SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MARCH 1, 2011
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Mayor: Richard Williams
Councilmembers: Judy MacManus, Roger Conant, and Mike Hovey.
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.
Councilmember Paul Burke and Building Official Russ Wahl were 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. He explained that he wished to add two items under New/Other Business; 1. Discuss Notice from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regarding Xcel Energy’s request for a rate increase and, 2. Schedule a Special Council Study Meeting. He asked if there were any further additions.
Councilmember Hovey stated that he wished to discuss the costs for postage to send items to Council at an upcoming meeting; he commented that it is getting expensive and pointed out the items are sent both electronically and by mail.
Mayor Williams stated he has no problem with receiving the items electronically. Councilmember Conant suggested that this matter should be discussed at the work session meeting. Council concurred to defer discussion to a special study meeting.
The Mayor asked if there were any further additions and there was no response.
Councilmember MacManus moved approval of the Agenda with the additional items recommended by Mayor Williams, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Conant questioned the payment to the Lower Mississippi Watershed Management Organization.
Mayor Williams explained that the payment is allocated by population and that it is an annual fee.
Councilmember Conant questioned if it is mandatory for the City and what the City receives for the fee.
Mayor Williams explained that membership is mandatory and that the City has access to available grant monies; he noted that there is no adverse impact for membership and that the group will be focusing on water quality in the future. He also noted that the City has a Joint Powers agreement with the group.
Councilmember Conant asked for an explanation of the Joint Powers Agreement and how it was initiated. The Mayor explained that the City of Sunfish Lake enters the Joint Powers Agreement with other communities to partner in problem solving and assistance when necessary. He explained that it was initiated between the City and surrounding communities a number of years ago.
Councilmember Conant commented that he has been a member of Council for two years and he has not previously heard of the agreement; he noted that he has never seen the billing statement before.
Treasurer Blair explained that the statement is paid annually and it is based on the population of the City.
Councilmember Conant questioned the Xcel Energy statement and what costs the bill covers. Treasurer Blair explained that the City missed payment of the bill because it was sent late; he noted that the amount is usually $50 a month; he pointed out that the bill was sent late which is why the costs were higher. He suggested that he would contact Xcel to correct this matter or that he could pre-pay the bill in the future. He noted that the bill does not reflect the credit received from payment.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the statement from Pine Bend Paving had been previously paid and the Treasurer responded no.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
a. Regular Council and Special Council meeting minutes of February 1, 2010.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financials
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments from the public.
Ibby Hammett expressed concern with traffic when she is driving south on Delaware and attempting to make a left turn onto Charlton Road; she noted that the vehicles behind her do not wait until she has completed the turn and she has concerns that an accident will occur with another vehicle or a pedestrian.
Engineer Hanson explained that in his opinion signage is not effective and suggested that enforcement may help alleviate the situation. |
Councilmember Hovey asked if a turn lane could be installed. The Engineer responded that installation of a turn lane would require substantial land; he commented that a turn lane would not be warranted unless numerous accidents had occurred at this location.
Ibby Hammett asked if a 4-way stop sign could be installed. The Engineer explained that Delaware is a County Road and that the road would have to meet certain conditions before the County would install a 4-way stop sign.
Chief Shaver offered to have his officers patrol this area.
The Mayor asked if there were further comments and there was no response
5. PUBLIC HEARING: None.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT:
a. Planning Report: Planner Fuhrman reviewed her report and explained that she granted approval of a Minor Site Plan for an addition to the home at 7 Salem Lane. The project included a bedroom addition, kitchen and family room addition, and construction of a new deck. She noted that the home does not currently meet the required 100 ft. front yard setback, however; no part of the addition is proposed to infringe on the front setback area, therefore the proposed addition meeting the ordinance requirements.
Mayor Williams questioned if the net increase in the addition is less than 1,000 sq. ft. and the Planner responded yes.
The Planner requested the City pay the $40 fee for her attendance at a Shoreland Ordinance Workshop presented by Government Training Services (GTS). She stated it would be beneficial for her to attend as the focus of the workshop relates to the new Shoreland Ordinances.
Councilmember Conant asked if the workshop is open to the public and indicated that he wished to attend if funds are available.
The Planner stated it is open to the public. The Mayor recalled that during the discussion of Council compensation it was the general consensus that it would be more appropriate to pay for educational opportunities than to have a monthly salary for Council.
The Mayor asked if a motion is necessary and Attorney Kuntz responded yes.
Councilmember MacManus moved to authorize the $80.00 payment for registration fees for Planner Fuhrman and Councilmember Conant to attend the GTS Shoreland Ordinance Workshop as requested, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
The Planner explained that the Planning Commission met and held two public hearings at their February meeting and she would discuss those details later on the agenda. She stated that there were no new applications for consideration at the March Planning Commission meeting, however; if Council chooses to direct the Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amending the fees and charges, there would be one public hearing at the March Planning meeting.
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
b. Consider Ordinance Amending Section 1219.03 – Relating to Allowed Exterior Building Materials: Planner Fuhrman reviewed the background of this matter relating to the request from a resident to utilize vinyl siding as a replacement for aluminum siding on her property. She explained that following Council’s decision to allow the resident to use vinyl siding, by the authority granted to Council under Section 1219.03B7 of the Zoning Code, the Council directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider broadening the scope of allowable exterior building materials. She advised that the specific ordinance came into effect in 1994 and since that time the quality and sustainability of vinyl siding and other materials has improved greatly. She stated that due to the unexpected illness of Mr. Wahl, she asked Inspector David Neameyer to provide comments on other exterior building materials for possible inclusion in the ordinance. She further explained that the contractor for the resident provided information relating to exterior building materials and brought samples for Commission review.
Planner Fuhrman stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the information and decided to recommend the current language of the ordinance be retained; this decision was based on the fact that the current ordinance is sufficient as it establishes a high standard of architectural and aesthetic standards for the City, but still provides an avenue for residents to seek approval from the City Council for materials not on the currently approved list.
The Planner explained that many communities regulate the exterior building materials allowed on commercial and industrial uses, but do not regulate the exterior building materials allowed for residential uses. She advised that the City of Excelsior does regulate exterior building finishes on residential uses and that she provided the approved list from that community for Council review. She noted that if Council wishes to utilize the materials in the City of Excelsior list they should remove the words “high quality as Mr. Neameyer suggested that language is subjective in nature.
Planner Furhman stated that the City of Sunfish Lake has a long tradition of seeking to maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic standards within the City, which prompted the creation of an allowed exterior building finish list to be included in the Ordinance. She noted that since the list was approved in the mid-1990’s the quality and sustainability of many materials has greatly improved and warranted a review to possibly broaden the list.
The Planner stated that if Council wishes to retain the current language, as recommended by the Commission, the language still offers a process on a case-by-case basis to those who wish to use materials not on the approved list. She further advised that if Council is inclined to broaden the allowed list, staff has provided an ordinance for consideration, Exhibit B, that expands the list to include other materials deemed appropriate.
Mayor Williams asked for comments from Council.
Councilmember Conant questioned why the Commission did not wish to include additional materials.
Councilmember MacManus explained that she talked to one of the Commissioners and was advised that the rationale for retaining the current language was based on the fact that residents still have the option to request approval from Council to use materials that are not on the list on a case-by-case basis.
Councilmember Hovey commented that in his opinion vinyl siding has been improved enough to be included in the list without seeking Council approval.
Mayor Williams commented that retaining the current language would provide an opportunity for Council to approve a higher quality product for replacement of exterior building materials; he pointed out that new home construction requests usually meet the current requirements and that Council approval would only be sought during replacement or repair situations. He noted that once the changes are made it would be difficult to remove the materials from the list if it is not working; he asked for an opinion from the City Attorney.
Attorney Kuntz stated that if the ordinance is not working, it would require an ordinance amendment to remove materials from the list; he noted it would require another public hearing to remove materials from the list.
Mayor Williams commented that he preferred to retain the language as it would be more appropriate to review requests on a case-by-case basis than to repeat the process of changing the ordinance.
Councilmember Conant stated he agreed with the Commission recommendation.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to retain the existing language of Section 1219.03B of the Zoning Ordinance, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (Ayes: 3 Conant, MacManus, Williams; Nayes: 1 Hovey)
c. Consider Ordinance Amending Article X, Chapter 1001, Sections 1001.13 and 1001.04 – Relating to Completion of Exterior Work and Expiration of Building Permits: Planner Fuhrman referred Council to the memorandum from the City Attorney dated February 2, 1011 which addresses the background information for the proposed ordinance amendment. She explained that the Minnesota Legislature adopted a bill during their last session which authorizes cities to adopt an ordinance establishing a time limit for the completion of exterior work under a building permit, provided that the limit for the completion of such work is not less than 180 days from the date the permit is issued. She noted that in order to impose a time limit for the completion of exterior work, the city must first adopt an ordinance establishing the time limit.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission, as directed by Council, conducted a public hearing regarding the completion of exterior work and the expiration of building permits. She advised that Council had suggested the following language be included in the ordinance amendment: …”that exterior work be completed within 365 days form the date of issuance of the building permit or within the timeframe set by the Building Official at the time the permit was issued, not exceeding two (2) years from the date of issuance, whichever is greater.’ She further noted that currently issued permits must be completed by March 15, 2012. She stated that if the ordinance amendment is adopted by Council, she would send letters with notification of this deadline to persons with outstanding permits. She advised that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance amendment as presented.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments.
David Neameyer questioned if the language allows the building official to extend the maximum deadline for two years and six months or only two years. Attorney Kuntz advised that the current language provides for maximum deadline to be two years and six months for an extension granted by the building official.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that such an extension would require extraordinary circumstances.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if another permit would be issued for the extension. The Planner responded no.
Councilmember MacManus questioned the section relating to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and asked if the certificate would be delayed until the exterior work is finished.
David Neameyer pointed out that some building permits for exterior work would not require a Certificate of Occupancy, such as a new roof or replacement siding.
Attorney Kuntz agreed and noted that Certificates of Occupancy or Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are issued in conjunction with new home construction. He noted that the proposed ordinance is to ensure that exterior materials on the home are completed by a certain deadline and that the residence is habitable. He explained that the Planner, Engineer and Building Official usually conduct an inspection of the new construction to insure items are completed prior to the issuance of the regular or temporary Certificate of Occupancy. He noted that temporary Certificates of Occupancy are issued due to the fact that some items, such as final grading, may be delayed due to weather conditions. He further explained that escrow funds are not released until the final Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
David Neameyer commented that it has been his experience that persons building higher quality homes wish to move in quickly and some materials such as stone or stucco cannot be installed during the colder winter months which may delay issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mayor Williams suggested the addition of language that would create an exception for a delay of this nature.
Mr. Neameyer explained that the issue could be addressed with the issuance of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy and submission of escrow funds.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the section of the ordinance under discussion is not recommended for amendment and that the Planning Commission has not discussed the issue of the occupancy certificate.
Councilmember Conant suggested that the matter could be sent to the Planning Commission for discussion and recommendation to Council.
Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council complete their discussion of the ordinance amendment as presented this evening and then determine if they wish to adopt the amendment as presented or refer the matter to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Mayor Williams stated he would prefer to have the ordinance in place.
Councilmember Hovey asked if there were any current permits waiting for a Certificate of Occupancy and the Planner responded no.
Councilmember Conant asked if an addition to an existing home would require a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Neameyer explained that the Certificate of Occupancy applies only to new construction and suggested that this matter could be handled with an extension for unusual cases, such as delaying final grading of the property due to weather conditions.
Mayor Williams commented that this issue could be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than delay adoption of the ordinance. He suggested that Council could adopt the ordinance amendment as presented and then direct the Planning Commission to review the matter or delay adoption until the Commission has reviewed the matter.
After a brief discussion, Council concurred to adopt the ordinance as presented and to direct the Planning Commission to review the issue and make a recommendation to Council.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Ordinance No. 11-01 titled, 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 Conant and carried. (4-0)
Councilmember Hovey moved to direct the Planning Commission to review the language in Certificate of Occupancy to determine if any amendments are necessary and to direct staff to prepare information for discussion of the issues raised by Council this evening, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
Council thanked the Planner for her report.
Councilmember Conant referred to an item on the Planner’s billing statement relating to a telephone call that required 65 minutes of the Planner’s time; he asked if the Planner experienced such long telephone calls often.
Planner Fuhrman explained that she does receive questions from contractors frequently. She explained that the telephone call most likely did not last for 65 minutes and that the time shown includes research of City regulations and follow-up conversations.
Mayor Williams indicated that the City may be able to recoup some of the costs as a “pass-thru” item; he suggested that this could be discussed during the Council study meeting.
Councilmember Conant explained that he was not questioning the Planner’s integrity, but rather how often this type of activity occurs. He agreed that it could be discussed at the study meeting.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Clerk Iago stated that the Building Inspector had submitted his resignation effective February 21, 2011, due to health issues. She advised that David Neameyer, who was previously appointed by Council to fill in during Mr. Wahl’s absence, had submitted a letter offering to serve as the Building Inspector until such time as Council officially appoints a replacement for this position. She noted that the State requires designation of a temporary inspector within 15 days of the resignation; otherwise the State will appoint someone to serve in this capacity. She distributed Mr. Neameyer’s letter and resume for Council review.
Councilmember Conant moved to accept the resignation of Inspector Russ Wahl with deep regret, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
Mayor Williams commented that he would miss Russ and that it has been delightful to work with him over the years; he noted that Russ had assisted him when he purchased his home in Sunfish Lake and had provided excellent recommendations during the process.
Council and staff concurred that it has been a pleasure to work with Russ during his long tenure as inspector.
Mayor Williams suggested appointing Mr. Neameyer to serve as the interim building official for a period of 90 days until such time as Council determines how they wished to proceed with an appointment.
Councilmember Hovey moved to appoint David Neameyer as the Temporary Building Official for the City of Sunfish Lake for a period of 90 days, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (4-0)
Mr. Neameyer explained that he has been working with Mr. Wahl during the last two months and had done one inspection approximately 3 weeks ago.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that a resident had informed him he has been working on his home and that no inspections had been done on the work.
Mr. Neameyer questioned if this person had called to request an inspection; he pointed out that it is the responsibility of the homeowners to contact the Building Inspector when they have completed that portion of the work that requires an inspection.
Councilmember Conant stated he does not believe the homeowner was aware of that fact; he offered to contact the homeowner to relay that information.
- City Engineer: Angell Road Culvert Replacement: Engineer Hanson stated that all property owners have been contacted to discuss the easement acquisition and the culvert replacement project. He stated that one property owner has declined to sign a permanent easement, but will allow the project to proceed on their property. He stated that the construction plans are substantially complete and should be presented to Council at the next meeting.
Councilmember Conant asked how the City would proceed with the project without the necessary easement from the property owner. Engineer Hanson explained that he would obtain a temporary waiver to do the work, however, the property owner will not grant a permanent easement.
There was a brief discussion regarding whether or not the waiver must be notarized. Attorney Kuntz explained that because the waiver is not recorded, it does not require a notary. He further explained that the waiver would allow the City to proceed with this project only and that future maintenance projects would also require waivers.
There was a brief discussion relating to why a resident would not wish to grant a permanent easement. Mayor
Williams pointed out that a permanent easement is attached to the property title; he commented that if the property is sold, the new owner may not like the fact the easement was granted.
Councilmember MacManus questioned if the property owner understands the issue of maintenance. Engineer Hanson responded yes and pointed out that the resident indicated they do not wish to give up their right to the easement.
Mayor Williams stated that it would be foolish for the City to pursue eminent domain and that future improvements would require temporary waivers.
Musser Parking Lot: The Engineer stated he had conversation with Ann Murphy of the Minnesota Land Trust and he would discuss this item later on the agenda.
Charlton Road and Delaware Avenue Streetlight: Engineer Hanson stated that Holly Divine had questioned the location of the streetlight that was installed at the intersection of Charlton Road and Delaware Avenue. He pointed out that the Council minutes did not designate a quadrant for location of the streetlight. He noted that the placement of the streetlight on the southeast quadrant of the intersection was recommended by Xcel Energy and approved by staff. He further explained that the pole on the southwest quadrant had several utility lines, including primary electric lines, and Xcel indicated that placing the streetlight on this pole would require relocation of the existing utility lines. He indicated that there are also separation requirements between utility lines and other objects and that placing the streetlight on the southwest quadrant would also have been considerably more expensive that the installation on the southeast quadrant.
Councilmember Conant stated that Holly Divine explained that she did not like the location of the light because it shines on her home; he questioned what the cost difference would have been to place the light on the opposite quadrant.
The Engineer stated he did not request information on the cost difference.
Lynette Olsen explained that Sunfish Lake residents were told by Mr. Paster that the light would be placed on the Mendota Heights side of the street and that is why they signed the petition.
Ibby Hammett agreed and pointed out that Mr. Paster had a diagram showing the location on the Mendota Heights side of the street attached to the petition.
Councilmember Conant asked if the City has a copy of the petition. Clerk Iago responded no and explained that the petition was submitted to the City of Mendota Heights, not Sunfish Lake. She pointed out that Holly Divine indicated her concern was related to the fact that Council had not approved the location rather than the light shining on her home.
Engineer Hanson noted that Ms. Divine may have less light glaring on her property with the placement of the light on the Sunfish Lake quadrant because the pole would block some of the light.
Mayor Williams asked if there was anyway to put up a temporary light on the other side of the street to show residents the difference.
