SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
– NOVEMBER 28, 2007
6:30 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair Eberhard
Bulach
Commissioners:
Andrea McCue, Tom Votel, and Arnulf Svendsen.
City Planner:
Laurie Smith
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Commissioner Joanne Wahlstrom arrived at 7:00 p.m.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Bulach opened the meeting at 6:30
p.m.
II.
APPROVE AGENDA: Chair Bulach if there were any comments or
corrections to the October 17, 2007 Commission minutes as presented and
there was no response.
Commissioner McCue moved to approve the October 17, 2007 Planning
Commission minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Votel and
carried. 4-0.
III. Public
Hearing: Consideration of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to
Temporary Certificates of
Occupancy.
Chair Bulach opened
the public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance that
would require a $7,500.00 security deposit for a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy and eliminate the option of submitting a letter of credit.
Planner Smith explained that the Planning Commission and Council had
discussed possible options to insure completion of all required
improvements attached as conditions for new construction. She stated
that a letter of credit often expires after one year and therefore the
Commission and Council determined that an escrow account would be
preferable to the letter of credit. She further explained that the
Commission and Council suggested the escrow amount be sufficient to
provide funds for the City to pursue methods to insure that the required
improvements are completed; she noted that the City would not be
responsible for completing the improvements but would use the funds for
staff time to pursue methods to insure the improvements were completed
prior to issuing a permanent Certificate of Occupancy.
Chair Bulach asked if escrows are normally returned to the applicants
when the permanent Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Planner Smith
stated she recalled returning an escrow amount for the Spaulding
residence upon completion of all required improvements. She explained
that costs for staff time are deducted from the escrow fee.
Chair Bulach asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Commissioner Svendsen asked if the City gained any interest from the
escrowed funds. Planner Smith stated she was unsure if interest was
accumulated on the funds.
Commissioner Votel stated that he does not believe the City gains any
interest on escrowed funds.
Steve Bulach, 118 Salem Church Road, stated he supports the change since
it will help the City to insure that all conditions attached to new
construction are completed as submitted. He pointed out that enforcement
of the conditions attached as part of the new construction would insure
privacy for adjacent properties. Commission members concurred.
Commissioner McCue questioned if the proposed amendment is too strong.
She also questioned if the escrow funds would be used to correct
situations when an addition to a home was not done appropriately or some
part of the original plan was changed.
Planner Smith explained that this amendment would apply only to new home
construction when Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are issued and
would relate only to site components such as grading, landscaping, etc.
She pointed out that when changes to an approved plan occur it would be
more of an enforcement issue.
Commissioner Votel suggested that this concept could also be used for
other types of building applications and that could be discussed in the
future, but would not be part of this action. He noted that some type of
penalties could be included in the Zoning Ordinance for other
applications; he suggested that the City may need to adopt findings and
the matter should be discussed by Council and the City Attorney at a
future time.
Planner Smith explained that the current code does contain language for
imposing penalties, however the City has not strongly enforced the
regulations. She pointed out that with the current language the City
could require the applicant to remove an improvement that was altered
and may hold funds until the corrections are made or the applicant would
forfeit the funds. She noted that the City would have to determine what
level of enforcement it wishes to pursue.
Commissioner Votel noted that some homeowners made adjustments to the
originally approved plan and he would prefer the changes are submitted
for review and approval and documented. He indicated there should be a
better way to protect residents so that original plans are carried out
and there should be a process that staff follows to review the
construction and insure it was completed as approved.
Planner Smith agreed that it may be appropriate to include more
requirements in the language, such as requiring the applicant to submit
“as-built” documentation upon completion of the project.
Commissioner Votel agreed that the current regulations are not strong
enough and he suggested that it may be appropriate to ask to the City
Attorney if additional language could be included. The Commissioners
agreed.
Steve Bulach asked if the $7,500.00 is a flat fee and not based on the
cost of the construction application.
Planner Smith explained that the fee is established only for new
construction, not additions to existing homes, and that it is a flat fee
and not based on costs.
Commissioner Svendsen asked how many Temporary Certificates of Occupancy
are normally issued.
Planner Smith responded that approximately 4 out of last 5 homes
constructed have asked for a temporary certificate. She commented that
the Chase property actually submitted “as built” documentation upon
completion of their new home construction.
Chair Bulach asked if there were any further comments and there was no
response. The public hearing was closed at 6:45p.m.
Commissioner
Votel moved, seconded by Commissioner McCue, to recommend approval of
the proposed Ordinance No. 2007-03 relating to Temporary Certificates of
Occupancy. Motion carried. 4-0
Planner Smith advised this
matter would be heard before Council at their meeting on December 4,
2007.
IV. Mullery
Property Subdivision Concept Plan.
Planner Smith explained
that Tom Mullery asked City staff and officials to review and comment on
a concept plan for a subdivision of property. She stated that the
proposed subdivision would allow for one lot to be split into two lots
whereby portions of the lot would be conveyed to the properties to the
north and south resulting in a smaller remaining lot. She noted that the
subdivision would not result in the creation of any additional lots. She
stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is not
located within a Shoreland Overlay District. She also explained the site
is guided for low density residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan.
The Planner pointed out that the property is oddly shaped and was
platted in the 1970’s, although the plat was never actually recorded
with Dakota County. She referred to Exhibit D and noted that the lot
configurations on the exhibit were the original intent of Mr. Mullery.
She stated that in the past the City advised Mr. Mullery that he could
not subdivide the property due to the lot area requirements. She
explained that Mr. Mullery does not wish to create any new lots but does
wish to shift a portion of the land to Lot 2 to make it a conforming
lot.
Planner Smith explained that upon submission of a formal application she
would recommend the lot configurations as shown on Exhibit C with the
conditions as listed in her report. The Planner noted that at this time
she is unsure of the actual acreage figures for the lots and that the
applicant would have to identify the wetlands and submit a formal survey
of the lots to insure that the net acreage requirements are met.
Commissioner McCue asked if rain gardens would have to be installed if
the wetlands are disturbed. Commissioner Votel pointed out that would be
part of the formal application process and does not need to be discussed
at this time.
Commissioner Svendsen asked if there was a home on Lot 3. Planner Smith
responded no and advised the only home currently in the area is located
on Lot 1.
Tom Mullery explained that there are no wetlands on the property; he
advised that the property has not changed since he sold the lot on Salem
Church Road.
Commissioner Votel noted there are ponding areas shown on the exhibits
and he asked if there was any water collection on the property.
Mr. Mullery explained that there are no ponding areas on the property
and that the actual drainage flows to the lake. He stated that his
intent is to improve the setback for the existing home which currently
is only 17 feet from the property line.
Commissioner Votel agreed that it would be appropriate to bring the
existing home and lot into conformance and pointed out that the
Commission could only provide a non-binding recommendation on the matter
since it is not a formal application.
Commissioner Wahlstrom arrived at 7:00 p.m.
Planner Smith explained that Mr. Mullery was present this evening
seeking input from the Commission prior to submitting a formal
subdivision plan; she noted that the formal plan would have to show any
designated wetland areas so that staff could calculate the acreage of
the lots.
Mr. Mullery stated he was unsure how the wetland issue arose and that
there are no wetlands on the property.
Planner Smith explained that the maps she used came from the DNR and if
a formal application is submitted a survey of the lots that shows the
contours and delineates the wetlands would be required. She noted that a
trained individual would have to complete the drawings.
Commissioner Votel noted there is clearly a discrepancy regarding the
wetlands and Mr. Mullery would be responsible for providing accurate
information as part of the formal application process.
Chair Bulach asked if the Commission should comment without this
information.
Commissioner Votel noted that any comments would be non-binding and he
would prefer to comment favorably to bring the non-conforming lot into
conformance.
Commissioner Votel moved, seconded by Commissioner McCue, to comment
favorably on the property subdivision, subject to the five (5)
conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated November 14, 2007.
Motion carried. 5-0
Planner Smith explained this matter would be reviewed by Council at
their December 4, 2007 meeting.
V. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS – 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Dates.
Planner Smith reviewed proposed 2008 Planning Commission meeting
dates and explained that she did not foresee any changes at this time
due to holidays.
Commissioner Votel moved, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen, to adopt
Resolution No. 07-01-PC titled, RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATES OF THE
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS FOR THE YEAR 2008. Motion carried
5-0.
Commissioner Votel suggested that the Commissioner request that in the
coming year the City make an effort to work towards strengthening the
regulations and enforcement relating to completion of all building
projects and to insure the originally approved requirements are met. He
asked that Chair Bulach, the Planner, the Building Inspector and any
other appropriate staff members meet to discuss stronger enforcement of
the regulations and a process for imposing penalties if the projects are
not completed as originally approved. He indicated that he would prefer
submission of “as builts” be included as part of the application process
and suggested that the Building Inspector may be able to provide
additional guidelines for enforcement.
Chair Bulach asked if there was any further business and there was no
response.
VI.
ADJOURN: Commissioner McCue moved, to adjourn the meeting at
7:05 p.m, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. 5-0
Catherine Iago, City Clerk
BACK to
News