SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 6, 2018

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

Attendants:

Mayor: Richard Williams

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Steven Bulach and Daniel O’Leary

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Engineers: Don Sterna and Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.

Engineer Sterna stated that the Charlton Road Feasibility Report was not completed, but he would provide an update on the project.

Clerk Iago advised that Shari Hansen could not attend this evening and that Forester Nayes would present her request.

The Mayor asked if there were any other comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda with the changes as noted by the Engineer and Clerk, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

Councilmember O’Leary moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February 7, 2018

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

5. PRESENTATIONS: a. Request to Form Citizen Committee to Draft a “Welcome to Sunfish Lake” Brochure: Forester Nayes explained that Council and staff had discussed preparation of a “welcome” brochure for new residents that would list important information regarding City regulations and permits that are required prior to beginning projects on their property. He stated that Shari Hansen suggested forming a committee to draft a “Welcome to Sunfish Lake’ brochure that could be distributed to new and existing residents. He commented that it would be a two-page document with a letter of welcome from the Mayor. He advised he and Shari had discussed making the brochure a “living” document that could be placed on the City website and easily updated as necessary.

Mayor Williams asked the City Attorney if formal action by Council was required.

Attorney Kuntz stated that Council could provide direction to the Forester and Shari Hansen to form the group.

Councilmember O’Leary suggested that the items listed should be “bullet points” so they are easily identified.

Mayor Williams suggested that the document list the Planner’s name and phone number if residents have questions.

Clerk Iago stated that the document could be mailed to all residents as a reminder of what types of permits must be obtained prior to updating or making changes on their property.

Forester Nayes agreed and asked Councilmembers that wish to participate in the project to contact him.

Council concurred to direct the City Forester and Shari Hansen to form a citizen committee to draft a “Welcome to Sunfish Lake” informational brochure for distribution to new residents and to be placed on the City website as a reference to all residents and that the document should be presented to Council for approval at a future meeting.

Forester Nayes thanked Council for considering the request.

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams apologized that he had missed asking if there were any comments from the public and asked if there were any comments at this time.

Ibby Hammett, 2196 Charlton Road, stated she had questions relating to the Charlton Road project and asked if she should wait until that item is discussed.

Mayor Williams responded that it would be appropriate to ask the questions during the Engineer’s report.

Sarah Penne Thompson, 335 Salem Church Road, explained that in May, 2016, Council approved a request for a home addition on the property adjacent to her home. She stated that in her opinion there are open items on the project that were not completed and that the home addition was supposed to be the same color as the existing home. She noted the addition is a different color and that she contacted the Planner and City Attorney and was told that no enforcement would take place. She commented that she struggled with getting a clear answer as to what would be done, however, she had not received an answer from staff.

Planner Grittman deferred comment to the City Attorney.

Attorney Kuntz explained that he was contacted by Sarah’s husband, Wade, regarding this issue. He advised that he had reviewed the history of the application and that he was working with the Planner to draft a letter in response. He stated that when the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission the applicant stated she was unable to match the exact color of the existing siding for the addition, therefore, the Commission Chair recommended that the applicant use a neutral, earth-toned color for the siding. He advised that Council approval contained the same recommendation and conditions and the homeowner understood that a neutral, earth-toned color should be used for the addition.

Sarah Penne Thompson pointed out that the addition is a deep blue color and the existing home is tan.

Attorney Kuntz stated he reviewed earth-toned colors on the internet and found that both the blue and tan qualify as earth-toned colors. He explained that since the building addition was completed with an earth-tone color, staff closed the file for the application.

Councilmember Wahlstrom pointed out that the homeowner misinformed the Commission that she was unable to match the existing color because anyone can bring a paint color to a paint store and get an exact color match. She questioned why the information was not brought to Council.

Attorney Kuntz stated the application was approved by Council.

Councilmember O’Leary asked the Attorney to present the actual condition of approval by Council.

Attorney Kuntz stated that the conditions of approval required the applicant to match the existing color and was the same condition approved by the Planning Commission. However, when the applicant stated they could not match the exact color, the Commission Chair recommended they use a neutral color and that was recorded in the minutes. However, now the adjacent neighbor does not agree that the condition of approval was met.

Mayor Williams pointed out that the homeowner’s information to the Commission may not have been accurate, which led to the Planning Commission recommendation to use a neutral earth-toned color to match the existing color.

Councilmember Bulach stated that in his opinion blue and tan are not matching colors and that blue is not an earth-toned color.

Councilmember O’Leary suggested that the homeowner be advised they can match the color of the existing homer and should repaint the addition to adhere to the conditions of approval. He asked if the City is bound by the Planning Commission recommendation or if the homeowner is bound by the Council conditions of approval.

Attorney Kuntz explained that when the Planning Commission informally recommended the homeowner use a neutral, earth-toned color to match the existing home and staff found that the color was classified as an earth-toned color, the Planner closed the file on the application. He pointed out that the City would now be stating that the application is not approved.

Mayor Williams pointed out that the homeowner misrepresented the fact that the color of the new siding could not be matched to the existing siding.

Planner Grittman explained that although the Commission Chair suggested the property owner attempt to match the existing color with an earth-toned color, the approval of the application stated that the color should match the existing home.

In discussion, Council concurred that the property owner should adhere to the condition of approval and asked the City Attorney if the condition could be enforced.

Attorney Kuntz responded that Council has the authority to advise the property owner that they must match the color of the addition to the existing home.

Councilmember O’Leary suggested that staff send a letter stating that the home addition must match the color of the existing home and that an objection was received noting that the homeowner’s comment at the Planning Commission meeting was incorrect and that paint colors could be exactly matched. He stated that in his opinion the City must uniformly enforce the rules and, therefore, the applicant should meet the conditions of approval.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if a time limit should be placed on the matter.

Council concurred that June 1, 2018 should be sufficient time to repaint the addition and/or to allow the applicant sufficient time to attend a future meeting to discuss the matter.

There was discussion regarding whether or not the applicant would be allowed to paint the entire home either the tan or blue color.

Sarah Penne Thompson explained that she would have no objections to the home being either blue or tan as long as the home was one color.

Council concurred to direct the Planner and City Attorney to send a letter on behalf of Council stating that the property owner must adhere to the conditions of approval that require the new addition be painted the same color as the existing home, and to also advise that the information that was provided to the Planning Commission which stated that the existing color could not be matched was incorrect and that prompted the Planning Commission to recommend the use of a neutral color, earth-toned color. Council further directed staff to advise the painting must be completed by June 1, 2018.

Sarah Penne Thompson thanked Council for their time.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: b. Planner’s Report: Planner Grittman reviewed the following information listed in his report dated February 28, 2018. He advised that the City of Inver Grove Heights had applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to rezone property along Argenta trail from a Public/Institutional use to an Office/ Warehouse use. He stated that staff reviewed the matter and found it to be a reasonable rezoning request and signed off on the project with no objections.

The Planner advised that the City of Eagan applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to rezone property along Blue Gentian Road from Major Office to Retail Commercial to allow the construction of a Costco store at the site. He noted the site is located on the southeast corner of I-494 and I-35E and asked if the Council had any questions or comments relating to the project. He explained that he preferred to ask Council prior to signing off on this project based on the discussion at the last meeting regarding traffic issues due to the new Viking complex.

Council concurred that this project would be a reasonable use of the site and was not related to the issues with the Viking complex and authorized staff to sign off on the project.

a. Consider Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance: Planner Grittman asked the City Attorney to provide the background information relating to the proposed Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the proposed ordinance regulates right-of-way management for the placement of wireless facilities. He stated the proposed telecommunication unit would be the size of a small suitcase that could be attached to a structure, such as a light pole, and its purposes is to increase the capacity for data amplification for cell phones. He advised that the wireless companies sought to locate the units in public right-of-ways with no permits or revenue to cities, however, the League of Minnesota Cities was instrumental in lobbying for cities to have some control over the placement of the units. In 2017 the Minnesota Legislature passed laws that allowed cities to adopt the following regulations that could be imposed for placement of the wireless facilities in right-of-ways and they fell under three categories:

1. Co-Location Agreement: The City has the authority to adopt rules by resolution or ordinance that allows wireless companies to use government owned structure in public right-of-way and to charge a fee for the placement. He noted that most cities prefer to adopt this agreement by resolution since it would be easier to change than an ordinance. He further advised that Sunfish Lake does not own many structures in public right-of-way, however, he would recommend the City have the agreement in place.

2. Right-of-Way Management Ordinance: The City does not currently have such an ordinance in place and should adopt one that would govern the use of right-of-way space both above and below ground to management the placement of utilities and who would pay to relocate them. He noted that Sunfish Lake would not have a lot of need for this document, but should have it in place.

3. Zoning Ordinance Amendments: The City should adopt the proposed amendments that address where these units may be located and to establish guidelines and restrictions on their use in public right-of-way adjacent o City roads.

The City Attorney explained that Performance Standards may also be adopted by the City and imposed as part of the approval for location of the small wireless facilities. He explained that the Planning Commission recommended the following regulations for placement of the small cell wireless facilities:

- Residential District location in public right-of-way be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit to locate in right-of-way

abutting residential homes;

-. Institutional District location in public right-of-way be permitted and also on Institutional District private property with

a Conditional Use Permit and adherence to Performance Standards; and,

- Residential Private Property location be prohibited by omission from the ordinance.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the Planning Commission determined that antenna location is permitted on Institutional District private property, such as St. Anne’s Church, therefore, in their opinion these units should be treated the same.

Planner Grittman explained the proposed draft ordinance contained several conditions and reviewed them for Council.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the conditions are consistent with State Statutes and Planner Grittman responded yes.

Attorney Kuntz stated staff would prepare a draft of the ordinance for Council consideration at their next meeting.

Forester Nayes asked if the units could be placed near City parks.

Attorney Kuntz responded no and explained that parks are not included in the Institutional zoning district.

Mayor Williams explained that the units function better when placed in straight lines and there are not many areas of the City where this could be accomplished.

The Planner agreed and noted that the units function with a repeater system that must repeat to a tower structure. He pointed out that locations such as adjacent to Highway 110 could be used for this purpose.

Attorney Kuntz explained that due to legislation recently adopted by the State, the ordinance must be posted on the City website and St. Anne’s bulletin board 10 days prior to Council consideration, therefore, this matter would be posted prior to consideration at the April Council meeting.

Mayor Williams asked if the private entities in the Institutional District have the right to deny placement of the units.

Attorney Kuntz responded yes and advised that residential private property owners also may refuse placement in the right-of-way adjacent to their property.

Council thanked the City Attorney for the information and the Planner for his report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated that he issued three (3) and closed six (6) permits in February, including the new home construction permit at 415 Salem Church Road.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in February: Engineer Sandberg stated that Engineer Sterna would be officially passing the duties to him at this meeting. He thanked Engineer Sterna for his dedicated service to the City and explained that and explained that Engineer Sterna would provide an update Item A. Charlton Road Improvements later on the agenda.

Engineer Sterna advised that the water main issue at the north end of Charlton Road would be more complex than initially discussed. He explained that the City of St. Paul advised they do not own or maintain the water main. He stated the water main could be relocated, but that would require the City obtain easements for its placement on private property and relocation on the south side of the road would result in the loss of several trees. He commented that the residents in this area have expressed the fact that they are not supportive of the proposed improvements and that the City would need their cooperation to undertake relocation of the water main.

Engineer Sterna stated he had talked to Ibby Hammett regarding the fact that residents who currently own the water main would have to hire a contractor if the water main breaks; he further explained that it would be difficult and expensive to repair. He pointed out that if the residents wished to have the City take ownership of the water main, they would have to be willing to provide the necessary easements in order to proceed with the project. He explained that the residents questioned why they were not notified of their ownership of the water main by the City of Sunfish Lake and he told them that the City was not aware of their ownership and that this should have been disclosed at the time of sale of the property.

Councilmember O’Leary stated he had reviewed the email from the City Engineer regarding these issues. He pointed out that other property owners on the road had paid for septic and wells to be installed on their property and these residents should pay for repairs to the water main since they own it.

Engineer Sterna explained that some of the properties are serviced by the water main since they have smaller lots that most likely could not hold septic systems or could not have wells placed closed to sewer and/or water lines. He stated that the City probably gave approval for the property owners to hook-up to these utilities with the understanding that the City would not be responsible for maintenance or repair. He discussed the fact that there are no other utilities in the City and that the City would not be able to move the water line without easements that residents appear to be unwilling to grant.

Councilmember O’Leary asked the cost to move the water main and if it could be included as part of the improvement project.

Engineer Sterna responded that it would be approximately $40 per ft. to move or approximately $35,000 to $40,000 and that it could be included as part of the improvement project.

Engineer Sterna discussed the fact that most residents at the south portion of the road support the improvements and one option would be to move forward with the project by paving the entire road and leaving the water main where it is currently located. He also explained that the Norton property could be split for another home to be constructed and the City could offer to provide a sewer and water main stub for the future home in exchange for granting the City the necessary easements.

Engineer Sterna stated that he would prepare the feasibility report to include these options as well as installation of the pipe under Highway 110 for a future fire hydrant and present the report at the April meeting.

Ibby Hammett, 2196 Charlton Road, stated she had three (3) questions relating to the water main:

1. If the water main located under the road is privately owned, would the City need permission to pave the road;

2. If the City moves the water main that the residents own, would they do maintenance on the line; she commented that it appears no maintenance had been done on the water main since its installation; and,

3. If a vehicle struck the fire hydrant located on the north end of the road, would insurance pay for the repairs.

Engineer Sterna responded to her questions and explained that the City would not need permission from residents to pave the road, if the City moves the water main and takes ownership of the main the City would maintain it, and if a vehicle strikes the fire hydrant, their insurance should pay for the damage and repairs.

Mayor Williams asked if the Engineer would recommend installation of a plastic pipe for the water main and what the expected lifetime would be for the plastic pipe.

Engineer Sterna stated he would recommend using a plastic pipe for the water main if the City of St. Paul would allow its installation and that it would have a longer life span than the previous pipe.

Councilmember Bulach asked if there was a way the City or the residents could check the condition of the existing line.

Engineer Sandberg explained that there is a pressuring test that could be done on the line.

Ibby Hammett explained that none of the residents were aware of the fact that they owned the water line.

Attorney Kuntz explained that ownership of the line should have been shown on the property records if the ownership was recorded.

After discussion, Engineer Sterna stated he would include the cost estimate to replace the water main as part of the feasibility report and that he would prepare the report for presentation at the April Council meeting.

Ibby Hammett asked if permission from the residents would be needed to move the existing fire hydrant and Engineer Sterna responded yes.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the City was still on schedule to move forward with the project this year.

Engineer Sterna explained that the City could still move forward and begin construction of the project at the south end of the road in the fall of this year and wait to proceed with the north end of the road in 2019.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the costs would increase if a portion of the project is delayed until next year.

Councilmember Bulach explained that he found the costs of bituminous and concrete are increasing and was of the opinion the costs would continue to increase next year.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the City should begin the condemnation process and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.

Council thanked Engineer Sterna for his update on the project.

Engineer Sandberg referred to his report dated March 6, 2018.

B. Fire Number Review: The Engineer explained that he had only received one cost estimate for installation of the fire numbers and that he would provide three (3) options for their installation at the April meeting. He noted the options as follows; 1, Replace all number this year; 2. Replace all markers over a five year period, and, 3. Replace only those markers that are not sufficiently visible or damage. He commented and he would attempt to get additional quotes.

C. Wetland Conservation Act 2017 Annual Report: Engineer Sandberg stated that the City is required to submit a report for the Board of Witter and Soil Resources (BWSR) summarizing the wetland review work completed in the City each Year. He advised the report was submitted by WSB on February 1, 2018.

D. MCES 2018 CAMP Program: The Engineer explained that Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) contacted the City to determine if they wish to continue participation in the program to monitor the lakes water. He advised that there were some changes to the program and that the current cost is $550 per lake for 14 water samples. He advised that the MPCA would be increasing the cost to $760 per lake for 14 samples, however, they would provide an option that reduces the costs to half if only 7 samples are taken from each lake.

Engineer Sandberg stated he would contact the current volunteers to determine if they are willing to continue monitoring the lakes. He also noted that MPCA would no longer be picking up the samples for delivery to the central storage facility and the City would responsible to do so. He stated that Council would have to identify who would be responsible for taking the samples to the storage facility.

Councilmember O’Leary asked if the City Forester had reviewed the changes to the program and if he had any comments.

Forester Nayes stated that in his opinion it is a good program and that he had seen an improvement in the water quality on Horseshoe Lake where he does the monitoring. He noted that Sunfish Lake should show some improvement in the water quality since the alum treatment was done and that Hornbeam Lake should also show improvement.

Mayor Williams asked if the Forester thought the City could get by with only 7 samples taken each year and the Forester and Engineer indicated that 7 samples should be sufficient.

Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize the Engineer to contact the CAMP volunteers to determine if they are willing to continue the sampling and also to advise the MPCA the City would continue the program and provide seven (7) samples annually instead of fourteen (14), seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

E. SWPPP Yearly Public Hearing: Engineer Sandberg explained Council scheduled the annual Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPPP) pubic hearing at their April meeting and that Meghan Litsey would be present to present the information, receive citizen input and respond to questions.

F. 5865 South Robert Trail, Mr. & Mrs. Birch, Request for Extension on Correcting Site Violations: The Engineer explained that staff sent a letter on February 7, 2018 to Mr. & Mrs. Birch regarding the site plan violations that require correction. On February 14 an email was received from Mr. Birch requesting to be heard at a future Council meeting regrading resolution of the items listed in the letter since he is currently out-of-town and would not be home until late April. He stated that if Council concurs he would sent a letter to Mr. Birch requesting he notify staff when he is back to schedule a meeting to discuss this matter for placement on a future agenda.

Council concurred to direct the Engineer to contact Mr. Birch to schedule a meeting regarding resolution of the violations and attendance at a future meeting.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of February: None.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for March: A. Snow Plowing in February: Engineer Sandberg stated that last week the plowing budget was on track, however, there were two (2) additional snow plowing events this week. He stated he would continue to monitor the plowing in March.

Engineer Sterna stated he received a couple complaints relating to icy roads and that he contacted the snow plowing contractor to apply more of the sand/salt mixture in these areas. He advised he asked the contractor to come to the City to scrape some of the roads. He also explained that the contractor told him some residents are blowing snow onto the roads and also across the roads which causes the icing.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the contractor could be asked to widen Charlton Road and Engineer Sterna stated he ask the contractor to do so.

Mayor Williams suggested that the Forester consider placing information on snow removal etiquette from private property onto roads in the informational brochure.

B. Spring Load Limits: Engineer Sandberg advised that the spring load limits would be going into effect on March 7 and that the City usually posts the information in conjunction with MnDOT’s schedule.

C. Street Sweeping Quotes: Engineer Sandberg stated that he would request quotes for the annual spring street sweeping and provide information to Council at the April meeting.

D. 2019-2023 CIP Update; Engineer Sandberg stated he would prepare a draft of the 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Council review at their April meeting.

Council thanked both Engineer Sterna and Engineer Sterna for their reports.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes referred to his reported dated February 28, 2018 and stated that he issued one (1) burning permit in February. He explained that there was no tree damage during the month along City streets.

The Forester stated he would be working with Shari Hansen to form a committee that would draft a “Welcome to Sunfish Lake” document for distribution to new residents and thanked Council for their approval of the request.

Forester Nayes advised he had completed several Treeways articles for placement on the City website and that he was currently making plans for the Arbor Day celebration to be held on May 5, 2018.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated February 23, 2018 and stated that there were two (2) false alarms this month and provided information on the other calls for service as listed in the report.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights to Participate in a Spring Clean-Up Day: Clerk Iago referred to her report dated February 29, 2018 and asked that Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Joint Powers Agreement to participate in the City of Mendota Heights Spring Clean-Up Day. She explained that the City would only be charged for the number of residents that participate and that the payment would be taken from the recycling grant funds.

Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Joint Powers Agreement to participate in the City of Mendota Heights Spring Clean-Up Day, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

b. Consider Feasibility Report for Charlton Road: Mayor Williams explained that the Engineer’s provided an update on the project earlier and that the draft Feasibility Report would be presented at the April meeting.

c. Other: Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Mayor Williams adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor