SUNFISH LAKE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor Molly
Park
Councilpersons: Joel Bennett, Richard Williams, and Judy MacManus.
Planning
Chair: Eberhard Bulach
Commissioners:
Arnulf Svendsen, and Joanne Wahlstrom.
City Planner:
Laurie Smith
City Clerk:
Catherine Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Absent: Councilmember Cathy DeCourcy, Commissioners Andrea McCue and
Tom Votel.
I.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the joint meeting at
7:00 p.m.
II.
2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:
A. Introduction:
Mayor Park asked the Planner to review
her report dated September 5, 2007.
Planner Smith welcomed Council,
Commissioners and staff to the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update process.
She explained this joint meeting and preparation of the draft report is
part of the initial phase of the process. She stated that her report
provides the background, current social and physical inventory and
community facilities information for the City. She noted that she had
also included the goals and policies section for the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan for review. She asked that those present provide input as to
whether or not any new goals and/or policies should be included in the
document in order to maintain or protect Sunfish Lake’s unique
character. She also recommended that input as to whether or not any new
goals or policies may be appropriate given recent “green” initiatives or
tear-down and rebuild trends.
The Planner explained that Sunfish
Lake is unique from other cities since there is no commercial
development within the city and there are no substantial land use
issues. She noted that the Comprehensive Plan is formulated to reinforce
positive goals and policies and is used as a guide; the City Zoning Code
is used to regulate development in accordance with these goals and
policies. She explained that to a large degree the goals and policies
have not changed much since 1998 due to the fact that at that time the
City outlined a good vision of what Sunfish Lake wanted to be and where
it wanted to go. She stated that the purpose of the meeting is to
receive input from Council and the Commissioners and that she would
welcome any comments relating to changes or additions to the proposed
Policy Plan.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that the City is located within the
MUSA and he questioned if the Met Council has the authority to order
Sunfish Lake to bring in sewer utilities.
Planner Smith stated that the Met Council does have the authority to do
so, however, she believes it would be politically detrimental and that
it would be extremely difficult and costly to extend utilities to the
City.
Councilmember Williams agreed that the costs would be substantial. He
commented that the Met Council may suggest that the water utility
connection come from West St. Paul since he believes West St. Paul may
have plans to redo their water utilities. He asked if there would be
any language that could be included to discourage the Met Council from
requiring utility extensions to Sunfish Lake.
Planner Smith pointed out that the Met Council only has the authority to
require sewer connections, not water utilities. She stated that she is
unsure whether or not they would require the City come into the MUSA due
to its size and the fact that it would be extremely expensive. She
pointed out that in other cities she works for the Met Council attempted
to require them to bring in sewer; however, her firm negotiated a trade
of 1,000 acres of land versus the entire city being sewered.
There was discussion regarding whether or not utilities had been stubbed
from Inver Grove Heights to property in Sunfish Lake. Councilmember
Williams pointed out that he believes this occurred when the auto
dealerships were developing. Commissioner Svendsen questioned if in fact
the connections did occur or if it was only rumors.
Planning Chair Bulach stated that if the utilities were extended, they
would have to be requested and paid for by a property owner and there
would be a record of the payment.”
Councilmember Williams commented
that due to the fact the City is so small and is in the middle of a
diversified residential area, he does not believe the Met Council would
require utility connections if there was no compelling reason to do so.
There was discussion relating to the costs to install sewer utilities.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned if this issue would be a realistic
fear. Councilmember Williams explained that in his opinion it is most
likely not a realistic fear and that he raised the issue to question
whether or not the City should include language in the plan to
discourage the Met Council from doing so. He noted that with each new
state government administration the objectives of the Met Council also
change.
Planner Smith commented that she believes Sunfish Lake has set the
precedence in each Comprehensive Plan document and that the proposed
plan strongly encourages maintenance of the septic systems.
Mayor Park questioned if the residents maintain 100 percent compliance
with the septic regulations and the City Clerk responded yes.
The Planner noted that since the 1970’s the City has maintained the same
stance regarding the septic and wells and she believes there is a good
chance the Met Council will ultimately pass the document as it stands.
Planning Chair Bulach noted that the City is currently designated as a
“developing” community and questioned if language should be changed to
state the City is developed.
Planner Smith pointed out that for a city to have the designation of a
“developed” community it must have sewer and water utilities in place.
She noted that Sunfish Lake is currently requesting a change in
designation to a Rural Residential status and that the Met Council staff
appeared to support that designation during initial discussions. She
indicated that due to the fact the City maintains 2.5-acre lots,
discourages development on slopes and natural areas, etc, she believes
that should provide protection from the Met Council requiring utility
connections.
The Planner also noted that Sunfish Lake has historically outgrown the
Met Council population estimates and has taken population that would
have moved further from the metro area.
Mayor Park questioned if the City’s participation in the Livable
Communities Act program would also help support the current status.
Planner Smith responded yes and pointed out that the Met Council
recognizes Sunfish Lake participation.
Commissioner Wahlstrom pointed out that Sunfish Lake is willing to make
contributions towards the program, although the lower income housing
does not fit the community profile. Planner Smith pointed out that there
is a wide range of housing values within the City.
The Planner asked if there were any further comments on this issue and
there was not response.
Planner Smith asked if there were any comments or additions to the Goals
and Policies draft document.
Mayor Park questioned the section of the document relation to road
designations and asked where Charlton Road fit in. She noted that it is
not a cul-de-sac and the church is located on the road; she indicated
that it is different than Salem Church Road or Delaware Avenue which is
a County road. Planner Smith responded that Charlton Road is designated
a “local” road.
Councilmember Williams agreed that Charlton Road fits into the “local”
road designation; he noted it is no different than Acorn Drive extending
to Robert Street. He pointed out that the city can make distinctions on
Charlton Road since it goes from a Class 3 surface to a Class 2 surface,
however, the primary function of the road is not that of a “collector”
designation.
Planner Smith pointed out that she believes it is important to classify
the road as a “local” road and not change the designation at this time.
Mayor Park explained that residents fear the street will be used as a
shortcut from Delaware Avenue.
Planning Chair Bulach pointed out that with the curves and possible
installation of speed humps the traffic could be reduced. Councilmember
Williams agreed and noted that traffic moves better along Delaware
Avenue with the installation of the turn lane and new signals.
Mayor Park suggested that language be included in the Policies document,
on page 61 under Item No. 4, to add the words “and calming” devices.
Planner Smith stated she would make the inclusion.
The Planner also recommended that
language be included under the Natural Environment section on page 53
which states that “the City will encourage Best Management Practices for
Stormwater Management as recommended by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. Council and the Commissioners concurred.
Mayor Park questioned if tear-downs and re-builds were addressed in the
document. Planner Smith stated that on page 56, Item 5, the issue is
addressed. She commented that she could add language stating “insure
that new development is consistent with existing development in terms of
height, width, lot coverage and building materials”.
Mayor Park suggested that County
regulations could also be included as they relate to removal of
underground septic tanks, wells, etc.
Councilmember Williams noted that the City Code provides regulations for
height limits and footprints of homes that would provide protection for
neighboring properties.
Planner Smith explained that when a variance application is submitted,
staff could reference the Comprehensive Plan as a finding of fact to
support a decision.
Mayor Park explained that during discussions with the County relating
to going “green” there was mention of the “carbon footprint” left by
homes due to their size; she questioned if this issue should be included
in the document.
The Planner pointed out that
currently the only regulations for lot coverage are for lots located
within the Shoreland District; she explained those lots are limited to
30 percent impervious surface. She suggested that Council and the
Planning Commission may wish to adopt a similar restriction for other
properties within the City.
Mayor Park asked if future
homeowners would have the ability to look at the soil types listed in
the report prior to building within the City. Planner Smith explained
that anyone may review the Comprehensive Plan prior to building.
Mayor Park also noted that the statistical documentation showed 12
homeowners within the City are at poverty level; she stated that was
approximately 10 percent of the households.
Councilmember Williams noted that the Shoreland District covers
approximately 50 percent of the City and he does not believe it would be
a major step to limit the rest of the properties to a 20 percent
impervious surface.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if perspective homeowners receive a packet
of information if they are looking to building or buy within the City.
Planner Smith responded that when she is contacted, she provides
information on current properties and/or leads the client through the
regulations for building.
Commissioner Svendsen commented
that the Goals and Policies listed in the Comprehensive Plan are general
in nature and the City Code has more definitive regulations; he asked
the Planner if she believes there are other items that should be
included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Planner Smith stated that in her opinion there are not further additions
necessary; she noted that the document has more than most cities she
works with and that it is very strong.
Planning Chair Bulach recommended a change on page 56, Item 5.c.,
relating to setbacks and height requirements. Planner Smith recommended
that an additional bullet point be added to Item 5 to include Chair
Bulach’s recommendation.
Councilmember Williams asked if the document should discuss rustic
road standards since it has been made clear that Council would attempt
to use this standard in the future.
Planner Smith indicated that it may be more appropriate not to include
the standards to protect the City in case there is an improvement
project where Council chooses not to use the rural road standard; she
pointed out that by its inclusion the city maybe “locked in” to its use.
She pointed out it may be more appropriate to make that change through
an Ordinance as it relates to a new subdivision.
Councilmember Williams commented that the rustic road standard may
support the Rural Residential designation.
Mayor Park questioned if the rustic road standard was already built in
to the City policies.
Planner Smith stated that the public road standard is 22 ft. wide and
private road standard differs.
Councilmember Williams noted that Acorn Drive was a public road and if
Charlton Road is improved the City maybe paving a public road at less
than the 22 ft. standard; he questioned if the City should incorporate
the rustic road standard by reference in the Goals and Policies section.
Planner Smith disagreed and pointed out that it would be more
appropriate in the Subdivision Ordinance.
There was discussion relating to past road improvements such as Salem
Lane and Roanoke Road.
Mayor Park stated that she recalled the City adopted the rustic road
standard as prepared by Attorney Kuntz.
Councilmember Williams stated he believes that the Attorney merely
prepared the document as findings of fact relating to the Acorn Drive
improvement and that it was not formally adopted as an ordinance.
Planner Smith stated she would contact the City Attorney to check on the
matter.
Councilmember MacManus indicated she preferred to keep the Goals and
Policies more standard.
Planner Smith asked if there were any further comments and there was no
response. She thanked those present for their input. She explained that
she would start formulating the Land Use Plan and Rural Residential
Designation documentation as a next step in the process. She noted that
an Open House would be scheduled to receive public comments on the Goals
and Policies document. She stated that after the public comments were
received, the document would be submitted to surrounding communities for
their comments; she noted they would have six (6) months to respond. She
stated that the document should be ready by December and after comments
are received the document would be submitted to the Met Council for
their review.
Councilmember MacManus asked if the Council should discuss ordinance
changes at this time. Councilmember Williams responded that it would be
more appropriate to discuss them at the Council meeting with the City
Attorney present.
Council and Commissioners thanked the Planner for her presentation.
III
Old/New Business:
VI. A. Discussion of Building Project
Completion/Enforcement: Planner Smith explained that two of the Commissioners had requested
discussion with Council relating to building project completion and
enforcement issues; however, the Commissioners were unable to attend
this evening. She noted that these issues came to light while the City
was processing the Schadegg home construction application; she explained
that the applicant moved forward with the building process and other
items without proper approvals from the City. She advised that both the
Commissioners and Council had expressed concerns relating to insuring
that all approvals are granted prior to residents proceeding with
building or landscaping projects.
Mayor Park explained how she and Building Official Russ Wahl worked to
insure proper procedures were followed by the applicants.
Councilmember Bennett asked if landscape projects are part of the
issue.
The Planner responded yes that landscape projects were also part of the
concern. She advised that staff has a temporary Certificate of Occupancy
process established to insure that all internal work is done on building
projects. She noted that the applicant must submit a $5,000 check or a
letter of credit, which often expires after one year.
Councilmember
Williams suggested that an escrow account be established for this
purpose. The Planner agreed it would be preferable to have a cash escrow
account that the City could use to insure the project is completed
versus the letter of credit which is not as accessible and often expires
after one year.
Councilmember MacManus pointed out that in the past some homeowners did
not complete the plans as submitted.
Councilmember Williams suggested that the matter be discussed with the
City Attorney as to changing the requirements from the letter of credit
to an escrow account.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked how other communities handle such matters.
Planner Smith explained that similar situations occur in other
communities and that the real problem relates to having someone on hand
to check on the progress of the home improvements or landscape plans.
Councilmember MacManus asked what happens with residents who do projects
without permits.
Councilmember Williams stated that some cities make their residents
remove projects if they do not have proper approvals.
Mayor Park noted that the Building Inspector has double-fined
contractors who did not get permits.
Planning Chair Bulach asked to what degree the Planning Commissioners
are responsible for what is happening.
Councilmember Bennett pointed out that if they see a violation they
should contact the building official.
Councilmember Williams suggested the City should reserve the right to
remove the improvement if it is not done in accordance with the approved
plan and the applicant would have to pay or the City could assess the
costs.
Planner Smith noted that the City has a “Performance Security”
regulation which requires the application to submit 125 percent of the
cost if the project at the time of approval upon recommendation of the
City Attorney and Council. She advised it is under Section 1208.08 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Williams commented that he believes Council should discuss
this issue with the City Attorney. Mayor Park offered to place the item
on the next Agenda under new business.
Planner Smith pointed out that if a site plan is amended the property
owner would have to go through the process again for approval.
Mayor Park suggested that a reminder to homeowners could be placed on
the website and in the Sunfish Lake Quarterly, as has been done in the
past, which outlines projects that need permits.
Planning Chair Bulach suggested that inspections and input from the
Building Official also helps residents in the event that a contractor it
not reputable or a job is done incorrectly; he stated the Building
Official and staff protect residents by insuring a job is done
correctly.
Mayor Park pointed
out that she hopes the Planning Commission is aware of the fact that
Council supports their decisions and their efforts, although they are
not always in agreement.
Planning Chair Bulach advised those present that Attorney Kuntz had been
named a “Super Lawyer” in the Twin Cities Business magazine this
month.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further
business and there was no response.
VI.
ADJOURN: Councilmember Bennett moved, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:15 p.m, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried.
Catherine Iago, City Clerk
BACK to
News