SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – MAY 18, 2011

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

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen, JoAnne Wahlstrom and Tom Schlehuber

City Planner:  Carie Fuhrman
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
Commissioner Tom Votel was absent.

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

2.   APPROVE MINUTES:  Chair McCue asked if there were any additions or corrections to the April 20, 2011
minutes.

Commissioner Svendsen corrected the spelling of the word “orienteering” on page 3 of the April 20, 2011 minutes.
     
Commissioner Svendsen moved to approve the April 20, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as corrected seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried.  (4-0)

3.   A. Minor Subdivision & Major Site & Building Plan Review – Bulach Property 118 Salem Church Road:    

Chair McCue asked the Planner to review her report on the application.

Planner Fuhrman explained that Mr. Bulach, along with Mike Kampmeyer are requesting approval of a Minor Subdivision to split off a portion of Mr. Kampmeyer’s parcel and add that portion to the Bulach parcel to meet the required side yard setback to accommodate the Bulach’s proposed House addition.  She stated that the Bulach’s are also requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan review to allow the construction of an addition to the northwest corner of their home. She explained the addition consists of a 995 sq. ft. master bedroom and dining room addition on the first floor and a 995 sq. ft. recreational room addition to the basement floor. The project also includes relocating the existing well and removal and replacement of the existing front patio and steps. She stated that a Major Site and building Plan review requires review and recommendation by the Planning commission and final approval by the Council.

The Planner stated that the south west corner of the existing home is located 17.2 ft. from the west side property line and the northwest corner of the home is located 25.5 ft. from the west side property line. She explained that because the existing home violates setback standards along the west side yard lot line, it is considered a non-conforming structure. She noted that the City Code allows a legally non-conforming single family structure to be expanded provided that the non-conformity is not increased beyond the existing conditions. Since the applicant is proposing to expand the structure on the northwest corner of the home, the proposed addition would not be consistent with the setback standards. She advised that in order to meet the required side yard setback of 50 ft., the property owners are proposing to purchase a portion of the neighboring property owned by Mike Kampmeyer and attach it to their property. She stated that the proposed application for a Minor Subdivision would qualify under the newly adopted Minor Subdivision Ordinance if both lots meet all net area regulations. She noted that because of the fairly significant amount of steep slopes and a small area of wetland on the property, the proposed Bulach parcel does not conform to the lot size minimum standards and therefore the proposed subdivision cannot qualify as a Minor Subdivision. She explained that in order to process the request as it is currently proposed, the platting process and a variance request would be required.

Commissioner Svendsen asked if this was previously known by the applicant. The Planner explained that the net area requirement was not discovered until she received a copy of the Mullery Acres Plat that showed the slopes and wetland area on the proposed property that was to be added to the Bulach parcel.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked when the original home was built on the Bulach property. Steve Bulach stated the home was constructed in 1979.

Planner Fuhrman stated that the Kampmeyer’s parcel contains 3.01 net acres, which is above the required 2.5 net acres for a single family residential lot; she suggested an alternative to platting and requesting a variance might be to include more land in the lot line adjustment. She pointed out that an analysis would have to be performed by the surveyor to determine if there is adequate area for both parcels to meet the required 2.5 net acres, minus wetlands and 12% slope areas, and still meet setback and other zoning requirements.

The Planner further advised that the Minor Subdivision Exhibit sheet indicates a ten-foot wide drainage and utility easement along the northeasterly lot line which is adjacent to the Bulach parcel and is included in the area of land proposed to be consolidated with the Bulach parcel. She stated this easement area is identified to be vacated on the Survey dated April 15, 2011; however, the applicant has since indicated to staff that he no longer wishes to vacate the easement at this time. She stated that she has discussed this with the City Engineer and he stated it is fine that the easement remain as is. She further explained that the City Attorney agreed, but noted that the easement can be vacated at a later time if the property owner chooses to do so; if this occurs the area private utilities shall be notified of the proposed easement vacation.   

Planner Fuhrman explained that the proposed addition consists of a 995 sq. ft. addition with master bedroom, closet, bathroom and dining room on the first floor and a recreational room of 995 sq. ft. to the basement floor.  She stated the existing front patio and steps shall be removed and the well relocated in order to accommodate the proposed addition. She noted that the application should have the survey updated to show the relocation of the new patio and steps. She advised that the proposed addition meets the maximum height allowed and the standards for exterior building materials as regulated by ordinance. She explained that the existing well will be relocated approximately 100 ft. northwest and that the property owner shall follow the permitting requirements of Dakota County and other state agencies for abandoning the well and constructing the new well. She stated that the property owner discussed the proposed addition with the City’s Septic Inspector and the Inspector advised that the existing septic system is sized sufficiently for the proposed addition. She noted that the Inspector pointed out the existing system is not ideally located as the concrete apron surrounding the swimming pool cover the septic tank and the 6-inch inspection riser is utilized to pump the tank. The Inspector further noted that a concrete patio and arbor appear to be covering a portion of the drainfield, which prevents any evaporation and causes all liquid to percolate the soil; he indicated that this may lead to earlier failure of the drainfield, however; there is no evidence of failure or effluent surfacing at this time.      

The Planner stated that the applicant plans to move the existing lighting and that no new lighting is proposed. She further advised that the applicant is working with the City Forester to remove less desirable trees and brush as part of the project and to review the landscaping plan. She stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the grading, drainage and erosion control plans. The Engineer suggested that if Commission recommends approval fo the plan, staff is recommending that a rain garden be installed to hold addition runoff volume due to the increase in impervious surface; the size and location of the rain garden would be coordinated with the City Engineer.

Planner Fuhrman reviewed the Site and Building Plan Evaluation Criteria as shown in her report and noted the following items for discussion: 

F. Drainage; Staff recommends that a  rain garden be installed to hold additional runoff volume due to the increase in impervious surface, the size and location to be coordinated with the City Engineer. If the City Engineer determines that there is not adequate area for a rain garden, then the new patio shall be constructed of pavers with pervious joints to help alleviate the volume of runoff.

G. Site Improvements consistent with the Purposes of the Ordinance: Because the Minor Subdivision cannot be approved as-is, the proposed addition is not consistent with the purposes of this Ordinance as it does not meet the required side yard setback. If the applicant obtains additional land and so that both new lots can meet the required net area and the Minor subdivision is approved, it appears that the proposed addition would be consistent with the purposes of the Ordinance.

In summary, the Planner advised that after receiving the information pertaining to the slopes greater than 12 % and the wetland area, it was determined that the proposed Bulach parcel does not meet the required lot size standards and that the proposed lot line adjustment does not qualify as a Minor Subdivision.  Staff recommends one of two options; 1) Table the decision regarding the Minor Subdivision and Major Site/Building Plan Review until information is submitted indicating the minimum lot size standards can be met by both proposed lots or, 2) Deny the Minor Subdivision and Major Site/Building Plan review based on the findings of fact as listed in the Planer’s report.

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her report and asked Mr. Kampmeyer if he had any comments.

Mike Kampmeyer explained that he has no problem conveying additional land to comply with the Ordinance requirements for net lot area.

Commissioner Svendsen questioned what portion of the land could be conveyed to meet the 2.5 acre requirements.

Planner Fuhrman referred to Exhibit K attached to her report and noted that it shows the area of the Kampmeyer property adjacent to the Bulach property as mostly sloped; she stated she is unsure if there would be enough land that is not sloped to gain the net area calculation required to meet the Ordinance.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked the Planner to explain the new legislation relating to variances in the event the applicant wished to pursue a platting and variance application.

Planner Fuhrman advised that the new legislation signed by the Governor on May 6, 2011 restores the variance authority back to cities; the new law removed the language relating to cities establishing “undue hardship” and changed it to suggest that cities determine “practical difficulties”.  She advised that the League of Minnesota Cities indicated there are five (5) items that cities should review when determining whether or not a variance should be granted; she reviewed the list of items:

• Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
• Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
• Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
• Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
• Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?

She also noted that the current City Ordinance would have to be updated to include the new standards as identified by the League of Minnesota Cities and as indicated by the new legislation.

Chair McCue asked if the variance could be considered this evening. Planner Fuhrman responded no and explained that a variance requires a public hearing.

There was discussion by Commission, staff and the applicant relating to how to proceed with the request.

Commissioner Schlehuber questioned the likelihood of a variance being granted if the home owner applied; he noted that the request appear to meet the criteria as outlined by the League of Minnesota Cities and discussed by the Planner.

Planner Fuhrman indicated that the applicant would have to submit the request and the Commission would them determine if I meets the criteria prior to making a recommendation to Council.

Chair McCue noted that the runoff may be an issue and asked if the increasing the size of the rain garden would negate some of the runoff.  Planner Fuhrman advised that the rain gardens are favored because they not only assist with the runoff but they also provide protection for the lakes.

Steve Bulach pointed out that he is adding only one-half of a roof section and therefore the runoff should not be substantially increased. He also noted that the runoff would be directed north, not to the wetland area. He advised that he reviewed two plans for the addition and chose the most expensive plan because it enhances the look of his home. He indicated that he is unsure if he can meet the required 2.5 net acres due to the slopes adjacent to his property. He explained that it is an unusual parcel of land and that he is not sure how it was approved in such an unusual configuration. He noted that if the home had been centered on the parcel it would not be a problem to construct the addition.
Chair McCue suggested that the variance and platting application may be the appropriate approach to resolve the matter.

Commissioner Svendsen agreed that it appears the unusual lot configuration may be considered a “practical difficulty” under the new variance criteria.

Commissioner Schlehuber asked if there were any other options for action on this matter. Planner Fuhrman responded no and advised that it may be best to deny the request and suggest the applicant submit a new application for the variance and plat.

Clerk Iago pointed out that the applicant could withdraw the application for the Minor Subdivision and request an extension on the Major Site and Building Plan Review; she noted that this would extend the time period for consideration of the Major Site and Building Plan Review as required by State Statutes, allow time for the applicant to submit the plat and variance request, and allow staff time to notice a public hearing for the plat and variance.

Planner Fuhrman agreed and pointed out that if the applicant finds the additional land to meet the 2.5 acre requirement prior to the Council meeting in June the matter could be resubmitted for Council consideration.

Steve Bulach agreed to withdraw the Minor Subdivision application and request an extension on the Major Site and Building Plan Review.

Chair McCue closed the discussion on this matter based on the applicant withdrawing his request and asking for an extension. She thanked staff, Mr. Bulach and Mr. Kampmeyer for their input.       
 

4.   OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:  A. May City Council Update: Planner Fuhrman explained that Council had adopted the Minor Subdivision Ordinance amendment at their May meeting and that she reviewed the Commission comments and concerns relating to the recent “geocaching” request. She stated that there would be two applications for review at the June meeting; a Conditional Use Permit to add antennas to an existing cell tower and a Variance request for an addition to the residence at 2600 Angell Road. She also advised that the City Attorney would prepare an amendment to the City Code to incorporate the new variance legislation that was recently passed by the State Legislature.

Commission Wahlstrom asked if the height of the antennas would be changed. Planner Fuhrman responded no and explained that the request is to add three (3) additional antennas on the existing tower.

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

5.   ADJOURN:          Commissioner Schlehuber moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (4-0)


Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk