- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 3, 2014
7:00 P.M.
Attendants:
Mayor: Molly Park
Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Cathy DeCourcy, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Steven Bulach
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Michelle Barness
City Engineer: Don Sterna
City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Building Inspector: David Neameyer
Police Chief: Manila Shaver
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and requested a moment of silence for the passing of former resident Larry Coss.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to approve the agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)
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.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2014.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public. She requested that anyone wishing to speak identify themselves and provide their address for the record; she further asked that comments be limited to three (3) minutes. She advised that any comments received would be taken under consideration and that no formal action would be taken on these items this evening.
Peter Molinaro, 2511 Angell Road, explained that he was present to discuss the speed bump proposed for Angell Road. He commented that in the past there had been three speed bumps on the road and in his opinion they were not effective in slowing traffic. He pointed out that drivers would by-pass the speed bumps by driving off to the side of the road. He commented that the speed bump was proposed due to the children in two homes on the first portion of the road and the fact that a dog was killed; he noted that there are also children in homes on the second portion of the road and a dog was also killed in that area. He explained that he was almost run over twice by a driver when getting his mail and that he lives at the end of the road.
Mr. Molinaro expressed his disappointment that homeowners along Angell Road were not consulted regarding the proposed installation of a speed bump. He stated that in his opinion the neighbors on the road should meet to discuss driving habits and communicate about the need to slow traffic on the road. He stated he does not favor the installation of a speed bump and that in his opinion it would not make the road safer.
Katherine Johnson, 2431 Angell Road, stated she and her husband are both opposed to a speed bump and do not see a need for it. She commented that in her opinion drivers tend to speed up when multiple speed bumps are in place and that she strongly disagrees with installation of a permanent speed bump on the road.
Councilmember DeCourcy explained that the speeders on the road include the trash haulers and delivery trucks as well as the residents and their visitors.
Katherine Johnson pointed out that 30 mph speed limit on the road may be too fast and that reducing the speed to 20 mph would be perfect. She reiterated that in her opinion the speed bumps may increase speed as drivers tend to speed up between the bumps.
Mayor Park thanked the residents for their input and noted that this matter would be discussed later on the agenda.
Katherine Johnson advised that she had to leave and asked that information be passed out to notify the neighbors in the future before a decisions is made. She thanked the Council for their respectful comments.
Mayor Park asked the City Attorney if the City is obligated to notify the neighbors regarding the installation of a speed bump.
Attorney Kuntz explained that Council may authorize a change order to the improvement project without notifying the neighbors.
Mayor Park thanked those present for their respectful comments.
5. PRESENTATIONS: a. 2014 Legislative Update from State Representative Joe Atkins: Mayor Park introduced State Representative Joe Atkins and explained that he had been working for the past 12 years as a legislator for northern Dakota County cities; she also noted that he formerly served as Mayor in the City of Inver Grove Heights.
Representative Atkins thanked Council for an opportunity to provide a summary of the 2014 Legislative session. He distributed copies of the Summer 2014 Capitol Update flyer and referred to page 2 of the flyer which outlined the legislative session in 60 seconds; 150,000 new jobs created, $1.2 billion state budget surplus, repaid $2.8 billion borrowed from schools to pay the last state budget, and passed $550 million in income and sales tax cuts. He explained that the legislators also approved the largest tax cut in state history for small businesses, $349 million and $400 million for property tax relief and instituted a two-year tuition freeze at all public colleges and universities, including the U of M. funded all-day kindergarten for every Minnesota child and helped Minnesota move up 12 spots to No. 8 on Forbes list of the best states in which to do business. He noted that School District 197 received $283,489.
Representative Atkins stated that for each law passed he tries to take an old and obsolete law off the books and over 140 laws were removed and explained that some of the old laws interfered with legitimate business transactions. He advised that the business climate in Minnesota is very good and that the State has a Triple A bond rating. He discussed upcoming road improvements and the major work done to be done on Highway 110 and Dodd Road in 2017. He advised that Mayor Park serves on the Robert Street Corridor Committee that is studying future transportation along the corridor by light rail or bus. He pointed out that he has been contacted by physicians with concerns and questions relating to the Medical Marijuana Bill that was passed; he explained that he advises the doctors that they are only certifying a medical condition and there should be no repercussions for doing so. He offered to respond to questions.
Jodie Miller commented that he did not mention repealing the sales tax exemption for joint powers cooperatives; she noted that the tax exemption for cities was passed last year and this year the joint powers cooperatives were included. She thanked the legislators for including these entities and noted that eliminating the sales tax is a big help when purchasing equipment.
Representative Atkins thanked Jodie and agreed that it was his “pet peeve” that government entities were obligated to pay sales tax.
Jeannine Nayes questioned the e-fairness sales tax issue.
Representative Atkins explained that this issue relates more to a federal law than a state law; he pointed out there are two sides to the matter since some businesses require payment of sales tax for on-line purchases and some do not. He noted that local stores want it to be equal. He commented that the state will most likely defer action until the federal government makes a decision on this matter.
Jeannine Nayes asked if Minnesota would take action if the federal government does nothing.
Representative Atkins explained that the next session doesn’t begin until January 15, 2015 and hopefully the federal government would pass a uniform law regarding the matter, however; if that is not done, the Minnesota legislators may consider this issue.
Mayor Park asked if Mayors were included in the list of those who were able to perform marriages in Minnesota.
Representative Atkins responded that he was unsure if Mayors were included in the final version of the bill. He thanked Council for the opportunity to attend the meeting and discuss the session highlights. He noted his contact information was included in the handout and encouraged everyone to contact him with questions or concern.
On behalf of Council and the audience, Mayor Park thanked Representative Atkins for the information and his attendance.
b. Cable Franchise Update from Jodie Miller, Executive Director of NDC4: Mayor Park introduced Jodie Miller, Executive Director of NDC4, and also introduced the two Sunfish Lake representatives that serve as the Cable Commission liaisons; Councilmember JoAnne Wahlstrom and Jim Sullivan. She stated that Jodie has served as the executive director of NDC4 for 17 and a half years and is celebrating her 25th anniversary working for the Cable Commission. She advised that Jodie had informed her the first national conference of the NATOA would be held in St. Paul this year. She welcomed Jodie to the meeting.
Jodie Miller distributed handouts to those present and explained that the current cable franchise agreement would expire in 2015 and that the cities have some authority to regulate the type, level and quality of the service provided by the cable operator. She advised that she would discuss franchise renewal process and the impact of the proposed merger of Comcast with Time Warner which may move the Twin Cities market to a “spin off” company.
Ms. Miller advised that the current contract with Comcast was a negotiated agreement and an adopted City Ordinance; she stated that the original agreement was adopted in 1985 through 2000 and was renewed in 2000 to expire in 2015. She noted that is it more common for the agreement to run 10 years now and that it is a non-exclusive agreement so that it is possible for another company to also request a contract. She stated that Century Link could request a franchise agreement if they were to upgrade their infrastructure.
Ms. Miller referred to page 3 of the handout and explained that the franchise agreement assure that the operator pays adequate rent for use of public property and that the seven (7) cities represented by NDC4 would each have a franchise ordinance adopted that would be enforced by the cable commission. She explained that the cable commission includes a production studio for programming on cable access channels. She noted that approximately $100 to 150,000 would be spent to prepare for the renewal of the agreement. She referred to page 8 of the handout and explained that the Public, Education and Government (PEG) fee is estimated to be valued at over $20 million dollars and the estimated value to the franchise provider would be estimated at $400 to $500 million. She stated that the cable commission would be working to prepare a strong case which includes a renewal work plan that would be complied from the on-line survey and focus groups that were recently formed. She noted that the cable commission would attempt to negotiate an informal agreement, however, formal proceedings could be required.
Ms. Miller discussed the updated timeline on page 15 of the handout, which includes informally meeting with the Comcast in June and hopefully come to an agreement by October 2014 or ask for an extension. She commented that she hopes there would be a model franchise agreement for the seven cities or an extension and formal proceeding in process by January 1, 2015.
Ms. Miller discussed the “new wrinkle” which is the proposed merger of Comcast with Time Warner which would mean the company would exceed federal ownership and initiate the need for a spin-off company to provide cable service. She stated the new entity would be title “SpinCo” and would present challenges for the cable commission when negotiating an agreement. She noted that there would be an intensive review of the legal, technical and financial capabilities of the spin-off company. She noted that NDC4 has 120 days to review a proposed agreement and the right to approve or disapprove it. She explained that the FCC would also review the document and then there would be three phases to receive public comments. She pointed out that the cable commission is expecting the best but preparing for the worst and she informed the cities that they may be contacted individually on this matter and, if so, she asked that NDC4 be included if this occurs. She commented that the handouts could be shared with residents and she thanked Council for their support and the attendance of the City representatives at the cable commission meetings. She offered to respond to questions.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there would be an increase in costs with a new provider.
Ms. Miller responded that she is unsure at this time if the costs would increase, but there is the opportunity to negotiate pricing. She pointed out that the State Senators are closely monitoring this matter and also that AT&T and Direct TV have expressed their wish to merge also; she noted that these companies may not receive Federal approval of a merger.
Steve Shaller asked if there are any alternative companies if no agreement is reached with Comcast.
Ms. Miller explained that cities could deny the franchise, but it is unlikely the company would lose the ability to operate. She explained that the cities have the option to put protections in place for the consumer and attach conditions to an agreement.
Attorney Kuntz asked Ms. Miller to discuss other changes that may occur to the current services.
Ms. Miller pointed out that the Comcast name may be changed to Charter and current clients could be required to change email addresses and equipment from the new company. She pointed out that cities would be pooling their resources to share costs of the financial review of a new company.
Mayor Park thanked Ms. Miller for her presentation and commented that the joint powers cities are extremely lucky to have her expertise and lengthy experience with NDC4.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Resolution Approving Major Site and Building Plan and Two (2) Conditional Use Permits, 1 Grieve Glen Lane, Joel & Jolene Owens: Planner Barness referred to her report dated May 14, 2014 and the Planning Commission minutes dated May 21, 2014 regarding the request to construct a detached garage and front entry and porch additions on the home located at 1 Grieve Glen Lane. She noted that in addition to a major site and building plan approval two (2) conditional use permits are requested to allow construction of the detached garage which serves as a second accessory structure on the property in addition to an existing in-ground pool and to permit the garage to exceed allowed accessory height in the Shoreland Overlay District. The maximum height allowed is 12 ft. and the applicants are proposing 16 ft. in height, which is allowed by CUP.
The Planner stated the proposed detached garage is 947 sq. ft. and would be located in the front yard west of the home near Delaware Avenue. She advised that a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. is allowed. She explained that an extension of the existing driveway will loop around to the existing driveway to provide access to the detached garage. She advised that the front entry addition would not require any excavation or grading and would not add any additional square footage to the existing structure as it only consists of columns and a roof. The rear screened patio would be placed on a poured foundation and is 28 ft. x 16 ft. in size. She advised that the building materials for the screened porch would match the existing structure.
Planner Barness reviewed the R-1 District and Shoreland Overlay District criteria and advised that the application meets all standards with the exception of the accessory building height requirement for the Shoreland Overlay District. She noted that the height requirement in the Shoreland Overlay District was instituted to insure sightlines on property abutting the lakes, however, this property in the Shoreland Overlay District is not located adjacent to the lake and would not impact sightlines. She stated that all setback requirements are met, the building coverage on the lot would be 2 percent, 10 percent is allowed, and the building height with the new front entry would be in conformance. She advised that the detached garage size meets requirements and that the maximum lot coverage by impervious surface with the improvements would be 10 percent, and 30 percent is the maximum.
Mayor Park asked which lake was closest to the home and how far away it actually is. The Planner responded it is Hornbeam Lake and that she was unsure of the distance, but the lake cannot be seen from the home with the existing tree coverage. She commented that there are other homes between this one and the lake.
The Planner advised that the building materials conform to the City standards and would be brick and stone with shingles matching the existing structure. She advised that the lap siding on the rear would also be in compliance. She asked the builder if the proposed columns at the front entry would be wood and he responded that they would be a composite material.
Planner Barness advised that a CUP is required for the height of the accessory structure and explained that the increased height was proposed so that the pitch of the roof matches the existing home structure. She reiterated that the increased height would have no negative impact on lake view because the property is not located on the lake.
The Planner displayed the proposed garage and explained that the floor of the structure must be 3 feet above the normal high water mark for the lake in the Shoreland District. She advised that the architect raised the floor level so that the structure meets the requirement. She stated the new driveway would be bituminous and the placement meets all setbacks. She noted that the lighting also meets requirements.
Planner Barness stated that the City Engineer recommended approval of the requests and that one item needed to be changed prior to issuance of a building permit, related to grading of the driveway extension near the proposed garage, and the contractor has agreed to do so. She stated that the Engineer requested a 16-1/2 ft. buffer around the stormwater ponding area and the contractor and applicants agreed to install erosion control as requested. She further noted that additional silt fencing was recommended and agreed to by the applicant to protect the drainage easement from sediment.
The Planner explained that during the Planning Commission site visit there was discussion regarding the proposed landscape plan that showed six (6) pine trees near the detached garage; the Commission requested the trees be moved from the NW area of the new garage to the NE area to provide better screening and buffer for the adjacent neighbors. The Commission also asked the Forester to provide input on the size and type of trees to be planted. She stated the Forester recommended planting 6 ft. Norway or White Spruce trees and the recommendation should be incorporated into the proposed resolution.
Planner Barness stated that the structure matches the existing on site and meets design standards. She further advised that the proposal would improve the property and doesn’t negatively impact neighboring properties or the lake. She stated that soil erosion control would be properly installed and the application meets all other general conditions of the CUP. She noted that the applicant agreed to implement erosion control and that no significant vegetation would be removed. She advised that the criteria items mentioned in conjunction with the CUP for the second accessory structure, the detached garage, have been met.
The Planner stated that staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the neighbors had requested extra screening.
The Planner responded that Mr. Votel was unable to attend the Commission meeting and advised that he would leave it to the City’s discretion to insure sufficient screening was installed. She further advised that Mr. Shaller attended the meeting and provided his input.
Councilmember Wahlstrom stated that she had issues relating to the proposed height of the detached garage and commented that she had requested a detached garage on her property and would have liked to have additional height in the structure. She commented that she did not believe it was fair to approve the additional height when other residents had adhered to the regulations. She stated she was opposed to the height request.
Mayor Park asked if Councilmember Wahlstrom’s property was in the Shoreland Overlay District.
Councilmember Wahlstrom responded no, but commented that she would have liked an additional four feet in the structure on her property.
Councilmember Bulach questioned the current height of the residence and indicated it would be his preference to have the structure be similar to the existing structures on site.
The Planner responded that the residence is 30 ft. and if the garage were attached the roofline could be at that height.
Councilmember Hovey pointed out that there are other properties in the City where the building heights do not match, his included.
Mayor Park asked what the garage height would be in an R-1 District.
Planner Barness explained that detached structures in the R-1 District are limited to 16 ft. and would require a variance to increase the height above 16 ft. whereas in the Shoreland Overlay District a height increase above 12 feet is allowed by Conditional Use Permit so that additional conditions may be imposed.
Mayor Park commented that in her opinion the intent is to be fair to all residents and she thanked Councilmember Wahlstrom for her comments.
The Planner referred to the criteria for findings of fact to support approval of the request and stated that the erosion and visibility issues are open for discussion.
Councilmember Bulach indicated that the erosion issues appear to have been met with the applicant agreeing to the conditions. He noted that it appears that the adjacent neighbors have no problem with the proposed height of the structure or the proposed screening.
Mayor Park asked if the trees would be monitored. The Forester explained that he reviewed the site and the proposed location of the garage and he recommended the larger sized trees be installed for screening.
The Planner explained that the City is allowed to mitigate the impact of the proposal by placing additional conditions to insure there is no negative impact on surrounding properties.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked when the plantings would be installed and the Planner responded after the garage construction is completed.
Mayor Park asked the contractor, Mr. Moser, if the applicants had agreed to all the conditions imposed and he responded yes.
Mayor Park asked if there would be inspections of the property during construction. The Planner stated that both pre and post construction inspections would occur.
There was discussion relating to the property distance from the lake and the drainage patterns in the area.
Mayor Park commented that the CUP allows more leeway for approving such requests than a variance and in her opinion the end result may not be as favorable if the request is denied.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked Planning Commissioner Tom Hendrickson for his opinion.
Commissioner Hendrickson explained that he also resides in the Shoreland Overlay District and that this property has less visual impact on the lake than his property. He noted that the Commission had no issue with the proposed height of the structure, only with the need for additional screening. He recommended that Council insure additional trees are installed for screening.
Councilmember Hovey asked how long it would take for the trees to screen the structure and if larger trees would grow at a slower rate.
Forester Nayes stated it would be 10 to 15 years for the trees to provide full screening and agreed that larger trees grow slower.
Councilmember Bulach noted the new garage sits in a low spot on the property and questioned if the garage should be moved a foot lower to assist with screening. Commissioner Hendrickson explained that would not help with the screening.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Planner Barness stated that she prepared a resolution for approval of the request, and suggested that the recommendation of the Forester to provide six (6) spruce trees at 6 ft. in height in the area be added.
Councilmember Hovey asked if all three requests could be approved at the same time and the City Attorney responded yes.
Councilmember Bulach stated that he respects Councilmember Wahlstrom’s concerns as he also wanted to do something different with an application he submitted. He commented that he would support the request because in his opinion the garage would be similar visually and would not look right at a lower height. He further noted that the neighbors had no objections. He pointed out that if this were new construction he would request the applicants abide by the rules.
Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-17 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE AS A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DETACHED GARAGE EXCEEDING THE ALLOWED ACESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GRIEVE GLEN LANE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, GRIEVE GLEN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to conditions as listed and with an amended Condition No. 7 to read as follows:
7. The site plan is revised to include screening on the north side of the garage by installing six (6) Spruce trees 6 ft. tall and that the applicants adhere to the City Forester’s recommendation regarding placement of the trees on the north area of the site to provide sufficient screening from the neighboring property.
seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Resolution Approving Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit, 240 Salem Church Road, Dan & Brenda Vansteenburg: Planner Barness referred to her report dated May 14, 2014 and the Planning Commission minutes dated May 21, 2014 regarding the Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for 240 Salem Church Road, Dan and Brenda Vansteenburg. She stated that applicant Dan Vansteenburg and Adam Burrington and Peter Eskuche from the Eskuche Design firm were present to respond to questions.
The Planner stated that the applicants are requesting approval of a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow construction of a new home, garage, driveway and accessory structures consisting of an in-ground pool and tennis court on the undeveloped lot located at 240 Salem Church Road. She stated that a CUP is required for two (2) accessory structures the pool and tennis court. She noted that the lot is 10-acres, however; the buildable area of the lot is 2.5-acres due to its topography. She explained that when the area was platted an analysis of buildable area was presented and the applicants are generally working within the designated area.
Planner Barness advised the applicants wish to construct a two-story home with a walkout basement and both a main level and lower level garage. The building footprint of the principal structure would be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. She stated that the basement level of the home is not included in the overall floor area calculations; therefore, the total square footage without the basement is approximately 11,000 sq. ft.
Planner Barness stated that all the R-1 Single-Family Residential District Building Standards are met with the application. She noted that the 800 sq. ft. pool and the 5,000 sq. ft. tennis court are both common sizes. She noted that the applicants would be removing a significant amount of trees but are implementing some landscaping. She pointed out that the request for a second accessory structure was due to the fact that the pool and tennis court are both considered accessory structures. She explained that the applicants proposes screening on the east side of the tennis court with eight (8) tall spruce trees to screen the structure from Musser Park. She explained that no fencing was proposed for the tennis court at this time; however, the applicant may submit a CUP application in the future for a chain link fence up to ten(10) feet in height, which is permitted to enclose a tennis court. She explained that the plan conforms to building height and percentage of lot area coverage; she noted that the maximum building structure coverage may not exceed 10 percent and the proposed structure is at 2 percent coverage. She stated that the proposed building materials also meet City Code standards.
The Planner advised that the pool and tennis court met the standards and requirements for accessory structures.
The Planner stated that the east portion of the lot is adjacent to Musser Park and there are existing homes to the north and west of the proposed building site. She advised that the lot is very hilly and the City Engineer’s report contains several recommendations for grading, drainage, and erosion control methods due to the steep topography. She displayed the plat for the property which showed the two buildable areas identified for construction of the home and tennis court and commented that the applicants generally adhered to the buildable areas identified to reduce grading impacts. She stated that the driveway entrance would be from the north and that the proposed driveway winds along a steep slope. She explained that the driveway installation would require construction of a retaining wall due to the topography. She stated that the driveway near the home would be circular with a port between the main house and the carriage house to allow access to the rear portion and attached garage. She displayed an elevation drawing of the front of the home and explained that the driveway loops in front of the carriage house portion of the home. She noted that although this portion of the home exterior resembles a garage it would be used for hobbies, not a garage and that the driveway in front of this portion of the home would be used only for guest parking. She also showed an elevation drawing of the rear portion of the home with a large terrace, and the placement of the pool; she commented that the design the home was configured to fit into the sloping topography.
Planner Barness explained that the City Engineer expressed some concerns regarding drainage near the lower garage near the rear of the home and this concern was addressed with a proposed increase in the size of the drainage pipe in this area. The engineer stated that the pipe size may still be smaller than necessary to provide for larger storm events and overflow, and in implementing the pipe proposed the City should be indemnified from potential issues. She also explained that the applicants agreed to work with the City Engineer regarding placement of the pathway within the drainage easement that leads to the tennis court. She advised that the applicants had also addressed the issue of how the removal of a number of trees from the top of the slope would impact sightlines from neighboring properties by creating a view-shed analysis that showed the existing tree coverage would provide sufficient screening to adjacent properties. She indicated that although the analysis shows that sufficient screening would exist even with the removal of the trees, Commission has the option to further discuss this matter. She explained that small shrubs are proposed for decorative purposes on the site. She advised that 140 trees would be removed during construction and that the City Forester noted that several of these trees were ash trees that should be removed given the prospect of the loss of ash trees due to the Emerald Ash Borer invasion. The Forester also noted that the other tree species proposed for removal were in moderate condition and he had no concerns with their removal. She advised that the Forester suggested the applicants consult an Arborist for methods to preserve and protect the trees that will remain during the construction process, and that a 50 ft. buffer should be maintained between construction machinery and the tree roots.
The Planner explained that originally no lighting plan was submitted, but the applicant has provided a proposed lighting diagram showing the placement of hooded coach lights, pedestal lights and safety lights; she explained that the proposed lights appear to meet the standards in the ordinance. She further advised that the applicants are not proposing any flood lights or lighting of the tennis court. She stated that staff recommends final lighting details must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Planner Barness advised that the City Engineer reviewed the plans, and explained the City Code mandates that land disturbance on slopes in excess of 18% grade are prohibited unless specifically approved by the City Council with recommendation from the City Engineer. She stated that the applicants shall be required to comply with both the steep slope requirements and grading recommendations provided by the City Engineer in his report dated May 6, 2014. She displayed a diagram showing the proposed installation of the silt fence along the entire length of the construction sites for both the home and tennis court. She noted that some revised plans have been submitted to the Engineer so that a condition should be included that these plans adhere to the Engineer’s recommendations.
The Planner displayed the west elevation diagram of the home which showed an area that resembles an attached garage but is actually part of the home and serves as a hobby room. She stated the garage proposed on the lower walk-out level area of the home, which is not prevented by City Code; however, the City Engineer had some concerns relating to drainage in this area and larger pipes were included in the revised plans to address the drainage. She noted that the Engineer is still reviewing the revised plans to insure that the pipe is sufficient so no overflow runoff enters the basement and/or that a document is provided by the applicant which indemnifies the City if an event of this nature occurs. She stated that erosion control blankets will be applied to all steep slopes along with silt fencing around the entire construction site. The Planning Commission recommended the Engineer identify areas that are extremely sensitive and provide additional recommendations for erosion control if necessary.
Mayor Park pointed out that the Commission also asked the Engineer to monitor the site.
Councilmember Bulach asked if there are contingencies in place for additional erosion control measures if required and the Engineer responded yes.
The Planner advised that a recommendation is included for the Engineer to conduct monthly visits to the site to monitor the erosion control.
Councilmember Hovey asked where the septic system would be placed.
The Planner noted the septic system is proposed on the southwest portion of the lot and drainage from the home would be managed by a storm water infiltration system. She also advised that this system will treat all run off from the home and that a rain garden is proposed near the tennis court. She explained that the City Engineer also requested that the applicants identify a secondary area for the septic system. She stated that no comments have been received at this time from the Septic Inspector, but a report would be forthcoming with the application for a permit to install the septic system.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked who would pay the costs for the Engineer to conduct monthly inspections of the site and the Engineer explained that the applicant would pay the costs as part of the escrow fee.
Attorney Kuntz asked the status of the road construction and if it would be paved. The Planner explained that the Fire Chief would be providing a recommendation for the road specifications. She noted that the Fire Chief had recommended installation of a sprinkling system in the home and advised that if the home is sprinkled, the road could be constructed at 15 ft. wide; if no sprinkler is installed, the recommendation would be for a 20 ft. width to accommodate emergency vehicles.
Adam Burrington explained that the plan proposes an additional 5-6 ft. of cleared area adjacent to the road and that load capacity and turning radius specifications would be provided to the Fire Chief.
Attorney Kuntz asked when during construction the base course would be installed.
Peter Eskuche explained that a gravel road would be installed during construction and remain in place until all large trucks are gone. The Engineer stated the road would be gravel all the way to the construction site.
Commissioner Hendrickson asked what the Fire Chief recommended for load bearing on the road. The Planner responded that the Chief requested 15-ton axle load. She suggested that a condition could be included to require the road meet materials, design and load capacity as recommended by the Fire Chief.
The Planner explained that staff requested more detail on the landscaping plan to include number, size and spacing prior to issuance of a building permit. She also requested identification of the ground areas that would be restored to natural vegetation or sodded/seeded.
Planner Barness advised that the property lies within the Aircraft Noise Abatement Zone and that the Building Inspector would provide information on required building materials to the applicant as part of the permit process.
The Planner also noted that the application requires submission of an NPDES Permit that would be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Planner Barness stated that staff recommends approval of both the Major Site and Building Plans and Conditional Use Permit based on the findings of fact that the proposal meet the R-1 District lot area and setback standards, and is of high quality design in conformance with the City’s performance standards and similar in character to development on surrounding properties. She further recommended that approval should be conditioned upon the conditions as listed in the resolution and noted that the lighting plan may not include lighting of any recreational areas with the exception of safety lighting and that all light proposed are hooded; the lighting details should be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. She also noted that Council could remove the City Forester’s recommendation that had been addressed since the Commission meeting.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the erosion control plans were reviewed by the Commission. The Planner responded no, but explained that the Engineer had recommended approval based on submission of revised plans that requested very specific details be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
Adam Burrington explained that the final plans have been submitted for review by the Engineer.
Councilmember DeCourcy expressed concern that the lighting for the home would not be excessive and impact neighboring properties. She asked if the lights would automatically come on when it is dark.
Adam Burrington explained that all lights proposed would be hooded and meet design standards. He explained that the lights will go on at night but no light would be cast upward. He also pointed out that it is a very remote site and that neighbors should not be affected by the lighting.
The Planner explained that the applicants could provide a cut sheet and candle measurement to insure that the lighting meets all standards.
Councilmember Bulach asked when the applicants plan to begin construction. Dan Vansteenburg stated that there is no date set at this time but that he wished to begin as soon as possible.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-18 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING REVIEW FOR A NEW HOME, GARAGE, DRIVEWAY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 240 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, LEGALLY DESRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 1, NANCY’S PINE MEADOW, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to conditions as listed and with an additional condition No. 11 to read as follows:
11. The applicants submit road specifications for the driveway to meet width, turning radius and load requirements as recommended and approved by the Fire Chief.
seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Bulach commented that the applicants and the architects had done an excellent job in designing the home on a very difficult site.
Mayor Park welcomed the new residents to the City and encouraged them to contact Council and/or staff with any questions.
c. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness reviewed the ten (10) inquiries received by staff in May and advised that an application for a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for 50 Sunnyside Lane would be heard by the Planning Commission in June. She stated that the applicants are requesting approval for chicken keeping and a new chicken coop on the property. She stated this matter would be brought to Council for consideration at the July 1, 2014 meeting.
Mayor Park called for a brief recess at 8:25 p.m. and Council reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Neameyer stated he issued three (3) permits in May. He explained that there was a partial wall collapse on the property located at 32 56th Street West and that Fire and Police responded to the property. He advised that the home is over 100 years old and that on one was injured. He noted that the home is unlivable until repairs are made and that the property owner discussed either a tear down or selling the home “as is” rather than repairing the wall.
Councilmember Bulach commented that he had attempted to pick up the concrete dumped near Salem Church Road and Delaware, but it had already been removed. He asked the Inspector to thank the contractor.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. CITY ENGINEER: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project Update: Engineer Sterna advised that the contractor would begin work at the end of June and that notices would be sent out to property owners. He explained he would meet with Mr. Bancroft to stake out the road to determine private vs public property.
2015-2019 CIP Update: The Engineer stated he distributed a copy of the 2015-2019 CIP for Council review and asked that comments or questions be sent to him by email. He noted that comments would be discussed at the July Council meeting for inclusion into the final CIP and would then be approved by Council at their August meeting when the budget is discussed.
Spring Street Maintenance Work Update: The Engineer advised that Luhman’s Construction applied dust control on Charlton Road on May 25 and that signage was repaired at Windy Hill Road, and Angell Road and Sunnyside Lane. He noted that Pine Bend Paving should have their portion of street patching completed by June 2.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of May: Engineer Sterna stated that no activities were completed this month with the exception of the Planning application reviews. He noted that some rutting occurred on Charlton Road and would be repaired by Pine Bend Paving; he explained this occurs due to the rainy weather and the lack of drainage along the road.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there are any plans to re-open the culverts along the road.
The Engineer stated there are no plans at this time, but he could request a quote from Pine Bend Paving to clean the culverts.
The Engineer also noted that there are four (4) posts on the cable guard rail on Charlton Road that need replacement. He requested Council approval for replacement of the posts and stated it should be less than $500.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the posts should be replaced with metal ones to save money. The Engineer explained that the metal posts would bend and the wood breaks away; he indicated that the cables are not designed to stop the vehicles but just catch them and it would not be a cost saving to install metal posts.
Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize the repair of the cable posts on Charlton Road at a cost not to exceed $500, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)
Councilmember Bulach noted the $1,600 spent for dust control on Charlton Road and asked if the material would still be effective with the recent rain. The Engineer responded yes and explained the material holds up fairly well even with the rainfall.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued eight (8) burning permits in May. He commented that Horseshoe Lake was full and that this is the first time since he moved to the City that he has seen water running through the culvert. He also commented that Sunfish Lake was most likely near full too.
The Forester reported that the Arbor Day Green Fair event on May 3 was lightly attended and that there are still trees available for purchase; he advised that remaining trees would be planted in parks and other public spaces in the City. He stated he installed cages as protection around the young trees. He advised that mowing of Musser and Harmon Parks was completed.
Forester Nayes advised that the street weight limit restriction signs were taken down in May and that May 18-22 was designated as Emerald Ash Borer Awareness Week by Governor Dayton. He further advised that the Tree Board met on May 22 at the Bancroft home to discuss current tree issues; several of the attendees signed up to participate with the Firewise Committee and the Parks and Open Spaces Committee.
The Forester stated that at the Tree Board meeting there was discussion regarding updating the History of Sunfish Lake book and re-publishing it.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the Forester could discuss the fire at the Pruehers residence. The Forester stated that the Police or Fire Chief would have information on that matter.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver referred to his report dated May 27, 2014 and advised there were seven (7) false alarms this month; he noted that three of the seven alarms were at the same address. He explained that two suspicious person calls were received and one was a vehicle attending a prom party and the other was gone when the squad arrived to check on the vehicle. He noted that four children were attempting to place a canoe in Sunfish Lake without permission.
Mayor Park noted that this issue of the City newsletter contained an article relating to having a permit to be on the lake.
Councilmember DeCourcy questioned if the City could forgive the $500 fine imposed on the Pruehers for the fire at their residence. She explained she received a call from the property owner who advised she was sick and believed her children were only having a recreational fire. She commented that she does not recall the City ever issuing a fine for this type of incident in the past.
Mayor Park recalled that a similar fine was issued to a resident for illegal use of fireworks.
Councilmember DeCourcy suggested that a flyer be sent to each residence that outlines when and what permits are required. Mayor Park agreed that such information would be helpful and that on occasion permit information is included in the City newsletter.
Chief Shaver advised that the fire at the Prueher residence got out of control and the Fire Department was called. He stated the Police Department issued a citation for the fire and the resident paid the fine.
Mayor Park asked the City Attorney why another fine was imposed. Attorney Kuntz explained that there are two separate issues; first a citation issued by the police for the incident and the resident plead guilty and paid the fine and second the City Ordinance violation also imposes a fine to compensate the City for the Fire Department call.
Mayor Park asked why the amount is $500. Attorney Kuntz recalled that an analysis was done at the time the ordinance was adopted to determine the cost for utilizing the fire personnel and equipment. He noted that the property owner paid the court fine and that the letter was sent by the City for the ordinance violation fine.
Councilmember DeCourcy pointed out that the property owner was not aware that the fire was extensive and did not intend for it to get out of control.
Mayor Park commented that she appreciates the property owner did not intentionally create the incident, however, the City Code sets the fine to recoup the costs incurred.
Councilmember DeCourcy explained that traffic on Angell road has been ignoring the stop sign and speeding.
Chief Shaver asked what time of the day this occurs and suggested an officer could monitor traffic.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Change Orders for 2014-01 Street Improvement Project: Engineer Sterna explained that he requested quotes from Danner for two change orders to install a speed hump on Angell Road and to place additional patching on Salem Church Road where runoff occurs. He stated that Danner quoted a price of $3,850 for the speed hump and $6,900 for the patching on Salem Church Road.
The Engineer indicated that a 1.5 ft. wide patch could be installed on Salem Church Road by Pine Bend Paving as part of the Citywide road patching project for approximately $1,500 to $2,000 and recommended Pine Bend Paving be contacted to do this work instead of Danner.
Mayor Park clarified that the Engineer was not recommending approval of the change order for the work.
Engineer Sterna responded that he was not recommending the patching change order since in his opinion a 1.5 ft. patch installed by Pine Bend Paving should last until the proposed improvement along this section of the road is scheduled in 5 or 6 years.
Mayor Park asked if a speed table would be more expensive than a speed hump on Angell Road.
Engineer Sterna explained that it is easier to maneuver a vehicle over a speed table than over a speed hump and the cost would be $500 to $1,000 less. He pointed out that the speed tables and humps are used to calm traffic on high volume roadways, whereas Angell Road is a dead end street with no outlet. He noted that originally there were two speed humps on Angell Road and one was removed near the stop sign. He further noted that there are only six home past the stop sign and he pointed out that the speed hump is tough on emergency vehicles, school buses, snow plowing equipment and is not considered a preferred method of traffic control. He stated he would not recommend installing a speed hump on Angell Road.
Mayor Park asked if an analysis was done on Salem Church Road to support the speed hump installation.
Attorney Kuntz responded that an analysis was done in 2008 or 2009 to support the installation on Salem Church Road and the rationale for installation was that the neighborhood supported this method and there was no other good alternative to slow traffic. He referred Council to a study conducted by the City of Minneapolis relating to traffic calming devices and also from the City of Bloomington which conclude that speed humps are an extraordinary tool to be used under extraordinary circumstances.
Mayor Park asked if the citizens on the road initiated the request. Councilmember DeCourcy explained that she received one call from a resident and she made two calls to neighbors to determine their interest. She stated that one neighbor had one minor child and expressed concern about the speed of traffic and that cars were not stopping at the stop sign.
Councilmember Bulach asked why residents would not want a speed hump.
Mayor Park commented that it would not cost the residents more to have one installed since the additional cost would be paid from the contingency fund. She indicated that it appears everyone has concerns about safety on the road, but maybe a speed hump is not the best solution to solve the problem.
Chief Shaver pointed out that the speed limit on the road is 30 mph and maybe the speed could be reduced to 25 mph or signage could be placed on the road. He suggested conducting a traffic survey on the road to determine the time of day and what vehicles are speeding; he noted that a video camera could be installed on the road along with the traffic monitoring device. He recommended that a meeting be conducted with neighbors and a Council representative to collect information regarding their concerns and input on what type of solutions they would support.
Mayor Park commented that there wasn’t much time to make a decision with the road project beginning so quickly.
Councilmember DeCourcy pointed out that the posted speed limit is 20 mph. The Engineer explained that the 20 mph sign is yellow and therefore a cautionary sign, not a legal speed limit sign.
Attorney Kuntz advised that the City would need permission from MnDOT to change the speed limit on the road.
There was discussion regarding gathering traffic data and conducting a meeting with neighbors.
Councilmember Bulach suggested that the speed hump could be installed later if that was the preferred solution.
Tom Hendrickson suggested that the Engineer be directed to gather the traffic data and share the information with Council and the Police Department at the next meeting so they could determine what enforcement methods to use to hopefully slow traffic on the road.
Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember DeCourcy moved to direct the City Engineer to conduct a traffic survey on Angell Road and report back to Council and the Police Department at the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Resolution Adopting Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt and Tax-Advantaged Government Bonds: Treasurer Lanoue referred to her report dated May 29, 2014 regarding adopting a post-issuance debt compliance policy for tax-exempt and tax-advantaged government bonds. She explained that she worked with Ehlers & Associates to draft a policy and procedures that are in accordance with updated arbitrage regulations issued by the IRS since the City last issued bonds. She commented that the Internal Revenue Service maybe starting to review smaller entities of government to insure they are meeting the arbitrage regulations and she recommended Council adopt the policy as outlined in the proposed resolution.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-19 titled, RESOLUTION ADOPTING POST-ISSUANCE DEBT COMPLIANCE POLICY FOR TAX-EXEMPT AND TAX-ADVANTAGED GOVERNMENT BONDS, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)
c. Consider Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $330,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2014A: Steve Apfelbacher of Ehlers & Associates was present and explained that he accepted one bid this morning for the bond sale from United Bankers Bank. He explained that the bank would purchase the bonds and then resell them. He also advised that the increased costs of issuance were primarily due to the assignment of a paying agent for the bonds to facilitate processing of mandatory redemption notices and that this was also done with the 2009 bond issue. He further noted that there was a charge from the County for the County Auditors Certificate as to Tax Levy and Registration and that the costs for preparation of the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy were included.
Mr. Apfelbacher explained that the interest rate of 2.65 means the City would pay $12,000 less in interest or $1,000 less per year. He noted the additional cost items were listed on page 4 of his report. He explained that $185,000 would be specially assessed and that he added 1.5% over TIC. He stated he was unsure if staff recommends a higher amount.
Treasurer Lanoue stated she recommended 4.5%.
Mayor Park asked if there were any government regulations on the percentage charged. Mr. Apfelbacher explained that the City has the ability to charge up to 2% above the bond rate; he explained either 4% or 4.5% would be appropriate.
The Mayor asked if the decision must be made this evening.
Attorney Kuntz responded that Council may wait, however, property owners were told at the public hearings that the interest would be 1.5 or 2 percent above the bond rate, therefore 4.5% would be appropriate.
Mr. Apfelbacher explained that the assessments are deducted and the levy determined by what is collected in assessments. He noted that the interest rate set will affect the levy amount whereby a higher interest rate would lower the levy amount. He offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Park asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 2014-20 titled RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $330,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMRPOVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2014A, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
d. Other: Engineer Sterna asked Council for authorization to work with Pine Bind to include the 1.5 ft. patching along Salem Church Road into the 2014 Citywide street patching project. He explained that Council had previously approved $7,000 for the project and suggested including an additional amount of $2,000 or $3,000 for the Salem Church Road portion of the project.
Councilmember Bulach moved to authorize the City Engineer to work with Pine Bend Paving to include the patching of a 1.5 ft. strip along Salem Church Road into the 2014 Street Patching project at a cost not to exceed $10,000 for the entire patching project, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
Mayor Park distributed information from the Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee regarding the Runway Use Study for Council review and asked Councilmember Hovey to post it on the City website.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Bulach moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried (5-0)
____________________________ ________________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, 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.