- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

OCTOBER 7, 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

Engineer: Don Sterna

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

City Forester: Jim Nayes

Interim Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
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. She explained that she had sent a letter to the Dobrantz family to request that the Building Inspector be allowed to review the condition of their property on Charlton road by September 30, 2014 to determine its condition and what would be necessary to complete clean-up of the site. She stated she was advised by the Dobrantz family that they hired a company to do clean-up on the property and that it would take approximately 4 to 5 weeks. She commended staff and the Dobrantz family for working together to resolve this matter.

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

City Clerk Iago explained that there were no “Special” meeting minutes to approve under Item 3.a.

Mayor Park stated that Dr. Lamey wished to make some comments on the road improvement project later on the agenda. She asked if there were any further corrections and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, 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 Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 2, 2014.

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.

5. PUBLIC HEARING: None

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, 45 Salem Church Road, Linda & Mark Casagrande: Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting a Major Site and Building Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an expansion to an existing detached garage on their property. She stated that the City Code requires a conditional use permit to allow a detached garage to exceed 1,000 sq. ft. in area and the applicants are proposing to construct an 895 sq. ft. addition as a third stall of the existing garage which brings the total area of the detached garage to 1,177 sq. ft. She stated that a Major Site and Building Plan review are also required. She advised that the applicants wish to use the addition to store lawn maintenance equipment so that they may use the garage for parking their vehicles. She stated that the proposed expansion meets setback requirements with the exception of the east property line; however the City Code allows the expansion to intrude in the rear yard setback as long as it is not over an easement. She stated the application also meets the lot coverage by structure and height requirement and that the proposed building materials match the existing structure.

The Planner stated that the addition would be 80 percent constructed over an existing driveway and therefore would not expand the impervious surface. She explained that the City engineer reviewed the application and recommended approval with a few conditions relating to installation of silt fencing for construction management. She further explained that there is significant tree coverage to provide screening and that the applicants are proposing to add shrubs for screening as space allows. She noted that the detached accessory structure on non-lake frontage lots are required to maintain 25 ft. side and rear yard setbacks; however, such uses may encroach into the required rear yard setback as long as they do not intrude on easements. She pointed out that no neighbors have expressed any concerns relating to the project.

Planner Barness advised that the application meets all CUP and building standard criteria and that the proposed expansion is compatible with surrounding properties and would minimally impact the existing site.

The Planner explained that the City Forester recommended installation of tree protection for the large oak trees on site and also that the roots be clean cut so the trees remain in good health. She stated that the Major Site and Building Plan meets all criteria and that the applicants explained the expansion was needed for storage of lawn maintenance equipment and to make the existing garage more functional for vehicle storage.

Planner Barness advised that Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the requests and that she prepared a resolution which includes the findings for approval and contains the recommended conditions for approval.

Councilmember DeCourcy questioned the installation of the viburnum shrubs for screening and suggested that evergreens may be more appropriate.

The Planner explained that Council could require evergreens be installed, but noted that there is a limited amount of space for the plantings and that neighbors had not expressed any concerns relating to screening.

Councilmember Wahlstrom pointed out that evergreen shrubs could grow straight up and may not require a lot of space; she preferred evergreens be installed.

Paul McGinley of Loucks Associates was present on behalf of the applicants and explained that this is a heavily wooded area where the expansion is proposed and it may be difficult for evergreens to grow since it is always in shade.

Mayor Park pointed out that the proposed plantings would be to screen the area and no neighbors have expressed concerns about the screening. She asked if the Planning Commission visited the site.

Commissioner Tom Hendrickson advised that the Commission did visit the site and did not find any strong need for screening since it is a heavily wooded area.

Forester Nayes agreed the site is heavily wooded and suggested that arborvitae may grow in the area; he offered to work with the applicants on this matter.

Mayor Park asked when construction would begin if the applicant is approved.

Scott Foss, from S & T Construction, stated the applicants wish to begin construction before winter.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the structure would be built on the existing slab.

Scott Foss responded no and explained that frost footing would be installed.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-31 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DETACHED GARAGE TO EXCEED 1,000 SQARE FEET IN AREA AND MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE EXPANSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 329 SALEM CHURCH ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LINDEKE ADDITION DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

b. Major Site and Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit Review, 329 Salem Church Road, Thomas Hall & Julie Kunkel: Planner Barness explained the application for a Major Site and Building Plan review and Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a new home and driveway on an undeveloped lot at 45 Salem Church Road She stated that due to a drainage easement that cuts through half of the lot, this is a legally non-conforming in lot as pertains to net lot area and a conditional use permit is required to allow development of a substandard size lot. She advised that the proposed driveway access would be from Salem Church Road on the southern portion of the site to avoid intrusion into the easement and that a culvert would be located under the driveway. She noted that a few trees would be removed along the south property line and the City Engineer Recommended the remaining trees be protected during construction.

The Planner stated that the proposed home meets all Zoning Code standards for setbacks, building coverage on the site, materials and height requirements. She explained the proposed home is a one-story walkout with a rear patio and covered entry and porch and that no additional accessory structures are planned on the site. She stated that the landscape plan proposes removal of three existing trees and planting of eighteen (18) new trees, with additional trees located on the north portion of the property for screening purposes. She advised that there are additional plantings proposed adjacent to the home, along with sod and native prairie grasses.

Planner Barness stated that the plans include storm water management on site with the construction of two (2) dry swales to collect, trap and treat water prior to its entering the drainage easement. She explained that the City Engineer recommended approval of the application with conditions as outlined in the proposed resolution. She further noted that some retaining walls are proposed and would have to be reviewed by the City Engineer if they exceed 4-ft. in height. She stated that the City Engineer recommended silt fencing along the entire drainage easement and culverts during construction.

The Planner stated that a new well and septic system are proposed and that the Septic Inspector would review and approval the plans for the system installation

Planner Barness stated that the original proposed lighting fixtures were somewhat bare and the applicants have provided a second model choice for the fixtures which adheres to Zoning Code requirements.

The Planner further explained that additional tree protection measures along the driveway area close to the neighboring property was also recommended by the City Engineer.

Planner Barness stated that the application meets the performance standards outlined in the Zoning Code relating to Major Site and Building Plan Review. She advised that several neighbors attended the public hearing to express their concerns relating to drainage issues in this area and on their properties. Staff advised those present at the public hearing that their concerns could be discussed with the City Engineer as they relate to possible future development; however the City Engineer had reviewed and recommended approved the drainage plan for this application with conditions as listed in his report. She noted that there were some conditions that were pending and must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit.

Mayor Park asked if the City Engineer could address those issues at this time and if Council could take action on this matter this evening.

Engineer Sterna explained that his associate Tom Voll had reviewed the application and in his opinion there are no major issues pending. He stated that Council may take action this evening.

Planner Barness stated that the application meets the Zoning Code criteria for Conditional Use Permit and the design is compatible with surrounding properties. She stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the resolution. She noted that the screening and lighting issues have been resolved and those conditions could be removed from the resolution. She further noted that the Planning Commission recommended an additional condition that requires the homeowners to arrange a Mid-process inspection of the erosion control measures to insure they remain in place and the homeowners were agreeable to this condition.

Councilmember Hovey questioned if the applicants did not provide the information to the City Engineer in a timely manner to allow time for his review. The Planner explained that the initial set of plans was submitted on time, however; the Engineer requires some adjustments to the plans and the revised plans were submitted last week.

Engineer Sterna explained that his office had been extremely busy last week which may have delayed the plan review.

Dan O’Leary, 10 Windy Hill Road, explained that he and his neighbor Miles Shaver, who was unable to be present this evening, have concerns relating to drainage problems in this area. He thanked the City Engineer for his advice to raise the elevation of his home when it was built and pointed out that he would have had major flooding issues if this had not been done. He stated that the Shaver’s and the Ojala’s who reside on Salem Lane both have problems during large rain events with a mini-lake on their properties. He noted that the Windy Hill Road area has a 17-1/2” culvert and water pours into his yard and that there are two culverts by the Shaver property so all the runoff collects there. He commented that no one knows where the culvert is located or where it drains. He expressed his concern that the area won’t be able to manage additional water when future development occurs.

Liisa Ojala, 5 Salem Lane explained that her property has several Aspen trees that grow larger due to the excessive water that collects on her property. She asked the engineer to explain how the culvert works since no one has been able to locate the end of the culvert. She commented that if the culvert gets plugged it would affect all the surrounding properties and when the ground is frozen the water does not leave the property. She agreed that when development occurs on the vacant property in the Windy Hill Road area it will create more drainage problems for surrounding properties.

Engineer Sterna explained that a 48” pipe was installed when I-494 was constructed and it carries the runoff across I-494 to the south. He noted there is an outlet and he offered to bring diagrams showing its location to the next meeting. He further explained that the low building opening for this project is 2 ft. above the overflow of Salem Church Road and the runoff should go over the road. He stated that the Zoning Code requires staff looks at the 100 year flood event when reviewing applications and does not require the design to accommodate runoff beyond the 100-year storm event. He also explained that during the recent road improvements two basins were installed on Windy Hill Court to slow down runoff and that there are ponds on the east side of Windy Hill Court. He noted that new plastic pipe was installed and that the culverts are cleaned to insure there is no blockage of the runoff. He commented that when future development occurs there would have to be infiltration methods on the property to reduce the rate of the runoff and so that the volume of the runoff is not increased. He stated he would trace the location of the pipe and find its outlet and he noted that MnDOT would most likely indicate that the City is responsible for the maintenance of the inlet.

Mayor Park asked if the homeowners have sub pumps installed in their homes to remove the water and those present responded yes.

There was discussion relating to the drainage and soil issues in this area.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-32 titled RESOUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SINGLE FAILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBSTANDARD SIZED LOT FOR NET LOT AREA, AND MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE COSNTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND DRIVEWAY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 45 SALEM CHURCH ROAD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, WINDY HILL ESTATES, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

RECESS: Council took a brief recess at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m.

c. Administrative Permit for Chicken Keeping, 315 Salem Church Road, Daniel and Elizabeth Lee: Planner Barness referred to her report dated October 1, 2014 relating to the request from Daniel and Elizabeth Lee for City approval for the keeping of up to six (6) chickens on their property located at 315 Salem Church Road. She explained that the Zoning Code allows for keeping chickens on residential property subject to review and approval of an Administrative Permit. She advised that typically such permits do not require Planning Commission or Council approval; however, if a written objection is received by neighbors and any concerns remain unresolved, final approval of the requested permit may be forwarded to Council for their approval or denial of the request.

The Planner explained a neighbor has objected to the location of the chickens on the Lee’s property and the Lee’s have posed two optional locations for the chicken coop. She stated that the chickens currently reside in a repurposed dog kennel approximately 5 t. from the east property line and the optional location proposed would be a repurposed playhouse 25 ft. from the east property line. Both options provide water and electricity options and are easily accessed and viewed from the principal structure on the lot. She stated that if the chickens were allowed in the playhouse structure, fencing would have to be installed or the kennel fencing currently used would be relocated to surround the area an provide an enclosed chicken run. She also advised that shrubs that will reach 8 to 12 ft. in height when mature have been installed by the applicants along the east property line to help buffer views of the chickens from the adjacent neighbors to the east and the applicants are willing to work with the City to address additional screening options for the locations.

Planner Barness stated that the City Forester reviewed the site and made the determination that neighbors should not be able to view the proposed chicken keeping areas from their homes given distance and the degree of existing screening on the abutting properties, but may be able to briefly see the chicken keeping areas moving along a shared driveway immediately east of the Lee’s property line. She advised that if additional shade tolerant screening was implemented within 10 ft. of the proposed chicken keeping areas, the chickens would be less visible from the shared driveway over time. She noted the applicants have indicated their willingness to place additional screening as found necessary, in addition to screening they have already installed in the form of several dogwood shrubs. She explained that a summary list of the neighbors’ concerns was included as Exhibit E attached to her report.

The Planner stated that the applicant Daniel Lee was present to respond to questions.

