SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – OCTOBER 20, 2022
7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING
Attendants:
Chair: Tom Hendrickson
Commissioners: Shannon Nelson, and Jeannine Nayes
City Planner: Lori Johnson
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Commissioner Dominick Driano was absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ADOPT AGENDA: Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any additions to the agenda and there was no response.
Commissioner Nayes moved to adopt the agenda as presented, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and carried (3-0)
- APPROVE MINUTES, JUNE 16, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the June 16, 2022 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
Commissioner Nelson referred to page 4 of the June 16, 2022 minutes and noted that the vote count to adjourn the meeting was 5-0 and should have been 3-0.
Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any other corrections and there was no response.
Chair Hendrickson moved to approve the June 16, 2022 Planning Commission minutes as corrected on Page 4, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and carried. (3-0)
- PUBLIC HEARING: A. MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE, 2184 Charlton Road, Applicant Patrick Mackey, Mike and Suzanne McDonal Property Owners: Chair Hendrickson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the application for a Minor Site Plan Review and Variance for property located at 2184 Charlton Road. He reviewed the procedures for conducting a public hearing and asked the Planner to present her report.
Planner Johnson referred to her report dated October 20, 2022 and explained the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential/Rural Residential and that is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. She advised that the homeowners submitted an application for a Minor Site and Building Plan approval and a Variance to construct an 804 sq. ft. 3-car garage on the existing home site. She stated that the Variance request relates to the percentage of building coverage on the property. The current requirement on a lot in the R-1 District is 10% and the proposed addition of a third stall to the garage would increase the building coverage to 15.1%, making the request for a 5.1% variance to the building coverage requirement.
The Planner stated that the existing two stall garage attached to the home has an existing setback of 25 ft., while 50 ft. is the required side yard setback. She further explained that the existing home has a minimum setback of 23 ft. 8 inches from the property line, while the required building setback is 50 ft. from the property line. She advised that the existing setbacks indicate that the home is considered legal nonconforming and the proposed new garage setback would also be 23 ft. 8 inches, therefore the new structure would not be closer to the lot line than the existing home. The nonconforming section of the ordinance allows for improvements to those nonconforming structures with setback violations to enhance livability provided the site and building plan approval process is followed. Therefore, no variances are required for the proposed setbacks for the new garage.
Planner Johnson stated that the bituminous driveway for the garage will remain intact and will be expanded on the south side of the driveway in two (2) locations as shown on the site plan. The homeowner will be removing a portion of the driveway on the north side of the lot line that encroaches on the neighboring property. She noted that this work has been approved by the adjacent property owner and a signed letter was sent to staff approving the work. She further advised that the existing impervious surface on the site is 33.71% and the proposed impervious surface on the site is also 33.71%, therefore, no variance is required since the applicant is not proposing to exceed the existing nonconforming impervious surface requirement and that the building plan approval process is being followed. She noted that only one (1) tree would be removed.
The Planner noted that the City Engineer and Commissioner Nelson attended at the on-site visit earlier this evening. She explained that the Engineer noted an existing retaining wall would be removed and replaced and this was not noted on the plan set provided by the applicant. She further advised that the appearance of the home will remain basically the same.
Planner Johnson stated that the Minor Site and Building Plan approval usually requires only administrative approval, however, a public hearing is required due to the Variance request. She noted that a setback variance is not required since the non-conforming use ordinance allows the property owner to make changes that make the site more livable without increasing the size of the nonconformity.
The Planner explained that the Variance requested would be for a 5.1% increase in the building coverage as the ordinance allows only a 10% building coverage. She referred the Commission to the Variance Review Criteria and Practical Difficulties section listed in her report and advised that the application met all criteria. She offered to respond to any questions regarding these items.
Planner Johnson further advised that the plans and report were sent to the DNR representative as required by the Shoreland Overlay District requirements and the DNR representative had no comments on the application.
The Planner stated that staff recommends approval of the Minor Site and Building Plan and Variance subject to the Findings of Fact and with the seven (7) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report both documents dated October 20, 2022. She further stated that the City Engineer recommended one additional condition be included:
“Condition 8. Applicant must show details of the removal and the reinstallation of the retaining wall south of the driveway on a surveyed drawing by October 31, 2022 and prior to the City Council meeting. This plan should also depict the height and materials of the proposed new retaining wall.”
Planner Johnson stated that the retaining wall is south of the existing bituminous driveway and that the applicant was made aware of this condition and agreed to submit the information. She offered to respond to questions.
Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any comments from the applicant or property owners.
Suzanne McDonald, 2184 Charlton Road, explained that Applicant and architect Patrick Mackey had trouble accessing the Zoom meeting and was on the phone. She advised that Mr. Mackey stated he could provide the information on the retaining wall in time to meet the deadlines in the new condition.
Patrick Mackey stated he could provide the information within three (3) days.
Mike McDonald asked if it had to be a surveyed drawing or just a sketch.
Patrick Mackey stated he would contact a civil engineer to get the height and size requirements of the retaining wall.
Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further comments from the applicant or property owner and there was no response.
He asked if there were any further comments from the public and there was no response.
Chair Hendrickson asked if the Commissioners had any questions or comments. He explained that he visited the site after staff had been there and Mr. McDonald had shown him the concern from staff regarding the retaining wall. He questioned if there was a need for an additional condition and if he missed getting a copy of the Engineer’s report.
Planner Johnson explained that the Engineer was made aware of the retaining wall at the site visit this evening, therefore, there was no report on the matter.
Chair Hendrickson referred to the site plan and indicated that erosion control would be needed while construction occurred, however, in his opinion it would be unnecessary to ask the applicant to provide the additional site plan documentation.
Planner Johnson explained that the Engineer asked the applicant to put it on the plan as it is not an unusual request to show all site improvements on the plan for comparison purposes.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the additional condition should be included as part of the approval. Chair Hendrickson indicated that he did not favor asking the applicant to spend additional funds to provide the information and Commissioner Nelson agreed.
Planner Johnson explained that staff needs to see the height, length and type of materials to be used to construct the proposed new retaining wall and that the information could be included on documents that have already been submitted.
Commissioner Nelson explained that the McDonalds would like to get the garage stall started before the weather prohibits building. She asked if the retaining wall documentation could be delayed and if an extension could be given.
Patrick Mackey explained that he would be able to provide the information by next week. He indicated that he would need to discuss the proposed retaining wall grade with a civil engineer and that he would then provide the necessary drawing to staff.
Chair Hendrickson asked if the same materials would be used or reused to construct the new retaining wall.
Suzanne McDonald responded that they plan to use the same materials to build the new wall and that they have some extra of the current materials that were used for the original wall.
Chair Hendrickson stated that he would withdraw his objection to including the additional condition as recommended by staff.
He asked if there were any further questions or comments and, hearing none, closed the public hearing.
Chair Hendrickson moved to approve the Minor Site and Building Plan and Variance application for property located at 2184 Charlton Road, Patrick Mackey applicant and Mike and Suzanne McDonald property owners, based on the Findings of Fact dated October 20, 2022 and subject to the seven (7) conditions listed in the Planner’s report dated October 20, 2022 and the additional condition:
“Condition 8. Applicant must show details of the removal and the reinstallation of the retaining wall south of the driveway on a surveyed drawing by October 31, 2022 and prior to the City Council meeting. This plan should also depict the height and materials of the proposed new retaining wall.”
Seconded by Commissioner Nayes and carried. (3-0)
Chair Hendrikson asked Mr. Mackey to provide the information to Planner Johnson and Engineer Sandberg as soon as it is available.
OTHER/NEW BUSINESS: Chair Hendrickson asked if there was any other or new business for discussion. He asked if there had been any further discussion regarding the City going back to conducting in-person meetings.
Clerk Iago stated that Council had discussed the possibility of in-person meetings after the first of the year. She advised that she would be retiring from her position as City Clerk/Administrator at the end of this year, but that she would continue to work with the newly appointed person for a few months.
Commissioner Nelson asked if Council had discussed appointing a replacement on the Planning Commission to fill former Commissioner Beckett’s place. She stated that resident Kathy Kottas had expressed an interest in serving on the Commission.
Chair Hendrickson explained that he had not heard anything from Mayor O’Leary regarding an appointment to the Commission and that he would advise the Mayor that Kathy Kottas had expressed interest in serving.
Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
ADJOURN: Commissioner Nelson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Nayes and carried. (3-0)
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk