- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – JUNE 18, 2014
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair: Andrea McCue
Commissioners: Tom Schlehuber, Tom Hendrickson, Ginny Beckett, and Shari Hansen
City Planner: Michelle Barness
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair McCue called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ADOPT AGENDA: Chair McCue asked if there were any additions to the agenda and there was no response.
Commissioner Beckett moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Hendrickson and carried. (5-0)
3. APPROVE MINUTES MAY 21, 2014: Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to May 21, 2013 Planning Commission minutes and there was no response.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved to approve the May 21, 2014 Planning Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)
4. PUBLIC HEARING; Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit , 50 Sunnyside Lane, Michael & Melissa Prueher; Chair McCue opened the public hearing for the property at 50 Sunnyside Lane and requested that the minutes reflect there was no one in attendance for the public hearing. She asked the Planner to review the application.
Planner Barness explained that the Pruehers are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan review and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a chicken coop at 50 Sunnyside Lane. She stated the property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District and that the proposed coop would be the second accessory structure on the site in addition to an existing carriage house, which requires approval of a CUP. She further explained that chicken keeping is an allowed use with approval of an administrative permit by the City Forester and that an application was submitted to the Forester by the property owners. She advised that she and the Forester reviewed the request and recommend approval of a one year permit, with option for renewal based on simple conditions pertaining to the size of the flock, coop, and chicken run, and maintenance of the condition of the chicken area.
The Planner stated that the proposed chicken coop is 96 sq. ft., approximately 8 ft. by 12 ft. and does not exceed 10 ft. in height. She advised the building is in conformance with accessory structure size and height requirements. She stated the proposed coop is a garden shed constructed of red cedar siding and shingles, which are allowed materials. She further advised that the chicken coop is located centrally in the rear yard of the property and the existing tree coverage on the lot should be sufficient to screen the coop from the adjacent properties.
Planner Barness explained that he City Engineer reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with the condition that any turf area disturbed during construction be restored. She noted that the coop would be placed on gravel and therefore minimal vegetation would be disturbed. The Engineer also noted that the proposed coop would not negatively impact drainage on the site.
The Planner stated that the coop is located to meet site setback standards and to minimize impacts to site grading, drainage and vegetation. She further explained the coop is not anticipated to negatively impact nearby natural areas or view from surrounding properties. She noted that the proposal was close to exceeding the limit for building coverage due to other existing structures, however, the proposal does meet the maximum building coverage requirement of not more than 10 percent lot coverage.
The Planner explained that the building housing the chickens serves as a second accessory structure on the property and therefore requires approval of a conditional use permit. She stated that the building is approximately 96 sq. ft. and 10 ft. tall and she noted that the ordinance does note exempt small accessory structures from review requirements. She stated that the construction materials meet City Code standards and she displayed a drawing of the proposed structure.
Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of the Major Site and Building Plans and the Conditional Use Permit for the requested accessory structure based on the findings listed in the Planner’s report dated June 11, 2014 and subject to the three (3) conditions as listed in her report.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her report and closed the public hearing since there were no audience members present to speak to this application. She asked if there were any comments or questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Hansen questioned if the twenty (20) chickens proposed are above the normal amount housed on residential properties.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the Hovey’s have more chickens on their property. The Planner responded no.
Commissioner Beckett asked what determines the number of chickens for the property. The Planner explained that the number is based on the site review and what the coop would accommodate.
Commissioner Hansen questioned if Roosters were allowed and the Planner responded that no adult roosters of crowing age are allowed.
Chair McCue asked if there was fencing proposed. The Planner explained that there would be a small chicken run that was considered during the course of the admin review process for chicken keeping.
Commissioner Hansen asked if water and electricity are proposed for hook-up in the structure. Them Planner explained that neither were currently proposed, but that those items would typically be reviewed the Building Inspector.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further questions or comments and hearing no response she asked for a motion on the proposed application.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved approval of the Major Site and Building Plans and the Conditional Use Permit for Michael and Melissa Prueher, 50 Sunnyside Lane, based on the findings and conditions as outlined in the Planner’s report dated June 11, 2014, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried (5-0).
MISCELLANEOUS: Chair McCue asked if there was any further business.
Planner Barness explained that she had been approached by a property owner who wished to place a small accessory structure on their property and during the review process she determined that several applications would have to be obtained due to the uniqueness of the lot. She advised that the property in question contained two separate parcels and was located near Horseshoe Lake. She advised the property owner they would have to apply for a lot combination, a Variance, Major Site and Building Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit. She asked the Commission to provide feedback regarding other options for dealing with installation of small accessory structures on properties in the City.
Clerk Iago suggested that it may be appropriate to include a category for the smaller accessory structures so that the number of reviews could be reduced.
The Planner pointed out that the Building Inspector advised he does not issue permits for buildings of 120 square feet or less and therefore does not review the site for installation of small storage structures.
Commissioner Hendrickson commented that one issue would be the potential to add several small structures if the review process is changed. The Clerk explained that the current City Code limits the number of accessory structures by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for more than one and that would not change.
Commissioner Beckett asked if the structures would be reviewed for aesthetics and if the current regulations would apply to the building materials.
The Planner explained that the application would fall under a minor review by staff and aesthetics would be reviewed in a similar fashion.
The Clerk pointed out that criteria for building materials could still be included on the minor review application.
Chair McCue noted that some of the lots on Horseshoe Lake are unique in that they are less than 2.5-acres in size and were grand-fathered in prior to the current regulations.
Commissioner Hendrickson commented that the minor review process would allow the matter to be handled by administrative staff without a large financial burden to the property owner. He pointed out that such issues arise on occasion and then do not occur again for several years; he questioned if a change is necessary.
The Clerk suggested that the ordinance could be changed to include language that allows staff to determine if all the applications are necessary in unique situations and if all the fees would be necessary.
The Planner suggested she could check with other cities to determine if they have such issues and how they are handled.
Chair McCue asked that the Planner conduct a review and bring the information to the next meeting.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked if there were other applications pending.
Planner Barness stated that there were two applications for review at the July meeting. She explained there is a home demolish and proposed new home construction application for 2566 Delaware Avenue and an application for a garage addition at 345 Salem Church Road.
Chair McCue asked if there would be site visits for the applications and the Planner responded yes.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked if the Planner would continue to utilize the “drop box” for the application materials and the Planner responded that would be her preference since email may not handle the larger amount of materials.
6. ADJOURN: Chair McCue asked if there was any further business or discussion and there was no response.
Commissioner Hendrickson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Hansen and carried. (5-0)
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk