- DRAFT –

SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING – JULY 17, 2019

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


Attendants:

Chair: Tom Hendrickson

Commissioners: Ginny Beckett, Shannon Nelson, Jeannine Nayes and Dominick Driano
City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

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, seconded by Commissioner Driano and carried (5-0)

3. APPROVE MINUTES JUNE19, 2019: Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any additions or corrections to the June 19, 2019 Planning meeting minutes and there was no response.

Commissioner Nelson moved to approve the June 29, 2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Beckett and carried. (5-0)

4. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Major Site and Building Plan Review, 270 Salem Church Road, PLAAD,LLC, Emily & Kevin Wu: Chair Hendrickson opened the public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the Major Site and Building Plan for the property located at 270 Salem Church Road. He asked the Planner to review his report.

Planner Grittman referred to his report dated July 11, 2019 and stated that the applicants plan to construct a new home on an existing vacant lot of record which requires review by the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council. He stated that the property is zoned R-1 Single-family Residential and is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District. He noted that the applicants are not seeking any conditional use permits or variances.

The Planner noted that the application is in compliance with all standards including the net lot area at 4.1 acres (2.5 acres are required), the front, side-yard and rear setbacks, the maximum building coverage and the building height limit at 22.9 feet, as shown in his report.

Planner Grittman explained that the proposed exterior building materials, which include fiber cement siding and glass are specifically permitted in the Zoning Code. He further advised that due to the steep slopes on the property, the driveway would be placed along the east border which is the only feasible area location for the driveway. He advised that several trees were removed under a separate permit and would be replaced by the applicants.

The Planner stated that the applicants submitted a proposed exterior lighting plan which shows recessed downlighting on the front of the home and garage area; this meets the general requirements for lighting and no lighting is proposed on the rear of the home. He explained that the lighting on residential property shall not exceed one-foot candle as measured from the edge of water abutting the subject property and staff has confidence that his requirement would be easily met with the proposed lighting fixtures.

Planner Grittman stated that the City Engineer reviewed the grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management plans and recommended approval as outlined in his reported dated June 29, 2019 and attached as Exhibit I.

The Planner explained that twenty-nine (29) trees were removed under a previous minor review application which included a condition that the trees would be replaced after completion of the new home construction. He advised that thirty-five (35) trees would be planted which include spruce, aspen and maple trees. He showed the area where the trees would be planted for screening purposes near the east side of the home and stated that staff approved the landscape plan with no additional screening proposed at this time.

Planner Grittman advised that the plan includes installation of a boulder retaining wall which was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. He further noted that a new septic system would be built on the south (rear) side of the property and includes both primary and alternative septic treatment areas. He stated the plan was reviewed and approval by the City’s Septic Inspector and the City Engineer.

The Planner explained that notices were sent to all neighboring properties within 1,000 ft. of the subject side and one neighbor expressed disappointment regarding the location of the home so close to the east border on the site, but offered no further comments. He noted that he explained to the caller that trees would be planted in that area for screening purposes. He advised that another caller asked how they could review the site and building plans and he provided them access to the plans.

Planner Grittman stated that staff recommends approval of the application subject to the six (6) conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 11, 2019.

Chair Hendrickson thanked the Planner for his report and asked if the Commission had any questions>

Commissioner Nayes referred to Exhibit D-3 and noted that Oak wilt inspections were discussed and questioned how often the inspections would be done.

Planner Grittman explained that the inspections would be at the discretion of the property owner unless the Commission adds a condition to request they are re-inspected every few years. He noted this may be difficult for the City to manage such a condition.

Commissioner Nayes pointed out that the trees would be stressed during construction and that it would be easier for the disease to occur at that time. She asked how often the trees would be checked during construction.

Planner Grittman stated that would be a question for the City Forester and explained that to his knowledge it had not been required in the past. He noted that staff would conduct a pre-construction site meeting to insure that safety fencing is installed to project the trees.

Chair Hendrickson pointed out that according to the plans, the contract would be responsible to check and insure the safety fencing is in place during construction. He stated that in his opinion it should be the responsibility of the contractor and home owner to insure the trees are protected.

Commissioner Driano asked when construction of the home would begin.

Planner Grittman explained that the applicant must first obtain approval from Council, which could not be obtained prior to the August Council meeting, and then they must obtain a building permit before beginning construction.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further questions from the Commission or the audience.

Kevin Wu, applicant, explained that he grew up in the Cooperfield development across from Sunfish Lake and always wanted to live in Sunfish Lake.

Matt Byers, Plaad Builders, thanked staff and the Commission for their time and review of the application.

Commissioner Driano asked where the construction equipment would be parked during construction.

Matt Byers stated that it was understanding the equipment would be parked along the access road to the site and that no equipment would be parked on Salem Church Road; he noted that he would follow-up with the contractor to insure this occurs.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there would be any silt fencing along the north end of the site; he noted that the Engineer did not address this in his report and noted that it slopes toward the septic field.

Mr. Byers explained the silt fencing would be on the west end of the property since it is up slope. He referred to Exhibit D-5 which shows the “revision history” with the pads as shown; he noted that he would incorporate any disturbed area near the septic area with silt fencing.

