SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – APRIL 20, 2011

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

Attendants:

      Chair:  Andrea McCue.

      Commissioners:   Arnulf Svendsen, JoAnne Wahlstrom and Tom Votel.

City Planner:  Carie Fuhrman
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
Commissioner Tom Schlehuber 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 March 16, 2011
minutes. Clerk Iago pointed out that under Item 2. Approve Minutes, the second to the last sentence was not complete. She stated the sentence should read as follows:  “Commissioner Svendesen pointed out that the specific siding width was not established and it was decided that the reference in the minutes was correct.” Commissioners and the Planner concurred with her correction.
     
Commissioner Svendsen moved to approve the March 16, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as corrected, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried.  (4-0)

3.   A. Public Hearing – Subdivision Regulations Amendment – Relating to Minor Subdivisions:    Chair McCue opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to be heard.

Steve Bulach, 118 Salem Church Road, was present to hear the discussion.

Chair McCue asked the Planner to review the proposed amendment.

Planner Fuhrman explained that recent inquiries from residents regarding minor subdivision application prompted staff to re-examine the current minor subdivision processing requirements and regulations.  She stated that during the review staff discovered  that the intent of the current Subdivision Regulations is to allow for a minor subdivision process for lot subdivisions that are less complicated in nature than a regular plat. She cited examples such as a lot line/boundary adjustment, lot combination, or a lot subdivision that creates no more than two lots. She noted that the City Attorney agreed the intent of the current ordinance is to allow these to qualify under the minor subdivision process; however, the current ordinance state that a minor subdivision process cannot be utilized if easements are necessary to be dedicated. 

The Planner explained that any time new lots are created, or boundary lines are adjusted, the general policy objective of the City should be to obtain boundary and other easements for drainage, utilities, etc. She noted that typically these easements would be granted to the City during the final platting process. She noted that under the current regulations a landowner is forced to follow the platting procedures in what would typically be considered a minor subdivision. She stated that the proposed ordinance amendment seeks to correct this error by requiring the landowner to provide an easement document rather than a dedication of the easements on a plat; this would satisfy that the condition for dedication of easements is met for the minor subdivision approval to become effective.

Commissioner Votel commented that this allows an applicant to avoid the full platting process which may be burdensome.

Planner Furhman responded yes and pointed out that the platting process is also more costly. She explained that this issue was raised by two residents who wished to subdivide their property and, although no new lots were created, she advised them they must follow the platting process. She indicated that Mr. Bulach wishes to adjust a lot line adjacent to his property and obtain an additional 6000 feet of land to accommodate an addition to his home. She noted that these e inquires are what prompted staff to review the current regulations and propose the ordinance amendment which meets the intent of the existing ordinance.
The Planner reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance, which include some “housekeeping” changes:

Section 1302.01 – Clarifies the qualification language for minor subdivision by allowing for the combination of two unplatted lots to be eligible for a minor subdivision and removes the stipulation that the minor subdivision process cannot be used if easements are necessary. The new language requires that landowners grant public drainage and utility easements required by the City in order to qualify as a minor subdivision.

Chair McCue asked the Planner to further clarify this amendment.  The Planner stated that if a resident wishes to split an existing lot or combined two existing lots, they no longer have to go through the platting process, but would still be required to provide an easement document for drainage or utility easements along the property lines.

Commissioner Svendsen asked who would draft the easement document and who would be responsible for the cost.

The Planner stated that the City Attorney would draft the appropriate easement documents and the landowner would pay the cost as part of the application process.

Section 1302.02 – This is to make some “housekeeping” changes to the application requirements and requires certification/approval from the appropriate agency (the City or Dakota County) for any new driveway accesses. This also requires that the easements and the legal description of the easements be shown on the Certificate of Survey.

Section 1302.03 – Reiterates the requirements for the dedication of easement in a minor subdivision, without cost to the City, and that the easement document shall be prepared by the City Attorney.

Section 1302.04 – Clarifies the processing requirements for the minor subdivision applications:  1) Minor Subdivisions that qualify as a lot line/boundary adjustment or a lot combination shall require Council approval without a public hearing, and; 2) Minor Subdivisions that result in the creation of a new lot shall require a public hearing by the Planning Commission and final approval by Council.    

Section 1307.10 – Requires that easements be shown on Preliminary Plats and Certificates of Survey for Minor Subdivisions and easements be granted through an easement document for Minor Subdivisions. 

Chair McCue asked if there were any comments from the public.

Steve Bulach explained that he would be paying for either type of application; however, he preferred the Minor Subdivision approach because it speeds up the process.

Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. She commended the Planner and City Attorney for an excellent job in preparing the ordinance amendment. 

Commissioner Svendsen moved to close the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., seconded by Commission Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)

Commissioner Votel commented that this approach appears to be logical and less burdensome for landowners than going through the platting process for a minor subdivision. 

Clerk Iago pointed out that most cities follow the same type of regulations for minor subdivisions.

Chair McCue called for a motion on the proposed ordinance amendment.

Commissioner Votel moved to recommend that the Council adopt the proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 1302 and 1307 of the Sunfish Lake Subdivision Regulations (Article XIII of the City Code)Relating to Minor Subdivision Qualifications, Content and Data Requirements, Design Standards, processing, and Easements as presented, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

Chair McCue thanked the Planner for her presentation.       
 

4.   OTHER/NEW BUSINESS:  A. April City Council Update: Planner Fuhrman explained that Council had adopted the ordinance amendment relating to fees and charges for permits; she stated that Council had added a $250 fee for “after-the-fact” permit applications to cover administrative costs and had increased the Burning Permit fee from $40 to $45.00.

Commissioner Svendsen commented that the burning permit fee had been recently increased and asked why Council increased this fee again.

Planner Furhman explained that Council increased the fee to cover the hourly cost for the City Forester to issue the permit and review the site. Clerk Iago stated she recalled the fee had not been increased for approximately 3 or 4 years.

Commissioner Wahlstrom asked how long the burning permit was valid. Planner Fuhrman advised she was not aware of the length of the permit.

Commissioner Svendsen recalled it is only valid for two or three days, which limits the time a resident has to accomplish the burning. He asked if Council had considered issuing the permit on a quarterly basis.

Commissioner Votel questioned the cost and how long burning permits were valid in other communities.

Chair McCue commented that she would contact Forester Nayes to discuss the time-frame and other comments relating to burning permits.

Planner Fuhrman stated she could check with other communities to determine what they charge and how long their burning permits are valid. 

Chair McCue asked the Planner to review how Geocaching works and if this sport had recently become popular.

Planner Fuhrman explained its popularity has increased due to GPS systems and noted that a person hides the “cache”, which includes some type of prize, and it is found by using land coordinates with the GPS system. She noted that it is usually hidden on public land, such as a park, although sometimes permission is granted to hide the “cache” on private land.  She advised that Council told the persons in attendance that they were not prepared to make a decision on whether or not to allow the sport in Sunfish Lake and that they should come back in six months. 

Councilmember Votel commented that Musser and Harmon parks are the only public land in the City. Clerk Iago noted that Mussser Park operates under the Land Trust which may prohibit this activity.

Planner Fuhrman advised that some cities issue permits and limit the time period for this activity.

Commissioner Svendsen compared the activity to a modern version of “orienteering” in which a compass was used to find the prize or “cache”.

Planner Fuhrman noted that the persons who inquired suggested the “cache” could be attached to a stop sign with a magnet and Council pointed out that could be dangerous and create a public safety hazard. They also noted that parking is an issue near the parks.

Commissioner Votel suggested that if this activity is allowed it may create trespassing situations since the City parks have no well defined boundaries. He commented that if the City is not obligated to allow the activity, it should be clarified in the City Code that it is prohibited.

Chair McCue indicated that if a resident wishes to allow someone they know to use their private land that should also be clarified. She stated her opinion that residents would be upset with allowing unknown persons to conduct this activity on public land where trespassing may become an issue. 
Commissioner Wahlstrom agreed and indicated that the Planner could convey that the Planning Commission would not favor allowing this activity within the City.

Commissioner Votel pointed out that if Council were to consider allowing the activity, they would most likely forward the matter to the Planning Commission for review and comment. He noted that there is a person who comes to his property every year in search of deer antlers that have been shed by deer; he noted that he does not favor this activity and he is curious to find out if this occurs in other communities. He reiterated that the City Code should clarify whether or not the “geocaching” activity is allowed or prohibited.  

Chair McCue agreed it should be clarified and if property owners wish to allow the activity on their private land that should also be included in the regulations.

Chair McCue asked the Planner if there should be discussion relating to hosting weddings or other special events on private property. She did not recall that a permit was necessary for these activities.

The Planner explained that an inquiry was received from a resident and she found out from the City Clerk that no permit was needed. She explained that she contacted the property owner and told her that the Police Department would meet on site to discuss concerns relating to traffic and noise.

Commissioner Votel advised that he would be unable to attend the May meeting. Chair McCue and Commissioners Svendsen and Wahlstrom stated they would be available.             

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

5.   ADJOURN:          Commissioner Votel moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)


Respectfully submitted,

______________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk