SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MAY 1, 2007
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor Molly Park
Councilpersons: Joel
Bennett, Cathy DeCourcy, Judy MacManus, and Richard Williams.
City Attorney: Timothy
Kuntz
City Building
Official: Russ Wahl
City Engineer: Donald
Sterna
City Planner: Laurie
Shives
City Forester: James
Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of
the General Public.
Councilpersons were
absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened
the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Councilmember
DeCourcy moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Williams and
carried.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if
there were any comments or any questions regarding items on the Consent Agenda
and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by
Councilmember MacManus and carried:
a.
Minutes of April 3, 2007 Regular Council meeting.
b.
List of Bills.
c.
Monthly Financial Statements – April, 2007.
4. COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Mayor
Park asked if there were any comments from the public regarding items not listed
on the agenda.
Scott Spaeth and Don Spaeth President of the Hornbeam Lake Association, were
present. Scott explained that he and several neighbors met with Mayor Park to
discuss the proposed City of Inver Grove Heights high density zoning on the
property south of the Sunfish Lake border and adjacent to theirs. He stated that
the group composed a resolution for Council review.
Mayor Park suggested placing this matter under New Business for discussion and
Council concurred.
Henry Hovey asked the outcome of the Dobrantz lawsuit. Mr. Kuntz explained that
the City was removed from the lawsuit. He stated that he was informed by Mr.
Dobrantz legal counsel that he believes a settlement has been reached; he noted
that the parties involved were waiting until they could view the property
without snow before finalizing the matter.
Councilmember Williams asked if the City had any further liability if the
parties dispute the settlement. Mr. Kuntz advised that it does not appear that
the City would become involved again.
5. PLANNING COMMISSION:
a. Flynn Site and Building Plan/CUP/Variance Request; 230 Salem Church
Lane: Planner Shives reviewed the application of Vince and Lysa Flynn for
construction of a new home on a vacant lot located at 230 Salem church Road. She
explained that the request requires approval of site and building plans for the
new home and proposed detached garage, as well as a condition use permit (CUP)
for the construction of an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. and 16
ft. in height, a CUP for construction of an accessory building within the front
yard, a CUP for a second accessory structure and a CUP for construction of a
driveway gate. She advised that the applicant is also requesting a variance in
order to raise the building pad elevation one foot to maximize drainage away
from the house. The applicant has clarified that they are not requesting to
bring in fill to raise the proposed home, but are requesting the variance to
allow for grading of he site in order to alter the existing grade to raise the
first floor elevation of the home. She noted this alteration would result in the
proposed home being 21 ft. above the average existing grade.
The Planner explained the main change reflected in the revised site and building
plans is the relocation of the home 60 ft. further west on the property. She
stated the house design, carriage house design and landscape plan have remained
unchanged. She advised the proposed home location, carriage house location and
sports court location are consistent with setback and lot coverage requirements.
She further noted that the building materials are also consistent with code
regulations. She explained the main issue for discussion relates to the height
variance being requested. The revised plan submitted is within the height
requirement allowed; however the applicant has concerns relating to grading and
proper drainage around the foundation of the home.
Planner Shives explained that the City Engineer drafted an addendum to the
Engineer’s report indicating that the lot has unique topography and limited
building site availability and that concerns raised by the applicant relating to
providing proper drainage away from the home and minimizing tree loss are valid.
She stated that the Site and Building Plan criteria and criteria for the CUP
requests, as outlined in the Zoning Code, have been met.
The Planner advised there are six items for Council action and that staff
recommends approval of five of the items. Planning staff does not recommend
approval of the variance request. She explained that the City Engineer’s report
indicates support for the one foot variance request to insure proper drainage
away from the foundation of the home.
Planner Shives reported that a public hearing was conducted at the Planning
Commission meeting and that the Commission voted 3-0 to approve the variance
with six findings to support their recommendation. She noted that the findings
are specific to the property and therefore should not establish precedence for
future requests.
Mayor Park asked Mr. Flynn to introduce his team working on the project.
Vince Flynn introduced Architect Tom Roucher, Builder Kyle Hunt, Project Manager
Judd Stattine, and his neighbor Steve Bulach.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned why the City Engineer would recommend approval
of the variance request when the Planner does not.
Mr. Sterna explained that he supports the establishment of the first floor
elevation in this location and explained that the architecture of the home
brings the height over the required height by one foot. He advised that the
additional nine-inches to one-foot would place the foundation of the home in an
ideal location for drainage purposes and would eliminate the need for the
drainage swales as previously discussed. He stated his concerns relate to
maintaining the natural runoff to flow away from the foundation of the home and
pointed out that the height variance is related to the design of the home.
Councilmember Bennett asked why the Planner was opposed to the variance request.
Planner Shives explained that variances are usually based on whether or not the
applicant would have reasonable use of the property without granting the request
and she believes that the home could still be constructed on the property
without granting the request.
Councilmember Bennett questioned if the City Engineer would oppose the variance
request.
Mr. Sterna advised that his comments are from an engineering standpoint and he
does not usually provide an opinion on variance requests. He commented that he
is unsure if the architect or builder could change the design of the home to
meet the height requirement, however; he noted his comments relate to the fact
that the first floor elevation works best given the topography of the lot in
this location.
Councilmember Bennett explained that he is not opposed to the variance request
based on the location of the home and the fact that it would not be seen from
the road. He also noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
request.
Councilmember Williams noted that the revised engineering report from April 13
also mentions construction of a retaining wall near the sports court; he
questioned if a condition should be included to require the retaining wall.
Mr. Sterna explained that the retaining wall would be necessary to match grade
and may have been necessary with either plan. He apologized for any confusion
relating to the comments supporting the first floor elevation and commented that
he is aware of the fact that building height has been an issue in the City in
the past. He explained that he would support a condition relating to the
retaining wall if the height of the sports court exceeds four feet and that it
would be appropriate to require review and approval by staff.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the lot is a buildable lot and why the
variance is being requested if the lot is not buildable. She commented that the
applicant should be able to build a home that fits the lot.
Planner Shives explained that issue of the height variance relates to what type
of home could be built on the lot and the type of home that is proposed; she
stated it is a buildable lot.
Councilmember Williams asked if the City Attorney believes the findings would
support the variance request and if he was comfortable with the findings as
listed.
Mr. Kuntz responded that he is comfortable with the findings and explained that
the court looks at whether or not some practical difficulty was found and the
findings relate to traditional reasons for granting the request.
Mayor Park pointed out that the lot is heavily wooded with mature trees that
most likely would exceed the height of the home with the variance as requested.
Engineer Sterna and the City Forester agreed that the trees are between 30 and
60 ft. tall on the lot.
The Mayor noted that the mature trees and the topography of the lot make it
unique; she commented that the purpose of the ordinance was to insure that homes
did not excessively protrude and violate the aesthetics of the community. She
also noted that the proposed home is not located in a open field as some of the
previous height variance requests.
Mayor Park asked the Planner to explain why CUP’s are required rather than only
staff review of the application.
Planner Shives explained that these land use requests are permitted uses,
however; the CUP allows the city to attach conditions to the requests to insure
compatibility with adjacent properties.
Mayor Park asked Mr. Flynn if the carriage house was heated and contains a
bathroom. Mr. Flynn responded yes to both items; he noted he would be using the
carriage house for his writing.
Planner Shives explained that no kitchen is planned for the facility.
Councilmember Bennett asked if there was any opposition from neighbors and the
Planner responded no.
Councilmember Williams asked if the items could be handled under one motion; the
City Attorney responded yes.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy, to approve
the Site and Building Plan request, the four Conditional Use Permit requests
subject to the conditions as outlined under each request in the Planner’s report
dated April 27, 2007, and to approve the one-foot Height Variance request with
the findings of fact as outlined in the Planner’s report dated April 27, 2007,
with an additional condition that a retaining wall be constructed around the
Sports Court if the height exceeds four feet with review and approval by the
City Engineer.
In discussion, Councilmember Bennett asked if the applicant would be agreeable
to constructing the retaining wall and Mr. Flynn responded yes; Mr. Flynn noted
that the retaining wall had been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried. 5-0
6. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a.
CITY ENGINEER: Charlton Road Grading and Guard Rail Repair:
Engineer Sterna stated he plans to schedule the regrading and some minor surface
repairs for Charlton Road to remove the washboarding and fill in the potholes
which developed during the spring thaw. He explained that ditch work would also
be done on the southerly half of the road to remove some of the sediment and
enlarge the drainage ditch areas. He advised the work would be would completed
during the first week of May and in late May to early June a dust-control agent
would be placed on the road. He stated the estimated grading and ditch work cost
would be approximately $2,500 and the dust-control agent application
approximately $1,500. He noted the costs for the projects would constitute the
bulk of the maintenance on Charlton Road for this year, with the exception of
light grading in late August or early September. He advised that to date the
City has spent $1,830 on roadway maintenance from the 2007 total budgeted amount
of $5,500. He also noted that two cable guard rail posts would be replaced as
part of the Charlton Road maintenance.
The Engineer requested authorization to apply the dust control and to expend
funds in the amount of $1,500 for the project. He explained he would seek quotes
for the work.
Councilmember MacMancus moved, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy to
authorize the expenditure of $1,500 for dust control application on Charlton
Road and to authorize the City Engineer to seek quotes for the project, and
carried.
Street Sweeping: The Engineer explained that the City streets were swept
in early April 2007; however, there was a late winter storm forming icy road
conditions which occurred shortly after the sweeping. He advised that sanding of
the roadways to accommodate the late winter storm left a sand residue on some
streets that should be removed; after reviewing all the City streets, he
recommended re-sweeping the following streets: AngellRoad/Sunny Side Lane,
Roanoke Road, Grieve Glen Lane and Acorn Drive.
Mr. Sterna advised that he estimates the re-sweeping at approximately $600 and
that road maintenance funds could be used for this purpose. He requested
authorization to expend the funds.
Councilmember Williams moved, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy, to
authorize the expenditure of $600 from the Road Maintenance fund for re-sweeping
of the streets as recommended and listed in the Engineer’s report and any other
streets as deemed necessary, and carried.
Salem Church Road Pothole Repairs: The Engineer explained that a
significant pothole developed west of the speed hump on Salem Church Road, not
Charlton Road as listed in his report. He stated there is also a smaller
deterioration of the pavement on the roadway further east that should also be
repaired. He estimated the cost for these repairs at $3,200 and stated he had
contacted Pine Bend Paving regarding scheduling the work during the first part
of May. He noted that the bituminous plants are not yet open, but that he would
try to find an interim fix for the potholes. He requested authorization to
expend funds from the Road Maintenance budget for these repairs.
Councilmember Bennett moved, seconded by Councilmember Williams, to authorize
the expenditure of $3,200 from the Road Maintenance Fund for repairs on Salem
Church Road as recommended by the City Engineer, and carried.
Spring Roadway Limit Restrictions: Engineer Sterna stated that the
roadway limitations on City streets were removed on April 27, 2007, which
coincided with the State and County removal of their restrictions.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Annual Meeting: Engineer Sterna
explained that the City is required to conduct an annual Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Meeting to seek input public input, as required by the MPCA and under
the NPDES Permit. He requested authorization to advertise in the legal local
newspaper and to request a Special Meeting be held on June 5, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.;
he referred Council to a draft of the notice that was attached to the Engineer’s
report.
Mayor Park asked if any of his staff would be in attendance at the meeting, such
as Andi Moffet. Mr. Sterna explained he could request Andi to appear if Council
wishes; however, he explained that he does not anticipate substantial public
input.
Mayor Park asked if Council wished to have Ms. Moffet present and Council
responded no.
Councilmember Bennett moved, seconded by Councilmember MacManus, to authorize
the City Engineer to publish notice of a Special Meeting on June 5, 2007 at 7:30
p.m., to conduct the annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Meeting and receive public input, and carried.
Spring Roadway Limit Restrictions: Engineer Sterna explained that
budgeted funds in the amount of $26,375 were allocated in the 2007 City budget
for roadway maintenance; to date the City has spent $3,679, leaving a balance of
$19,500. He advised that based on the remaining budgetary amount, he has listed
recommendations in his report for seal-coating and crack-sealing certain streets
within the City. The recommendations are as follows:
1. Angell Road and Sunny Side Lane pavement repairs particularly near the
entrance area, which would also include removal of the speed hump located at the
stop sign and also removal of signage related to the speed hump at an estimated
cost of $6,500;
2. Angell Road, Sunny Side Lane, Windy Hill Court, Windy Hill Road and portions
of Upper 55th Street, crack-sealing to prevent moisture from
penetrating into the subgrade;
3. Angell Road from TH 100 to the intersection with Sunny Side Lane, along with
Sunny Side Lane to be seal-coated.
The Engineer explained that he estimates the seal-coating and crack-sealing for
the above-described work at approximately $15,000 and he requested that the
Council authorize his firm to prepare specification and solicit quotes for the
project. He reviewed the time schedule for the proposed 2007 Street Improvement
Project and referred Council to the map attached to his report that outlined the
streets included in the project. He explained that he proposes to stay within
the budget and informed Council that he would solicit quotes for their review at
the June meeting.
Dr. Edward Kelly asked if all roads within the City have been examined and if
funding would be available for all roadways to be fixed if necessary.
Mr. Sterna explained that each year one-third of the City’s roads are examined
and that is how the projects are determined; he noted that in 2005 the City
repaired Grieve Glen and Roanoke Road and in 2006 the City completed the
re-building of Acorn Drive.
Dr. Kelly asked if the roadway around Hornbeam Lake would be reviewed.
Mr. Sterna advised Dr. Kelly that only City streets are reviewed and that the
road around Hornbeam Lake is a private road.
Mayor Park explained that private roads and private driveways are repaired under
authorization of the homeowner’s associations, not by the City.
Mr. Sterna further noted that Charlton Road is also being studied and a catalog
of all City streets and a recommended improvement scheduled will be prepared for
Council review. He requested authorization to proceed with soliciting quotes for
the proposed 2007 Roadway Improvement Projects as outlined.
Councilmember Williams moved, seconded by Councilmember MacManus, to direct
WSB to prepare Plans and Specifications for the 1007 Sealcoating and
Cracksealing Program and to authorize the solicitation of bids for review by
Council at their regular meeting held June 5, 2007, and carried.
Councilmember Bennett asked if the City Engineer would present his report on
options for improvements to Charlton Road in June.
Mr. Sterna responded that the Feasibility Report is currently being prepared and
Salem Church Road is also being evaluated. He explained that Council would have
to consider budgeting for these improvements in 2008. He advised that the
biggest challenge regarding the Charlton Road improvement project is the fact
that there is no dedicated right-of-way; he indicated that meetings should be
held with the residents to discuss right-of-way issues, drainage, ditches and
culvert maintenance and other maintenance related to the roadway. He pointed out
that the corner located near the Reilly property (now the Chase property) has
been identified for reducing the grade. He referred Council to the draft survey
proposed to be sent to residents on Charlton Road relating to improvement of the
roadway. He discussed the substantial costs associated with burying the
utilities.
Rod Squires asked if all residents would be sent the survey or only those on
Charlton Road; he suggested sending the survey to all residents since Charlton
Road is a City street and all residents may be participating in the costs for
the improvement.
Mr. Sterna responded that the survey would be send only to Charlton Road
residents to receive their input.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that other residents would be heard at the
public hearing if the roadway improvement is ordered and at this time that the
survey was merely to receive input from residents along Charlton Road.
Mayor Park explained that there are no questions related to cost participation
included in the survey. The Mayor provided a copy of the survey to Mr. Squires
for his review and reiterated that other residents would be heard at a public
hearing if the project is ordered.
Councilmember Bennett commented that the survey merely poses questions relating
to drainage, driveway and right-of-way issues.
Rod Squires asked why the City does not turn back the road to the residents.
Councilmember Williams explained that the City cannot force the residents to
accept the roadway and that improvements to the road are being considered
because the maintenance costs for the road in its current condition are so high;
he explained that the City is merely reviewing options for improvement of the
road at this time and that no decision has been made to move forward with
improvement of the road.
Councilmember MacManus asked if a comparison of maintenance costs be included in
the Engineer’s report.
Treasurer Blair explained that he does not believe the maintenance costs have
been tracked over the years.
Mr. Sterna indicated that he would be able to provide some comparison based on
costs for maintaining a gravel road versus a bituminous surface road.
Councilmember Bennett explained that when Roanoke Road was installed the
residents were required to bring the roadway to City standards and he believes
that paving is less expensive to maintain and to plow; he also noted that
residents have complained of the dust control problems along Charlton Road.
Engineer Sterna explained that he could show the annual maintenance costs per
year and that the preparation of the CIP would assist with identifying
maintenance costs in the future. He noted that Charlton Road is currently used
by 230-240 cars per day and after the re-grading of the road he would conduct
another traffic count to determine the volume of change; he explained that if
the volume reaches 300 cars per day he would recommend grading the road more
often which would increase maintenance costs for the road.
The Engineer advised that he has received numerous requests to place the City
map on the website and he explained that he would prefer to place a copy of the
map that does not list names or addresses. Mike Hovey, Website Manager, stated
he also receives requests from residents for the map.
Council concurred that a map showing only the City streets and boundaries would
be appropriate on the website and that the survey should be send only to
residents on Charlton Road at this time.
Engineer Sterna advised Council that his duties at WSB have been increasing in
other areas and that he would turn over the engineering duties for Sunfish Lake
to Tim Hanson from his firm. He stated that Tim has substantial municipal
experience and that he would be still be attending meetings with Tim until July
or August of this year as a transitional period. He advised that Tim has
undertaken the responsibility of preparing the feasibility report for the 2007
Improvement Program in order to familiarize himself with the City.
Mayor Park commented that she has mixed emotions with the loss of Mr. Sterna;
however, she noted that the City has gone through a lot of staff transitioning
in the last year and she was glad that there would be some transitional/training
period provided for Mr. Hanson.
Council thanked the Engineer for his many years of service to the City and for
his report.
b.
BUILDING OFFICIAL: Inspector Wahl stated he conducted 3 inspections in
April and issued 5 permits.
Council thanked Inspector Wahl for his report.
c.
CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued 3 burning permits with
the conditions that a garden hose be present when burning and that the wind be
less than 10 mph. He reminded residents of the Arbor Day activities at Harmon
Park, located at the end of Angell Road. He explained that 600 trees are
available at a cost of $2.00 each; he also advised that Adina Overbee would be
hosting the recycling portion of the program. He displayed signage that would be
placed at Highway 110 to direct residents to Harmon Park.
Councilmember DeCourcy had concerns with the signage being placed close to Hwy.
110; she questioned if strangers would look for the event because the signs
state “festival”. Jim Nayes stated he would place the signs further in from the
highway to deter anyone other than residents.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d.
PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park distributed the Public Safety Report and
noted that there were 5 False Alarms this month; she noted that last year at
this time there were 8 false alarms versus 13 in the same time period this year.
She requested that resident try to keep the number of false alarms to a minimum
so that the police are available for other crime prevention activities.
Peggy Rabuse questioned who pays for the false fire alarms; she commented that
the residents should pay for all false alarms.
Mayor Park stated that residents are charged for the second false alarm for fire
alarms and for the third false alarm on police alarm responses.
7. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. New Business: Mayor Park asked that the residents of Hornbeam
Lake introduce themselves and Councilmember Williams extended his apology for
arriving late at the Task Force meeting.
The following residents were introduced: Todd and Ann Kellogg, 2485 Delaware,
Ed and Ann Kelly, 2566 Delaware, Rod and Carrie Squires, 2592 Delaware, Peggy
Rabuse, 2580 Delaware, and David Larkin, 2558 Delaware.
Mayor Park explained that she had notified the Councilmembers that the residents
would be in attendance tonight to discuss their requests.
Rod Squires asked if it was appropriate for the City Attorney to be present
during the discussion due to the conflict of interest. Mr. Kuntz stated he
would leave the meeting during the discussion.
Scot Spaeth distributed a copy of the proposed resolution stating opposition to
any master plan that would allow high density or commercial development in Inver
Grove Heights adjacent to Sunfish Lake; he noted the resolution also authorizes
the search for a special land use attorney to represent the City on this matter.
Councilmember Williams explained that he believes there are three issues related
to the proposal. He pointed out that the City of Inver Grove Heights may be
mandated by the Met Council to designate some portion of plan as high density
residential or commercial and that is why the City chose to do so in this area
adjacent to the highway. He also noted that if the City of Sunfish Lake assumes
that prevention of the designation is unlikely, what options are available to
Sunfish Lake; he noted that a land use attorney would be helpful in determining
the options. He pointed out that the City of Inver Grove Heights is aware of the
fact that there are limitations to high density development in this area related
to the costs for extension of infrastructure. Finally, he advised that he
believes the City of Inver Grove Heights plans to retain the property for the
installation of an interchange in this location; he also noted that the funds
for the interchange most likely won’t come from the State and questioned how the
funding would be obtained for the interchange. He suggested that the City needs
to for a plan or action and prioritize the issues. He discussed the fact that
other entities may also impose regulations on the proposed rezoning of the
property, such as the PCA and the DNR, and he noted that there are water quality
and environmental issues related to the installation of an interchange in this
area. He further pointed out that the City of Mendota Heights would also have
an interest in preserving water quality. He indicated that he had not contacted
Representative Joe Atkins as he believes Mr. Atkins has strong ties to Inver
Grove Heights.
Mayor Park explained that at the meeting Dwight Rabuse mentioned that some type
of development would occur on the parcel and the residents may be able to deter
the high density proposal.
Scott Spaeth commented that the City should not automatically assume that
development will occur and noted that it the land could remain vacant.
Peggy Rabuse explained that the main concern should not be with the zoning
proposal but rather with the change to the Comprehensive Plan; she stated that
once the change in the Comp Plan is approved by the Met Council, she believes
there is not much that could be done to reverse the proposal.
Planner Shives agreed that the Comprehensive Plan set the land use guiding.
Rod Squires questioned if Sunfish Lake has considered annexing the property.
Councilmember Williams responded that the City cannot annex property if the
adjacent city does not wish to give it away.
Mayor Park asked if the residents had considered purchasing the property. Mr.
Squires stated the residents have approached the owner, but they do not wish to
sell. He advised that the property was formerly owned by the Seiger Trust and it
is now owned by Ace in the Hole Realty. He agreed that if the property could be
acquired it could be turned into a nature preserve and remain vacant. He noted
that the high density residential zoning makes no sense adjacent to
single-family residential development and he believes it may be appropriate to
contact the Met Council and request a more transitional zoning designation for
the property.
Councilmember Williams stated he is not aware to what extent the City could
lobby the Met Council and that it does not appear the City can persuade Inver
Grove Heights to change the proposed designation; he noted that a land use
attorney may be able to advise the City on these matters. He commented that the
City could request a citizens meeting with the PCA to discuss the matter.
Rod Squires commented that it makes sense for the City and residents to take
every opportunity available to oppose the proposal. He noted that the DNR has
designated Hornbeam Lake as protected water.
Councilmember Williams commented that there needs to be a consistent plan with
appropriate actions and alternatives. He also noted that the plan should include
dealing with the possible future interchange and preserving the integrity of the
lake.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments.
Rod Squires asked if the Council would consider the resolution.
Mayor Park explained that the City has already gone on record twice to
vehemently oppose the plan. Planner Shives also noted that the City has sent
correspondence on two occasions stating opposition to the interchange.
Councilmember Williams stated he is not opposed to the resolution, but he does
believe any further correspondence should be sent at this time.
Peggy Rabuse commented that Councilmember Williams appears to be very negative
regarding what the residents and the City can achieve. She questioned the fact
that communities are supposed to work together to achieve the best outcome for
both entities.
Planner Shives stated that hopefully communities work together and that it is
customary for neighboring communities to forward plans that affect the adjacent
community for comments.
Councilmember Williams stated he was not attempting to be negative, only
realistic regarding what he believes can be accomplished. He commented that if
appropriate he would support contacting the Met Council ahead of time to advise
them of Sunfish Lake’s concerns. He commented that it is his belief a plan is
necessary to outline how to spend funds and put energies to best use; he noted
that there are eleven different scenarios for the placement of the interchange
at I-494 and that may be the bigger issue.
Mayor Park suggested that the Task Force should discuss possible candidates for
legal counsel.
Rod Squires noted that the resolution restates the City’s opposition and
authorizes the hiring of legal counsel.
Councilmember Williams explained that the he is not opposed to the resolution.
Councilmembers DeCourcy and MacManus agreed that it would be appropriate to hire
an attorney versed in land use issues.
Councilmember Bennett stated he also favors the resolution and taking steps
necessary to preventing the high density designation.
Mayor Park explained that she believes that the Inver Grove Heights Council is
scheduled to consider adoption of the plan and that she believes the matter has
a deadline of May 29.
Councilmember Williams agreed there is a tight time scheduled and that it may be
possible to hire the attorney to prepare a letter prior to the deadline.
Scott Spaeth questioned if residents could have input into candidates for hire;
he noted he does not have a specific candidate in mind at this time.
Mayor Park responded yes and suggested that the information could be reviewed by
the Task Force.
Dr. Kelly suggested that it may make sense to contact Mendota Heights to
determine their interest in becoming an ally in this matter.
Councilmember Williams agreed that Mendota Heights may have an interest relating
to the location of the interchange and that there may also be an opportunity for
cost participation.
Todd Kellogg commented that Hornbeam Lake is worth preserving. Councilmember
Williams noted the lake is contained within both Inver Grove Heights and Sunfish
Lake.
Councilmember Williams suggested that there may also be allies within the
legislators since there are water quality issues that should be addressed.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Williams moved, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy, to adopt
Resolution No. 07-07 titled, RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE ANY INVER GROVE MASTER PLAN
THAT WOULD ALLOW HIGH DENSITY OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SUNFISH LAKE
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE HIRING OF LEGAL COUNSEL TO SUPPORT SUNFISH LAKE REGARDING
THE SAME, and that Task Force of Hornbeam Lake residents and two Council
representatives review possible candidates for legal counsel.
In discussion, Councilmember Bennett suggested that he believes it
would carry more “clout” if the entire Council were involved in the review
process.
Councilmember Williams pointed out that the Task Force would only be reviewing
possible candidates for hire and that the entire Council would ultimately
approve any recommendation.
Councilmember Bennett also commented that contrary to Councilmember Williams
earlier comment, he believes the City should contact Representative Joe Atkins,
since he also represents Sunfish Lake; he stated he believes Mr. Atkins could be
an ally in the process.
Councilmember Williams withdrew the portion of the motion regarding the Task
Force and two Council representatives reviewing possible candidates for legal
counsel.
Motion as amended carried.
There was discussion regarding the fact that a special meeting would have to be
noticed if the entire Council were present to review candidates for hire and the
requirements for posting notice of the meeting. The City Clerk and Planner
explained that the notice would have to be posted three days prior to the
Special meeting.
Councilmember Williams moved, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy, to hold a
Special Council Meeting with the Hornbeam Lake residents and Task Force at 7:00
p.m., on May 8, 2007, at St. Anne’s Church to discuss a plan of action and
possible candidates for legal counsel regarding the proposed Inver Grove Heights
Northwest Area Plan, and carried.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
MISCELLANEOUS: Mayor Park reported that Xcel Energy has advised they
would be replacing seven power poles along Salem Church Road; all the poles were
reviewed after one fell due to rotting.
Councilmember MacManus asked if anything could be done regarding the condition
of the property next to the Conant parcel. Mayor Park stated she has contacted
the City Forester and City Attorney to handle this matter.
Councilmember DeCourcy suggested that the Burdock should also be removed from
Harmon Park.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
8. ADJOURN: Councilmember DeCourcy
moved for adjournment at 9:20 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Williams and
carried.
Molly Park,
Mayor Catherine Iago, City
Clerk
BACK to News