Chair Hendrickson pointed out that the Engineer used to require protection of site areas prior to digging so that no equipment compacted the soils.

Mr. Byers stated he would ask the contractor to protect the areas prior to beginning construction.

Chair Hendrickson suggested that an additional condition be included to require that the primary and secondary areas for the septic system locations be protected by silt fencing and the Commission concurred.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further comments or questions and, hearing none, closed the public hearing.

Chair Hendrickson moved to recommend approval of the Minor Site and Building Plan Review for property located at 270 Salem Church Road, Emily and Kevin Wu, subject to the conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 11, 2019 and with an additional condition that silt fencing be installed to protect the primary and secondary septic system locations on the site, seconded by Commissioner Nayes and carried. (5-0)

Commissioner Driano asked how the septic discharge gets from the home to the system and Mr. Byers explained it would be pumped.

5. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Demolition Ordinance: Chair Hendrickson opened the public hearing to discuss a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to Demolition of Structures. He asked the Planner to review his report.

Planner Grittman referred to his report date July 11, 2019 and explained that at the May Council meeting, Council directed staff and the Commission to research incorporating a Demolition Ordinance. He stated that this issue arise from the recent teardown and rebuild projects that occurred within the City. He noted that a teardown of an existing structure occurred with only a permit from the City’s Building Official and does not requirement engineering review, silt fencing installation or a restoration plan be submitted. He advised that a teardown of an existing home occurred last year and the construction did not begin on the property until recently; he noted that fortunately the contractor had installed silt fencing, however, it could have been disastrous.

The Planner stated that he conducted research on the matter and drafted a proposed an ordinance that would require demolition permits to receive a minor review and approval before the demolition can take place; he noted that the Building Inspector’s issuance of a permit would still be required once the minor review is completed.

Planner Grittman advised that the minor review would include review by appropriate staff, including the City Engineer, and would allow only a few exceptions; 1) An accessory structure under 200 sq. ft. with no footings; and 2) A demolition that is part of a teardown and rebuild project, since installation of silt fencing would be required as part of the project.

The Planner noted that the existing home at 2 Sunfish Lane was torn down prior to construction, however, the site remained vacant all through the winter months. He noted that silt fencing was in place, although it was not required at that time and would have been difficult to enforce since no regulations existed at that time.

Planner Grittman indicated that this may not occur on a regular basis, however, Council determined it would be preferable not to leave it to chance. He referred to the draft Ordinance and advised that the Commission could recommend approval as it is, or make any changes they deem appropriate.

Commissioner Nelson agreed it would be safety issue with a large hole that was not identified or defined by silt fencing.

Commissioner Nayes asked if the current demolition permit requires silt fencing.

Planner Grittman responded no and explained that there are some regulations that could be imposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), however, those concerns relate to environmental issues not erosion control issues..

There was discussion regarding whether or not regular fencing should be required and if wells should be included in the ordinance.

Chair Hendrickson stated that Item B. Review, requires approval by staff which should allow them to impose other conditions they deem necessary. He also noted that staff would be responsible to insure the conditions are met. He noted that regulations for wells are under the authority of Dakota County, not the City.

Chair Hendrickson asked if the building permit for demolition can be obtained under any other conditions than those listed in the draft ordinance.

The Planner responded yes and pointed out that a project may request demolition prior to obtaining Council approval of their application, however, this would prohibit that from occurring.

Commissioner Nelson questioned if there could be an open basement in an accessory structure and suggested that the ordinance only exempt accessory structures that are constructed “on-slab” with no footings or basement.

Chair Hendrickson agreed or suggested the size of the structure could be reduced.

Planner Grittman advised that an accessory structure under 200 sq. ft. does not require a building permit.

After a brief discussion, Commission concurred to add language that exempted only accessory structures that are constructed “on-slab” with no basement.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there would be a time limit for completion of the project once the demolition occurs.

Planner Grittman stated he did not include a time limit, however, he offered to review the Zoning Ordinance to determine if a time period is identified for projects. He suggested that language could be included which states “a structure must be taken down within 90 days of approval of the Demolition Permit.”

Commissioner Nayes suggested that language which states” where a building permit has been obtained..” should be clarified.

Commissioner Driano suggested the language be as follows; “where a building permit has been formally approved…”.

Commissioner Driano asked if police or fire need to obtain a permit to demo a structure for training or burning exercises.

Clerk Iago explained that police and/or fire would make a request directly to Council for use of a property for training purposes.

Chair Hendrickson asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Commission or audience, and hearing no response, closed the public hearing.

Commission Driano moved to recommend approval of the proposed Demolition Ordinance with the following amendments to the draft included in the Planner’s report dated July 11, 2019:

“Section Two, Chapter 1208.10, A Exemption: The following scenarios are exempt from this section: 1. Demolition of accessory structure under 200 sq. ft. that are built on-slab; 2. Demolition projects were a building permit has been formally approval for the reconstruction of a structure in approximately the same location as the demolition; and, 3) The Demolition Permit shall be limited to 90 days from the date of approval.”, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and carried. (5-0)

ADJOURN: Chair Hendrickson asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

Commissioner Beckett moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Nelson and carried. (5-0)

Respectfully submitted,

________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk