)

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

7.   ADJOURN:          Commissioner Svendsen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (3-0)


Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk