7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH Attendants: Mayor: Molly Park Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Cathy DeCourcy, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Steven Bulach. City Attorney: Tim Kuntz City Engineer: Don Sterna City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. She asked that a proclamation for the Mendota Heights Fire Department be added under Item 8.d. Other. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response. 4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Park asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response. 5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Major Site & Building Plan Review and Variance, 325 Salem Church Road, Tom and Michelle Schlehuber: Mayor Park asked the Planner to provide a brief explanation of the request that was continued from the June Council meeting. The Planner advised that Council had tabled the application in order to receive more information relating to the number of existing homes on Sunfish Lake that have driveways positioned on the lake side of the home and an exact measurement of the distance between navigable waters of Sunfish Lake and the proposed looped driveway. She further noted that Council wished to schedule a Special Council meeting so that a site visit could be done and to determine if there were any alternate areas to place the driveway that would not require a variance. Mayor Park asked if it would be appropriate to state that there are no properties on the lake where there is a driveway between the home and the lake and the Planner responded yes. Mayor Park commented that a circular drive on the lake properties are not an issue, but to her knowledge there are none placed between the lake and the homes. She asked Mr. Moser to identify the exact location of the proposed driveway on the property. Mr. Bancroft commented that the storage building on the property was recorded, however, there is also a screened gazebo on the property that was not recorded on the survey. He noted that the current ordinance only allows two accessory buildings on the site and he wished to publicly make note of the two buildings so if another building is requested it would not be allowed. Councilmember Hovey asked that a ‘friendly amendment" by added to include a condition that the landscaping for screening purposes by installed by June 1, 2016 and that staff be responsible for approving and overseeing its installation. b. Planning Report: Planner Barness referred Council to the report dated July 1, 2015 and offer to respond to any questions. B. Salem Church Road Shoulder Repair: The Engineer explained that heavy rains have washed away some of the gravel shoulder along the west shoulder on the steep grade on the east end of Salem Church Road, he noted past costs were approximately $750 to $1,250 to repair the shoulders. He further explained that signage repair should also be completed at this time and requested Council authorize an expenditure not to exceed $2,500 to complete both items. He noted this would end maintenance costs estimated this year, with the exception of light grading on Charlton Road. Engineer Sterna explained that the property under construction at 240 Salem Church Road submitted some minor grading changes and that he would review the grading and drainage modifications on the revised plan. Dr. Chesney advised that MnDOT had placed guardrails on 60th Street and graded on the northwest side of the street, but no guardrails were installed on that side of the roadway. c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes reported he issued one (1) burning permit in June. He expressed concern regarding items being dumped in the City, such as motor oil and televisions. 8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Approval of 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan: Engineer Sterna advised this item would be considered at the August meeting. 9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Wahlstrom moved for adjournment at 9:05 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0) Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor
SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – JULY 7, 2015
City Planner: Michelle Barness
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
Police Chief: Manila Shaver
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
The Mayor asked if there were any other additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved approval of the Agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Bulach moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
Tom Schlehuber asked if the public comments that were voiced at the Special Meeting would be included in the discussion.
Mayor Park stated the Council would receive comments from those present and that comments from the Special Meeting and site visit to his property would be included as part of the discussion.
Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan review and a Variance to allow the construction of a replacement garage with a second floor living space on the property located at 325 Salem Church Road. She advised that the property is located between Salem Church Road and Sunfish Lake and is subject to both the R-1, Single Family and Shoreland Overlay District standards. She noted that the applicants wish to re-locate the garage entrance from the west side to the south side of the structure and to modify the driveway to allow for a looped driveway and that the proposed driveway must meet the 200 ft. setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). She explained that due to an inlet on the south boundary of the lake, the proposed driveway measures 168 ft. from the inlet and would require a variance. She advised that the applicants had also submitted an alternate plan for the driveway that removes the loop and proposes changes to the sidewalk and grading.
The Planner stated she would review the three factors to consider when discussing the variance request. She explained that staff prepared an addendum report dated July 1, 2015 and attached a map that illustrates the several other circle driveways on the lake which suggests that a circle drive for improved access to lake homes may be considered a reasonable use of property. She noted that many homes on the lake do not have circle drives, which means this would not be required to be able to use a lakeshore property in a reasonable manner. She further noted that no other homes on the lake appear to have a driveway on the lakeside of site structures. She explained that understanding of the distance between navigable waters and the proposed loop driveway helps to understand more about how the project may be perceived from the lake.
Planner Barness stated that staff reviewed the Dakota County mapping website to determine the distance between the proposed loop driveway and the navigable waters of Sunfish Lake. She explained that this was not easily identified, however, the man body of the lake is bounded by the 935 foot elevation contour, upon which the requested measurement was based. She advised that approximately 400 ft. exists between the 935 foot contour and the north edge of the loop driveway and that this is in contrast to the loop driveway setback from the OHWM elevation of 937 feet, which is a 168 ft. distance. She noted the City currently requires a minimum 200 ft. setback from the OHWM.
Bob Moser, contractor for the applicants, explained that the actual measurement between the 935 ft. contour and the north edge of the loop driveway is 449 ft. He advised that the applicants indicated their opinion that there would be no negative visual impact from the lake or surrounding properties at this distance if approval of the variance is granted. He stated that it is his and the applicants opinion that the three factors for consideration of the variance are met due to the following;
1. The uniqueness of the property which creates difficulty in placing the looped driveway in any other location;
2, It is a reasonable request to provide ease of access to vehicles entering or exiting the property, as witnessed by Council and others during the site visit and for emergency vehicles to navigate the driveway; and,
3. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality and the applicants have agreed to install screening to lessen any impact.
The Mayor asked if Council had any questions or comments
Councilmember Hovey asked what actions would be considered this evening.
Planner Barness explained that Council should consider approval of either Plan A or Plan B for the Major Site and Building Plan; Plan A approval would include the loop driveway and approval of a variance, Plan B excludes the loop driveway. She further explained that Mr. Moser had submitted an alternate plan with the looped driveway on the south side of the property which would require a public hearing and review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. She stated that staff prepared resolutions for Council to consider for approval of the site plan A or B and also for approval or denial of the requested variance. She noted that each resolution contained findings of fact for support or denial of the variance.
Councilmember Bulach commented that it was mentioned at the site visit that variances on lake properties are a "touchy" subject for neighboring properties. He indicated that he was unable to see the need for the loop driveway prior to the site visit and that in his opinion the option for placement of the loop driveway in the rear portion of the garage that requires removal of 5 large Oak trees would have a more negative impact visually on the adjacent property. He advised that he was unsure of the site impact until he was near the lake and determined that persons on the lake would not be impacted by the vehicle lights, especially with screening. He stated he supports the variance request since it would be only blacktop and not a structure that would create more stormwater runoff.
Councilmember Hovey stated that in the past he always supported the homeowners request to do what they wished to do to enhance their property and that in his opinion the site and building plans for the property are beautiful. He pointed out that the applicants are requesting a variance from the setback regulations in the ordinance and he is unsure how to vote at this time. He noted that he received several telephone calls from residents who were opposed to this request.
Councilmember Wahlstrom stated she concurred with Councilmember Hovey’s statement regarding supporting residents enhancing their properties and commented that she would prefer not to ‘open Pandora’s box" by granting the variance. She indicated there are other properties on the lake for sale that may also wish to request a similar variance and she did not wish to set precedence.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated she was not aware of the option that would remove the five large Oak trees.
Planner Barness explained that the application for consideration this evening would require removal of only one Oak tree and that the other option was not for consideration this evening.
Applicant Tom Schlehuber pointed out that Council had asked them to creatively seek other possible areas for placement of the loop driveway that would not require a variance and that was what prompted the option with removal of the five Oak trees.
Applicant Michelle Schlehuber commented that the Oak tree for removal was due to the garage expansion, not the placement of the loop driveway as proposed with the application.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the decision this evening would impact the timeline for construction.
Mr. Schlehuber stated he was unsure and would have to discuss that with his contractor.
Councilmember DeCourcy pointed out that she has a small turnaround area on her property that can accommodate emergency vehicles. She asked if the driveway could be extended further south to accommodate a turnaround without removal of trees.
Mr. Schlehuber explained that the area south cannot be extended due to a mounded septic system location.
Mr. Moser agreed that an extension to the south would impact the existing trees and the drainfield areas; he noted that two testers had agreed the area south was best suited for the drainfield.
Mayor Park commented that she had concerns relating to past applications following through on the landscaping installation for screening and also relating to the fact that no other properties on the lake had driveways on the lakeside of their property. She commented that in her opinion the driveway would not functionally impact the lake due to the 449 ft. distance. She commented that the area appears very secluded but she also has concern for the greater good of all residents.
The Mayor explained that several residents were present at the site visit who are also in attendance this evening and could provide their comments. She explained that Dr. Svendsen was unable to attend the meeting but that he had not expressed any concerns for the project at the site visit. She asked for comments from the audience.
Tom Hall, 329 Salem Church Road, stated he lives directly behind the property and in his opinion the new option (identified as Plan c) would provide the most negative impact to his property. He indicated that in his opinion Plan A would be the least obtrusive to his property and would not negatively impact the properties on the lake. He pointed out that the City ordinances have a provision to allow Council the flexibility to grant a variance when reasonable and that they have done a good job in reviewing the site.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that a variance may be granted if there is a hardship identified.
Mayor Park disagreed and noted that the legislature changed the laws relating to variances in 2011. She asked the City Attorney to review the new criteria for considering a variance request.
Attorney Kuntz explained that in reviewing the previous variance laws, the courts found that a property owner had to show no practical use of their property without granting the variance which placed the burden to show a hardship as part of the request for a variance on the property owner. He noted that the legislature changed the standards for granting a variance in 2011 and required the property owner to show that there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the ordinance requirements. He reviewed the three-part test that became law in June, 2011 and noted that the City also changed the Zoning Ordinance to include the language as listed below:
1. Property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance;
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the owner; and
3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The Attorney also noted that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties and he distributed an informational sheet listing the standards for granting a variance.
The Mayor advised that the Planner had also emailed this information to Council from the League of Minnesota Cities.
Mayor Park asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Sarah Pennie-Thompson, 335 Salem Church Road, explained that her property borders the applicants on the west and therefore neither option would impact her property. She explained that she has a circle driveway and that she has found it very useful for deliveries and vehicle access. She noted that the Schlehuber driveway curves south as you enter and if a vehicle needs to back out, they would have to use her driveway to exit their property. She indicated that this would cause headlights to enter into her home and that she favors granting the variance for the loop driveway to help eliminate the lights from her property.
Mayor Park stated that Dr. Svendsen lives at 1 Sunfish Lane, directly across the lake from the Schlehuber property, and that he stated at the site visit that he had no problem with the requested variance.
Dick Bancroft, 100 Windy Hill Road, stated that there are no residences on the lake with a driveway between the lake and their home. He commented that Mr. Schlehuber previously stated there are eight homes on the lake with driveways on the lake side, which is not true. He noted that a visit to the site in the winter months would provide a different view from the lake with the foliage gone. He also noted that he used to see the previous owner drive in and out of the property from his property, and although that traffic was temporary, it impacted his property. He also noted that the use of the lake is down from past use and that he has no issue with a loop driveway, but in his opinion it is not necessary on the property. He commented that he would be willing to support the driveway but asked that the property owner be aware of the vehicle lights shining onto his property.
Shari Hanson, 7 Windy Hill Court, explained that she is a member of the Planning Commission and the commission extensively discussed the options and concluded that the loop driveway on the lakeside of the property was the best choice so as not to negatively impact the surrounding properties. She also noted that the installation of a rain garden would help with stormwater drainage into the lake.
Mr. Bancroft commented that rain gardens are not a safety valve and that drainage from the Schlehuber property goes through a swamp on his property and the rain garden would not process all that prior to entering the lake.
Forester Nayes stated he would prefer to save trees and would support Plan A with the loop driveway that would not require removal of any trees.
Mayor Park explained that Plan C would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to Council consideration.
Engineer Sterna explained the purposes of the rain garden would be to handle the same amount of storm water runoff as previously left the site; he noted that ponding only retained water on site but was useful for a 2-inch rainfall not a 100 year storm event.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated it was disturbing to see Plan C on the agenda and asked if the circle drive could be located in front of the garages instead of on the lake side of the property.
Councilmember Hovey explained it was not on the agenda for consideration.
Mr. Schlehuber explained there would not be enough room for the circle drive in front of the garage. He stated he wished to clarify the comments made by Mr. Bancroft relating to the driveways around the lake. He explained that he identified 8 homes with circular driveways on lake properties but he did not state the driveways were positioned between the lake and the home. He further explained that the proposed circular driveway would be positioned on the side of their home, not the front of the structure and he referred to the two driveways outlined in red on the Planner’s addendum map which are similar in location to what he has proposed.
Mr. Moser explained that the inlet to the south determined the setback of the home and the east/west line of the driveway would not be located between the lake and the home. He explained that the Plan C example that he prepared was to show that the placement of the loop in the rear of the home would be 100 percent compliant with the ordinance, but the five large Oak trees would have to be removed. He pointed out that there are many properties on the lake utilizing a looped driveway and in his opinion the request for a variance is reasonable.
Mr. Schlehuber stated that he would replace the trees if Plan C were submitted.
Mr. Moser also referred to the inlet on the property and explained that the home was setback 449 ft. and should not negatively impact the lake views. He reiterated that the unique condition of the lot is based on the adjacent inlet which significantly impacts where improvements may occur on the property. He noted that no other property on the lake has this same situation and that granting the variance should not set precedence; he commented that "Pandora’s box" would only be opened if another property requesting a variance was identical to this parcel.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the turnaround area by the three garage stalls could be used.
Mr. Moser advised that there are challenges with placing the loop driveway in that area. He commented that all areas were considered and it was determined to be more practical, more aesthetically pleasing for adjacent properties and more accommodating for traffic to move easily on the site without having to back out onto the private road.
Councilmember Bulach agreed with Mr. Moser’s comments relating to the fact that no other property on the lake would be identical for a variance request and could not meet the three factor checklist items.
Councilmember DeCourcy stated she received several telephone calls from residents around the lake who were opposed to the variance.
Councilmember Bulach asked why these residents were not in attendance at the meeting to voice their concerns.
Stephanie Stowell, 389 Salem Church Road, stated she was solicited by people on the lake who were opposed to the request. She explained that she viewed the property from the lake and that she could barely see the rooftop of the home from the lake. She supported the applicant’s ability to accommodate ease of access to their property.
Councilmember DeCourcy commented that she received calls from neighbors across the lake from the property who do not support the looped driveway and stated she would not support the request due to the neighbors’ concerns. She asked why the neighbors on the lake were not notified of the request.
Planner Barness explained that the City make every effort to be open about the request. She agreed that it would only be fair for neighbors to express their concerns so that Council is aware of the issues.
Mr. Schlehuber commented that the information was placed on the agenda and on the City website and that the City had done its due diligence to provide information relating to the request. He disagreed with the blanket statement from Councilmember DeCourcy that people were against the request without any proof that the conversations occurred. He advised that Dr. Svendsen told him he was contacted by Councilmember DeCourcy regarding the variance and he expressed concern that a Councilmember would solicit comments from neighbors. He stated that Councilmember DeCourcy had contacted him regarding the proposed home construction adjacent to his property and asked him if he was concerned about possible lighting issues.
Planner Barness indicated that the review process is less fair when vague statements are made without the actual person attending to express their concerns and hear the information presented.
Councilmember Bulach agreed that these people should show up at the meeting to express their concerns.
Mayor Park commented that everyone is human and that it is her opinion the Council is trying to do what is best for the community as a whole.
Nancy Driano, 8 Windy Hill Court, stated that she agrees with protecting the lake, however, she has teenage drivers and without the circular driveway on her property it would be very difficult for her children to navigate her property. She agreed that this parcel is unique with the severe inlet and that there are several circle driveways around the lake. She commented that Council should consider the guidelines for granting the variance and determine if the property meets the test. She further commented that there appears to be no better area for placement of the circle driveway and that she hopes Council makes a decision that is in the best interest of neighboring properties.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Planner Barness referred Council to the proposed resolutions for approval of the Major Site and Building Plan with either Plan A or Plan B and she reviewed the findings for approval or denial of the variance request listed in each resolution. She noted that Council may change the conditions or findings as they deem necessary.
Councilmember Hovey asked if they could approve the site plan portion of the request separately and the planner responded yes.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-14 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 325 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the findings recommended by the Planning Commission and the conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Bulach asked if the applicant would be willing to submit a landscape plan once the construction of the looped driveway is completed, since it would be difficult to determine screening of the driveway prior to its installation. He indicated that the plan could be returned for approval once the driveway is constructed.
Mr. Schlehuber agreed that if the variance is granted he would submit the landscape plan.
Mayor Park asked if a time limit should be placed on when the installation occurs.
Forester Nayes suggested that the most appropriate time for planting would be in the spring.
Councilmember Bulach suggested the plantings be installed by June 1, 2016.
Planner Barness asked if the plan should be approved by Council or by staff.
Council concurred that staff may approve the plan and oversee the planting installation.
Mayor Park commented that when Council takes the oath of office they swear to uphold all the federal, state and municipal laws and that she is very proud that this Council works well together to determine the best outcome for the entire community. She encouraged those present to think of serving the community in the future. She noted that no one is perfect and that elected officials can learn from citizen input. She suggested that it may be appropriate to have an article in the City newsletter to educate residents on the standards for considering variance requests. She thanked the applicants for submitting a beautiful plan to enhance their home.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-15 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING a SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT a LOOPED DRIVEWAY TO BE LOCATED 168 FEET FROM THE OHWL OF SUNFISH LAKE FOR THE PROEPRTY LOCATED AT 325 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to the findings in support of the variance from the Planning Commission and to the conditions as listed in the resolution.
Councilmember Bulach agreed to the "friendly amendment".
Councilmember Hovey seconded the motion and it carried. (Ayes: 4-Bulach, Hovey, DeCourcy, Park; Nays: 1-Wahlstrom)
Council took a brief recess at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
7. STAFF REPORTS: a. Building Inspector: Building Inspector Mike Andrejka stated that he issued five (5) and closed one (1) permit in June.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. CITY Engineer: City Engineering Activities Undertaken in the Month of May: A. 2016-2020 CIP Update: Engineer Sterna referred Council to his report dated June 30, 2015 and advised that he moved the Salem Church Road project ahead in the CIP. He stated that Council should review the document and forward any comments to him as the document would be discussed for discussion at the August meeting in conjunction with the 2016 proposed budget.
B. Angell Road Culvert Repairs: The Engineer advised that the repairs were done this week to the road.
C. Annual NPDES Permit Renewal with MPCA: Engineer Sterna stated the permit was submitted to the MPCA in early June.
D. Upper Mississippi River Bacteria TMDL Review and Comment: The Engineer explained that his staff prepared comments to respond to the Watershed District and MPCA relating to the Upper Mississippi River Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); he advised he would forward the letter to Council for their review
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of June: A. Charlton Road Guardrail Repair: Engineer Sterna advised the guard rails were repaired at a final cost of $2,000 and the invoice submitted at the August meeting.
B. Charlton Road Dust Control: A dust control agent was applied to the surface of the road in early May at a cost of $1,750.
C. Charlton Road/Highway 110 Stop Sign Repair: The sign at this intersection was repaired by MnDOT staff in early May.
D. Salem Church Road/Windy Hill Court Stop Sign Repair: Pine Bend Paving repaired the stop sign at this intersection while completing street patching in the area this May.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of July: A. 2015 Infrastructure Management Report: Engineer Sterna stated staff will be finalizing the 2015 Infrastructure report in July and the information will be incorporated into the 2016-2020 CIP.
Councilmember Bulach moved to authorize an expenditure not to exceed $2,500 for the shoulder repair along Salem Church Road and signage repair/replacement as requested, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
C. City of Sunfish Lake Bench Mark Report: The Engineer stated that staff will be completing the survey bench mark system report this month and a final report will be presented that may be added to the City website for residents and builders use.
D. 2016-2020 CIP Finalization: Engineer Sterna stated he would be finalizing the draft 2016-2020 CIP based on input from the Council with a goal to approve the CIP updates at the August Council meeting to help establish infrastructure priorities and assist with budgeting for next year.
E. 2016 Public Work/Engineering Budget Preparation: The Engineer stated he would prepare the proposed 2016 budget request for Public works/Engineering for discussion at the August budget meeting.
Engineer Sterna stated he was not aware of the project but it may be the northwest side of the street was the lowest speed portion. He offered to contact MnDOT to discuss the guardrail situation and report back to Council.
Councilmember Bulach advised that his son had an accident on Charlton Road which involved excessive speed, however, he noted that in his opinion southbound traffic approaching the corner near Delaware Avenue has blind sightlines. He asked if something could be done to assist with deterring accidents and speeding in this area.
Engineer Sterna stated he would review possible signage that may reduce traffic speed at that location.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
Mayor Park commented that it may be person who do not live in the City that area dumping. The Forester agreed and asked that residents contact him immediately if they see any debris that is dumped near the roadways.
The Forester stated he removed a fallen tree on Charlton Road and completed mowing and spraying Burdock in the park.
Councilmember Bulach stated that the contractor hasn’t done any work on Acorn Drive and a lawn mower was left on the property.
Dr. Chesney reported that the contractor had cut down more trees and that there are surveyor’s stakes on the property.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the property owner should be contacted to determine what can be done to resolve the matter. Mayor Park stated she had sent correspondence to Dr. Harding and asked if she should send further correspondence.
Attorney Kuntz suggested the Mayor could call Dr. Harding and explained that this issue was brought up at the Council meeting and that residents had expressed their dissatisfaction that the issues on the property had not yet been resolved. He further suggested Dr. Harding be told that Council was disappointed that the property was not cleaned up in the timeline requested and that he get in touch with his contractor and encourage him to speed up the process.
Mayor Park agreed to contact the property owner.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
Councilmember Hovey stated he called 911 regarding the noise and debris he found on his property the night of the party and that no police officers responded to his home. He commented that there appeared to be over 1,000 people at that location.
Chief Shaver explained that the officers were extremely busy attending to the party participants and apologized that no one responded to his call.
Mayor Park explained that she has been working with Officer Syvertsen to plan a Public Safety event for residents on August 16 so that participants can interact with the police department. She stated she would be sending invitations to all residents to attend.
Clerk Iago asked the Chief if he had been in contact with Bethel Baptist Church regarding an event at the church scheduled in September and also with a resident planning an estate sale. Chief Shaver responded that he had been contacted by both to discuss parking issues.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
b. Consider Resolution Approving the 2015 Deer Population Management Plan: Councilmember Hovey explained that the City Attorney had drafted the 2015 contract with the Metro Bowhunters and prepared a draft resolution for Council approval. He noted that the contract contains the same restrictions as last year and that the Metro Bowhunters had asked for one date change; they wish to switch the October 2,3, & 4 weekend to September 25, 26, & 27. He noted that the date change does not affect the dates scheduled for the resident hunters.
Attorney Kuntz explained this is the 7th year the City has contracted with the Metro Bowhunters and that the contract contains two parts; one part is a contract with the Metro Bowhunters and the second part with the resident volunteer program.
Mayor Park asked if the same holidays were excluded and the City Attorney responded yes.
The Mayor asked if hunting on private property was restricted to a certain size parcel for both hunting groups and it there is a limit on the number of deer that may be taken.
Councilmember Hovey explained that there is a two-acre minimum allowed for hunting on private property by both groups and the location must be approved for safety by Investigator Matt Muellner.
Forester Nayes explained that the number of deer that may be taken is limited by the State regulations which apply in the City. He advised there is no limit on antlerless deer.
Councilmember Bulach commented that there was no deer count this year and asked how many deer had been taken in previous years.
Councilmember Hovey stated that the last aerial deer count there were 60 deer within the City and the City was advised the area should only accommodate 12 to 16 deer.
Forester Nayes explained that the highest number taken in one year was 20 and that last year 15 deer were culled.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if it would be better to hunt in winter when the deer could be tracked in the snow.
Councilmember Hovey explained that the hunt may only occur during State regulated periods and that the City would have to obtain a special permit from the DNR to hunt in the winter.
Attorney Kuntz reviewed the eligible areas for hunting within the City and explained that the hunters must have written permission from the property owners, the property must be at least two contiguous acres in size, and the site must be approved by the City and Council liaisons.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-16 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING 2015 DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, with the date changes for the Metro Bowhunters from one weekend in October to one weekend in September as discussed , seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (Ayes: 4-Wahlstrom, Hovey, Bulach and Park; Nays: 1-DeCourcy)
c. Schedule Special Council Meeting August 4, 2015 to Discuss the Proposed 2016 City of Sunfish Lake Budget: Clerk Iago advised that Council normally schedules a special meeting prior to the regular meeting in August to discuss the upcoming year budget.
Treasurer Lanoue explained there was a modest increase in tax capacity and market value and the meeting should not take more than 45 minutes. She asked that staff forward their preliminary budget requests to her as soon as possible.
Mayor Park asked if Council must vote on the budget in September as in previous years and the Treasurer responded yes.
Councilmember Bulach moved to schedule a Special Council Meeting on August 4, at 6:00 p.m. for the purposes of discussing the proposed 2016 City Budget and direct the City Clerk to post notice of the meeting as required, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
d. Other Business – Proclamation for Mendota Heights Fire Department: Mayor Park explained that the Mendota Heights Fire Department was selected as Minnesota’s Fire Department of the Year for 2015 at the annual State Fire Department Conference in June. She noted they were chosen from more than 750 fire department in the state as showing "outstanding efforts" in their community. She read the Proclamation recognizing the department that she prepared with the assistance of the City Attorney and asked that Council concur with the proclamation and direct staff to forward the document to the fire department.
Council concurred with the Mayor’s Proclamation and directed staff to send the document to the Mendota Heights Fire Department.
Mayor Park asked if there were any questions and there was no response.
___________________________ ___________________________
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.