After a brief discussion, the Engineer offered to obtain further information from the City of Mendota Heights and Xcel Energy relating to the initial petition from Mr. Paster and the cost implications for moving the light to the other quadrant. He explained that he could discuss the matter again with Ms. Divine and other residents that signed the petition.
Mayor Williams agreed that the residents involved should look over the information and determine how they wish to proceed.
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 5. 2011 regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Councilmember Conant asked if documentation relating to the hearing would be sent to Council and if the public hearing has been scheduled. The Engineer explained that the information is contained in a PowerPoint presentation and it will be sent prior to the meeting. He stated that Council set the hearing at the last meeting.
Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of February: Street Snowplowing: The Engineer stated that the City streets were plowed and sanded and the events were listed in his report.
Councilmember Conant questioned how the City is charged per event. The Engineer explained there is an hourly rate for each event and it relates to the type of equipment that is used.
Councilmember Hovey pointed out that the costs are listed on the billing statement and the higher costs appear to be for the use of sand and salt in conjunction with the plowing.
Engineer Hanson stated that the hourly cost is $82.00 for the sand truck, plow and operator. He advised that he has contacted Pine Bend on three occasions to request them to use less sand during the snowplowing events.
Mayor Williams asked if there are any standards on what should be used during a snow event. Engineer Hanson indicated there is a policy that should be followed for each type of event, however; he commented that in his opinion the operator has been somewhat over zealous on one or two occasions. He noted that hilly streets and intersections usually require more sand, as well as areas near the speed humps. He indicated that cul-de-sac streets do not require as much sand and salt.
Councilmember Hovey asked if the bids had ever included a “flat fee’ versus an hourly rate. Engineer Hanson responded that the bid has always been an hourly rate; he commented that the last few years the costs were lower and that each snow event is different.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of March:
- Seasonal load restrictions will be placed on City streets according to the dates set by MNDot. It is
anticipated load restrictions will go into effect the second week in March and remain in effect for 60 days
- Obtain street sweeping quotes
- Street snowplowing
- Preparation of the NPDES Annual report public hearing
- Easement Acquisition for Angell Road Culvert Replacement Project
Councilmember Conant reminded the Engineer to post the load restrictions on Sunfish Lane. Engineer Hanson stated it is on the map for posting.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report. - CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he had not issued any burning permits in February and that he continued with clearance of high risk trees adjacent to various streets within the City, as well as Ash trees within the right-of-way.
The Forester advised that he had attended a First Detectors Seminar to train volunteers who are willing to identify trees within their areas for the Emerald Ash Borer; he advised that other pests and diseases were also reviewed at the seminar. He explained that the volunteers assist the Department of Agricultural to prevent the spread of problems.
Forester Nayes distributed information for Council review relating to proposed seeding along Charlton Road; he stated that this would fill in areas to hold back brush and slow erosion along the roadway. He noted that he is not requesting formal action on the matter this evening.
The Forester advised that he has reviewed the noxious weed regulations and noted that some categories have changed; he advised that he would be working to educate residents on prevention methods as well as eradication.
Councilmember Conant asked if the Forester would serve in the First Detector volunteer capacity on behalf of the City or as an individual; the Forester responded as an individual.
Council thanked the Forester for his report. - PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed the public safety report. He explained that a silver Volvo struck a mailbox in the City and that the headlight was left at the scene; his officers are investigating the incident. He suggested it would be appropriate for staff to examine dead trees in public right-of-ways to determine if they should be removed prior to the upcoming spring storm season.
Forester Nayes stated he has been compiling a list of trees for removal.
Chief Shaver reported that the department is investigating the shooting of a dog in the City.
Mayor Williams questioned the caliber of the bullet used to shoot the dog.The Chief responded it was a .22 caliber bullet.
Councilmember Conant questioned the Community Policing notation on the report; he asked if this is an on-going process. Chief Shaver responded that it is an on-going process and stated he was unsure of the type of incident; he noted that such activities include responding to Community Policing requests from schools for demonstrations and other activities.
Councilmember Hovey asked if an officer responds to 911 hang-up calls. Chief Shaver explained that it depends on the circumstances; he advised that usually the dispatcher will call the number to determine if assistance is required.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider 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 referred to his report dated February 23, 2011 and reviewed the five interrelated items that are pertinent to discussion. He advised that the Council action items for consideration would be to adopt the resolution directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed fee schedule and to schedule a public hearing at the April 5 Council meeting to discuss the Commission recommendation and adopt the proposed ordinance.
The Attorney advised that he had also prepared a memorandum relating to instituting an Administrative Penalty for improvements or construction that began prior to the landowner receiving approval of an application. He explained that because there is no express specific statutory authority that authorizes a city to create an independent administrative fine system, he would not recommend the City of Sunfish Lake attempt to institute this process at this time. He noted that it would be best to defer this matter until there is a uniform statewide answer either by a court or from the legislature. He offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments.
Councilmember Conant noted that one of the proposed changes relates to the City Forester fees, among others, would be a pass-thru fee; he questioned who determines how much of the Forester’s services are necessary and the amount of time that would be spent on the matter.
Attorney Kuntz responded that typically the Forester’s service and time would be required for a site plan review and the City Planner would solicit the Forester to review the landscape portion of the application. He explained that other staff members may also review the application as it applies to their area of expertise. He stated that the number of hours would be determined by the complexity of the plan submitted. He further explained that once the plan is approved, the Council may direct the Forester to review the site to insure the plan was installed correctly.
Councilmember Conant stated he did not recall the Council requesting the Forester to check any properties and commented that this must be exceedingly rare.
Attorney Kuntz explained that Council has the authority to request the Forester to check a site to determine if the landscaping plan has been installed as submitted; he stated this would involve checking the number and types of plants installed. He agreed that it may not happen often, but it is one of the services provided by the Forester.
Mayor Williams agreed that it may not be at the request of Council for the Forester to check a site plan, but rather the request of staff. He questioned if the Planning Commission had ever requested the Forester complete a compliance check.
Forester Nayes stated that it has not been his experience to have the Council or the Planning Commission request this service, however; the Planner has requested his input on landscaping plans and to check construction sites to insure the plantings were installed or trees were marked for removal.
Councilmember Conant explained that in his opinion it is a little unsettling that it is verging on a situation whereby the person doing the work determines how much work needs to be done.
Mayor Williams pointed out that this is typically in the context of a consultant checking to determine the work has been completed in accordance with the approved site plan.
Councilmember Conant suggested Council move forward with the discussion.
Councilmember Conant stated that he disagrees with the Attorney’s opinion that the City cannot charge more than $150 for the administrative fee. He commented that the Attorney provided a fair amount of material for Council review relating to the Administrative Penalties and then stated in his memo that it is not necessary to read all of the materials. He referred to the information from the Attorney General and an item from the Auditor, as well as information from a law firm relating to traffic tickets and voluntary administrative hearings; he stated he does not believe these were germane to the issue. He referred to the information from a law firm that indicated if the Council has the authority to pass a regulation, then implicitly it has the authority to enforce it. He stated that after reading all the material he does not agree that the analysis is correct and that it is his opinion the fee could be increased.
Councilmember MacManus stated that she read the information and it appears to imply that the City could impose an administrative penalty up to $1,000. She further noted that some cities are imposing the penalties on certain projects, but the information indicates that if the matter goes to court, a judge would not look fondly on the matter and would not agree a city has that jurisdiction. She further indicated that if someone pursues the matter legally and if the matter was contested in court, it most likely would not stand up.
The Mayor stated he reviewed the information and it appears that a city can impose the fee; however, the only way it can be collected is to go to court to obtain a judgment. He also noted an administrative hearing would be costly as well as the expense of pursuing he matter in court. He explained that he asked the attorney when the ordinance was drafted if someone seeks forgiveness because they proceeded without approval, could the City direct them to remove the improvement and the attorney responded yes. He further advised that if the City then pursues the matter in court, all the costs would be pass-thru fees, such as Attorney fees. He indicated this would be the preferred method in his opinion. He asked the City Attorney if there was a statutory limit on the amount of penalty the City may impose.
Attorney Kuntz responded that there is a statutory limit for the penalty under Chapter 412 of the Statutes, a limit similar to a misdemeanor and the City Code also states that provision
Councilmember MacManus stated her opinion that the City could collect the fees and it did not require a court order. Councilmember Conant agreed.
Mayor Williams questioned how it could be collected if the person refuses to pay. He stated that a court judgment automatically enforces payment. He noted that it is his understanding the City cannot impose a penalty without providing a hearing.
Attorney Kuntz agreed that some type of due process, such as a hearing, is mandatory.
Mayor Williams stated he would be more inclined to force the applicant to remove the improvement and start over and if they don’t voluntarily do so, the City can collect the fees.
Councilmember Hovey commented that the City doesn’t collect the fee; it would go to the County and be placed on the taxes. Attorney Kuntz disagreed and stated that the County has no authority to place the costs on the tax rolls.
Councilmember MacManus agreed with the Mayor that if the improvement does not meet ordinance requirements it should be removed. She stated that residents should be advised that if the rules are not followed they may have to tear it out. Attorney Kuntz explained that the City would not be in a position to grant a permit just because the rules were not followed.
Councilmember MacManus explained she is referring to those improvements that do not meet requirements.
Mayor Williams asked if the cost of the permit cost could be increased if the person had not previously received permission prior to the improvement.
Attorney Kuntz explained that the City could impose the misdemeanor penalty, double the permit fee for the work that requires a permit and also impose the additional administrative fee. He reiterated that Council pursue these options and wait until such time as the legislature grants cities the authority to impose the administrative penalty.
Councilmember Conant questioned if someone installs an improvement without obtaining the necessary permit could they be charged with a misdemeanor.
Attorney Kuntz explained that if an improvement is constructed without a permit it would be in violation of the City Code and a misdemeanor penalty could be imposed of up to $1,000 or 90 days in jail.
Councilmember Conant asked who determines the penalty and how the person is charged. Mr. Kuntz responded that the judge decides the penalty and a formal complaint must be filed in District Court to begin the process.
Councilmember Conant stated that the misdemeanor approach is an acceptable alternative to an administrative penalty and persons could be notified of this possibility. He expressed his opinion that the administrative fee could be higher than $150.00
Mr. Kuntz explained that the $150 was meant to be a “flat fee” to cover the costs associated with staff time. He indicated this fee would be used for staff time to verify the condition of the property prior to and after the improvement and it was based on the hourly rate for such time. He explained how he arrived at this calculation based on the current salary and rates for staff and how much of a fee could be justified.
Councilmember Hovey commented that the fee must be justified. Mayor Williams noted it is purely an administrative fee; he indicated that the person still must obtain a permit and could incur other pass-thru costs for staff to review the matter.
Councilmember Conant questioned if the McFadden fee was higher. The Planner indicated the fee was approximately $80.00.
There was discussion relating to the amount of the administrative fee. Councilmember Conant stated it is his opinion that the administrative fee should be $250.00. Mayor Williams stated that he does not believe the fee can be high enough to deter this action.
Councilmember Conant expressed his annoyance that the Attorney had sent a substantial amount of material and then suggested it did not have to be read. He stated that if the material is sent is should be read.
Attorney Kuntz explained that knowing he had sent such a substantial amount of materials to Council relating to the administrative penalty was to portray the ongoing debate relating to this issue it was not necessary to read all of the attachments other than to provide a sense that the issues continues to be controversial.
Councilmember Hovey stated he had to read the material several times, but stated that he learned a lot and he appreciates the Attorney’s efforts to provide the additional information.
Councilmember Conant indicated that he did not wish to make any further issue of the matter.
Mayor Williams asked if there were further comments and there was no response.
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 recommended that Council take action to adopt the resolution directing the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment at their April 5, 2011 meeting. He asked if Council wished to change the Administrative Fee to $250 or leave it at $150. Council concurred that the amount should be $250.00.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-09 titled, 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, seconded by Councilmember Hovey. Motion carried . (4-0)
Schedule Public Hearing at the Regular Council Meeting on April 5, 2011 to Consider an Ordinance Amending
Section 202.03 of the Sunfish Lake City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Fees and Charges for Permits, Land Use Approvals, Site Plan Approvals, Burning Permits and Septic System Permits:
Attorney Kuntz advised that Council should schedule a public hearing to consider the aforementioned ordinance amending the fee schedule.
Mayor Williams asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to schedule a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 5, 2011 to Consider An Ordinance Amending Section 202.03 of the Sunfish Lake City Code and Section 1201.10 of the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Fees and Charges for Permits, Land Use Approvals, Site Plan Approvals, Burning Permits and Septic System Permits, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)
b. Consider Resolution Requesting the Minnesota Land Trust Amend that Certain Conservation Easement between the City of Sunfish Lake and the Minnesota Land Trust dated December 27, 2002 for the Purpose of Allowing the
City to Construct a Six (6) Stall Parking Area Within the Musser Park Property: Engineer Hanson explained that he had contacted the Land Trust to review the issues associated with parking near Musser Park and spoken with their attorney, Ann Murphy. He stated that Ms. Murphy indicated it is her opinion the conservation easement could be amended to include a parking area and that she would present the request and the concept to the Board. He advised that the size of the parking and placement could be presented at a later date after Council determines the best approach for parking. He pointed out that the six stall parking area was the largest option discussed.
Mayor Williams recalled discussion of possibly widening the shoulder and placing parking in the ditch area where an easement would not be required.
Engineer Hanson indicated that was discussed as a back-up plan in the event the proposal was not authorized by the Land Trust.
Mayor Williams asked if the Land Trust wished to review a specific proposal or just a request for a parking area.
Engineer Hanson explained that Ms. Murphy suggested submitting only a request at this time.
Mayor Williams pointed out that if they grant approval the City still has all the options open for discussion.
Councilmember MacManus noted that the resolution lists six stalls; she suggested changing the language to say “up to six stalls” to keep all options open.
Attorney Kuntz explained he could revise the resolution prior to its submission. He indicated that rather than submit a diagram with the six stalls shown, he could revise the language to state ”up to six parking stalls at a location approved by the Land Trust and request they enter into an agreement for up to six stalls. He suggested that the diagram showing the location of the stalls be removed. He recalled the estimated cost for the six stall parking area was approximately $25,000 o $27,000.
Engineer Hanson explained that the diagram showing the six stalls had already been submitted.
Councilmember Conant commented that Council is embarking on a “slippery slope” since no evidence has been presented that residents need or want to park at this location. He agreed that access is necessary for maintenance purposes; however, he questioned the expenditure for parking when no evidence has been presented its needed.
Mayor Williams pointed out that the demographics of the City are changing and that it has been difficult to park in this area for events such as the Buckthorn Bust; he suggested that a decision should not be made based on only one Councilmember’s opinion. He disagreed that this is a “slippery slope” and pointed out that it should be viewed as making arrangements for better use of the park or an attempt to obtain permission and keep the options open.
Councilmember MacManus agreed.
Councilmember Conant questioned the need to seek permission for speculation purposes without evidence of a need for parking.
Mayor Williams commented that if a resident does not live close to the park, access is an issue; he pointed out that Council is not making a commitment by seeking permission from the Land Trust.
Councilmember MacManus stated that residents have expressed the fact it would be nice to have parking in this area; Councilmember Hovey agreed.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-10 titled, RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA LAND TRUST AMEND THAT CERTAIN CONSERVATION EASEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE AND THE MINNESOTA LAND TRUST DATED DECEMBER 27, 2002 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT A SIX (6) STALL PARKING AREA WITHIN THE MUSSER PARK PROPERTY as amended to state “Up to Six (6) Stalls”, seconded by Mayor Williams and carried. (Ayes: 3 Hovey, Williams, MacManus; Nayes: 1 Conant)
c. Consider Resolution Ratifying Application for a Tree Planting Grant: Mayor Williams stated that the Forester had contacted him regarding a grant that was available for tree planting. He explained that the Forester had completed the application and submitted it to him for signature to meet the deadline for submission. He suggested that Council should ratify this action by adopting a resolution at this time.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 11-11 titled, RESOLUTION RATIFYING APPLICATION FOR A TREE PLANTING GRANT, seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (Ayes: 3 Conant, Hovey, MacManus; Nayes: 0; Abstain: 1 Williams )
d. Other: Schedule Council Study Meeting: Mayor Williams asked Council if they preferred to meet during the week or on a weekend to conduct a special work session meeting.
Councilmember Hovey suggested a meeting be held prior to the regular Council meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Council concurred that an evening meeting would be preferable and suggested scheduling the meeting in May.
Mayor Williams suggested that Council consider items they wish to discuss so that the agenda could be finalized and the meeting could be scheduled at the April Council meeting.
Councilmember Conant commented that the Southwest Review newspaper is no longer delivered in Sunfish Lake.
Clerk Iago questioned if resident must subscribe to the paper. Councilmember Conant stated it is free and should be distributed in the City if it is the official newspaper. The Clerk offered to check on this matter.
Clerk Iago stated that she had found volunteers to participate in the CAMP lake monitoring program on Sunfish and Horseshoe Lakes; she asked if anyone had a suggestion for a volunteer who lives on Hornbeam Lake.
After a brief discussion, Mayor Williams offered his services to assist with the lake monitoring on Hornbeam Lake.
Mayor Williams asked if there was any further business and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Conant moved for adjournment at 9:10 p.m., seconded by Councilmember MacManus and carried. (4-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
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.