SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – FEBRUARY 1, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Roger Conant, Mike Hovey and Paul Burke
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
City Planner: Carie Fuhrman
City Engineer: Tim Hanson
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
City Building Official Russ Wahl and Police Chief Manila Shaver were was absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Williams opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Williams asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember MacManus moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (5-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant asked if the corrected December Council meeting minutes had been placed on the website and how one would know the difference.
Councilmember Hovey responded that the corrected minutes had not yet been posted and that the minutes would have the word “DRAFT” at the top if they have not been corrected.
Clerk Iago stated she would send the corrected version for posting and apologized for the delay.
Councilmember Conant asked how long it normally takes to get the minutes posted on the website. Councilmember Hovey responded that normally it takes a week or two.
Councilmember Burke stated his question relates to the snowplowing bills and that he would wait until the Engineer’s report to ask the question.
Councilmember Conant stated he would abstain from voting on the minutes since he was absent from the last meeting.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-Williams, MacManus, Hovey, Burke, 0-1-Conant)
a. Regular Council and Special Council meeting minutes of January 4, 2010.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams 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. Planning Report: 2196 Charlton Road – Minor Site Plan Review: Planner Fuhrman reported that property owner, Ibby Hammet, was present at the January Council meeting to inquire about replacing the aluminum siding on her home due to recent hail and wind damage. She explained that aluminum siding is not listed as an allowed exterior building material in the Zoning Ordinance. She advised that Ms. Hammett stated she could not afford the allowed buildings materials listed in the ordinance and expressed an interest in using vinyl or aluminum to replace the existing siding; she asked if she might be grandfathered in for use of these materials. Council directed the Planner and Attorney to review the matter and report back to Council.
Planner Fuhrman stated that she and the City Attorney researched the background information related to this matter and found that the exterior building materials ordinance came into existence around July of 1994. The aluminum siding on the Hammet home has been in place for over 30 years, therefore, the siding pre-dated this ordinance provision. She advised that because the home’s siding existed prior to the adoption of the building materials ordinance becoming effective, the aluminum siding is considered a legal, non-conforming use. She stated that according to the non-conforming regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, the aluminum siding may be replaced with aluminum siding, but not with vinyl siding. The property owner was notified of the regulations and the possibility of City looking at allowing vinyl as an exterior building material, following the discussion at the January Council meeting.
The Planner stated that the January Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to lack of agenda items, however, the Commission plans to meet in February to discuss ordinance amendments relating to exterior building materials, the fee schedule, building permit expirations and completion of exterior work.
Planner Fuhrman asked that Council discuss the proposed ordinance amendments to provide direction to staff and take action to refer these matters to the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the items listed.
Mayor Williams questioned why vinyl siding was not initially allowed in the ordinance.
Planner Fuhrman stated she was unable to give specifics since she was not on staff at that time; however, she noted that the Building Inspector had previously stated that since 1994 the quality of the product has improved.
Councilmember Hovey commented that originally the vinyl siding product would easily crack and the color would fade over a period of time. He agreed with the Building Inspector’s opinion that the product has improved substantially since it was first introduced.
Planner Fuhrman pointed out that she could request that a representative from a vinyl siding company come to a future meeting to discuss the product.
Councilmember Conant suggested that the siding representative could discuss the matter with the Planning Commission versus Council.
Councilmember Burke pointed out that Council has the authority to approve other materials for this property since it is grandfathered in. He questioned if this type of request has been an issue in the past that would warrant changing the ordinance. He asked the City Attorney whether or not Council should just approve the use for this one property owner rather than amend the ordinance.
Councilmember Williams asked the property owner what type of material she wished to use to replace the existing siding. Ibby Hammett responded that she wanted to replace the aluminum siding with vinyl siding.
Planner Fuhrman explained that she is new to the City staff and therefore she is not aware of any past requests. She pointed out that due to the fact the vinyl siding material has improved since the inception of the ordinance, it may be appropriate to discuss its inclusion as an allowable material.
Mayor Williams asked the Attorney if Council has the authority to only approve the use of vinyl siding for this resident.
Attorney Kuntz responded yes and noted that the ordinance provides for Council to grant permission to only this resident. He pointed out that since the previous material on the home was not vinyl, the issue of precedence may arise.
Mayor Williams asked if the matter was raised by the property owner based on an insurance claim.
Ms. Hammett explained that the insurance company would replace the siding with either aluminum or vinyl; however, she preferred vinyl based on its durability.
Councilmember Conant asked the Planner for her opinion if vinyl siding has improved and would now meet the standards of other materials used within the City. Planner Fuhrman responded yes and noted that the Building Inspector had stated at a previous meeting it was his opinion that vinyl siding had also improved since the ordinance was adopted.
Mayor Williams commented that it may be workable to approve the request from Ms. Hammett without changing the ordinance.
Councilmember Hovey recalled there have been other requests in the past to use vinyl siding, but the ordinance did not allow its use.
Councilmember Conant suggested that Council should proceed with changing the ordinance if the product has improved and that approval for this request could also be granted immediately due to the property being grandfathered in.
Councilmember Burke questioned if other materials should also be included in the review since staff is proceeding with the proposed ordinance amendment.
Councilmember Conant suggested approving this request this evening and referring the matter to the Planning Commission to review all new products as part of the ordinance amendment, or just changing the wording of the ordinance to allow for materials that meet specific criteria for siding.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response. He suggested to motions are in order to approve the request from Ms. Hammett to use vinyl siding and to refer the matter to the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing.
Councilmember Burke moved to approve the use of vinyl siding as a replacement for the aluminum siding for the property located at 2196 Charlton Road based on the authority granted to Council under Section 1219.03B, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Resolution Directing the Planning Commission to Hold a Public Hearing on Ordinance Amendment: Planner Furhman presented the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on an Ordinance amending Section 1219.03 of the City Zoning Ordinance relating to allowed exterior building materials.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-06 titled, RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SUNFISH LAKE THE SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1219.03 (BUILDING TYPE AND CONSTRUCTION) OF ARTICLE XII
(ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE SUNFISH LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO THE EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the Notice of Public Hearing for the Planning Commission listed the proposed amendment as only adding vinyl as an allowed exterior building material. He asked Council for clarification that they are also directing staff to conduct research to broaden the scope of allowable exterior building materials beyond just vinyl siding and that this should also be included in the Notice of Hearing. Council concurred with the Attorney’s clarification.
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Clerk Iago stated the Building Inspector had contacted her earlier today to explain that he was ill and would not be in attendance this evening. Mayor Williams commented that the report would be deferred to the March meeting.
- City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hanson stated that a letter describing the Angell Road culvert replacement project along with a drawing of the work and the proposed easement description exhibit was sent to the impacted property owners. He explained that he has now contacted all of the property owners to discuss the project and all have indicated the willingness to grant a permanent drainage and utility easement to the City to complete the proposed work. He noted that one of the easement acquisitions requires removal of some pine trees and the property owner requested the City consider replacement with pine trees; he noted that he may recommend replacing the trees since this property is adjacent to Highway 110 and they would provide screening from the traffic and noise. He advised that the City Attorney is drafting the easement documents for signatures and as soon as this is completed, he would meet with the owners to answer questions and distribute the documents.
Sunfish Lake Street Map: The Engineer explained that the 2011 City street map, which was updated in December, 2010, was distributed to the Police and Fire Chiefs.
NPDES Annual Public Hearing: Engineer Hanson stated that the annual public hearing for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit is proposed to be held at the April regularly scheduled Council meeting. He advised that a copy of the public notice for the hearing was sent to Council and would be published and posted as required prior to the meeting.
Public Works Activates Undertaken in the Month of January: Street Snowplowing: The Engineer stated that the City street were plowed and sanded several times during January and reviewed these events as listed in his reported. He noted that snow removal and sanding operation had been fairly extensive this winter season and that temperature conditions with moisture resulted in several instances of slippery street conditions required street maintenance efforts above normal. He noted that he had not received any comments or complaints regarding snow removal. He further advised that his review of the streets found them to be in typical winter driving condition and, in his opinion; Pine Bend Paving has done a very good job with winter snow maintenance.
Councilmember Burke stated that in reviewing the billing statements from Pine Bend he noticed variability in the tonnage of sand/salt usage and its correlation to the snowfall events; he pointed out that some usage does not appear to coincide with the temperatures and events.
Engineer Hanson stated that he agreed with that assessment and that he has told Pine Bend to cut back on the use of the sand/salt mixture with the exception of some intersections within in the City. He pointed out that the discrepancy may be a result from the fact that the company had plowed twice during a snowfall event. He noted that he has asked them to hold back on the amounts used and that in his opinion it may have been overdone on a few occasions.
Councilmember Burke noted that the tonnage ranges from 16 to 42 tons and that the costs range from $900 to $2300 per plowing event. Engineer Hanson indicated that 16 tons is more typical and that 42 tons is most likely when the plowing occurred twice during a snowfall event.
Councilmember Burke noted that the bills would decreased by $1700 if 16 tons were used for each event.
Engineer Hanson noted that there are a few intersections within the City that require the use of more materials.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the company has cut back on the sand/salt mixture near the lakes. Engineer Hanson explained that he has asked them to hold back on the use of sand/salt in the areas near the lakes and offered to again remind them to do so.
Councilmember Conant stated he was absent from the last meeting and asked if the Engineer could provide him copies of the street maps at the next meeting. The Engineer responded yes.
Councilmember Conant recalled that documentation from the NPDES meeting is usually updated after the public hearing and asked the Engineer for confirmation. Engineer Hanson explained that he would be sending an outline for the public hearing with the Council packet prior to the meeting and confirmed that the information is updated after the Public Hearing to include any citizen comments prior to its submission for approval of the permit.
Councilmember Conant questioned the estimated costs for the Angell Road Culvert replacement project. Engineer Hanson stated it is difficult to estimate at this time; he noted the project includes replacement of three culverts, road repair, ditch-cleaning and tree removal. He estimated the total project cost could range from $25,000 to $40,000. He estimated construction costs between $8,000 and $10,000 at each location, tree removal and ditch cleaning at 10,000; easement acquisition costs at approximately $4,000 for all parcels, and that there would also be project engineering and administrative costs.
Councilmember Burke asked if the City has a long-range Capital Improvement Plan. Mayor Williams responded yes and noted that Mayor Park had instituted the CIP during her term of office.
Engineer Hanson offered to send a copy of the CIP to Councilmember Burke; he further noted that the document should be updated and projects prioritized.
Mayor Williams indicated that projects are identified in the document, but the schedule may be amended as necessary or if an opportunity to combine projects or save money presents itself.
Councilmembers Conant and Hovey also requested a copy of the document. Mayor Williams suggested that the Engineer provide copies to all the Council. Engineer Hanson stated he would send a PDF file to the Council for their review.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of February:
- Street snowplowing
- Preparation of the NPDES Annual report public hearing
- Distribute easement documents to Angell Road property owners
Council thanked the Engineer for his report. - CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he had issued one (1) burning permit in January and he had completed the assessment of high-risk trees within the City. He explained that after the assessment was completed, he contacted home owners to request they remove the high-risk trees or to obtain permission to work on their property to remove the trees if they were in the City right-of-way. He advised that he had not reviewed the tree breakage on private roads; however, if Council directs him to do so, he would also complete an assessment of private roads.
The Forester advised that he would begin treating Buckthorn stumps before spring flowers appear on the stumps. He offered to distribute flyers on Emerald Ash Borer and noted that there have been no reports of the insect within the City.
Forester Nayes provided a brief review of his duties as forester for the new Councilmembers; he stated that he responds to questions relating to trees, removes tree debris from streets after storms, looks for tree damage or diseases, reviews invasive weeds within the City, removes dead deer and debris dumped within the City limits, completes information regarding the Tree City designation, and conducts the annual Arbor Day tree planting and sale. He noted that he works with the Engineer to identify trees blocking views near stop signs within the City.
Councilmember Hovey questioned if the Forester contacts Xcel Energy directly to remove trees that are adjacent to powerlines within the City right-of-way and on private property. Forester Nayes explained that he contacts the property owners to advise them that they need to contact Xcel Energy if the tree is on their property and he contacts Xcel if the tree is in City right-of-way; he noted that there are a number of trees along Charlton Road that are considered high-risk trees. He explained that it is imperative to remove hazardous trees immediately; however, the trees identified as high-risk trees may be done as soon as possible when time permits.
Mayor Williams questioned the grant application to the Tree Trust. Forester Nayes explained he has been gathering information for the application and that there is a minimal cost to the City for trees for planting. He stated that if the grant is received, the trees should be planted at Musser Park near the edge of the meadow and also along the eastern edge of the City near Salem Church Road. He indicated that he has been discussing the plantings along Salem Church Road with MnDOT and that he has taken pictures of the areas where he believes the plantings should occur. He indicated that he would report on the grant application at a future meeting.
The Forester stated he would also be providing information on seeding along Charlton Road after he has completed clearing of the ditches.
Councilmember Conant questioned the Tree City designation for Sunfish Lake and what it entails. Forester Nayes responded that he did not make the initial application for the designation and therefore he is not sure what it entails. He pointed out that there is no cost to the City to obtain the designation and that it has been in place for over 30 years.
Council thanked the Forester for his report. - PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Williams advised that Chief Shaver was unable to attend the meeting this evening.
The Mayor presented the public safety report to Council and noted that there were three incidents that the Chief presented in an email to the Council; 1) officers came into contact with a person who had a warrant for using a public park after hours; the person paid the fine and was released; 2) illegal dumping occurred in the ditch at 5495 Robert Trail, however, officers were unable to determine the owner of the trash; and, 3) the building inspector called in several vehicles parked at 2078 Charlton that he suspected did not below at that location, however, the officers found the vehicles did belong at that address.
Mayor Williams advised that the Alarm Calls were reduced in 2010 from the 2009 total.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the Chief is required to attend every meeting.
Mayor Williams explained that the Chief attends to provides more detail relating to the public safety report or he sends a representative on his behalf. He offered to talk to the Chief regarding attendance at the meetings.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider Resolution Appointing Inspectron, Inc. as the Septic System Inspector for the City of Sunfish Lake and Approving a Contract with Inspectron, Inc. for Septic System Inspection Services: Attorney Kuntz referred to his report dated January 26, 2011 and explained that Inspectron, Inc., through the person of Ron Wasmund, has performed the duties of the City’s Septic System Inspector for a number of years. He stated that since the City has now revised the City Code dealing with Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems, the City should document that Inspectron, Inc. continues in this capacity. He advised that under the new Chapter 402 of the City Code, the “Department” has the responsibility for enforcing and administering the septic system ordinance and the Code defines the “Department” to mean the City’s Septic System Inspector.
The Attorney advised that at the last meeting, Council directed him to prepare a contract with Inspectron, Inc. for the services of Septic System Inspector; a copy of the contract was sent to Council for their review. He stated that Mr. Wasmund has reviewed the contract and agreed to sign it. He noted that a Chart of Costs for services was attached to the contract. He explained that the contract is on-going, with no specific end date; however, the contract may be terminated with 30 days notice by either party. He stated that if Council concurs to appoint Mr. Wasmund, they should adopt the proposed resolution appointing Inspectron, Inc. as the City’s Septic System Inspector.
Councilmember Conant stated it is his opinion that the Septic System Inspector position should be reviewed every few years.
Attorney Kuntz stated he could change the term of the contract to expire in two-years and he does not believe that Mr. Wasmund would object.
Mayor Williams commented that the contract could be reviewed annually or that Mr. Wasmund could appear before Council yearly for review similar to the other consultants.
Councilmember Conant questioned if there is something in place to have a report presented to Council; he pointed out that since Mr. Wasmund is designated as a “Department” and an employee of the City, he should be required to submit a report occasionally.
Mayor Williams explained that Mr. Wasmund is technically not an employee of the City, but indicated that Council could review his position as a consultant on an annual basis.
Councilmember Burke asked for an explanation of an “alternative design” for a septic system. Attorney Kuntz indicated that it is his belief a Mound System would be classified as an alternative design.
Planning Commission Chair McCue pointed out that a system that does not meet the conventional distance from the residence and well may also be classified as an alternative design; she noted that there have been problems on some properties near Horseshoe Lake because the acreage of properties is smaller and that some homes may share systems. She advised that alternative plans were required for those situations.
Councilmember Burke indicated that Mr. Wasmund has a unique relationship as owner of the company hired to do inspection services, he pointed out that the contract allows Mr. Wasmund be the principle inspector for the City or to delegate the duties.
Attorney Kuntz responded that the previous contract did not require Mr. Wasmund to conduct the inspections, however, if Council wishes to require Mr. Wasmund to be the principle inspector and to supervise all inspections, that language may be added to the contract.
Councilmember Conant agreed that the language should be included.
Attorney Kuntz suggested the following language be inserted into the contract:
“Ron Wasmund, on behalf of Inspectron, Inc., must either (a) individually perform the services required to be performed by Inspectron, including plan review and inspections, or (b) directly supervise other employees of Inspectron who are performing the services required to be performed by Inspectron.”
Engineer Hanson explained that Mr. Wasmund’s license requires that he supervise inspections by his company.
Council discussed whether or not the Septic Inspector should attend the annual review along with other consultants or submit reports on an annual basis and concurred that he should attend the annual review in December.
The Attorney advised that he would also insert language that requires the inspector to appear at the annual consultant review meeting in December.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-07 titled, RESOLUTION APPOINTING INSPECTRON, INC. AS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE AND APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH INSPECTRON, INC. FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE with the amendments to the contract to include additional language recommended by the City Attorney and listed in the minutes and to require an annual review of the Inspector, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
b. Consider Resolution Directing the Sunfish Lake Planning Commission to Hold a Public Hearing on an Ordinance Amending Article X, Chapter 1001, Section 1001.13 and 1001.14 of the Sunfish lake City Code relating to Completion of Exterior Work and the Expiration of Building Permits: Attorney Kuntz referred to the direction from Council for staff to prepare an ordinance amendment relating to completion of exterior work and the expiration of building permits. He advised that the proposed ordinance amendment requires the completion of all exterior work authorized by a building permit within one year from the date of issuance of the permit, or within a timeframe set by the building official at the time the permit is issued, whichever is greater. He stated that the ordinance also provides that the building official may grant an extension of time to complete the exterior work for a period not to exceed six months in the event of unavoidable delays. If the exterior work is not completed before the expiration of the permit, a new permit must be obtained for completion of the exterior work.
The Attorney explained that in 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that requiring the completion of exterior work within a certain timeframe following the issuance of a permit was not valid since the State Building Code did not have a deadline. He noted that during the last legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature changed the law and now allows cities to impose a time limit for completion of exterior work after the municipality adopts an ordinance establishing the time limit. The law also provides that the deadline for completion of exterior work applies to both new building permits as well as previously-issued permits and extends the completion date to March 15, 2012.
Attorney Kuntz recommended that Council direct the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment at their February meeting.
Councilmember Conant commented that a resident on his street has been working on a project for two-years and asked if the permit would be grandfathered in or if the new regulations would apply.
Councilmember MacManus noted that the deadline for existing permits would be March 15, 2012.
Attorney Kuntz commented that there is a provision in the ordinance for extension of the permit deadline with Council approval.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that the language allowing the building official to set a timeframe which may be greater than one year appears to indicate that there may be no limit on the length of the permit. He questioned if an additional fee would be paid to extend the permit.
Attorney Kuntz commented that there would be the presumed good judgment of the building official to limit the permit to a specific date. The Attorney responded that additional fees could be imposed for the extension of the permit.
Councilmember Burke noted that the extension appears to be based on unavoidable delays.
Mayor Williams pointed out that the ordinance only applies to exterior work and it maybe appropriate to grant the permit for a 15-month period depending on the date issued and weather consideration.
Councilmember Conant expressed concern regarding granting the building official unlimited authority to extend the date of completion and suggested that language that limits the deadline by stating “up to two years” for an extension.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that Council could direct that language be included; he explained that the purpose of the request this evening is to receive input from Council and then refer the matter to the Planning Commission for their review and to conduct a public hearing.
Planning Commission Chair McCue asked if there could be some provision for granting a time variance if the permit expires. Councilmember Conant explained that the building official has the authority to extend the permit for a six month period.
Planning Chair McCue pointed out that the Commission is only a recommending body and residents normally go directly to Council to have the Commission recommendation overturned. She commented that the Commission
suggested a fine be imposed when residents undertake projects without obtaining permits. She asked if larger fines could be imposed.
Mayor Williams pointed out that Council has the same concerns regarding residents seeking forgiveness for completed projects rather than obtaining permission to begin the project.
Attorney Kuntz explained that failure to complete a project in the time allotted may be penalized as a misdemeanor and the applicant would also have to pay for another permit to commence the work. He noted that the new law only focuses on exterior work and not interior work and that hopefully it will outline penalties that may be applied.
Councilmember Burke noted that the discussion of penalties for doing work without obtaining a permit relates more to the next agenda item.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-08 titled, RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SUNFISH LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE X, CHAPTER 1001, SECTIONS 1001.13 AND 1001.14 OF THE SUNFISH LAKE CITY CODE RELATING TO COMPLETION OF EXTERIOR WORK AND THE EXPIRATION OF BUILDING PERMITS with the amendment limiting the deadline for completion to “up to two years” , seconded by Councilmember Burke.
In discussion, Councilmember Burke stated he agrees with the concept and the additional language that limits the extension for up to two years. He questioned if there is any ambiguity in the duties for the building official or the term of the permit and if the term deadline is documented in the permit.
Attorney Kuntz responded that there is no ambiguity in the duties of the building official and that the official exercises his discretion when issuing the time limit for the permit; he noted that any deviation in the completion date should be documented by the building official in the permit given to the homeowner.
Councilmember Conant asked if the Clerk retains a copy of the permit. Clerk Iago responded yes and advised that copies are kept by the building official, the Clerk, and Dakota County. She noted that the resident and/or contractor are also given a copy of the permit.
Mayor Williams called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried. (5-0)
c. Consider Resolution Directing the Sunfish Lake Planning Commission to Hold a Public Hearing on an Ordinance Amending Section 202.03 of the Sunfish lake City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Sunfish Lake City Zoning Ordinance Relating to Fees and Charges for Permits, Land Use Approvals, Site Plan Approvals, Burning Permits and Septic System Permits: Attorney Kuntz explained that the Sunfish Lake Fee Schedule is set forth in the Zoning Code and the code also addresses how fees are charged and handled. He stated that the proposed ordinance amends the sections as outlined in his report dated January 26, 2011 and listed as follows:
1) Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Code, amends the Fee Schedule to reflect the Septic System Inspector fees;
2) Section 202.03 of the City Code adds reimbursable charges for Forestry Work;
3) Amends the ordinance to reference “pass through” charges that are based on the hourly rates set forth in the contracts with those providing the services;
4) Defines and imposes additional charges for “After-the Fact” permits or approvals in the event the work was performed without first obtaining permission.
The Attorney explained that the fee for “after-the fact” permits or approvals must be reasonable and therefore, the proposed ordinance imposes a $150.00 fee to cover the City’s administrative costs. The proposed ordinance additionally requires reimbursement for any legal, planning, forestry and engineering costs incurred related to verifying, documenting or analyzing the previous work.
Councilmember MacManus stated that it is her opinion the $150 fee is not sufficient to deter someone from completing the work without a permit.
Attorney Kuntz explained that is a only the fee for administrative costs and additional costs may be incurred by the applicant when submitting an application to the Planning Commission; these fees would be imposed by the City based on the consultants costs to review the project that are classified as pass through fees. He reiterated that the fees charged must be reasonable and that the $150.00 fee only relates to administrative costs, which would cover the Clerk’s time to prepare the agenda, etc.
Councilmember Burke pointed out that those reimbursable costs would have been incurred anyway if the applicant had gone through the proper process.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the applicant would have to pay the application fees, plus the $150 fee.
Attorney Kuntz responded yes and noted that the applicant would have to pay the consultant fees for reviewing the completed work and also for their time to review the application submitted. He explained that he attempted to include some consequence for proceeding without approval; however the law requires the fees to be reasonable.
Councilmember Burke agreed there are constraints on statutory liability to impose reasonable fees; he questioned the punitive component and if civil penalties could be imposed. Attorney Kuntz indicated that in the case of a misdemeanor he believes the penalty would be in the range of $300.
There was discussion regarding reviewing the project retrospectively and imposing a percentage of the fees related to the consultant time in conjunction with the application. The City Attorney indicated that he calculated the $150 fee for administrative costs after reviewing the costs associated with planning application fees; the highest application being $250 for a Major Site Plan or Subdivision review and that the consultant time would be included for review of the project both retrospectively and during the application process.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that completion of the project prior to obtaining approval could effectively obliterate evidence pertinent to the review. He commented that residents could save a substantial amount of money by not doing what is required if the fees are not substantial enough to deter this behavior.
Councilmember Williams agreed, but noted that the City is limited as to imposing a reasonable fee. He questioned if the City could force a resident to restore the property and then make application for the project.
Attorney Kuntz responded that the City has the authority to request the resident remove the violation. He explained that some cities have instituted an administrative penalty schedule that applies when residents have completed work without obtaining a permit and are in violation of the ordinance. He suggested that it may be appropriate for him to explore this type of penalty rather than pursue criminal action when a violation occurs.
Engineer Hanson pointed out that if a resident has completed a project that was not authorized or is not permitted, Council has the authority to require that the violation be fixed or removed and to require restoration of the property.
Councilmember MacManus noted that there was a situation a few years ago where the property owner built a structure to close to the lake and Council required them to screen the structure, not remove it.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the City is notified by the County when the assessor finds an improvement that does not have a building permit. Mayor Williams stated he was unsure if the City is notified.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council direct staff to prepare information relating to the Administrative Penalty process for their review at the March meeting.
Councilmember Conant suggested that Planning Chair McCue report back to the Commission that Council has listened to their concerns regarding this matter.
Councilmember Burke agreed that the Administrative Penalties would be a good intermediate approach to handle this type of problem.
Mayor Williams noted that the City also has a responsibility to educate citizens regarding what type of penalties may be imposed if they do not follow procedures to obtain permits. Councilmember Burke agreed and added that they should also be notified that the City may request the project be removed.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Council concurred to direct the City Attorney to review the process for imposing Administrative Penalties for projects that have been undertaken without obtaining the necessary approval and building permits and present the information at the Regular Council meeting held March 1, 2011.
d. Schedule Public Hearing at the Regular Council Meeting on April 5, 2011 to Review the City of Sunfish Lake Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPPP) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit: Engineer Hanson explained that the Council annually conducts a public hearing to review the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program and receive input from residents prior to submitting a report to the MPCA in June of each year.
Councilmember Conant recalled that documentation is completed after the public hearing and asked if the information is posted on the City website.
Engineer Hanson responded that is correct and that the plan is updated after the public hearing to include resident input; he stated that he would provide a PowerPoint document to Council for review prior to the hearing and that the information would be posted on the website.
Councilmember Conant moved to schedule a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 5, 2011 to Review the City of Sunfish lake Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Plan (SWPP) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (5-0)
f. Consider Request from City Clerk for Reimbursement of Registration and Lodging Fess for MCFOA Conference: City Clerk Iago presented her request for reimbursement of registration and lodging fees to attend the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association (MCFOA) Annual Conference March 15 through 18, 2011, in an amount not to exceed $350.00.
Mayor Williams moved to authorize the reimbursement of registration and lodging fees for the Clerk to attend the MCFOA Conference in an amount not to exceed $350.00, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)
g. Discuss Procedures for Coordinating Contacts with Staff by Councilmembers: Mayor Williams explained that it would be his preference for Council to contact him with questions or issues relating to procedural changes rather than calling staff; he suggested that these items should be placed on the agenda for discussion by Council.
Councilmember Conant asked for a definition of procedural items.
The Mayor pointed out that the question relating to raising chickens was a good example of how the full Council determines procedural issues. He commented that he would prefer not to place staff in an awkward position if one individual requests information, and that it may be costly to use staff time to research questions rather than conduct the discussion at the meeting.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the request to be placed on the agenda should be directed to the Clerk.
Mayor Williams responded that Council may contact the Mayor or the Clerk to request an item be placed on the agenda. He indicated that if Council has concerns regarding how an issue is handled, it is more effective for staff to explain to everyone at the same time.
The Mayor asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved for adjournment at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Burke and carried. (5-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Richard A. Williams, Jr., Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
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.