Virginia Coss, 295 Salem Church Road, stated that she sent emails to Council and Planning Commission expressing her concerns as an adjacent neighbor. She stated her biggest concern relates to the appearance of the chicken coop and explained that it was covered with a tarp and there was a lot of debris in the area. She further stated that it is a visual nuisance and that the chickens do get out of the enclosure. She explained that she has attempted to install plantings along her driveway to screen the area, however, due to the extensive overgrowth of trees, nothing will grow in this area. She advised that she sees the chicken coop each time she accesses her home along the driveway and she suggested that the property owners move it to the other side of the property.

The Planner stated that the applicant had provided two optional locations for the chicken keeping and requested that one of them be approved. She noted that the other neighbor had also expressed concerns about visibility, sufficient screening and the closeness to the property line.

Planner Barness referred Council to the letter from the City Forester dated September 23, 2014 which outlined his observations on his site visit to the Lee property and the letter also dated September 23, 2014 which outlined his stipulations for granting the one-year permit at the refurbished playhouse location on the property. She noted that the Lee’s would prefer to utilize either of the existing structures rather than make application for another location which could require application for a Conditional Use Permit to place an additional structure on the property.

Forester Nayes explained that the conditions in his letter are essentially the same requirements for the other chicken keeping permits the City has issued.

The Planner stated that there are only a few permits issued for this purposes and the setbacks for those structures range from 60 to 100 feet from the respective property lines.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if constructing a berm would accommodate the growth of plantings and the Forester responded that would not help since the area is always shaded.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if plantings could be installed on the Coss property to screen the area.

Virginia Coss explained that she has attempted to plant all types of evergreens and they all have died.

Dan Lee stated that there were conditions placed on the Coss’s to maintain screening along the driveway from the Lee property when they constructed their home; he advised that it would be mutually beneficial to both properties if the screening was installed. He noted that the headlights from vehicles entering the Coss property create a nuisance as they shine into his windows. He stated he would be happy to comply with the conditions imposed by the City, but stated that Mrs. Coss should also be required to comply with the screening condition that was imposed along the entire length of her driveway.

Mayor Park commented that when she purchased her property in 1980 the Malerick family lived on Charlton Road and had chickens, so chickens have been a part of Sunfish Lake culture for over 30 years. She agreed that the Lee’s should be able to keep chickens but pointed out that this is a challenging situation for Council when neighbors do not agree. She explained that she reviewed the three other properties in the City where chickens are kept and all were more than 25 ft. from adjacent property lines. She commented that the dog run and playhouse would not be holding inanimate objects such as other accessory structures, but would contain living creatures. She noted that the Planner had reviewed setbacks on such structures from other similar cities and suggested that Council may wish to consider those findings when making a decision. She indicated that it may be appropriate to require moving the structure further away from the property line so that neighbors are not negatively impacted.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that the water and electric connections are already located in the dog run where the Lee’s currently house the chickens.

Mayor Park agreed that the Lee’s have the right to keep the chickens but stated she would prefer the structure be setback further on the property.

Mr. Lee explained that moving the chicken coop further away was not an option since he would not be able to see the chickens if they were moved to the other side of the property. He indicated that Mrs. Coss should be required to install the screening that was a condition of approval when her home was constructed.

Mayor Park pointed out that this Council and most likely staff were not present when that condition was imposed and asked if staff had reviewed the application from the Coss property.

The Planner explained that she reviewed the plat and subdivision and there was a condition that screening be provided by placing a tree every 12 ft. along the property line to screen it from the adjacent parcel. She noted that Mrs. Coss indicated she has attempted to install plantings however it is difficult to grow plants in this area due to the shading.

Mrs. Coss stated she also wished to have the area screened but all her attempts to place screening in the area have failed. She indicated that she was not aware that it was a condition of approval.

Councilmember DeCourcy suggested asking Gertens Greenhouse to view the area and suggest plantings; she noted that they guarantee their plantings for one year.

Mrs. Coss explained that the plants may grow for a year and then die; she stated she has tried several varieties of tree and none have survived.

Mayor Park asked the City Forester to comment on plantings

Forester Nayes suggested spruce trees, hemlock, upright yews or hazelnut plantings.

Mrs. Coss stated she would be happy to get a listing of suggested plantings. She commented that on three different occasions the chickens have been in the driveway during the summer months and she suggested if the coop was moved to the other side of the property this would not be an issue.

