SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – July 20, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Chair: Andrea McCue.
Commissioners: Arnulf Svendsen, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Tom Schlehuber.
City Planner: Stephen Grittman
City Clerk: Catherine Iago
Commissioner Tom Votel arrived at 7:05 p.m.
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 June 22, 2011
minutes and there was no response.
Commissioner Wahlstrom moved to approve the June 22, 2011 Planning Commission minutes as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (4-0)
3. A. Public Hearing: Setback Variance and Major Site & Building Plan Review – Oakman Property, 1055-60th Street West:
Chair McCue asked the Planner to review his report on the application.
Planner Grittman stated that the applicant is request approval of a setback variance and major site and building plan review to construct a garage addition to the existing home at 1055 60th Street West. He explained that the parcel is located at the end of a private cul-de-sac and is surrounded by Horseshoe Lake on three sides. He stated that the applicant proposes to include an extension of the existing garage, a covered entryway improvement, and ad addition of patio space on the south side of the existing structure. He advised the new addition is approximately 550 sq. ft. of garage area and approximately 200 sq. ft. of porch/patio area.
The Planner explained that the subject parcel is 3.3 acres in total area, however; 2.7 acres of the area is water. He noted that he applicant also owns an adjacent parcel to the south along the west side of the entry drive; that parcel is 1.42 acres in total area with only .45 acres of dry land. He advised that the two properties combined constitute 4.72 acres of total area with 1.05 acres that are land. He noted that the property does not have direct access from street frontage and gains access from a private driveway that extends south from the existing building site to 60th Street West. He advised that the Zoning Ordinance specifies how the front yard lot is determined and as such, the south boundary of the southern lot line constitutes the front lot line. He stated that the house with the proposed addition meets the required 100 ft. front yard setback. However, the setback toward the lake is just 40 ft. for both the existing building and the proposed improvements. He explained that the required setback from the ordinary high water mark of the lake is 200 ft. Due to the configuration of the lot in question and proximity to the lake, there would be no buildable area under these setback requirements as the width of the land area is less than 150 ft. at its widest point. He stated the proposed request requires a variance to the lakeshore setback, as well as the fact that the parcel is less than 2.5 buildable acres as required of all single family lots. He commented that although the total disturbed area will be less than 1,000 sq. ft., the project requires a major site and building plan review since a variance from the zoning ordinance standards is involved.
Commissioner Votel arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Planner Grittman stated that the Commission should consider the new requirements when reviewing the setback variance request for this application to determine if the property owners proposes to use the subject property in a reasonable manner due to unique circumstances not created by the property owner and if the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He further explained that the Commission should determine if there are practical difficulties that prohibit the applicant from placing the addition in another area that would meet all zoning requirements. He noted that due to the 200 ft. Shoreland setback requirement there would be no other location to place the addition and therefore, staff determined that practical difficulties would apply in this case due to the unique lot configuration.
Planner Grittman explained that the site and building plan, with the exception of the setback for which the variance has been requested, appears to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance criteria as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011. He noted that the addition will leave the property still well within shoreland zoning requirements at far less than the allowed 30 percent impervious and avoiding any impact to natural areas. He further commented that the proposed addition is being constructed over an existing driveway and landscaped area and encroaches no closer to the lake than the existing structure.
The Planner stated that staff found the requests to be consistent with Zoning Code requirements and that variance criteria are met if Commission considers the request to be a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed without approval of the variance and that the applicant has shown practical difficulties unique to the property and not created by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the findings as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011 and, if the variance is approved, staff further recommends approval of the Major site and Building Plan based on findings that the proposal will have little or no impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration or neighboring property.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner for his review and opened the public hearing for comments from the audience.
Planner Grittman stated he received one telephone call from a neighbor across the lake from the property and was advised that this person supports the request and believes it would be a good addition to the property.
John Oakman thanked the Planner for his review of the requests. He stated that he proposes the addition to the garage to provide additional storage space for his outdoor furniture and other items. He further explained that he plans to include cosmetic improvements to the exterior of his home to enhance the appearance of the property, as well as to improve energy efficiency for his home. He stated that he will continue to resolve the drainage issue on the property where he has removed invasive plantings and that he would comply with the installation of a rain garden if required to do so.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. She closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schlehuber moved to recommend approval of the Variance based on the six (6) items identified in the Planner’s report of July 13, 2011 to support the request, seconded by Commissioner Votel and carried. (5-0)
Chair McCue asked that a recommendation be made to request the applicant to re-plant the west side steep slope on the property in the area where he has cleared Buckthorn and other invasive plantings to prevent erosion. Commissioner Wahlstrom suggested plantings with root-balls be installed. Commission concurred with the recommendation.
Commissioner Svendsen moved to recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plan Review based on the findings that the proposal will have little or no impact on site conditions related to vegetation, land alteration or neighboring property, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber and carried. (5-0)
Mr. Oakman thanked the Commission for their review.
4. A. Public Hearing: Preliminary and Final Plat, Major Site and Building Plan Review and Variance for Construction on a Substandard Parcel, Bulach Property, 118 Salem Church Road:
Chair McCue asked the planner to review his report..
Planner Grittman explained that Steven and Elizabeth Bulach, along with Mike Kampmeyer, are requesting approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat in order to split off a portion of Mr. Kampmyer’s parcel and add it to the Bulach parcel to meet the required sideyard setback to accommodate the Bulach’s proposed house addition. He sated that the Bulachs are also requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan review to allow construction of an addition to their existing home. The project involves an addition to the northwest corner of the home consisting of a master bedroom and dining room addition to the first floor and a recreational room addition to the basement floor, each would be 995 sq. ft. He advised that the applicant is proposing to relocate the existing well and remove and replace the existing front patio and steps. He noted that building alternations that are more than 1,000 sq. ft. in total require a Major Site and Building Plan Review.
The Planner explained that the applicants are also seeking a variance to permit construction on a lot that does not have the required 2.4 acres of buildable area. He noted that the plat would provide additional land area, however, due to the steep slopes the additional land would not leave them with adequate area per zoning ordinance requirements and therefore a variance is also requested. He advised that the new variance criteria should also be used when considering this request.
Planner Grittman advised that in order to meet the required side yard setback of 50 ft., the property owners are proposing to purchase a portion of the neighboring property and attach it to their property. He stated a new property line is being proposed to be established that runs east/west and is 102.37 ft. in length. Mr. Kampmeyer’s attorney has submitted a written statement to the Bulach’s confirming his intent to sell a portion of his property and he has signed the plat application as one of the affected property owners. The proposed lot line adjustment brings the southwest corner of the Bulach home into compliance with the 50-ft. setback requirement. He sated there is a ten-foot wide drainage and utlitiy easement extending along the northeasterly lot line in the area proposed to be consolidated with the Bulach parcel. The easement area is identified to be vacated on the Survey dated April 15, 2011; however, the applicant has since indicated to staff that he no longer wishes to vacate the easement at this time. If the plat is approved, the survey and legal descriptions shall be revised to reflect that the ten-foot easement extending along the northeasterly long line of Lot 2, Block 1, Mullery Acres will remain in place. The City Engineer commented that he is not concerned with the easement remaining, however, it should be noted that the easement may be vacated at a later time if the property owner wishes to do so. If this occurs, the area private utilities shall be notified of the proposed easement vacation.
The Planner stated that the Bulach’s existing parcel is classified as a legal, non-conforming lot since it does not contain the required 2.5 net acres of lot area required by the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that although the proposed lot line adjustment brings the Bulach parcel up to the 2.64 gross acres, it does not meet the 2.5 net acres of lot area required due to the steep slopes and a small area of wetland on the property. Therefore, in order to process the request as proposed, the plating process is required along with a request for a variance form the minimum lot area requirement.
Planner Grittman explained that the proposed addition generally meets the criteria established in the Zoning ordinance. He noted that the existing well is located directly underneath the northeast corner of the propertied addition and the applicant is planning to relocate the well approximately 100 ft. northeast of the existing well. He also explained that the City’s Septic System Inspector found that the existing septic system is sized sufficiently for the proposed addition; however, he noted that the system is not ideally located. The Septic Inspector found the concrete apron surrounding the swimming pool cover the septic tank and therefore the 6-inch inspection riser is utilized to pump the tank. In addition, a concrete patio and arbor appear to be covering a portion of the drainfield, which prevents any evaporation, causing all liquid to percolate the soil. The Septic Inspector has noted that this may lead to earlier failure of the drainfield, however, there is no evidence of failure or effluent surfacing at this time.
The Planner stated that the City Engineer reviewed the grading, drainage and erosion control and found that the proposed building addition should not impact the site as far as surface flow, but has some impact on the volume of runoff. If approved, staff is recommending that a rain garden be installed to hold the additional runoff volume due to the increase in impervious surface, and the size and location of such would be coordinated with the City Engineer. He further advised that if the Engineer determines there is not adequate area for a rain garden, then the new patio shall be constructed of pavers with pervious joints to help alleviate the volume of runoff. He stated that all grading, drainage and erosion control issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Staff recommends approval of all the requests and believes that the applicants comply with the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan by:
1) Removing the non-conformity for building setback by acquiring additional land;
2) Made reasonable efforts to comply with the lot area requirements;
3) Met the requirements for variance in that the conditions on the property (topography and lot area) were not created by
the application, the conditions are unique and present practical difficulties in making otherwise permitted
improvements with the variance, and the property project would appear to have no expected impacts on surrounding
properties or residents;
4) Designed a project that expands the use of the building site while minimizing potential increase in impervious
surface; and
5) Otherwise complies with all applicable zoning regulations.
Staff recommends that Commission attach the following conditions to a recommendation for approval:
1) Identify an alternative septic system area on the preliminary plat;
2) Notify private utilities in the event the applicants propose to vacate an existing easement along the property line
formerly shared by Mr. Kampmeyer:
3) Verify that well abandonment has been competed in accordance with State requirements, and,
4) The existing septic system must be reviewed for adequacy.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner for his review and opened the public hearing for comments from the audience.
Steven Bulach thanked everyone, especially the Kampmeyer family, the staff and the Commission for their patience with the application. He explained that he has been dealing with this process since January and that he believes it will be a nice addition to his existing home. He pointed out that he has met all the stipulations identified by the Planner with the exception of identifying an alternate location for the septic system on the lot.
Commissioner Wahlstrom suggested he have this in place prior to Council review at their August meeting and Mr. Bulach stated he would attempt to have this completed prior to the meeting.
Mr. Kampmeyer and his sons, Mike and Mark, were present. Mr. Kampmeyer stated he and his sons have agreed to sell the additional land to Mr. Bulach and they will work to resolve any issues with Mr. Bulach.
Chair McCue asked if there were further comments and there was no response. She closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Votel noted that this is the second time Mr. Bulach has attempted to construct an addition to his home; he agreed that the lot configuration made it difficult and commended Mr. Bulach for his attempts to meet all requirements.
Commissioner Votel moved to recommend approval of the Variance with the six (6) findings of fact as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011, the Preliminary and Final Plat and Major Site and Building Plan review, with conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011, seconded by Commissioner Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
Commissioner Votel questioned if an alternate septic system location was indicated on the property when it was initially platted. The Planner advised that there was no information on the plat that showed an alternate location for the septic system. Mr. Bulach explained that he did not find any record of an alternate location, although the plat showed two main lines and two alternate lines. He stated he will work to resolve this issue.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the final plat would show the alternate location. The Planner responded that it would be in place prior to Council approval of the plat.
5. Public Hearing: Major Site and Building Plan review, Peters Property, 336 Salem Church Road:
Chair McCue asked the planner to review his report.
Planner Grittman explained the applicant is requesting a major site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a new paved driveway on their property. He stated the existing driveway is approximately 750 ft. in length and connects to a series of private drives to the east that ultimately connect to Salem Church Road. He advised that the applicants wish to construct a second driveway oriented in a north-south fashion to improve site access; the new driveway would measure approximately 380 ft. in length. Because the paved surface area of the proposed driveway exceeds 1,000 sq. ft., a major site and building plan application is necessary. He advised the site modifications include relocation of the property access gate to the new driveway access point, construction of a new split rail fence along a portion of the east property line and placement of a culver beneath the proposed driveway. He stated the applicant intends to retain their existing driveway access to the east and it should be determined if it is acceptable to allow the subject site to have two driveway access points.
The Planner stated that the proposed driveway construction will require removal of four (4) 10-in. caliper Red Oak trees on the property. The applicant proposes to plant eight 2-1/2 inch caliper Red Oak trees on the west side of the driveway to replace those being removed. Since the replacement trees will be half of the size to be removed, the City may wish to require a greater replanting plan to mitigate the loss of existing vegetation. The Engineer reviewed the plan and made recommendations for drainage and placement of a rain garden near the culvert; details regarding the rain garden should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Planner Grittman explained that the City has specific requirements for construction of gates on property; he noted that he is unsure if the “gate” shown on the plan for relocation is an active gate or just posts installed to identify the property. If it is an active gate it should be reviewed to insure it meets City Code requirements.
Staff determined that the application meets most of the criteria for approval in that it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance criteria and is not expected to have any negative impacts to natural resources or surrounding properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed site and building plans subject to the eight (8) conditions as outline din the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011. He noted that staff recommends consideration to require additional plantings on the property to replace the trees being removed. He suggested that four (4) additional Evergreen trees be required near the end of the driveway.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner for his review and opened the public hearing for comments from the public.
Gordon Peters was present and explained that the existing gate has been in place since 1976 and that he has discussed removal of the gate with his neighbor Mr. Ballion. He stated that both he and Mr. Ballion agree the gate could be removed and that he does not care if it is replaced.
Commissioner Votel asked if it was an old “cow” gate and whether or not it is used for security purposes. Mr. Peters responded that it was an old farm gate and that it is not used for security; he stated he would prefer to remove the gate. He further explained that once the fence is constructed there would be no need for the gate.
Commissioner Votel asked if the applicant would agree to install more plantings to replace the larger trees being removed. Mr. Peters responded that he would install Evergreens and stagger them side-by-side for screening purposes.
Commissioner Votel questioned where the rain garden could be located. Mr. Peters showed the Commission the location of the rain garden on the proposed plan; he stated he would work with the City Engineer on the placement and plantings.
Mr. Peters explained that his existing driveway has an 11 percent grade with turns and that it is nearly impossible to get access during the winter months; he advised that the modifications to the driveway will lessen the grade and eliminate safety issues when exiting his property in the winter.
Chair McCue asked if there were further comments and hearing no response she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if any neighbors commented on the plan.
Planner Grittman stated he received a telephone call from a neighbor to the east of the property who asked if the existing driveway would be closed and if there would be additional traffic issues with the new driveway. He explained that Mr. Peters stated he would not maintain the existing driveway during the winter months if it remains on the property. He further stated that the new driveway location should not create any additional traffic issues.
Commissioner Votel stated he also received a call from a neighbor who was curious about the plan but had no objection to the proposal.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the proposal would lessen the length of the driveway.
Mr. Peters responded yes; he explained that the new location is straight north from his property with no turns. He also advised that the new driveway would only be 350 ft. long versus the 750 ft. existing driveway and that the grade would also be reduced. He explained that when the property was developed Dakota County reassigned his address from 346 to 336 Salem Church Road and that his mailbox and fire numbers were then out of sequence. He stated that this was confusing for persons accessing the property and for emergency vehicle access. He noted that the new driveway location should clear up this confusion.
Commissioner Svendsen commented that he is not an engineer, however; he commented that it appears there would be a shorter route to the existing private road.
Mr. Peters explained that his engineer and the City Engineer had both reviewed the shorter route and determined that placing the driveway in that location would increase the grade to 13 percent and move more traffic onto a private driveway. He pointed out that both engineers agreed this is the best location even though it is more costly.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Commissioner Schlehuber recommended approval of the Major Site and Building Plan Review, subject to the conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011 as amended due to the applicant’s agreement to remove the existing gate and to include additional plantings for screening purpose as discussed, seconded by Commissioner Votel and carried. (5-0)
6. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit, Bethel Baptist Church, 2100 Delaware Ave:
Chair McCue asked the planner to review his report.
Planner Grittman explained that the applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow an accessory daycare center within the confines of their church building located a 2100 Delaware Avenue. He stated the property is zoned Institutional which allows daycare as a conditional use. He stated the Church wishes to utilize two rooms for weekly daycare operations; the daycare center would operate Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. and would accommodate up to 17 children ranging in age from 16 months to five (5) years.
The Planner advised that the applicant also plans to construct a four foot high chain link fence around the church’s existing playground located in the southeast corner of the property. The area to be fenced measures 1,600 sq. ft. in size (50 ft. by 32 ft.), which exceeds the State’s minimum requirement of 1,500 sq. ft. In addition to the fence, wood chip surfacing will also be provided.
Planner Grittman explained that there have been issues relating to the floor elevation of the church and the exterior grade where the exit doors are proposed; the applicants have not proposed any grading changes or other exterior improvements and the City engineer has not had an opportunity to review grading or drainage eon the property. He suggested that further clarification on this issue should be addressed by the applicant and the plans may have to be modified. He advised that aside from existing playground equipment, there should be no outdoor storage of equipment associated with the daycare use. He advised the fence must comply with setback requirements and verification should be provided that setbacks are met. He noted that the applicant must also provide verification that all applicable requirements of the State Department of Health and Human Services requirements related to daycare facilities are satisfied.
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011. The Planner advised that if any changes are made as discussed the applicant needs to amend the plan submitted prior to consideration by the City Council for approval.
Chair McCue thanked the Planner and opened the public hearing for comments from the audience.
Dan Zwakman was present representing Bethel Baptist Church. He explained that the issue of grading for the exterior doors facing Highway 110 should be easily fixed; he noted that it is dirt and gravel and could be adjusted the width of the doorway so that the doors could open and create a pathway to the playground area.
Commissioner Wahlstrom questioned the difference in the times listed; she noted that one area of the plan states the daycare will operate from 6 am to 6 pm and another area states it will end at 5 pm.
Mr. Zwakman stated that the playground would close at 5 pm and the daycare would remain open until 6 pm. He advised that he is sure the setback requirements are met since the garage placement meets setbacks and the playground is not as close as the garage to the adjacent property.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if there are plans to add additional playground equipment or enlarge the playground area.
Mr. Zwakman explained there are no plans to add any equipment at this time, but stated that it may happen in the future. He stated there are no plans to enlarge the playground area.
Commissioner Schlehuber noted that there can be no outdoor storage of daycare equipment and questioned if the equipment and materials they saw outside during the site inspection would be moved inside to the daycare area.
Mr. Zwakman stated no, but advised that he would prefer to clean-up the outside area and store the equipment in the garage, since there is adequate space for storage inside the garage.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if the trash bins could be stored in the garage. Mr. Zwakman responded yes and agreed that they should not be visible.
Commissioner Schlehuber pointed out that most of the existing vegetation currently screening the property is invasive species such as Buckthorn and Honeysuckle; he asked if there are any plans to remove the invasive species and replace them with Evergreens to screen the property from the neighbors.
Mr. Zwakman stated there are no plans at this time to remove the invasive species and explained that he was not aware the plantings were Buckthorn. He indicated that he had discussions with the neighbors regarding plantings to screen the property and deferred to Mr. Wahlstrom.
John Wahlstrom explained that he is the only neighbor adjacent to the church and that he wished to support the project. He commented that there are several issues of the plan that are not formalized at this time such as the exit grading, materials for the fence, and screening. He also noted that the requirements for the scope of the daycare should be defined as part of the CUP and the number of children should be established at 17 so that the applicant cannot increase the number in the future without further approval. He noted that he has been removing Buckthorn between his driveway and the church for a number of years and has been planting Evergreens as replacement plantings for screening purposes. He commented that storage of equipment and clean-up of the site is important to him as a neighbor; he advised that he has contacted City staff on several occasions regarding unsightly conditions and it remains an on-going issue.
Mr. Zwakman agreed that the property is unsightly and commented that he will work to clean it up.
Mr. Wahlstrom pointed out that there are health and safety issues associated with trash storage outside. He reiterated that he wished to support the efforts of the church to provide daycare.
Chair McCue asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. She closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wahlstrom noted that chain link fencing is approved for use within the City for tennis courts and questioned if there are any other fencing materials that could be used for the playground area.
Planner Grittman advised that the State Health Department set standards for fencing daycare areas so that children can be seen; he noted there are other options and offered to research those for the Commission.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if screening from the neighbors is required. The Planner advised that screening is a requirement and if the Commission does not believe the current screening is adequate, they may require additional plantings be placed on the plan prior to its submission to Council.
Commissioner Wahlstrom explained that there has been an on-going issue with the unsightly condition of the property and therefore she wished to go on record regarding this issue prior to Council consideration of the request.
Commissioner Votel asked for clarification as to the location of the playground and if it already exists. Mr. Zwakman showed the area on the materials sent by the Planner.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if the merry-go-round equipment would be removed. Mr. Zwakman stated that he would strongly recommend its removal for safety reasons.
Chair McCue recommended that the church actually place stakes in the area so that it can be easily defined and also that the church formally address the issue of the grading for the exit doors.
Commissioner Schlehuber asked if Mr. Zwakman is new and what he does for the church. Mr. Zwakman explained he has been a member of the church for 20 years but was recently given the assignment of making application for the daycare facility. He explained that he is a deacon for the church. He agreed that the area needs a clean-up and that he found the garage has sample storage area to accommodate equipment and trash.
Commissioner Svendsen questioned if the church needs the State licensing first. Mr. Grittman explained that they wished to approach the City to determine if the use was allowed and that they will then apply for State licensing.
Commissioner Wahlstrom asked if there would be any outdoor signage or additional lighting proposed. Mr. Zwakman responded no.
Commissioner Votel commented that the church should address the visual issues for the neighbors and should formalize the following items prior to Council consideration at their August meeting:
- Removal of the merry-go-round
- Explore fencing materials other than chain-link fencing
- Discuss including additional plantings for screening and submit a plan showing their location
- Provide information regarding trash removal and storage of trash in an enclosed area or screened area
- Consider installation of Conifers for screening purposes
Commissioner Wahlstrom noted that additional plantings would also help eliminate noise.
Commissioner Votel moved to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated July 13, 2011 and that the applicant consider finalizing the plans as suggested prior to presentation at the August Council meeting, seconded by Commissioner Schlehuber.
In discussion, Chair McCue stated she would prefer to table the matter to the next Planning meeting to insure the recommendations made by the Commissioners have been discussed and approved by the church; she commented that she would prefer to have a more “concrete” plan.
Mr. Zwakman explained that the school year starts in September and he would prefer to proceed so that the daycare can be ready to go by that time.
Commissioner Votel indicated that the church should have sufficient time to review the items and that they should consider providing a finalized proposal to Council as it would be more beneficial to the neighbors to have these items resolved. He stated he would let the motion stand as is and Commissioner Schlehuber agreed.
Motion carried. (Ayes: 3 Votel, Schlehuber and Svendsen; Nays: 1 McCue; Abstain: 1 Wahlstrom)
7. OTHER/NEW BUSINESS: A. July City Council Update: Planner Grittman reviewed items from the July Council meeting. Planner Grittman advised that no applications have been submitted and therefore there would be no August Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Votel explained that he had submitted his resignation from the Commission and stated that he enjoyed working with the Commissioners over the past few years.
Chair McCue and the Commissioners thanked Mr. Votel for his excellent service on the Commission.
Chair McCue asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
8. ADJOURN: Commissioner Votel moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m., seconded by Commissioner Svendsen and carried. (5-0)
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.