SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
7:00 P.M. – ONLINE MEETING
Attendants:
Mayor: Dan O’Leary
Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Steven Bulach
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Ryan Krzos
City Engineer: Jeff Sandberg
City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue
Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Brian Sturgeon
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Councilmember Shari Hansen was absent
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O’Leary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor O’Leary explained that Councilmember Hansen had surgery earlier today and had taken pain medication, therefore, she would be present to listen to the proceedings but she would not be voting on any items.
Councilmember Wahlstrom stated she wished to extend her sincere thanks to resident Warren McCue and explained that her granddaughter had been out walking and was stung by Hornet’s when she stepped on a nest. She stated that Mr. McCue found her granddaughter and took action to safely bring her home. She expressed her pride in the fact that there are such good people living in Sunfish Lake and that it was what makes it such a wonderful community.
Mayor O’Leary expressed thanks to Mr. McCue on behalf of the Council.
The Mayor explained that there would be discussion later relating to an Interim Use Permit to pump water from the lake to irrigate lake frontage property. He explained that there may have been some less than civil comments expressed relating to this item at the Planning Commission meeting and he asked that any comments this evening be reflective of the friendliness of this community. He advised that comments from the public on the Planning items would be limited from 1 to 3 minutes and asked that those wishing to speak be prepared to utilize the limited time for their remarks.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.
Clerk Iago requested an item be added under 8.c. Other/New Business: Consider Resolution in Absence of An Agreement for CARES Act Grant Funding. She explained that the previous resolution that Council adopted at their August 4, 2020 meeting was missing a portion of the agreement and that Dakota County sent the additional documentation for inclusion in the resolution on Monday.
Engineer Sandberg requested that he be allowed to introduce a guest that was unable to stay for the entire meeting. He introduced Taylor Huinker, the new DNR Area Hydrologist.
Ms. Huinker explained that she began employment in this area on August 17 and that she was transferred from the Lake City area.
Mayor O’Leary asked if her position included enforcement for water appropriations and she responded no.
Ms. Huinker explained that Joe Richter, DNR Water Appropriation Permit Specialist, was in charge of the enforcement issues and that her duties related to other lake activities.
The Mayor asked if the Engineer had any questions for Ms. Huinker and Engineer Sandberg responded no.
Mayor O’Leary explained that Joe Barton, Dakota County Land and Water Senior Resource Coordinator and LMRWMO Administrator, raised a question. Mr. Barton noted that the DNR website listed several exemptions to the Water Appropriation Permit requirements; one of which is domestic uses serving less than 25 persons for general residential purposes and he asked if this would exempt Sunfish Lake residents.
Ms. Huinker stated that she was unable to respond to that question and she stated she would pass it to Joe Richter and ask that he contact the Mayor with a response.
Mayor O’Leary thanked Ms. Huinker for her attendance. He asked if there were any further additions and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended adding Item 8.c. Consider Resolution in Absence of An Agreement for CARES Act Grant Funding, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
The Mayor pointed out that the false alarm calls were two higher than the same time period last year and expressed his hope that residents would be more cautious with their alarms. He questioned the two calls mentioned under “Suspicious Activities” related to someone living in their vehicle and a car parked on the street all day and asked if they were related incidents.
Chief Sturgeon explained that the false alarms were still in line with the numbers from last year and that one false alarm listed may have been related to other issues rather than human error. He explained that the person living in the car and the car parked on the street were the same vehicle. He further stated that he gave the gentlemen living in the car time to move the vehicle, made sure that he moved, and provided information to assist this person with finding alternative living options. He noted that the officer also found an encampment near the area where the vehicle was parked and made sure that it was dismantled.
Councilmember Hovey complimented the Chief and his staff on their efforts to eliminate the landscaping vehicles and their equipment from parking on Charlton Road.
Chief Sturgeon explained that he received one phone call from a landscaping company that was upset about the parking restriction, however, they were fine once he explained that it was due to public safety and fire vehicle access issues. He stated he would continue with the educational aspects of the no parking restriction when contacting offenders.
The Police Chief noted that residents may see an increase in traffic stops due to a couple of county-wide enforcement drives scheduled for this area. He also noted that two (2) solicitors were found in the City without permits and were asked to leave.
The Mayor thanked the Chief for his input.
The Mayor asked if there were any questions and there was no response
Councilmember Bulach moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
a. Special Budget Meeting and Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2020
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
d. Receive Building Inspector Report
e. Receive Forester Report
f. Receive Public Safety Report
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public and there was no response.
5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: a. Public Hearing: Consider Resolution for Right-of-Way Setback Variance Request, 2613 So Robert Trail, Southside Baptist Church: Planner Krzos referred to his report dated August 28, 2020 and explained the request is for right-of-way setback variance to reduce the setback from 50 ft. to 25 ft. to accommodate placement of a Dynamic Sign. He stated that the proposed site is zoned Institutional and that the adjacent property to the east, located on Woodridge Lane in Inver Grove Heights is zoned Low-Density Residential and the properties adjacent to the north of the site are zoned Institutional. He noted that the properties across the highway in Inver Grove Heights are zoned Residential.
The Planner advised that the request was to reduce the required setback to 25 ft. from the right-of-way, however, the applicant included a range between 10 to 25 ft. that would assist with expanding the area for snow storage away from the sign, accommodate traffic flow within the parking area, and also increase the sign visibility for vehicles traveling on South Robert TH3.
Planner Krzos explained that a sign permit that meets all requirements may be issued administratively, however, the variance request requires a public hearing and review of the application by Planning Commission and Council. He advised that the proposed sign meets all the other zoning requirements with the only exception being the setback variance request.
Councilmember Bulach referred to the site diagram shown by the Planner and asked if the sign would be located close to the telephone poles shown on the diagram.
Planner Krzos stated the sign would be approximately 25 ft. to the west of the telephone poles.
Dawn Swink Wang, 5722 South Robert Trail, Inver Grove Heights, asked where the sign would be from the road. She noted that two lanes of the road merge into one at this point.
Mayor O’Leary explained that he would open the meeting for public comments after the Planner was finished.
Planner Krzos explained that the sign is measured from the property line and he showed where the property line began and where the roadway shoulder was located. He noted the sign would be placed 200 ft. north of Woodridge Lane and pointed to the location on the diagram.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a 10 ft. reduction in the right-of-way setback variance, which places the sign 40 ft. from the property line, based on the findings of fact which include traffic flow concerns and placement of snow storage so that the sign is not damaged, and subject to the conditions as listed in the resolution. The Planner reviewed the conditions.
Mayor O’Leary opened the meeting for comments from the public
Dawn Swink Wang thanked the City for sending the notice to invite neighbors to this meeting and stated that she wished they had been invited to discuss the proposed new sign ordinance. She commented that the installation of a flashing sign would be quite a change from the conservative sign that is now at the church. She explained that she has been a good neighbor to the church and that she wished to remain in good standing. She explained that she wishes a staff member would have come to her home to view the site in the evening hours so that they could view the traffic lights that she sees at night. She stated that she would prefer the variance not be approved because the roadway merges from two lanes to one lane in this area and, in her opinion, drivers will be distracted by the sign and could endanger children or pedestrians in this neighborhood. She further stated that there are deer and other animals in this area that could be harmed by drivers that are distracted by a flashing sign and that her home value would decrease. She summarized by stating that due to traffic congestion, public safety issues, and reduced property values, she does not agree that there are special circumstances to support granting the variance. She suggested that the sign be moved further north on the site as the church has plenty of land and the vegetation and shrubs do not block the view of the sign.
Luanne Neville, 5690 South Robert Trail, Inver Grove Heights, stated that her land looks directly onto the church property and that she had sent an email to the Planner stating her opposition to the request. She noted that this site is surrounded by residential homes and that the area has experienced an increase in traffic over the past several years with a number of near collisions. She stated that she has experienced near traffic collisions when attempting to slow down to enter her driveway. She also explained that there are children and pets that play in the yards and around the church and, in her opinion, the distraction of a dynamic sign poses an increased threat to kids biking and playing along this stretch of Robert Trail. She asked that the variance be denied so that the sign is not placed any closer to the road than the ordinance currently allows. She commented that the church has four (4) football fields worth of land to accommodate snow storage. She explained that it gets dark earlier during the winter months and that the sign would be on until 10 pm; she questioned if that was necessary.
Pastor Jerry Brantham of Southside Baptist Church stated that he understands the concerns related to traffic and noted that the issue of speeding should be addressed by the State Highway Department if residents wanted the traffic speed reduced in this area. He commented that he had agreed to turn off the sign at 10 p.m. as required in the ordinance., however, there is a motion detection security light at the church that stays on all night, so he may be able to turn off the sign earlier to assist neighbors if this becomes a problem. He further explained that the snow storage on the east portion of the site tends to pile up near the sign and that it was very difficult for staff to change letters on the current sign as they would freeze in place during the winter months. He commented that he may be able to assist with safety issues by placing information on the sign and that the church would prefer to make the area safe and remain in good standing with the neighboring properties. He explained that the church has been in this location for 45 years and wished to continue being good neighbors to the adjacent properties.
Mayor O’Leary explained that he had talked to several of the church pastors within the City regarding this new type of signage. He pointed out that “flashing” signage is not allowed in the proposed ordinance and that the current type of signage used creates problems in the winter months due to the letters freezing in place during cold weather.
Attorney Kuntz asked if the current ordinance allows the signs to be on until 10 p.m.
The Planner responded yes and noted that this applies to all signs and the time would not change in the new ordinance.
Councilmember Bulach asked if the Police Chief agreed that speeding is an issue on South Robert Street in this area and the Chief responded yes.
Dawn Swink Wang pointed out that daylight savings time begins in the fall and questioned if the 10 p.m. turnoff time for the sign would be negotiable.
Mayor O’Leary suggested that the church may be amenable to changing the time if the neighbors approached them.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments or questions from the public and, hearing no response, closed the public hearing.
Chief Sturgeon explained that he could conduct some speed surveys in this area, and he pointed out that the State Highway Department had recently increased the speed in the area. He stated that the survey would count the number of cars and the speed they are traveling and that he would provide that information to the City Engineer and Planner. He advised that staff could then contact the State of Minnesota if it appears there is an issue with speeding. He further noted that he does not recall many accidents along this area of the road, however, the City of Inver Grove Heights may have additional information on traffic issues.
Councilmember Bulach asked how much closer the new sign would be to the roadway versus the existing sign and if the lighting would be an issue.
Planner Krzos explained it would be moved 10 ft. closer to the roadway and would be 40 ft. from the right-of-way, versus the current setback at 50 ft. He stated that the sign cannot “blink” or “flash” and that the illumination must be at .3 candle foot from 50 ft away. He noted that if the brightness exceeds this candle footage, the church would have to turn down the illumination. He further advised that the parking lot lights do not exceed this candle footage.
Councilmember Hovey asked what the candle foot illumination was on new construction and the Planner responded that it is 1 candle foot.
Councilmember Bulach asked if there was room for negotiation between the church and the neighbors regrading the 10 p.m. turn of for the sign.
Planner Krzos explained that any conditions may be attached to address the impact for the reduced setback and that the church has the ability to work with the neighbors regarding the 10 p.m. turn off of the sign.
Mayor O’Leary asked what the turn-off time was that is listed in the ordinance and the Planner responded that the time is 10 p.m. and that had not changed from the existing ordinance.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments or questions and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-15 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A 10 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5613 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL, SOUTHSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, based on the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the Planner’s report dated August 28, 2020, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (Ayes: 3 O’Leary, Wahlstrom, Hovey; Nays: 1 Bulach)
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Resolution for Major Site & Building Plan Review Amendment, 1 Sunfish Lane: Planner Krzos referred to his report dated August 26, 2020 and explained that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Major Site and Building Plan previously approved in 2019 and an Interim Use Permit for the purpose of pumping water from the lake. He explained that the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is located in the Shoreland Overlay Rural Residential District. He explained that the amendment proposes modifications to the grading, drainage and stormwater management plan and requires Planning Commission review and Council approval.
The Planner stated that the applicant submitted revised civil design plans, which modify surface stormwater management facilities for two basins. He stated the first basin was previously located in the area just north of the attached garage of the new home and requires modification due to State regulations which prohibit infiltration basins within 50 feet of a domestic well. The primary well for the new home is located nearby the north side of the new garage. He stated that in place of the surface basin, an underground system is proposed consisting of a perforated pipe laid within a bed of gravel to allow for infiltration. He stated the underground infiltration conveyance pipe would empty into a surface infiltration and storage basin to the rear of the residential structure.
Planner Krzos stated the second change would shift the southern portion of the surface basin away from large mature white pine trees adjoining the basin; the City Forester reviewed the proposal and suggested shifting the surface basin further north to shift grading from the root structure of the trees.
The Planner advised that the overall plan includes installing underground pipes to allow runoff from the roof of the home and routing water to the southern basin.
Planner Krzos referred to his report dated August 26, 2020 and explained that the applicant had also requested an Interim Use Permit to allow the pumping of water from Sunfish Lake for irrigation of the site at 1 Sunfish Lane. He stated that Interim Use Permits require the same method of review as Conditional Use Permits and require a public hearing and review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and review and consideration by the City Council.
The Planner explained that the applicant proposes to install a 7.5 horsepower submersible pump adjacent to the dock that is located in the middle of his lakeshore frontage. He stated the pump would be installed in the spring and removed in the fall. He advised that the lake pump would initially be operated every day until the turf area is established and then every other day or alternatively every day with half the duration. He explained the lake pump would operate roughly 100 sprinkler heads which are generally rated to utilize 2.5 gallons of water per minute; the typical sprinkler head operation is 40 minutes per day and would be shortened upon establishment of the lawn. He noted that if the watering approaches 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons in a year, the activity would require contacting the DNR to determine if it qualifies for their permit requirements. He stated that the landscape irrigation system would be fed off well water in addition to the lake water pump and that the irrigated areas on the property would be divided between the two irrigation systems, with the irrigation water from the lake pump used for the southern portion of the site at approximately 1.5 acres nearest to the lake.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Major Site and Building Plan and the Interim Use Permit to allow pumping from the lake through the end of this year based on the Findings of Fact and the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution. He noted that condition No. 7 was modified by the Planning Commission to allow pumping to occur until the end of this calendar year. He further advised that staff made a modification to the proposed Interim Use Permit by inserting language which states that the applicant agrees to comply with the conditions as listed.
Planner Krzos explained that the Mayor had done extensive research on this matter to present at this time.
Mayor O’Leary explained that a resident had contacted him with concerns relating to water being pumped from the lake. He stated that his initial response was that Sunfish Lake is a private lake with no public access, therefore, it was his understanding that the City was unable to address this issue. He explained that he contacted staff to determine if the City had any control over the pumping and staff found an Ordinance that was adopted in 1989 that regulated pumping from the lake by issuance of a permit. He explained that he is a strong proponent of lake conservation and that he was not initially in favor of allowing pumping from the lake. He stated that, after he had completed his extensive research on this matter and had discussions with Department of Natural Resources (DNR) representatives, he had changed his opinion.
The Mayor commented that it appears that when the Ordinance was passed, the Council determined it was best practices to pump from the lake versus taking water from the aquifer, which has limited resources. He was advised by the DNR that it would not harm the lake to pump water for irrigation purposes as long as it does not impact the water level. He was further advised that the DNR does not provide enforcement and that issuance of a DNR permit is done to protect the aquifer. He discussed the fact that the DNR had been issuing Water Appropriation Permits since the 1940’s and that everyone who applies and pays the fee would be issued a permit. He noted that the DNR uses the permits to monitor water usage and to protect the aquifers. He explained that the DNR monitors the impact on the aquifers and if two cities are using the same aquifer and there was an issue, the cities may have to cap their wells and move to use a different aquifer.
Mayor O’Leary explained that the resident had expressed concern regarding enforcement of the pumping from the lake, however, the City Engineer advised the City would be able to monitor the water usage on the lake by checking the flow from the outlet and, if there was no water flowing from the outlet, the City would contact residents who have a permit and tell them to cease pumping. He noted that the DNR advised that the Sunfish Lake City Ordinance is actually stricter than they would require.
The Mayor stated that the experts he contacted agreed that excess high water in the lake had had negative effects on the local vegetation, as noted by Mr. Stowell, who indicated that trees had been lost due to high water in previous years. The Mayor pointed out that installation of the new outlet corrected the problem of debris clogging the outlet and provides a method for enforcement for staff to monitor pumping from the lake.
Mayor O’Leary commented that it appears staff and previous elected officials were not aware of the Ordinance regulations until it was brought to their attention, therefore, this Council would not expect residents to be aware of the regulations.
The Mayor advised that some residents had indicated there are property owners illegally pumping without a permit and, he indicated that the City could be partially responsible for not being aware of the regulations. He read a draft letter that would be sent to all the lake property owners to advise them of the pumping regulations and that they must obtain a permit. He stated that the City Forester would be checking all the lake properties to document the properties that are currently pumping and advise them they must apply for a permit from the City and that they may have to contact the DNR for a Water Appropriations Permit if their pumping exceeds the regulations.
Mayor O’Leary stated that after reviewing the scientific documentation, he certainly agrees with the need to protect the lake, but it appears the greater responsibility would be to protect the aquifer. It was his opinion that the resident doctors would agree with the science that he outlined. The Mayor pointed out that he would support the more stringent regulations outlined in the current Ordinance that protect the lake by stating that pumping may only take place when the outlet is flowing.
The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public.
Jim Stowell, 389 Salem Church Road, thanked the Mayor and Council for their research on this matter. He stated that he does not question the science discussed by the Mayor, however, he had concerns relating to enforcement of the pumping regulations. He pointed out that when lawns get brown, the lake level is usually low and people may wish to water their lawns. He explained that the City would be opening the door for everyone to obtain a pumping permit and some residents may not comply with the regulations. He also questioned how the City would be able to monitor the pumping. He noted that he understands the City’s concern in trying to protect the aquifer, however, he pointed out that residents filling their swimming pools also put demand on the aquifer. He commented that it is his opinion enforcement maybe difficult and that residents would prefer to have input when the staff reviews the current Ordinance regulations. He asked if residents would be able to provide input when the City reviews the current regulations and, if the majority of lakeshore property owners want to change the current Ordinance, how would they proceed.
Mayor O’Leary pointed out that most residents are law-abiding citizens and that the City would be able to control the small percentage of residents that would ignore the science. He explained that the City agreed to review the Ordinance relating to protection of vegetation along the shoreline and to include regulations that require a permit to remove vegetation along the shoreline and install erosion control and replant the area. He noted that Mr. Johannsen had followed the permit requirements and was spending a substantial amount of money on the revised stormwater management on his property and the Interim Use Permit to protect the lake. He commented that when older homes were constructed, they were not required to install the same stormwater management methods.
The Mayor stated that using the lake water appears to be beneficial to protect the depleting resources of our aquifers. He noted that he proposed the inclusion of language that requires the applicant to sign an acknowledgment that they are aware a violation of the permit could possibly result in a misdemeanor violation and legal action by the City. He further explained that it would be a costly investment to install the pump system and that residents can chose to install a back-up system or they can choose to let their grass turn brown. He noted that if someone violates the regulations and the City is aware of the violation, the City could revoke the permit and not issue any future permits to that property.
Mr. Stowell again thanked the Mayor and stated that he was not arguing the science of the matter, but that his main concern related to enforcement. He pointed out that he would expect everyone to adhere to the regulations, but it would be up to the lakeshore residents to enforce them. He asked if residents could collaborate with the City staff when this ordinance is being reviewed.
Mayor O’Leary pointed out that the only ordinance staff would be reviewing in the future relates to the removal of vegetation and other issues related to preservation of the lakeshore. He stated that the City would not be reviewing the ordinance relating to issuance of Interim Use Permits for pumping water from the lake. He further advised that if a lakeshore resident knows of someone violating the pumping regulations, they should contact the City and staff will contact that person to enforce the rules.
Mr. Stowell asked how the residents could go about overturning the current Ordinance regulations relating to pumping from the lake.
Mayor O’Leary advised that only the City Council has the authority to adopt and repeal the City Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Stowell repeated that his concerns did not relate to the science of pumping from the lake versus using the aquifer, but only to enforcement issues.
Tom Schlehuber, 325 Salem Church Road, stated he agreed with Mr. Stowell’s concerns regarding enforcement and that he had dealt with people who do not adhere to the rules; he pointed out that someone could be pumping between 4 and 8 a.m. and no one would catch them doing so. He stated he was encouraged to know that the Ordinance would have “teeth” for enforcement purposes. He asked if the Mayor could publish the facts he compiled; he noted that he is a Science teacher and it is his opinion that aquifers are a renewable resource as some percentage of rainwater percolates into the aquifer. He acknowledged the science of protecting the aquifer, but stated he had concerns with enforcement of the permits.
Mayor O’Leary explained that, according to information he received from Dakota County, the aquifers are depleting.
Mr. Schlehuber suggested that personnel from the DNR be asked to attend a future meeting to present these facts.
The Mayor explained that there are no plans to have representatives attend a future meeting since he presented an overview of his discussions with these agencies this evening. He provided the following names and phone numbers for anyone who wished to receive further information or to discuss the facts he discussed: Joe Barton, Administrator LMRWMO, 952-212-2266 and Joe Richter, Water Appropriation Permit Specialist at the DNR, 651-259-5877.
Councilmember Bulach asked how the City would police the pumping.
Mayor O’Leary explained that he discussed enforcement with the City Attorney who advised that the City could place the onus on the permit holders and require that they check the outlet to ensure there is water flowing through it while their pump is operating. He stated that the Forester would compile a list of everyone with a pump and have them either show their permit, or advise them what must done to obtain a permit. He explained that the City Attorney agreed that it would be appropriate to place language in the permit that states the applicant acknowledges they are not allowed to pump if water is not flowing through the outlet. He explained that the City Forester would check the outlet and, as a courtesy, a letter would be sent to permit holders to advise they must cease pumping immediately if water is not flowing through the outlet; he stated that the applicant would also be required to sign the document containing this acknowledgment.
John Johannsen, 1 Sunfish Lane, thanked the Mayor and staff for their time and research on this matter. He thanked the City Engineer and Planner for their time to respond to his questions. He explained that his contractor had suggested placing the pump in the lake to suppress the noise. He asked if anyone was aware of how often the lake falls below the high-water level.
Engineer Sandberg explained that the new outlet lets water out faster than the previous outlet, therefore, there may not be a lot of days that the pump could be operational and the water level may not be as high for long periods of time as it was previously. He pointed out that both Dakota County and DNR personnel advised that it would be better for the City to keep the water in its own watershed district rather than sending it downstream through the outlet.
Forester Nayes explained that he has been a resident for 16 years and that there were issues with the outlet being plugged the last 10 years. He stated that over the last 5 years, the water level had been high in the spring, but during the first 10 years there was not a lot of water flowing from the outlet. He commented that there appears to be a “wet” cycle currently and that he was unsure when that would change.
Mr. Johannsen pointed out that installing a pumping system could be approximately $15,000 and that he would support the current regulations and has no issues with the conditions the City included in the permit. He suggested that the City should encourage anyone applying for a permit in the future be required to install a submersible pump since on-shore pumps can be noisy. He also suggested the pump be required to be placed near the center of the shoreline on the property so that it does not negatively impact the adjacent parcels if it is noisy. He stated that he does not support neighbors being asked to tell if their neighbor is pumping when they shouldn’t be. He stated he is encouraged to see that residents are concerned about the lake. He suggested that the Lake Association should be more active and possibly start collecting funds to assist with future projects to improve the quality of the lake versus waiting until an issue arises and then have to fund the project.
Mayor O’Leary thanked everyone for their comments and agreed that the City obviously does not want violators to continue pumping without permits. He noted that based on the scientific information provided by the DNR and Dakota County, he is confident that pumping does not harm the lake, and he noted that the City regulations are more stringent than regulations from either of those agencies.
The Mayor asked if there were any further comments from the public and there was no response.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that the proposed resolution from the City Planner regarding the Interim Use Permit be amended to include language as recommended by the Mayor; the language should include acknowledgment of the regulations and require the applicant sign the acknowledgement. He pointed out that the resolution would then be recorded for future reference.
Mayor O’Leary concurred with the Attorney’s suggestion. He further noted that the Planning Commission recommended the permit expire at the end of this year, however, they did not have access to this information when they considered the application; he noted that normally the permit would be in effect for one year and he would support issuance for one year.
The Mayor asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved and Councilmember Hovey seconded, to adopt the following:
Resolution No. 20-16 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING
PLAN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 SUNFISH LANE, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to conditions as listed, and;
Resolution No. 20-17 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 SUNFISH LANE, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, as revised to include language as recommended by the City Attorney that the property owner acknowledges and agrees to the conditions and regulations outlined in the Ordinance.
In discussion, the City Attorney recommended that further language be inserted that includes the property owner’s signature and that states and affirms the property owner will abide by all the conditions and any additional conditions as required by the DNR or other entities and that violation of the conditions would result in revocation of the permit.
Mayor O’Leary as maker of the motion and Councilmember Hovey agreed to amend the motion to include the recommendation by the City Attorney.
Motion as amended carried. (4-0)
Mayor O’Leary thanked the applicant and those present for their input. He asked that the Planner and City Attorney revise the proposed resolution to include the language as approved this evening.
b. Planner’s Report: Planner Krzos referred to his report dated August 26, 2020 and stated that staff coordinated a site visit with representatives of the property owner at 245 Salem Church Road regarding plans for a new residence; an application has not yet been submitted but is anticipated in the near future.
The Planner advised that staff was working with landowners regarding a potential lot split and combination of the out lot containing the terminus of Windy Hill Road; a formal submission for review of a minor subdivision should be filed in the near future.
Planner Krzos explained that staff sent an application to the property owner at 8 Sunfish Lane for construction of an accessory structure, which requires a site plan review and Conditional Use Permit for an additional accessory structure. He stated that the application materials submitted did not have sufficient detail to verify compliance with the City Code; staff requested additional information and revised plans be submitted prior to scheduling the request for City review.
Council thanked the Planner for his report.
7. ENGINEER’S REPORT: 1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in August: A. 2021 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Staff finalized the proposed 2021 CIP for Council review and formal adoption. The Engineer stated that the plan had not changed from the one presented over the last few months and offered to respond to questions.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the Zehnder Road project remained in the plan and if formal Council action is required.
Engineer Sandberg stated that the Zehnder Road project would be scheduled for next year and that he would present the revised Feasibility Report and project scheduled at a future meeting. He explained that formal Council action is required to adopt the 5-year plan as submitted.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the 2021-2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) dated August 26, 2020 as submitted by the City Engineer, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)
B. 2021 Annual City Engineer Budget: Staff finalized the proposed annual Engineer’s budget for 2021 as presented and discussed at the August 4, 2020 Special Budget Council meeting and to be adopted as part of the City budget later this evening.
C. Delaware/Salem Church Road Intersection Update: Engineer Sandberg explained that he received a response from Dakota County regarding the City’s request for assistance from the County to improve the intersection at Delaware Avenue and Salem Church Road. He noted that the County advised they had reviewed information relating to accidents at this intersection and noted that there were only five (5) vehicle accidents over a three (3) year period; the report found that three of the five accidents were due to slippery conditions. He advised that the County response stated that “Due to the low number of crashes, high cost of construction, along with significant property impacts, reconstruction is not being considered at this time”
The Engineer explained that it is difficult to keep this intersection clear of snow and ice due to the skewed alignment of the roadways. He stated that he met with Dakota County in the spring by Zoom teleconference to present an option for a 90-degree intersection at that location. He noted that the County identified significant impacts related to obtaining easements from adjacent property owners and the need for substantial retaining walls; the County advised that they would not consider this type of improvement at this time.
Engineer Sandberg stated that Dakota County offered an alternative option to help improve sight lines and to reduce the slippery surface in the winter months. He referred to the diagram showing how Salem Church Road could be restriped to improve sight lines at the intersection and an area where a “friction” treatment could be added to reduce slipping in the winter under icy conditions. He advised that, if Council agrees to this option, the County stated the improvement could be added to their mill and overlay project for next year. He explained that he told Dakota County the City would prefer to have the improvement done this year versus waiting two years; the Assistant County Engineer stated she would look into adding the project this fall.
The Engineer stated that, in his opinion, the option proposed by the County would be worth trying and if the improvements were installed this year, the City would have knowledge as to whether or not the option was working. He noted that this option would cost $43,600 and would be paid by Dakota County.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the Engineer needed formal action from Council to proceed and the Engineer responded no.
Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed that something needs to be done to improve the sight lines before something terrible happens and she supports the option as long as the County is willing to pay for the improvement.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the County could install a 4-way stop sign at the intersection.
Mayor O’Leary commented that he was doubtful the County would install a 4-way stop at this intersection and suggested that the City agree to the option proposed at this time.
Engineer Sandberg explained that there does not appear to be a substantial amount of vehicle accidents at the intersection to warrant installation of a 4-way stop sign.
Councilmember Bulach agreed that the City should try the proposed option from the County as he also was unsure if the County would install a 4-way stop sign at the intersection.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the City Engineer saw any issues with snow removal related to the improvement proposed and the Engineer responded no.
Engineer Sandberg asked the City Attorney if Council should take formal action on this matter and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.
Mayor O’Leary moved to direct the City Engineer to contact Dakota County and advise that the City of Sunfish Lake agrees to the proposed option for improvements to the intersection of Delaware Avenue and Salem Church Road as outlined in their August 20, 2020 email to add striping on Salem Church Road and a hatched out area with a friction treatment to reduce slipping during icy conditions, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.
In discussion, Mayor O’Leary suggested that the City strongly request this project be done this fall due to concerns for traffic and resident safety issues at the intersection. Council concurred with the Mayor’s suggestion.
Mayor O’Leary moved to amend the motion to include language stating that the City of Sunfish Lake strongly requests that the proposed project be completed this fall due to the City’s concern for traffic and residents safety, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.
Original motion as amended carried. (4-0)
2. Building and Site review in the Month of August: A. Staff conducted reviews of the following six (6) properties in August;
- 270 Salem Church Road – Staff reviewed plan changes made during construction and continues to work with the applicant to ensure the property is ready for release of the Certificate of Occupancy.
- 1 Sunfish Lane – Staff reviewed a submittal of the homeowners plans to change the grading and stormwater management on the site from the previously approved plans. Staff also reviewed a request for an Interim Use Permit to pump water.
- 369 Salem Church Road: Staff reviewed a request for revisions to a stormwater pond design.
- 357 Salem Church Road: Staff discussed the issue of pond maintenance with the builder.
- 8 Sunfish Lane: Staff reviewed a request to add an accessory structure on the property.
- 2150 Charlton Road: Staff performed inspections on erosion controls and is working with property owner to get documentation on as-builts.
3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of August: None.
4. Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for September: A. Staff will bring the proposed 2021 CIP projects to Council at their October meeting for consideration.
B. Staff will seek quotes for snowplowing of City streets for the 2020-2021 season.
Councilmember Bulach asked how staff solicits quotes for snowplowing and how a vendor could obtain the bid documentation.
Engineer Sandberg stated that he solicits by word of mouth and normally contacts 6 or 7 vendors each year; he noted that he usually receives only 2 responses. He advised that anyone interested in submitting a quote could be referred to the Engineer and he would provide the bid documentation.
Mayor O’Leary asked if the bid documentation would include the special treatment material that was used last year by the contractor and the Engineer responded yes.
Engineer Sandberg explained that he received a quote from the contract to repair the driveway apron at 2058 Charlton Road that was discussed at the last meeting; he displayed the quote for those present. He noted that this was most likely not caused by the contractor during construction of the Charlton Road improvement project, however, Valley Paving had agreed to pay a portion of the repair costs and the City would be responsible for the remainder of the project costs.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the project could be done this year and if the homeowner had been notified that this project may be done this year.
Engineer Sandberg stated the contractor agreed to complete the repairs this year and that he had not contacted the property owner at this time since Council had not yet authorized the project.
Councilmember Hovey asked where the funds would be taken from the budget.
Engineer Sandberg explained that the project was completed under the contact amount and that there should be funding available to complete this project.
Treasurer Lanoue agreed that there are funds available for the project.
The Mayor asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Mayor O’Leary moved to authorize the expenditure of $3,857.27 from the total cost of $4,762.39 for the driveway repair project at 2058 Charlton Road and that Valley Paving be hired to complete the project and pay the remaining costs of $905.12, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget & Setting Not-to-Exceed Tax Levy for Collection in Year 2021 and Schedule Special Truth in Taxation Council Meeting on December 1, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.: Mayor O’Leary asked the Treasurer to present her report and asked if the date of the Special Meeting would be included in the Notice and Treasurer Lanoue stated that it was included in the Public Hearing notice.
The Mayor asked if Treasurer Lanoue had received the final amount for Fire Department Services from Mendota Heights.
Treasurer Lanoue responded no, however, she explained that there were sufficient funds in the budget and she saw no need to adjust the tax levy.
The Treasurer advised that there were no significant cost increases submitted by staff and that the levy for Debt Service would be considerably less than last year’s budget. She also noted that there would be no election next year, which would also reduce that budget item. She advised that the City Clerk asked for an additional $500 to purchase shelving for files that were transferred from the previous planning firm to the City’s new planning firm; the costs for the new planner increased $6,000.
Treasurer Lanoue stated that at their Special Budget meeting held on August 4, 2020, Council determined it would be appropriate to maintain the same Tax Levy rate as presented in 2020 and Council suggested that any additional funds be placed in the General Fund for possible future use on road maintenance projects. She reviewed the proposed 2021 Budget as follows:
General Revenue $557,629
Bond Fund-Levy $112,523
Total $670,158
The Treasurer referred to the memorandum from the City Attorney dated August 26, 2020 which outlined the timeline for adopting the preliminary and final budget. She recommended that Council adopt the resolution adopting the Proposed Budget & Setting Not-to-Exceed Tax Levy for Collection in Year 2021 and Schedule Special Truth in Taxation Council Meeting on December 1, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
The Mayor thanked the Treasurer for her report and asked if there were any further questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-18 titled RESOLUTION SETTING NOT-TO-EXCEED
TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2021, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)
b. Discuss Lease Agreement with St. Anne’s Church: Councilmember Hovey explained that he met with Jon Rexeisen, Senior Warden for St. Anne’s Church, on two occasions to discuss renewal of the City’s lease agreement with the church. He stated that Mr. Rexeisen advised that the new Bishop relaxed the COVID guidelines and the use of the church to allow 50 percent capacity of the area with social distancing and mask use which would accommodate meetings at the church.
Councilmember Hovey advised that the current lease agreement ends December 31, 2020 and Mr. Rexeisen stated the church would like to have another 5-year lease with the City. He pointed out that a new lease agreement should include a “Non-Use” clause that stipulates what happens if the City is unable to use the facility due to items such as a Pandemic or funerals or wedding’s, etc. He explained that St. Anne’s would be willing to allow the City use of the Parish Hall under the new guidelines. He further advised that the church is unwilling to grant a refund for the months the City was unable to use the facility due to the Pandemic as the church would have allowed the use of the Parish Hall.
Councilmember Hovey explained that the current rent is $350 per month and St. Anne’s has determined that is a fair amount for use of the facility; they suggested the rent increase be tied to the OASDI rate for the Social Security Administration. He stated that the church was not willing to give the City credit on rental fees next year for non-used months this year. He noted the church was willing to install more ventilation in any of the meetings halls to accommodate the City’s use, such as more fans, portable air conditioning units, etc.
In summary, Councilmember Hovey stated that Council should determine if the City should continue to use St. Anne’s or look at other churches for meeting space, if a 5-year lease with the increase tied to the Social Security Administration increase is acceptable, and, if the City continues at St. Anne’s, the lease should be re-written with the “Non-Use” clause. He further advised that if Council considers moving to a different location, the following items should be considered: How would the City notify residents and vendors, can the City utilize the same polling location as the City of Inver Grove Heights, what does the timeline look like for the location transfer and what would the cost be for the new location.
Councilmember Hovey advised St. Anne’s that he would discuss the matter with Council.
Mayor O’Leary thanked Councilmember Hovey for the information. He explained that the Pastor at First Calvary Church offered to give Council and staff a tour of their facilities. He further stated that the City of Inver Grove Heights uses First Calvary Church as a polling location, however, he asked the City Attorney if Sunfish Lake could also use the facility for voting and the City Attorney advised it would not be a problem as long as the cities could use different areas for voting; the Mayor noted that St. Anne’s would be used for this year’s election.
The Mayor stated that he would prefer another 5-year contract with terms similar to those currently in the St. Anne’s lease agreement. He suggested that he would contact the Pastor at First Calvary to set up a time for Council and staff to view the facilities if Council determines they wish to review the space.
Clerk Iago advised that Council could not review the facilities as a group unless a special meeting is scheduled for that purpose.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the Mayor could call a special meeting for this purposes and list the fact that Council would be conducting a tour of the space.
After a brief discussion, Council concurred to have the Mayor set up a tour of the First Calvary Church. The Mayor stated he would contact the Pastor regarding setting up a tour and provide possible dates to Council and staff.
There was discussion regarding whether or not the City should continue to pay the December rent to St. Anne’s since the City would not be using the facility that month. Council and staff concurred that the City should adhere to the lease agreement and pay the rent for the remainder of this year.
c. Other: Consider Resolution In Absence of an Agreement for CARES Act Grant Funding with Dakota County: Clerk Iago explained that Council had previously approved this grant application resolution at their August meeting, however, she was contacted by Dakota County and informed that there was additional information that should have been included with the grant application resolution. She asked that Council adopt the proposed resolution submitted this evening which contains the additional information.
Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-19 titled, RESOLUTION IN ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT FOR CARES ACT GRANT FUNDING with the additional information attached, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. 4-0)
Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business
Councilmember Hovey noted that there was a message from Dr. Dan Halverson that should have been included with the discussion of the 1 Sunfish Lane Interim Use Permit. He asked that the following comment from Dr. Dan Halvorsen to everyone that attended the ZOOM meeting be added as part of the record:
“There is data available for most previous years about SFL water levels. That data plus expertise from DNR hydrologist, limnologist, environmentalists and other experts will be shared during the renewal gathering of all invited lake residents for a Fall 2020 meeting. Good job on science so far.”
Engineer Sandberg stated that he received an email with information that the speed limit signs are scheduled to change on Trunk Highway 3, Tuesday September 15, 2020 and that the existing 45 mph speed limit from a point approximately 350 feet south of Upper 55th Street to the intersection with TH 110 will increase to 50 mph. He advised that MnDOT also asked that the City Engineer respond to the proposed speed limit change. He suggested that Council may wish to respond to MnDOT that they are opposed to a speed limit increase due to the concerns expressed by residents in that area earlier this evening.
Council concurred to direct the City Engineer to respond stating that the City and residents strongly object to any increase in the speed limit in this area.
Chief Sturgeon suggested that Council pass a formal resolution stating their opposition to the speed limit increase as that would be more official than a response from the City Engineer.
Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 20-20 titled, RESOLUTION FROM THE SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS REQUESTING NO INCREASE IN THE SPEED LIMIT ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 3 FROM APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET
SOUTH OF UPPER 55TH STREET TO THE INTERSECTION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 110 and to direct staff to draft the resolution stating that the City and residents strongly object to any increase in the speed limit in this area and forward it to the appropriate representative at MnDOT, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)
Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
____________________________ ________________________________
Catherine Iago, City Clerk Dan O’Leary, Mayor
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.