Mr. Lee stated he would be happy to comply with placing the chickens in the playhouse and to meet the conditions listed in the Forester’s letter. He noted that he would keep the chickens contained within the fencing and pointed out that he only has two chickens, since he had to remove the two roosters.

Councilmember Hovey asked if dogs were contained in the structure if the setback would be an issue.
The Planner explained the current Ordinance does not have setback requirements for dogs. She noted that the permit is only issued for one year and any complaints could be addressed when the permit is reviewed at that time.

Mayor Park stated she was uncomfortable recommending the chicken coop setback less than 25 ft. from the property line when other permits of this type are setback much farther from property lines.

There was discussion relating to the fact that the Lee’s and Mrs. Coss were unable to resolve this issue without seeking Council assistance.

Councilmember Bulach stated he agrees that the Lee’s should be able to have chickens on their property but he also understands the neighbors’ concerns relating to viewing something they don’t’ wish to see.

Mayor Park asked the City Attorney for an option relating to the screening condition on the Coss property.

Attorney Kuntz explained that he would have to review the language in the approval of the Coss application prior to giving an opinion.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the playhouse would be 25 ft. from the property line.

The Forester stated he measured the distance from the fence on the property to the playhouse and it was close to 25 ft.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the dog run fencing was placed at the front of the playhouse if it would be visible from the adjacent property.

Mrs. Coss explained that it would be placed at an angle and would still be visible.

There was discussion relating to the placement of the playhouse closer to the Lee home and Mr. Lee explained that if he moved the structure closer it would be in direct sunlight.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the Lee’s could place screening on their property since nothing grows on the Coss property.

Mr Lee stated he would be happy to install additional screening but he also wished to have Mrs. Coss screen her driveway as required when her home was built.

Councilmember Hovey explained that Council cannot discuss that issue or take action since it was not part of the agenda this evening.

Planning Commissioner Tom Hendrickson disagreed with Mayor Park that the structure must be 25 ft. from the property line and stated that in his opinion the real issue relates to the fact there are no setback regulations in the City Code.

Mayor Park asked if Mr. Lee could move the playhouse farther than 25 ft. from the property line.

Mr. Lee stated he was unsure if that would put the structure in the sun, but he would attempt to place it beyond the 25 ft. if possible.

The Mayor asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to approve the Administrative Permit for Chicken Keeping at the Lee property located at 315 Salem Church Road subject to the conditions as listed in the Forester’s letter dated September 23, 2014 for a period of one year, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy.

In discussion, Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the conditions listed in the Forester’s letter require the chicken run to be no closer than 25 ft. from the property line. He asked if that number should be removed.

The Forester explained that in his opinion the playhouse structure was measured from the split rail fence and appears to meets the 25 ft. setback.

Mayor Park questioned if additional screening should be required. The Planner pointed out that the Forester was recommending Hazelnut shrubs be installed in his letter.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the screening would be the Lee’s responsibility and the Planner responded yes.

Attorney Kuntz reviewed the conditions listed in the Forester’s letter and suggested the following:

Condition No 4 - Remove the parenthesis from “refurbished children’s playhouse”
Condition No. 5 – instruction that the fencing must be placed on the Lee’s property side of the playhouse coming from the front of the structure.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that if Council approves the permit it would be for one-year and that new regulations may be adopted prior to that time; he questioned if the structure on the Lee property would be “grand-fathered” in if the new regulations require a larger setback.

Attorney Kuntz explained that if Council approves the permit this evening, the applicants would have an expectation that the permit would be renewed for the same location after one year pending no complaints.

Councilmember Bulach stated he would prefer to be consistent with setbacks for future requests.

Councilmember Hovey requested a “friendly amendment” to the motion to retain the 25 ft. setback requirement in the conditions.

Councilmember Wahlstrom expressed concern that it may place the structure in the direct sun.

Mr. Lee stated he would adjust the structure to meet the setback.

Councilmembers Wahlstrom and DeCourcy as maker and second of the motion agreed to the friendly amendment.

Mayor Park called the question.

Motion carried. (Ayes: 4 – Wahlstrom, DeCourcy, Bulach, Hovey; Nays: 1-Park)

d. Planner’s Report and Chicken Keeping Setback Memorandum: Planner Barness reviewed the following information listed in her report dated October 1, 2014 and offered to discuss any items in detail if Council had questions. She referred to the Chicken Keeping Setback memorandum dated October 1, 2014 and reviewed the information she gathered from other communities relating to setbacks. She noted that the communities most similar to Sunfish Lake were Woodland and Gem Lake. Staff recommends that the City create a standard for chicken coops and runs and require a minimal setback to guarantee that when homes are unusually near property lines a minimum chicken keeping setback would still be maintained.

Councilmember Bulach asked if the setbacks could include more than chickens.

The Planner responded yes and noted that in the City of Woodland chickens are not allowed in the front yard of the residence and that could also be included in the regulations.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked about the regulations in the City of Minneapolis. The Planner responded that Minneapolis is a Charter City and they require applicants to get written approval from adjacent neighbors.

Planner Barness explained that it has been difficult for staff to make a decision on an administrative permit when the property owners are in disagreement and it would be easier if regulations are in place.

Mayor Park suggested that bee keeping and other animal locations should also be reviewed; she asked the City Attorney how to proceed.

Attorney Kuntz recommended Council direct the Planner to prepare information on an ordinance amendment similar to the regulations from the City of Woodland; he suggested that setback areas could remain blank so that Council may decide what numbers are appropriate.

Council concurred to direct the Planner to prepare the documentation.

Mayor Park asked what should be done regarding the driveway screening issue on the Coss property and the City Attorney responded that he would review the information and report back to Council.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Interim Building Inspector Mike Andrejka was present and advised that he issued seven (7) new permits in September and closed seven (7) permits.

Councilmember DeCourcy commended him on the design of his report. Inspector Andrejka explained his wife prepared the design.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the property owner names could be incorporated into the report and the Inspector stated he would attempt to do so.

Council thanked the Interim Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in September: Building and Site Reviews: Engineer Sterna stated that staff conducted four (4) site and building plan reviews.

Sign Repair: The Engineer stated that the stop sign on Windy Hill Road and Salem Church Road was damaged and he requested Pine Ben Paving install a new post and re-install the sign. He anticipated the work to be completed this week.

Charlton Road Grading: Engineer Sterna stated that the road appears to be in good condition and that he requested Pine Bend Paving to submit an estimate to fall grading of the rough spots before winter. He stated that the amount should be $500 or less and asked if Council wished to approve hiring Pine Bend Paving to do the work.

Councilmember Hovey moved to authorize the expenditure of up to $500 for grading and repairs to Charlton Road to prepare the road for winter, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

2014-2015 Snow Plow Quotes: The Engineer explained that four (4) quotes for plowing were sent out and only two (2) were returned; Professional Snow Removal Service and Executive Trucking. He stated that Professional Snow Removal Services has done work for St Paul and their rates are slightly less than the rates charged by Ace Blacktop for their services last year. He noted that Ace Blacktop did not respond to this year’s request. He advised that he reviewed the quotes and ran a comparison based on a 6-hourr snowfall event using 14 tons of sand to determine which vender provides the best value to the City. Based on the results of this comparison, he recommended award the bid for snowplowing to Professional Snow Removal Services for this season’s contract.

Mayor Park asked if action on this matter could be considered at this time rather than under Item 8a. later on the agenda and the City Attorney responded yes.

Councilmember Hovey moved to award the 2014-2015 snow plowing contract to Professional Snow Removal Service, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.

In discussion, Councilmember Hovey asked the City Engineer to advise the contractor that Charlton Road and other streets in the City should be plowed side-to-side rather than just one pass along the middle of the street.

Engineer Sterna stated he would advise the contractor to do so and that a member of his staff would drive through the City with a representative of the contractor to explain the procedures for plowing. He commented that the contractor appeared to be eager to do a good job and that the company is based in Mendota Heights so response time should be good.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the company would plow the new hammerhead turnaround in the Windy Hill Road area and the Engineer responded that it would be included.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and there was no response. She asked for a vote on the motion.

Motion carried. (5-0)

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of September: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project Update: the Engineer explained that the contractor had finished the punch list items and had done a good job on the project. He stated the original contract amount was $235,540 and that the first pay voucher No. 1 was for $159,679.23 and represented the work completed in early September. He advised that the final pay voucher No. 2 in the amount of $69,062.68 would bring the final construction costs to $228,741.91 or $6,798.09 under the original contract amount. He explained that both pay vouchers would be discussed at the November meeting for final approval and payment.

Mayor Park advised that Dan O’Leary submitted a letter commending the contractor for a job well done. She asked if Dr. Lamey wished to speak at this time.

Dr. Lamey stated that the engineer provided him a cost breakdown for improvements on the east and west portions of Windy Hill Road. He pointed out that the cost for improvements on the west portion of windy Hill Road were $3,300 and the cost for Windy Hill Court was $7,700, yet all homeowners were charged $6,500 for the improvements, which was a difference of $4,400. He commented that in his opinion the nine properties on the west side of the road should pay less.
Mayor Park asked what basis Dr. Lamey used for the amounts quotes.

Dr. Lamey responded the amounts were based on the costs for the bituminous surface. He stated in his opinion the assessments were too high for some property owners.

Mayor Park explained that the City does not base its assessments on the costs for bituminous. She advised that the City adopted an assessment policy that utilizes cost-sharing percentages to be paid the City and the property owners based on the designation of the road. She pointed out that this was explained to all the property owners at the public hearing for the assessments.

Engineer Sterna agreed and further explained that the City requested an appraisal to support the proposed assessment amounts, which was also discussed at the public hearing.

Dr. Lamey stated in his opinion there is quite a difference in the cost for the materials at $3,300 versus the assessment at $6,500.

Mayor Park pointed out that if the City’s assessment policy had been used for the project, the City could have assessed 80 percent of the project to property owners and the City would have paid 20 percent. She advised that some cities receive Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding from the State to assist with the costs for road projects, however, Sunfish Lake does not receive these funds. She stated that she has been working with Mayors from other communities to draft a statement for consideration by the legislators at their next session to request smaller cities also receive some funding.

Dr. Lamey questioned why the assessments for Acorn Drive were different and the Mayor responded that was a different project.

Engineer Sterna explained that there are only a few housekeeping items that must be completed to finalize the project. He asked if the public hearing for the assessment was officially closed.

Attorney Kuntz advised that the public hearing was officially closed and the assessment roll had been certified to Dakota County for placement on next year’s tax statements.

Mayor Park asked what the next step would be for Dr. Lamey.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Dr. Lamey should have filed a formal appeal with the courts and the deadline for doing so has passed.

Dr. Lamey pointed out that he presented his objection to the City.

Attorney Kuntz advised that Dr. Lamey had thirty days from the date the hearing was closed to file an appeal with the courts and that the 30 day period expired on October 2, 2014.

Mayor Park thanked Dr. Lamey for his comments and noted that some of the residents had pre-paid the assessments.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for October: 2014 Street Reconstruction Project Finalization: The Engineer advised that he would be processing the final pay voucher for Council action at the November meeting.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued two (2) burning permits were issued in September and recommended that residents obtain burning permits prior to the leaves falling. He explained that Rough Cutt mowed along City streets and the trail in Musser Park. He advised that grass was mowed around young trees near the east end of Salem Church Road windy Hill and in the meadow at Musser Park. He stated he conducted an animal permit site visit and consulted with various residents about tree issues, the deer management program and where to site a vegetable garden so as to remove the fewest number of trees. He also explained that he removed several dead elm and cotton wood trees along Angell Road and would take down more during October.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated September 26 , 2014 and explained there were five (5) false alarm calls which brought the number to the same amount as last year at this time. He reviewed the other items listed in his report.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Award of 2014 Snowplowing Contract: This item was discussed under the Engineer’s report.

b. Consider Resolution Appointing Election Judges to Serve at the November 4, 2014 General Election: Clerk Iago explained that Minnesota Election Laws require Council appoint Election Judges to serve at the General Election held on November 4, 2014.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-33 titled, RESOLUTION APPONTING ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE NOVEMBER 4,2014 GENERAL ELECTION, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

c. Consider Request for Notary Public Renewal for City Clerk Cathy Iago: Clerk Iago requested that the City pay the costs for renewal of her Notary Commission. She explained that the commission is valid for five (5) years and that she utilizes the notary as a service to residents of Sunfish Lake. She stated that she does not receive and compensation for this service and that the City had paid for her renewal five years ago.

Councilmember Bulach moved to authorize the payment for the City Clerk’s Notary Commission renewal, filing fee and notary stamp as requested, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

d. Consider Ratification of Mayor’s Appointment to Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) Noise Oversight Committee (NOC): Mayor Park explained that she has been attending the NOC meetings and she has contracted Mike McDonald, the citizen representative, to discuss the fact that it would be more appropriate for an elected official to attend these meetings versus a resident. She noted that the cities representative John Bergman also agreed that an elected official should attend the meetings.

The Mayor asked that Council ratify her appointment as the Sunfish Lake representative to serve on the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC).

Councilmember Hovey moved to ratify the appointment of Mayor Park as the Sunfish Lake representative to serve on the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried.

(5-0)

e. Consider Approval of Third Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Watershed Management Organization for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed: Clerk Iago explained that the LMWMO requested Council approve a third amendment to the Joint Powers agreement that establishes a Watershed Management organization. She stated she had forwarded the document to the City Attorney for his review.

Attorney Kuntz advised that the amendment revises the legal boundary for the watershed management organization to include the City of Mendota Heights.

Mayor Park asked if the other cities had adopted the amendment.

The City Attorney commented that he was unsure if they had adopted it, but they would most likely be asked to do so.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the Third Amendment to Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement Establishing a Watershed Management Organization for the Lower Mississippi River Watershed, seconded by Councilmember Hovey. Motion carried. (5-0)

f. Discuss Appointment and Contract for Interim Time Period for City of Sunfish Lake Building Official: Attorney Kuntz stated that Council had temporarily appointed Mike Andrejka to serve as the Interim Building Official for the City for a period of 60 days after the resignation David Neameyer. He explained that a meeting was held with Mr. Andrejka, the Mayor, the City Clerk and himself to discuss the terms for his services during this time period. He noted that Mr. Andrejka had submitted his resume and a letter of recommendation as requested by Council at their last meeting

The Attorney reviewed the terms of the agreement for this interim position as outlined in his report dated October 1, 2014, and stated that if a permanent appointment is made after the interim period, he would work with Council and Mr. Andrejka to negotiate a new contract.

Mayor Park stated that Mr. Andrejka received a wonderful letter of recommendation from the Mendota Heights City Engineer.

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to accept the contract with Mike Andrejka for his service as the Building Official for the interim time period of 60-days, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

g. Consider Resolution Expressing Intent by City to Implement an SSTS Program which meets the Current Dakota County SSTS Ordinance: Attorney Kuntz referred to his report dated October 1, 2014 and explained that the City had adopted an Ordinance in 2010 which repealed the City’s existing septic regulations and enacted new regulations for subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTE) to bring the City’s regulations into compliance with changes to Minnesota statutory and regulatory law. He stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) had revised regulations governing septic system and state law required that the City adopt the Dakota County ordinance or a stricter ordinance within one year of the adoption of the county ordinance.

The Attorney advised that the MPCA sent a memo to the City dated September 29, 2014 advising the City that it must state in writing its intention of implementing an SSTS program which meets the current Dakota County ordinance. He noted that at this time Dakota County has not yet adopted an update to its ordinance that incorporates the new MPCA SSTS rules and the City of Sunfish Lake intends to update its ordinance once the County has done so.

Attorney Kuntz stated that the MPCA is requesting that the City state its intent to remain the agency responsible for enforcement of the rules within the City and will implement an SSTS program which meets the updated Dakota County Ordinance.

Mayor Park questioned if the City gave the responsibility to the County when it turned over responsibility for sending out the reminder postcards.

Clerk Iago explained that the City still retains responsibility for correcting any issues with septic systems even though the County sends the reminders.

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-34 titled, RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INTENT BY THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE TO IMPLEMENT AN SSTS (SUBSURFACE SEWAGE TREATEMENT SYSTEM) PROGRAM WHICH MEETS THE CURRENT DAKOTA COUNTY SSTS ORDINANCE, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

h. Other: Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (5-0)


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor