- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

AUGUST 5, 2014

7:00 P.M.

Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Cathy DeCourcy, and Steven Bulach

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

Engineer: Tim Hanson

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

City Forester: Jim Nayes

Building Inspector: David Neameyer

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Police Chief Shaver was absent

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. She requested a moment of silence for Mendota Heights Police Officer Scott Patrick who was slain during a traffic stop in West St Paul.

2. APPROVE AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda. She stated that she wished to discuss a memorial to Office Patrick under agenda Item 8.f. Other.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and
carried. (5-0)

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Park asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

a. Regular Council Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2014.

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

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

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness reviewed the following information listed in her report dated July 30, 2014.

The Planner stated that two public hearings were held at the July Planning Commission meeting as follows:

Applications that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in August :

345 Salem Church – Minor Site and Building Plan Review and Variance: The Planner explained that the applicants are requesting a shoreline and side yard setback variance to constr4ut a garage expansion on an existing attached garage. The Commission tabled the request and continued to public hearing to their August meeting to allow time for the City Engineer to review newly submitted grading, drainage and stormwater management plans. She advised the project should come before Council at their September meeting.

2566 Delaware Ave – Major Site and Building Plan Review and three (3) CUP’s: The Planner explained that the applicants are requesting a Major Site/Building Plan Review and three (3) Conditional Use Permits (CUP’s) allow construction of a new home and pool terrace. She noted that the CUP’s were to allow a second accessory structure on the lot, the pool to be placed between the structure and the lake and for the lot area calculation. She explained that this application and public hearing were also tabled to the August Commission meeting to allow time for the City Engineer to review newly submitted information and should come before Council at the September meeting

Inver Grove Heights Northwest Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Update Addendum: The Planner stated that she received a copy of the Inver Grove Heights NW Areas AUAR Addendum for review and comment. She noted the original document was reviewed by staff and Council and approved by Inver Grove Heights in 2007. She stated that at the time of the initial review by Sunfish Lake, several issues were raised and staff has now reviewed the document to insure that those issues have been addressed in the addendum that is currently under review.

Planner Barness reviewed the issues that were initially identified:

1. Potential interchanged at I-494 and CR 63 – this interchanged is no longer proposed at this location and has been realigned approximately one-half mile east of the exiting overpass to minimize impacts to Hornbeam Lake.

2. Increased traffic generation resulting from expansion of the So. Robert Trail/TH 3 and County Road 63/Argenta Trail. This expansion is still included in the addendum and staff advised that Sunfish Lake wishes to have an opportunity to examine future proposals in detail.

3. High density residential land uses on the south portion of Hornbeam Lake. The addendum now proposes Rural Residential land uses in this area which is more compatible with Sunfish Lake land uses. The Inver Grove Heights Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Medium Density Residential.

Mayor Park asked if the Rural Residential definition is the same as given to Sunfish Lake. Planner Barness explained that it should be the same definition as the Metropolitan Council provides guidelines for the land use definitions, but she was unsure and offered to verify it was the same. She stated she would respond to Inver Grove Heights if it is found to be different and also that she would request that an amendment to their Comprehensive Plan be made to show the same land use for this area.

4 & 5. Water Quality and Wildlife Protection on Hornbeam Lake based on proposed road improvements along I-494 in this area and that measures be taken to redirect drainage away from the lake and/or explore measures to protect lake water quality and nearby natural systems. The Planner noted this concern is still relevant given the potential for roadway improvements.

The Planner explained that staff was asked to provide comments on the addendum prior to the August 5, 2014 Council meeting and a response addressing these described ongoing issues was forward to Inver Grove Heights planning staff.

Councilmember Hovey suggested that former Mayor Dick Williams be contacted regarding the information as he was very involved in this matter.

Mayor Park agreed and stated she also was very involved in the issues.
Planner Barness reviewed the technical assistance she provided relating to planning and zoning items for several properties in Sunfish Lake as listed in her report. She stated she would provide more information if Council had questions.

Mayor Park asked the name of the person conducting the fund-raising party at 2130 Charlton Road. The Planner stated it was Claire Noble.

Councilmember Hovey asked what information was given. The Planner stated they discussed parking, noise, lighting, etc. and that she referred the resident to the Police Chief for further information.

Bob Reisberg asked if he could register a complaint relating to the consultant’s reviewing applications. He stated that in his opinion it appears that staff acts as the advocate for persons making applications and he stated that maybe they should act as an indifferent third party. He commented that the City regulations were established and should be upheld and in his opinion the City should provide some direction to the staff to let them know they repent the City versus advocating for the applicants.

Mayor Park thanked Mr. Reisberg for his comments.

Planner Barness stated that an application for property at 1 Grieve Glen Lane for a Major Site and Building Plan Review and CUP would be heard at the August Planning meeting. She explained the applicants wish to construct an accessory sport court structure on their property which would serve as a third accessory structure in addition to an existing in-ground pool and a detached garage. She explained that the City requires a CUP to allow more than one accessory structure on the property, but does not limit the number of accessory structures that may be applied for. The Structure will increase the hard surface on the property by more than 1,000 sq. ft., which requires Major Site and Building Plan approval

Mayor Park asked if the neighbors would be informed and the Planner responded that the neighbors within a 1,000 ft. radius are notified.

Councilmember Wahlstrom recalled that it was 750 ft. radius for notification and the Planner indicated that during her tenure the radius was 1,000 sq. ft.

Mayor Park questioned the fact that there is currently no limit on accessory structures. Planner Barness explained that Planning Commission had discussed whether or not it would be appropriate to limit the number and it was determined that the issue should be addressed on a case-by-case basis since each property would be different.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked when the neighbors would be notified and the Planner responded that the notices would be mailed tomorrow.

The Planner advised that an application for a Major Site and Building Plan Review and CUP for property at 45 Salem Church Road would also be heard at the August Planning meeting. She stated that the applicants wish to construct a new home on the undeveloped lot which is a legally non-conforming lot as pertains to net lot area. She further explained that the CUP relates to permitting redevelopment of the substandard size lot for a single family residence.

b. Discuss Ordinance Regulating Chicken Keeping: Planner Barness explained that recently a residents raised a concern relating to the City’s review and regulation of chicken keeping. She stated that the issue of keeping chickens was presented to council in 2010 at the request of a few neighbors interested in having chickens on their property. At that time Council was made aware that residents wishing to keep chicken must adhere to criteria for the keeping of farm animals as outlined in Section 1225: Animals, in the Zoning Ordinance and must also seek approval of an administrative permit issued by City staff as outlined in Section 1225.01E of the Code. She stated that the fee for the administrative permit is $200 and this covers the cost of the permit review by the City Planner and site review by the City Forester. She noted that both the Planner and the Forester review the application to insure that it meets the criteria as shown on page 3 of the Planner’s report dated July 30, 2014. She also noted that immediately abutting property owners are also noted and allowed seven (7) days to respond with potential concerns. If potential concerns cannot be resolved, final approval of the permit may be forwarded to Council. She stated the process takes approximately two to three weeks.

The Planner explained that there are no specific standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance for smaller farm animals such as chickens or bees, but staff may attach some additional conditions to the permit to protect the surrounding properties from any negative impacts.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if there are any setback requirements for the chicken coops and the Planner responded there are none at this time. She explained that the Forester reviews the site and makes recommendations for placement of the coop.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that since this is becoming more popular it may be wise to put setback regulations in place to insure neighboring properties are not negatively impacted.

The Planner explained that one resident who currently houses chickens on their property has indicated that that in their opinion the process if too complicated. She explained that the Ordinance is not easily found or interpreted by the general public and that Council may wish to; 1) discuss maintaining the current ordinance as is; 2) direct staff to review the matter further and provide an additional analysis of this issue; or, 3) direct staff to provide educational information for residents via the City newsletter and website.

Attorney Kuntz commented that the urban chicken keeping phenomenon began in the Twin Cities area around 2010. He distributed a newspaper article from the Wall Street Journal from August 2, 2011 relating to the issue of backyard henhouses. He referred Council to a handout he prepared listing five (5) customary means of regulating the chicken keeping use pursuant to Zoning Ordinances;

1) Prohibit Use; 2) Permit Use without Performance Standards; 3) Permit Use with Performance Standards; 4) Require Administrative Permit Subject to Performance Standards and Specific Conditions; and 5) Regulate by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit Subject to Performance Standards and Specific Conditions.

The Attorney stated that the City currently operations under Item 4 listed-above and commented that the last chicken keeping permit approval was submitted to Council because the applicant was placing a second accessory structure on the property and there was a more extensive review for that purpose.

Mayor Park pointed out that the setback issue may arise and the expense for the permit should be explained to residents wishing to keep chickens that the funds are used for the review by more than one staff person.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the fee was paid annually.

Councilmember Hovey responded no and explained that the fee was paid for the initial permit review and was good for one year. He stated that if there were no complaints within the first year, the permit was then re-issued for an additional three years before the next review.

Councilmember Bulach asked the status of the resident who currently has a chicken coop but did not obtain a permit.

Forester Nayes explained that the coop was still on the property and that is what lead to the discussion this evening.

Brent Baskfield stated he was present representing Virginia Coss who is an adjacent neighbor to the property that houses the chickens without a permit. He explained that Ms. Coss has expressed her annoyance that the coop is closer to her home than to the owner’s home. He stated that in his opinion this matter could be settled with discussion between the two property owners and he commented that residents should not be able to pick and choose which laws they wish to follow. He also noted that the chickens have appeared in Ms. Coss’s yard and should not be allowed to run freely. He stated that if a resident burned yard debris on their property without a permit they would be fined. He reiterated that Ms. Coss objects to the current location of the chicken coop and is displeased with the lack of maintenance surrounding the area. He commented that it appears the City has not been enforcing the law.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if anyone has talked to the property owner.

The Planner responded that she has contacted the property owner through email to resolve the matter and they asked if these concerns could be presented to Council for discussion prior to going through the permit process.

Councilmember Wahlstrom explained that other residents have had to go through the proper channels to house chickens and in her opinion this resident should also adhere to the law.

Planner Barness explained that the resident was hesitant to make application for the permit and preferred to wait until this matter was discussed by Council to determine if any changes would be made.

Councilmember Hovey suggested a letter be sent to the resident that allows them 30 days to comply with the application process or the City would request removal of the chickens.

Councilmember Wahlstrom concurred with this suggestion.

Attorney Kuntz noted that the resident indicated they wished Council to lessen the restrictions on chicken keeping and if Council does not wish to do so, the letter should include the fact that Council action was not to change the process at this time.

Mayor Park commented that the resident conveyed to her that a member of the Police Department informed them no permit was needed to house chickens. She explained that the resident was upset that the police came to their home to inform them that a permit was need. She asked if the City has the right to remove the chickens from the property prior to resolving the matter.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the City may establish a date for the resident to comply with the City Code regulations, but the City does not have the right to remove any personal property from the resident at this time. He suggested the letter include language advising the resident that they need to begin the permit process or the City will take other actions for enforcement of the law.

The Mayor commented that maybe the requirements for chicken keeping need to be more restrictive and asked if the setback issues could be resolved by staff during the permit process.

Forester Nayes explained that he reviews a list of requirements with the applicants when he reviews a site as part of the permit process. He commented that he could include a setback requirement during the site review process.

Attorney Kuntz agreed that reasonable conditions may be attached to the permit review process.

Councilmember Bulach pointed out that the City has setback requirements for other types of applications and commented that the adjacent neighbor most likely does not like to see the chicken coop so close to her property line. He stated that in his opinion it would be appropriate to set a reasonable setback condition with the permit process.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that in her opinion a conditions should be included that the chickens need to be contained within the coop and watched by the owner when they are out of the coop.

Mr. Reisling asked why the chicken coop is not considered an accessory structure.

Planner Barness explained that each coop is constructed differently and some do meet the accessory structure guidelines and some do not; she noted that each case is reviewed individually and most chicken coops are under 120 sq. ft.

Mayor Park asked if staff should explained the rationale for the $200 fee. The Planner stated that the fees are set annually by Council for each application process and she offered to include an explanation in the letter.

Brent Baskfield pointed out that Burning Permits used to be only $5.00 and now they are $45; he commented that most residents are aware of the fact that the fees cover staff time to review the application.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to confirm the decision that Council does not wish to lessen the permit requirements or procedures for chicken keeping as currently regulated by the City Zoning Code, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

Mayor Park stated that as a courtesy she wished to contact the resident by phone prior to the letter being sent and asked if Council had any objections. Council concurred that it would be appropriate for the Mayor to contact the resident.

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to direct the Planner to prepare a letter to the resident advising of the decision by Council not to lessen the requirements or fee for the application to house chickens and to further advise that they have 30 days to comply with the permitting process or the City will pursue other actions for enforcement, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

Councilmember Bulach asked if Council should discuss the issue of setbacks for chicken keeping or if that should be determined by staff.

Forester Nayes pointed out that it may be appropriate to include other small farm animals that are kept on residential properties in the setback discussion.

Attorney Kuntz suggested that the City Planner could survey other cities on this issue and share the information with Forester and then they could make a recommendation to Council.

Councilmember Wahlstrom commented that staff should survey other communities with similar lot sizes.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Neameyer stated he issued twelve n (12) permits closed thirteen (13) permits in July.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in July: Building and Site Reviews: Engineer Hanson stated that the City Engineer had been busy with several site and building plan reviews in July and that he anticipates additional site reviews in August.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of July: Charlton Road/Sunfish Lake Outlet Maintenance. The Engineer stated that the outlet at the lake was cleaned in early July. He explained that two to three yards of gravel washed back through the pipe from Charlton road and plugged the inlet to the pipe. All of the material was removed from around the inlet area and the pipe is now able to handle any discharge from the lake. He commented that the current water level of the lake was right at the pip discharge elevation.

2014 Street Reconstruction Project Update: Engineer Hanson stated the contractor is working on Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court and should have most of the work at that location completed by August 8. He stated that work on Windy Hill Road should be completed by August 15 and the following is a current project schedule for Council information:

- August 5, 2015 – Request Council action to call for Public Assessment Hearing

- September 2, 2014 – Council conducts Public Assessment Hearing

- October 2014 – Staff certifies Assessments to Dakota County

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for August: 2015-2019 CIP Update/ 2015 Budget: The Engineer explained that Engineer Sterna would incorporate any comments from the August Council meeting relating to the 2015-2019 CIP and would review the CIP and 2015 Public Works/Engineering Budget for Council review and action at their September meeting.

Cable Guardrail Repair: Engineer Hanson advised that Engineer Sterna had been seeking a contractor to complete the guard rail repairs on Charlton Road; he noted that the previous contractor was no longer in business.

Councilmember Hovey asked when the north end of Charlton Road would be graded and Engineer Hanson stated he would ask the City Engineer and report back to Council.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated he issued three (3) burning permit in July and that he distributes the “Treeways” burning permit news article with each permit issued.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the burning permits were issued for three contiguous days or could be used on three different days throughout the year.

Forester Nayes stated that his interpretation is that residents may chose three days to burn, not necessarily consecutive; he noted that he advises permit holders that the permit may be used within the calendar year it is issued.

Councilmember Bulach questioned if the brush debris on Acorn Drive would be taken care of this fall.

Forester Nayes explained that it was his understanding that the Telander’s would take care of this matter and that they have a burning permit to do the cleanup. He pointed out that the deterrents and delay for the cleanup could be the related to the snow, then the spring mud and contractors may be busy. He pointed out that the landowner lives out-of-town and stated he would prefer that the work be done when the Telanders are in town to oversee the project. He offered to contact the Telanders to determine when the work might be done.

Councilmember Bulach agreed that the Telanders should be contacted to get the cleanup underway so that the neighbors have the matter resolved.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Mayor Park explained that Chief Shaver was absent this evening to attend the “Night to Unite” activities in the City of West St. Paul. She referred Council to his report dated July 25, 2014.

Council thanked the Mayor for presenting the Public Safety report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed for Improvement Project 2014-01: Attorney Kuntz referred Council to his reported dated July 30 2014 requesting Council action to adopt two (2) resolutions; 1) a resolution declaring costs to be assessed and ordering preparation of proposed assessments for the Street Improvement Project 2014-01; and, 2) a resolution calling for a public assessment hearing for the same project. He explained that the proposed amount of assessments for properties along Angell Road would be $4,500 per buildable tax parcel and the amount per buildable tax parcel along Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court would be $6,500. He noted that list of parcels to be assessed was attached to the resolution and that affected property owners would be notified of the hearing.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-23 titled RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR SUNFISH LAKE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2014-01, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

b. Consider Resolution Calling for Assessment Hearing for Improvement Project 2014-01:

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No 14-24 titled RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN ASSESSMENT HEARING WITH RESPECT TO SUNFISH LAKE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2014-01, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

c. Consider Resolution Approving 2014 Deer Population Management Plan: Attorney Kuntz referred to his report dated July 30, 2014 regarding the 2014 Deer Population Management Plan and Resident Volunteer Program. He stated that the proposal for the plan has two components; 1) a contract between the City and Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc.; and 2) hunting by volunteer residents on private and/or public land.

The Attorney explained that the proposed 2014 Deer Management Plan is a mirror of what was approved by Council last year with the exception of the dates hunting would be allowed. He stated that Councilmember Hovey acted as the City liaison and discussed the proposed plan with Investigator Muellner from the West St. Paul Police Department, representatives from the Metro Bowhunters group and Jim Nayes representing the private citizens who wished to hunt. He advised that all parties agreed to the content of the contract.

Attorney Kuntz stated that if the contract is approved by Council this evening, it would be sent to the Metro Bowhunters group for signatures.

The Attorney noted that the certification process required from the DNR for private citizens to hunt had been slightly changed and that the residents must pass the expert skill level in order to be allowed to hunt in the City. He offered to respond to questions.

Councilmember DeCourcy pointed out that last year three (3) deer were shot and their carcasses were never recovered. She commented that she shares Olivia Dodge’s philosophy that the City should not be a playground for deer hunters.

Councilmember Bulach asked if there was a limit set for how many deer may be taken.

Councilmember Hovey responded no and stated the group and residents are hopeful that the enough deer could be taken so that there may not be a need for deer hunting in the future. He commented that with surrounding cities also conducting deer hunts it may be possible to reduce the entire population in this area to manageable numbers.

Forester Nayes agreed and noted that last year a resident called the police department to shoot a deer that was obviously starving; he commented that he did not wish to see the herd starving.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-25 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING 2014 DEER POPULATION MANAGEMNET PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0) (Ayes: Wahlstrom, Hovey, Park, Bulach; Nays: DeCourcy)

d. Consider Approval of the 2015-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Engineer Hanson explained that the 2015-2019 Capitals Improvement Plan (CIP) is a tool used to identify upcoming projects and estimated costs so that the City may plan and budget for the projects. He noted that the two projects proposed in 2015 include Charlton Road Maintenance at an estimated costs of $14,000 and General Street Maintenance such as stripping, sweeping, patching, ditch repair and maintenance and water quality improvements at an estimated cost of $17,000. He pointed out that the document also includes improvements that may be levied, infrastructure updates, culvert cleaning, and monitoring storm sewers. He explained that the SWPPP Program laws have changed and require more documentation of maintenance and upgrades to storm water facilities.

The Engineer stated that funding sources are also listed in the proposed CIP for upcoming projects. He reviewed the 2016 and 2017 proposed improvements which include crack sealing and seal coating, updates to insure SWPPP regulations are adhered to and possible costs for watershed repairs in South St. Paul that would require a cost-sharing agreement with the cities of South St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights. He noted that in 2018 some infrastructure improvement and storm sewer improvements are also scheduled, however; there are no major projects that could be assessed proposed until 2021.

Engineer Hanson requested that Council direct any questions, comments or concerns to Engineer Sterna so that he may incorporate any changes to the document prior to its adoption at the September Council meeting. He advised that the CIP is merely a tool that cities use for planning and budgeting purposes and that it is not concrete and may be changed as Council deems necessary.

Mayor Park referred to the Exhibit “A” street map and questioned where the colored portion for the year 1992 would be located on the map. She also asked if there was any Council action necessary this evening.

Engineer Hanson explained that he would ask Engineer Sterna to clarify the color scheme. He advised that no action is required tonight and that the formal document would be presented for approval at the September meeting.

e. Discuss City Permit Procedures: Mayor Park explained that this item was discussed earlier under the Planner’s report.

f. Other: Mayor Park explained that she had contacted the City Clerk and City Attorney to discuss what would be appropriate as a gesture of sympathy for a memorial to Officer Scott Patrick who was slain this week in Mendota Heights. She stated she wished to send a letter to the Mayor, staff and Police Department in Mendota Heights from the Council and staff of Sunfish Lake. She offered to draft the letter and forward it to Mendota Heights City Hall. She further asked if Council and staff would be interested in making a donation to the memorial fund for Officer Patrick’s family.

Council concurred that both the letter and donations would be an appropriate tribute to Officer Patrick.
Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Bulach moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (5-0)


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor