SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 4, 2020
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Dan O’Leary
Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Steven Bulach and Shari Hansen
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Ryan Krzos
City Engineer: Jeff Sandberg
City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue
Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Brian Sturgeon
Sergeant: Matt Muellner
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor extended thanks to Councilmember Hovey, Clerk Iago and the Election Judges for their service and dedication while conducting the Presidential Nominating Primary election on Tuesday.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda. He asked Sgt. Mueller why the February Alarms were not included on the Public Safety report and why there was an increase in alarms January. He also asked if the box of ceramic trash dumped at the intersection of Windy Hill and Salem Church Roads was identified.
Sgt. Muellner explained that he was unsure why the February alarms were not listed. He stated that false alarms may be caused by anything and most likely are caused by human error in setting or disarming the alarm. He reported that there was nothing in the trash that could identify who dumped it at that location.
Forester Nayes stated that he found two (2) orange cones blocking the street access on Upper 55th Street that seem to have been in place for a few days; he questioned if anyone knew why they were placed at that location. He commented that there was no debris or dumping along the road or near the property at the end of the road.
Mayor O’Leary questioned if the church may have placed the cones in the road and suggested that he check with the church or the property owner if the cones are still in place later this week. He commented that it is a public street and should not be blocked.
The Mayor stated that staff normally may leave after the Consent Agenda is adopted, however, he asked if the Forester, Police Chief and Sgt. Muellner would remain for the discussion relating to coyotes in the City. He asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5 -0)
a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February 4, 2020
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
d. Receive Building Inspector Report
e. Receive Forester Report
f. Receive Public Safety Report
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor 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. Preliminary Consideration of Ordinance Amending Building Height Calculation: Planner Krzos related that the Planning Commission explained that the proposed ordinance amendment would define a method that the City would use to determine building height for planning application submissions. He noted that in the past the building height was calculated by using the four (4) corners of the building, however, this method was not listed in the zoning ordinance. By adopting the proposed building height ordinance, Council would codify the method used to calculate the building height in the City Zoning Code. He explained that this would be considered a preliminary discussion and no formal action may be taken at this time since a public hearing notice was not published. He advised that Council may discuss the matter now, or wait until the public hearing notice is published.
Mayor O’Leary explained that there was discussion and a presentation on the different methods of calculating the building height at a previous meeting. He asked the Planner for his opinion on which method he would be most comfortable adopting for inclusion in the zoning code.
Planner Krzos explained that he had not yet had an opportunity to review a new construction application where this type of calculation is necessary, however, he stated he would be comfortable using the four corners of the building method. He asked if the City Engineer could provide an opinion.
Engineer Sandberg pointed out that previously the documentation distributed by staff was subject to interpretation as to how the calculation should be made because it was not formally included and defined in the zoning code. He stated he would be comfortable with the four-corner method once it is formally adopted. He noted that there was significant discussion based on the site topography and other issues.
Planner Krzos suggested that it may be appropriate to identify which of the four corners of the building are to be used in the calculation and include that language in the ordinance.
Mayor O’Leary suggested that the Planner do more research on which four corners of the building should be used and what language should be included in the ordinance so that it is specific enough to withstand multiple interpretations.
The Planner advised that the Planning Commission already voted to recommend Council approval of this item; he asked if Council wished to have this item referred back to the Commission to review how to define the four corners of the building and specific language for inclusion in the ordinance.
Mayor O’Leary asked Councilmembers Bulach for his input on this item since he is in the construction business.
Councilmember Bulach suggested that the highest and lowest points of the structure should to be identified as part of the calculation.
Attorney Kuntz asked if Council expected a new public hearing to be conducted on this matter and if it should be noticed for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
Mayor O’Leary stated he would prefer that staff do research and then come back to Council prior to having a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. He commented that there does not appear to be any emergency to adopt the ordinance.
Councilmember Hovey asked if this would impact any upcoming applications.
Planner Krzos explained that he has had preliminary meetings with some people, however, he was unsure when a formal application would be submitted.
After a brief discussion, Council concurred that this matter should be further researched by staff and brought back to Council at their April meeting prior to conducting a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Council further directed that staff continue to use the existing four-corner method to calculate building height on new construction applications until such time as new standards are adopted.
b. Preliminary Consideration of Ordinance Amending Application and Submittal Requirements: Planner Krzos explained that the Planning Commission had also recommended approval of the ordinance amending the application and submittal requirements and Council also reviewed this information. He noted that most of the items included in the ordinance are “housekeeping” items and clear up language in the application process. He stated the new ordinance includes pre and post construction meeting requirements, clarifies the tree inventory regulations and was changed back to require a full site tree inventory unless otherwise approved by the City Forester.
Mayor O’Leary stated he supports the language inclusion that allows a change in the tree inventory if approved by the City Forester.
The Planner noted that the ordinance includes identifying septic systems on a property on either side of the proposed construction site and language that encourages use of high end construction materials and recycling of construction debris but does not require either. He advised that there was a meeting held following the February Planning meeting with the Building Official, Mayor, Planning Commission Chair, Councilmember Hansen and a representative from the MPCA to discuss policy direction the City could take regarding demolition and construction waste. He stated that the group consensus was that the City could develop a policy encouraging best practices and that Councilmember Hansen and Ms. Wenzel from MPCA could facilitate development of these practices. He advised the Building Official offered to submit a listing of businesses that would accept construction debris.
Mayor O’Leary suggested that the City may wish to require cell phone numbers and email addresses on planning applications since some people no longer have landline phones.
Planner Krzos stated he would be comfortable asking property owners to include all pertinent phone numbers and email addresses on the application.
The Planner asked the City Attorney if it would be necessary to send this item back to the Planning Commission prior to Council adopting it at their next meeting after notice is published.
Attorney Kuntz stated there is no need to send the item back to the Commission and that Council could adopt the proposed ordinance as discussed this evening at their April meeting after publication of the notice.
Planner Krzos stated he would publish the notice of the ordinance showing the proposed changes as discussed this evening and place it on the April Council agenda.
Sign Ordinance: Planner Krzos explained that the Planning Commission tabled this item at their February meeting to allow staff time to research whether or not the ordinance would create instances where an existing sign would not be allowed to be improved due to non-conformity requirements. He stated that staff reviewed the church sites to determine if the new setbacks would create an additional expense for the churches if they wished to have the new signage moved from the location of their current signage and staff found that this could happen.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the sign location could be grandfathered in.
Attorney Kuntz explained that if the existing sign is deemed non-conforming when the new ordinance is adopted, it would be grandfathered in, however, proposed new Dynamic signage could not be expanded once the new regulations are adopted.
The Mayor asked if Council could allow the churches to use the setback and expand the signage without causing additional expense.
Planner Krzos explained that problems occur if the existing signage is upgraded to a Dynamic message sign unless the ordinance states that the City would allow a non-conforming Dynamic sign within the existing setback.
Mayor O’Leary indicated that it does not appear to be the intent of Council to have the churches incur the expense of building a new foundation for upgrading to a Dynamic sign.
Attorney Kuntz stated that Council would have the option to include language in the ordinance that allows a new Dynamic sign to be placed on the existing sign foundation although the existing foundation does not meet the new setback requirements.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there should be a height limit for the new Dynamic signs.
Clerk Iago pointed out that the discussion of the “message” type of signage was based on being able to see the sign from a vehicle and it did not appear that the church wanted to increase the height of the sign. She explained that the discussion with the Pastor at South Side Baptist Church was related more to the amount of time the message would be displayed so it was visible for passing vehicles.
The Planner explained that a Planning Commission member asked if the church could just place the upgraded Dynamic sign on an existing foundation and if it would meet the proposed setbacks in the new ordinance. He stated that staff began looking at the setbacks for one of the properties and found that a non-conformity would exist; he advised he was unsure if there could be others.
Councilmember Bulach asked if the message sign illumination was discussed by the Commission and the Planner responded yes.
Attorney Kuntz recommended that Council direct staff to do further research and to discuss with the Planning Commission the inclusion of language in the ordinance that allows conversion of an existing non-conforming sign to a Dynamic message sign on an existing sign foundation, subject to conditions that should be included in the ordinance.
Council concurred with the Attorney’s recommendation.
c. Planner’s Report: Demolition/Deconstruction Discussion: Planner Krzos referred to his report dated February 27, 2020 and explained that after the February Planning meeting he met with the Building Official, Mayor O’Leary, Councilmember Hansen, Planning Commission Chair Hendrickson and Melissa Wenzel from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to discuss policy direction the City could take with regard to demolition and construction waste. He stated that Ms. Wenzel provided an overview of actions the MPCA is taking to address these issues. He advised that it was the consensus of the group that the City could develop a policy that encourages best practices that could be distributed to contractors and property owners as part of the application process. He commented that staff and others present agreed that by developing a policy that encourages recycling of construction debris during demolition the City would be on the cutting edge of this issue.
Mayor O’Leary congratulated Councilmember Hansen for bringing this issue forward and noted that the MPCA representative advised the group that Sunfish Lake was the first city to contact them to inquire about adopting regulations. He stated that Councilmember Hansen agreed to work with Building Official Andrejka to develop a list of resources that would accept construction debris and demolition waste for distribution to contractors to encourage recycling of these materials.
Comprehensive Plan Update: Planner Krzos explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan was recently re-submitted to the Met Council in early February after revisions were completed by NAC. He stated that WSB staff reviewed the revisions and found several items with information still outstanding. He advised that the Met Council would review the materials and send a letter to the City regarding what items are approved and what areas still need to be addressed. He noted that the Met Council may find discrepancies and questioned if WSB should attempt to update the items they had identified as outlined in the Planner’s report dated February 27, 2020.
There was discussion regarding the fact that there were some inaccuracies and outdated information in the document.
Mayor O’Leary stated that he would be inclined to submit the document in its current form and wait to see if the Met Council approves it unless not addressing the information would negatively impact its being approved. He pointed out that if the Met Council requires the City to do more then he would support the additional work on the document. He commented that the document spans 10 years and that other discrepancies will occur before the next update.
Council concurred that staff should address the incomplete items and submit the plan and to wait on the additional discrepancies noted by the City Engineer.
Engineer Sandberg advised that the previous planning consultant was asking for payment and questioned if it should be released at this time or withheld until the City has a response from the Met Council.
Councilmember Bulach suggested that the City wait until a response is received from the Met Council.
Mayor O’Leary asked how long it usually takes to get a response from the Met Council.
Planner Krzos indicated that it could be received within 15 to 30 days.
Council concurred to have staff withhold the payment to NAC until a response is received from the Met Council.
Ordinance Amendment Relating to Accessory Structures for Animal Keeping: Planner Krzos explained that while reviewing the zoning ordinance as it relates to an administrative permit for chicken keeping, staff identified an area with potential to create administrative issues. He noted that the existing code states that homeowners requesting a second Accessory Structure on their property must obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP.) He stated that this issue arose when a resident inquired about chicken keeping on their property. Staff found that a structure is defined as an enclosure that houses humans or animals, therefore, a chicken coop would be considered an accessory structure. He noted that if a property contains a shed or detached garage or structure for pool equipment and wishes to house chickens, the owner would need a CUP for the chicken coop.
The Planner explained that at the Planning Commission meeting in February he discussed the concept of exempting certain simple accessory structures under a certain size from the CUP requirements and that it was met with general support. He stated he would prepare an ordinance amendment for their review at the March Planning meeting. He commented that the proposed structure to house chickens would be under 60 sq. ft.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the ordinance would include housing bees.
Planner Krzos responded no and explained that bees are not considered “farm animals” as identified in the current code.
Attorney Kuntz asked if this was time sensitive and if Council would prefer to have the public hearing at the Planning meeting and place this on the April Council agenda for their approval.
Planner Krzos explained that the matter most likely would not be placed on the April Council agenda for adoption, but only for preliminary discussion. He noted it would then have to be published and would be formally adopted at the May meeting.
Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Council thanked the Planner for his report.
7. ENGINEER’S REPORT: 1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in February: A. Scanning Proposal for Planning Documents: The Engineer explained that NAC had transferred 19 banker boxes full of hard copy documents to WSB as part of the transition of planning services. He stated there are approximately 60,000 documents and 85 sets of building plans. He noted that staff is currently reviewing options for storage of these documents, both electronic and hard-copy, and will present a proposal for document retention to meet the City’s adopted State Records Retention policy at a future meeting.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the City must retain both the hard copies and scanned digital documents.
Clerk Iago explained that she was unsure if both the hard copies and digital copies must be retained but she offered to contact the State of Minnesota Historical Society and report to the Engineer.
Treasurer Lanoue pointed out that it should be determined that the scanning process could be used if there are future upgrades to digital storage of these materials.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that staff conduct further research on the matter. He noted that the Records Retention policy is adopted and applied to all cities throughout Minnesota and cannot be amended by individual cities to meet their needs.
Staff agreed to do further research on the matter and report back to Council.
B. Resolution Requesting Safety Improvements at Delaware and Salem Church Road: Engineer Sandberg advised that he sent the resolution adopted by Council to Dakota County that requested action on this item. He explained that he would set up a meeting with Dakota County staff to review the intersection and further discuss possible actions to improve the traffic safety issues.
C. Letter to LMRWMO Outlining City’s Priority Issues: The Engineer stated staff sent a letter to this organization for their use as they undertake their 10-Year Watershed Management Plan Update, a copy of which was attached to his report dated February 26, 2020.
2. Building and Site review in the Month of February: A. Two- pre-application site visits: Engineer Sandberg stated that he actually conducted three (3) site visits in February:
245 Salem Church Road – A new home on an undeveloped parcel; formal application is anticipated at the end of March.
1 Horseshoe Lane – Staff reviewed plans for a new pool at an existing home; homeowner still scoping project feasibility.
2 Sunfish Lane – The property owner submitted a plan for a paved trail to the lake, however, staff found the slopes exceed 30 percent in the “bluff zone” which prohibits its construction. Staff will provide guidance to the homeowner to review other options.
Councilmember Bulach commented that in his opinion the proposed 8 ft. wide trail to accommodate vehicular access would negatively impact sightlines for other properties on the lake.
3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of February: A. Staff has been working with the snow clearing contractor to keep roads clear and as safe as possible. Engineer Sandberg stated there were very few calls in February and asked that residents email both him and the contractor if they determine a road needs attention.
Mayor O’Leary stated that in his opinion the pre-treatment applied to Salem Church Road from Windy Hill Road to Robert Street appears to be working and showing benefit for traffic. Councilmember Hansen agreed.
4. Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for March: A. Staff will publish notices for the SWPPP and NPDES program public hearing on April 7 to meet publication requirements.
B. Staff will begin preparing the City’s 2021 Annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget.
C. Staff will post and monitor local roadways next Friday in accordance with MnDOT Road Restrictions and post along City roads.
Councilmember Hovey asked that the Engineer send the information to him for posting on the City website.
Councilmember Bulach asked if staff notifies the local contractors of the road restrictions.
Engineer Sandberg responded no and explained that they are usually well aware of when the MnDOT postings begin and that cities usually follow those timelines. He advised that staff may issue permits for access of construction equipment when necessary.
Councilmember Bulach asked how often contractors are required to remove dirt and debris on roads cause by construction vehicles and if City staff reminds them to do so.
Engineer Sandberg explained that the roads should be cleared daily and indicated that the Building Inspector may remind them when he conducts an inspection on the property.
Building Inspector Andrejka stated that he would remind the contractors, however, it is still early in the year for there to be mud on the roads.
Councilmember Hovey questioned the increase in the MS4 Permit fee shown in the Engineer’s report and asked the Engineer if this was a method to generate additional revenue.
MS4 Permit Proposed Fee Increases: Engineer Sandberg referred to the memorandum attached to his report, Item 1.D., which advises that the MPCA is proposing significant fee increases for facilitating the MS4 program. He noted the City is required to participate. He advised that the proposed increase for Sunfish Lake is from $80/per year to $500/per year. He noted that other cities would have even larger increases. He advised that it appears the increase may be due to the MPCA shortage of funding rather than to generate revenue.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the City has any opportunity to respond to the increase.
Engineer Sandberg responded yes and advised that the letter was sent to receive public comment prior to the MPCA making a decision.
Mayor O’Leary asked if we must participate and the Engineer responded yes.
Council directed staff to draft a letter expressing the City’s opposition to such a large increase in the permit fee.
The Mayor asked if there were any other questions or comments and there was no response.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Discussion of Coyotes in Sunfish Lake: Mayor O’Leary explained that he had received inquiries and had calls from residents with concerns relating to coyotes in the City of Sunfish Lake and what could be done to remove them. He displayed a photograph of a dead coyote on his property and explained that he contacted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to obtain more information on coyotes.
The Mayor introduced Bob Fashingbauer, Area Wildlife Supervisor from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and explained that he had questions regarding coyotes, such as: are they protected species or can they be killed; what types of disease do they carry; is there danger they would attack a baby in a stroller, small dogs, and/or small children, to name a few.
Mr. Fashingbauer discussed his background with the DNR and distributed an informational packet on coyotes. He explained that there appear to be more coyotes this year than in past years. He discussed the fact that all communities in the metro area have had issues with coyotes. He discussed the two types of coyotes: 1. Transient animals - roaming around, looking for new territory, and, 2. Resident animals - family groups of 5-6 adults plus pups. He stated that the coyotes are an indication of a healthy eco system and that they feed on mice, gophers, Canadian Geese eggs, and rabbits.
Mr. Fashingbauer explained that coyotes do not normally attack humans but will attach and kill small dogs or cats to defend their territory or if they view them as prey. He explained that there are less than 6 coyote bites per year reported vs. 4.7 million dog bites per year reported. He advised that pets should be kept on a leash or that an adult should be present when they are let outside. He explained that items that attract coyotes are pet food/water left outside, unsecured gargage cans, messy bird feeders, compost piles and intentional feeding.
Mr. Fashingbauer stated that killing or relocating these animals does not work well and is very costly. He stated that if residents see a coyote, they should show the coyote that it should be afraid of humans (hazing); he suggested raising your arms and shouting, throwing objects at them, blowing a whistle or spraying them with water. He strongly advised not to run away because you will look like prey, but to continue using the hazing suggestions until the coyote has left the area. However, he pointed out that residents should not haze a coyote that appears sick or is cornered. He also advised that children who see a coyote should be loud, yell for an adult and attempt to move slowly to the adult rather than run from the coyote.
Mr. Fashingbauer further explained that coyotes do not scream, they howl, and that the screaming noise often heard would most likely be a rabbit that has been caught. He noted that the end of December to mid-March is breeding season and the animals would be out during the day during this time. He stated that this time period would be the most dangerous for pets, especially cats or small dogs. He noted that if a yard has a chain link fence, the top bar should be able to roll so the coyote cannot use it to lift itself over the fence.
Mr. Fashingbauer stated that the coyote is hard to trap or hunt, as they are very smart and adaptable. He noted that groups from Hastings and Rosemount have conducted a coyote hunt, however, the numbers do not appear to have been reduced.
Mayor O’Leary asked the life expectancy of the coyote and Mr. Fashingbauer responded that the average is 4-5 years. He noted that another resident had asked about removing the wild turkeys from the City.
Chief Sturgeon explained that the City ordinance allows trapping but not snares.
Sergeant Muellner advised that the City of Mendota Heights allows hunting of the coyotes during the Metro Bow Hunters deer management program. He noted that only two or three had been removed. He commented that if residents are aware of the fact that coyotes may be removed during the controlled hunt, it may show that the City is doing something to resolve the coyote problem.
Mayor O’Leary stated it was his opinion that Council should agree to allow the removal of coyotes during the controlled hunt season.
Council concurred that this should be included in the deer management program.
Mr. Fashingbauer congratulated the City for allowing hunting to cull the deer herd and encouraged continuing the program with the Metro Bow Hunters group. He recommended that the information on coyotes be provided to residents and he encouraged hunting and trapping the wild turkeys when possible.
Councilmember Hansen asked about hunting the wild turkeys.
Mr. Fashingbauer stated that the State controls the hunting of turkeys. He suggested that residents scare them off by shooing them or running after them. He noted that if the turkey becomes aggressive, the property owner would be allowed to remove them. He recommended that Council or residents call him if they have any further questions.
Mayor O’Leary thanked Mr. Fashingbauer for his time and valuable information. He asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
b. Other: Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
____________________________ ________________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk Dan O’Leary, Mayor
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.