Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Steven Bulach and Richard Williams

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

Engineer: Don Sterna

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember JoAnne Wahlstrom and Police Chief Manila Shaver were absent.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Park opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

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

Councilmember Williams asked that an item be added under Item 8. New/Other Business: 8.d.1 Discuss Grant Available for Alum Treatment in Sunfish Lake, LMRWO.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

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.

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

5. PRESENTATIONS: a. Discuss Cable TV Franchise for Qwest Broadband Service, Inc. d/b/a Century Link, Inc. – Jodie Miller, NDC4 and Attorney Brian Grogan: Mayor Park introduced Jodie Miller, Executive Director of Northern Dakota County Cable Commission (NDC4) and President of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATCOA) was present along with NDC4 Attorney Brian Grogan and Century Link representative Patrick Haggerty who were present to discuss the proposed new cable television franchise and the new application for a second company to provide cable service.

Jodie Miller explained that the current cable provider, Comcast, requests an extension of the current franchise agreement for one year and that a new application from Century Link to serve as a second company competing for the cable market was submitted. She referred Council to the presentation distributed and stated that Attorney Brian Grogan would review the document and respond to questions.

Brian Grogan explained that 16 years ago the City adopted the cable franchise ordinance with Comcast as the service provider. He stated that Century Link proposes to offer "wire-line" hardwire cable service as a alternative so that the consumer has a choice. He explained that the City has the franchising authority and that the final decision would be made by Council. He noted that the Federal Cable Act prohibits the franchising authority from unreasonable refusing to award an additional competitive franchise.

Attorney Grogan explained that Comcast proposed a transfer of their franchise in 2014, which was initially approved, but the transfer did not occur. He advised that Comcast has now requested to extend their franchise agreement for one year and requests that the City adopt the proposed resolution to extend their contract.

Brian Grogan explained that Qwest Broadband, Inc., d/b/a Century Link had submitted an application for an additional cable franchise agreement with the City. He advised that the Cable Commission held a public hearing on the application and found that the company qualified and requested staff to negotiate a cable franchise agreement with Century Link. He noted that the term for the Qwest franchise agreement would be 5-years, while previously the contract term with Comcast was 15-years. He described the requirements for a system build-out in the cities and advised that the 5-year term would allow the cities to review and reconsider the contract.

Attorney Grogan discussed the system build out requirements and the definition of "living units" that would qualify under the build out requirements. He noted that Sunfish Lake does not have a high percentage of cable penetration due to the larger lots.

Councilmember Hovey asked if Century Link would install new cable lines or use the existing lines.

Mr. Grogan explained that they may do both. He commented that the goal would be to limit disruptive construction.
He described the differences in the service and channels between the two companies. He noted that Century Link proposes to provide complimentary service to the Cable Commission and for public buildings; Century Link would also provide indemnification.

Attorney Grogan stated that the NDC4 staff and legal counsel recommend approval of the Qwest Broadband Inc., d/b/a Century Link application and also the request to extend the Comcast Franchise Agreement for one year.

Mayor Park asked if the extension would allow the Commission to work on another contract with Comcast or if Comcast may decide to stop service.

Mr. Grogan explained that in his opinion it is unlikely Comcast would stop service and it is the goal of the Commission to present a new Comcast contract to the cities within the one year extension period.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the rates would be similar.

Mr. Grogan responded yes and pointed out that the City has no authority to regulate the costs. He explained that the FCC studies found the cable companies usually do not complete on price.

Mayor Park pointed out that the Delaware Avenue and Robert Street are the areas with more density and where build out could occur.

Patrick Haggerty, representing Century Link, explained that density is a factor but not the driving factor. He noted that living units must qualify and have sufficient equipment for installation.

Councilmember Hovey asked where Century Link would start the installations.

Mr. Haggerty explained that the company had identified areas but he was not at liberty to discuss them.

Mayor Park asked how resident would be approached to gain their business.

Mr. Haggerty advised that a direct mailing would be sent to describe products and determine interest. He also explained that a sales team may go "door-to-door" to distribute information.

There was discussion regarding the similarities between the two service providers and the installation process.

Mr. Haggerty explained that no new cable would be installed unless a resident orders the service and the cable is not provided.

Mayor Park asked how many other member cities had approved the requests.

Jodie Miller explained that the Commission had approved the requests in February and that Sunfish Lake was the first presentation by staff. She noted that the City would be required to conduct a public hearing prior to final approval of the Century Link request.

City Attorney Kuntz noted that when the Cable Commission was formed 30 years ago there was a requirement for the franchise agreement to take care of small cities. He asked if Sunfish Lake has the ability to withdraw from the Cable Commission. He questioned if the opportunity for an additional cable franchise would go away if the company cannot reach the level of build out required in Sunfish Lake.

Attorney Grogan explained that one other small city that is part of the group has no cable penetration at this time, but one installation could provide a 100% increase in build out. He explained that any City may withdraw from the Commission and that there is a procedure to follow in order to withdraw.

Attorney Kuntz asked if there would be any new construction, such new poles or additional wires from pole to pole.

Mr. Haggerty explained that there most likely would not be new pole placement and noted that most cities have underground wires for the service.

Attorney Grogan explained that the Commission would encourage installation of the fiber optics underground whenever possible and hope that old wires would be replaced to provide better service.

Councilmember Bulach asked what happens if a homeowner does not have sufficient speed for the service and if Century Link could provide the additional speed.

Mr. Haggerty explained that if the homeowner would be unable to purchase their product without sufficient speed and would have to install a dish. He pointed out that Comcast could install upgraded cable but Century Link cannot. He explained that a major component for service installation is the distance from the wires, which may pose a problem with the larger lots in Sunfish Lake.

Mayor Park asked what the next step is for the City.

Jodie Miller explained that two action items are requested this evening; 1) adopt the resolution extending the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement for a period of one year, and; 2) schedule a public hearing to discuss the application from Qwest Broadband, Inc. d/b/a Century Link to provide additional cable service.

Attorney Grogan explained that he would contact the City Attorney to discuss the ordinance granting an additional cable franchise which includes findings of fact to support the actions; he noted the proposed ordinance with findings of fact could be adopted at the public hearing.

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

b. Consider Resolution Granting Comcast of St. Paul, Inc. a Franchise Extension:

Councilmember Williams moved to adopt Resolution No. 16-08 titled RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, MINNESOTA GRANTING COMCAST OF ST. PAUL, INC. A FRANCHISE EXTENSION TO MARCH 31, 2017, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (4-0)

City Attorney Kuntz explained that Sunfish Lake does not require a public hearing to adopt an ordinance, however, he indicated it may be better to hold a hearing for the additional franchise. He suggested scheduling the hearing at the April meeting and that there would be sufficient time to publish the notice.
Mayor Park asked if there were any comments or questions and there was no response. She thanked Jodie Miller, Brian Grogan and Patrick Haggerty for their presentations.

Councilmember Williams moved to schedule a Public Hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance granting an additional cable television franchise to Qwest Broadband, Inc., d/b/a Century Link in the City of Sunfish Lake, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Presentation and Discussion of Alternative Energy Sources – Brian Ross: Planner Barness introduced Brian Ross from the Great Plains Institute for sustainable development who was recommended by the State of Minnesota to respond to questions raised by Council. She explained that Council raise questions relating to the design, size, and screening of ground-mounted solar panels and that she asked Mr. Ross to provide additional information to Council before any action was taken on the alternative energy sources.

Brian Ross stated he has worked with this non-profit organization for 18 years and there are currently 24 employees. He distributed a handout for local government to use as a "tool kit" when establishing planning, zoning and permitting regulations. He advised that several cities have initiated a "Green Steps Program" that he co-administers with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). He advised that a model ordinance was created for Minnesota cities and that technical assistance is also provided to cities. He commented that solar development has benefits and nuisances and that not all solar development is the same. He explained that he has worked with several cities in several states in developing their regulations.

Mr. Ross stated that when reviewing solar development it is important to address the solar resource and the different land uses. He explained that some residential solar installations would not require a conditional use permit or variance if all existing zoning regulations are met with the installation. He also noted that cities must determine how to balance conflicting resources, such as trees and solar systems do not work well together. He asked if the City had determined how they wish to regulate solar installations.

Councilmember Williams explained that there are no public buildings in the City and therefore it would appear that single family installations would be most likely.

Planner Barness explained that the ground-mounted solar panels would be considered as an accessory use, not the principle use on the property. She advised that the concerns raised related to the size, aesthetics and visual impacts of ground-mounted solar panels. She was unsure what size and height would be large enough to be productive yet not negatively impact adjacent properties. She also noted that a concern relating to glare from the panels was raised. She noted that the roof mounted systems would be limited to the building height requirement in the zoning code and the ground-mounted systems would be limited to 16 ft. in height, which is currently the height for other accessory structures.

Mayor Park asked if the City has the ability to deny the use of ground-mounted solar systems.

Planner Barness advised the City may deny their use but must provide findings of fact for the denial.

Mr. Ross agreed and pointed out that the City should review the current regulations and treat the solar systems the same.

Attorney Kuntz noted that the current ordinance limits the building height to 30 ft., however, there are provisions for extending antennas, chimneys and other rooftop mechanical equipment slightly higher. He asked if the solar panels would be limited to the 30 ft. height.

Planner Barness responded yes.

Mr. Ross explained that a solar system must have six hours of sunshine, 365 days per year to be effective and if it cannot meet that definition it would not be a solar resource. He stated that the solar ground-mounted panels would not work in shaded areas, which may also be an area slightly above the peak of a roof.

Councilmember Williams noted that the City also has a tree ordinance that limits removing trees unnecessarily. He asked what concerns were expressed for the ground-mounted systems.


Mr. Ross commented that most concerns relate to aesthetics. He noted each City is unique as some cities would allow a large pole barn on properties, but not ground-mounted panels.

Mayor Park asked if panels facing a street would be a visual issue.

Councilmember Williams suggested they could be screened from view.

Mr. Ross stated the panels could be screened but the screening should not prohibit them from working.

Mayor Park asked if glare would be a concern, especially near the lake water.

Mr. Ross pointed out that concern stems of the perception that the panels are a glass surface and at some point glare would be seen. He noted that all manufacturers use non-glare glass. He further explained that glare is usually emitted from a light, such as a street light, whereas solar panels do not emit light.

Councilmember Bulach stated his concern relates to the ground-mounted systems and their height and size. He noted that with the proposed regulations the panels could be 16 ft. x 16 ft. and asked if the City could limit the size to 8 ft. x 8 ft. instead.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that a 16 ft. x 16 ft. panel would be no different than the size of a storage shed.

Councilmember Bulach stated that in his opinion a storage shed with some shape and color would be his preference.

Planner Barness explained that as a permitted accessory use the panels would require screening from adjacent properties.

Councilmember Williams suggested that the ordinance could be crafted to include screening as part of the Council approval.

Planner Barness explained that the solar panel installations would be permitted and only require a building permit, not Council approval.

Attorney Kuntz explained that staff would prefer that this type of request not have to go through Council for approval to save time and reduce costs. He asked Mr. Ross the useful life expectancy for the ground-mounted solar panels.

Mr. Ross explained the panels are guaranteed between 20 and 25 years from the manufacturer, however, he stated that some panels may still produce energy after 40 years.

Attorney Kuntz advised Council they have a variety of choices relating to the ordinance and they have the option to authorize the use of some of the alternative energy sources while denying others.

Mr. Ross agreed and explained that if Council authorizes energy systems with regulations that are similar to current uses in the zoning code there should not be problems.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions.

Resident Linda Tuohy questioned why Council would not consider including only roof mounted panels and not allow ground-mounted panels. She commented that she moved to Sunfish Lake for its rural environment and agreed that a pole barn would be more attractive than the ground-mounted panels. She asked if neighbors would have an opportunity to give input on the installation or the screening.

Mr. Ross advised that Council may limit the installations to only roof mounted panels provide they articulate a reason for doing so versus arbitrarily denying their installation. He noted they could also require the ground-mounted panels to be considered as a conditional use permit so that each request is reviewed on an individual basis. He advised that the City of Woodbury limited the ground-mounted panels based on lot size.

Resident Shannon Werb noted that the ordinance does not exist at this time and questioned what happens if a resident wished to install solar panels.

Planner Barness explained that currently they are not permitted since they are not included in the current City ordinances and a request would be denied.

Mr. Werb asked the timeline for adoption of the ordinance.

The Planner explained that a draft of the final ordinance should be presented to Council at their April meeting after this discussion.

Mr. Werb stated he would encourage Council to allow staff to approve the solar panel installation without requiring a conditional use permit or Council approval.

Mayor Park asked what needs to be done to finalize the proposed ordinance.

Planner Barness explained that Council should determine what size ground-mounted panels would be appropriate since the current ordinance does not limit the size of accessory structures. She advised that some communities limit the size to 25% of the rear yard and the model ordinance for the State of Minnesota suggests they are no larger than half the size of the existing structure on the lot.

Mr. Ross pointed out that the model ordinance works in suburban communities and may not work in Sunfish Lake with the larger homes. He noted that the City of Afton picked the size of one system they indicated was appropriate for their community.

Mayor Park questioned how many panels would provide the necessary energy for a home.

Mr. Ross advised that to have a "net zero" home would require a large system; he indicated that smaller lots would have to have a combination of ground and roof mounted systems to get a "net zero" home.

Mayor Park asked if Council could approve the roof mounted systems at this time and the ground mounted at a later date.

Mr. Ross indicated that if Council delays a decision on the ground mounted systems they may react in the heat of the moment if a request is submitted.

Councilmember Williams asked if the City could allow roof mounted systems as a permitted use and require a conditional use permit for ground mounted systems, which may discourage applications due to the costs.

Attorney Kuntz responded yes but noted that the City would have to articulate why the ordinance treated the uses differently.

Mayor Park pointed out there are more variables to consider with the ground mounted systems.

Councilmember Bulach noted that the City has struggled in the past with screening issues that have not met the adjacent property owner expectations.

Planner Barness sked if any cities had established conditional use permit for ground mounted systems and if Mr. Ross had any examples.

Mr. Ross stated he would attempt to find an example. He noted that the City of Dubuque, Iowa limited the ground mounted panels to a total of 150 sq. ft. l and if over that size, required a conditional use permit.

Planner Barness asked Council their preference for the systems and what they wished to include in the ordinance.


Councilmember Williams stated he preferred allowing the roof mounted solar panels by permit and allowing the ground mounted panels by conditional use permit.

The Planner asked if a certain size and height should be included.

Councilmember Williams stated he would prefer that the conditional use permit application for the ground mounted systems meet all current requirements for accessory structures.

Council directed the Planner to prepare the draft ordinance for their consideration at the April meeting.

Mayor Park thanked Mr. Ross for his presentation.

b. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness Council to her report dated February 24, 2016 and explained that the City Of Eagan requested staff review and respond to a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the Minnesota Vikings facility and a mixed use development in their city.

Mayor Park explained that she and Councilmember Bulach had a meeting with the Minnesota Vikings representatives and the City Clerk had also attended a meeting in the City of Eagan on this matter. She noted that discussions related to the traffic issues and that she was informed the 10,000 seat stadium had been reduced to a lower elevation to limit noise impacts. She noted that she made it clear to the representatives and she had also advised the press representatives that the City of Sunfish Lake does not wish anyone to reconsider a possible interchange at Delaware Avenue.

Planner Barness explained that she requested the City of Eagan to respond to traffic impact questions raised in her report and their response was attached in Exhibit B. She noted that the traffic analysis in the AUAR and a Mitigation Plan would address traffic concerns in more detail and studies would be completed on 70^th Street and Argenta Trail. She stated she would keep Council informed.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

Council took a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated he issued one (1) plumbing permit in February and issued two (2) temporary Certificates of Occupancy for new homes.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in February: A. Fire Numbers: Engineer Sterna stated that the two remaining fire numbers had been delayed by the manufacturer and must be picked up in Lakeville.

Forester Nayes offered to pick up the signs and install them.

B. TH 110 Improvement Project for 2017: The Engineer advised that the drive around with MnDOT was scheduled for 4:45 p.m. and that two (2) MnDOT representatives, David Sheen and Molly Klein, would attend along with Mr. Tuohy from the Citizens Task Force, the Mayor and the City Engineer.

Mayor Park stated she had discussed the project with the Commissioner and Engineer Sterna advised he had discussions with Jon Solberg from MnDOT; he explained they requested the Special Meeting on March 10 be held at 6:00 p.m. rather than 7:00 p.m.

Mayor Park asked if the Fire Station would be available at 6:00 p.m. and Clerk Iago stated she would call the Fire Secretary and inform staff if there was any problem changing the time.

C. Charlton Roadway Improvement Discussion: Engineer Sterna explained that he met with Attorney Kuntz to discuss possible road improvements to Charlton Road and also improvements to Salem Church and Roanoke Roads. He distributed copies of maps that showed the properties assessed with the 2014 road improvement projects and a memorandum from the City Attorney dated March 2, 2016 that outlined the special assessments for improvement projects from 1989 through 2014 and showed the percentages paid by the City and the property owners.

The Engineer noted that improvements to Charlton Road have been discussed for several years but nothing has been done due to complex issues related to the roadway. He advised that MnDOT offered to include paving of Charlton Road from TH 110 past St. Anne’s Church as part of their project, however, he does not recommend working with MnDOT on Charlton Road since it would be costly and cumbersome. He further noted that he would prefer to gather input from residents along the roadway to determine if the project could be extended beyond the church property .He explained that the project costs are estimated at $68,000 to pave the road to the end of the church property and that there are four (4) parcels that could be assessed at a cost of $4,250 per parcel. He noted that two of the parcels belong to the church and that the City would pay the remaining costs for the project. He noted this would be a cost share of 75% paid by the City and 25% paid by the property owners while normally the cost share is 60% paid by the City and 40% by the property owners. He explained this would require a majority vote by Council to proceed with the project and that property owners would be required to provide permanent easements to the City as part of the project.

Mayor Park pointed out that although some residents favor paving the road, she would suggest that all residents be informed that the City is discussing the project and offered an opportunity to provide their input.

Councilmember Williams asked if certain standards must be met to construct the road based on its designation.

Engineer Sterna responded that City roads must meet certain standards, however, findings of fact were adopted when Acorn Drive was improved so that it could be constructed as a rural roadway. He pointed out that a number of residents along Charlton Road would have to agree to dedicate the road easements to the City since appraisals and purchasing the easements would be too costly.

Mayor Park stated she was not opposed to the project, but in her opinion all the residents should be informed.

Attorney Kuntz explained that staff is not asking for action this evening, only providing Council information and options to review at this time. He noted that staff had also provided information on two (2) other projects for Salem Church Road and Roanoke Road and information on previous assessments in that area.

Engineer Sterna asked Council to review the information for discussion at a future meeting.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that the City should take into consideration the increasing costs for grading and dust control along Charlton Road. He noted that the majority of problems occur on the first section of the road from TH 110 to the end of the church property. He agreed that the City should do the project on its own rather than with MnDOT.

The Engineer agreed and noted the costs for maintenance of the road have increased to approximately $10,000 per year. He advised that Council could conduct an Open House to discuss a proposed improvement with residents on Charlton Road so they are informed of the options.

D. 2017 City Improvement Project Discussion: Engineer Sterna also discussed the proposed Salem Church Road reclamation and repaving project and the overlay on Roanoke Road. He noted that Roanoke Road is proposed to be assessed at $5,500 per parcel, with the City paying approximately 40% of the costs and the residents being assessed approximately 60% of the costs. He referred Council to the map for the proposed assessments for the Salem Church Road project and noted that all properties that have access to the road would be included in the assessment.

Mayor Park asked if that was standard for parcels that access the road to pay assessments. She questioned if she would pay an assessment in her area for access along a private road.
The Engineer explained that an assessment occurs if the road if defined as a "collector" road that other private roads access. He asked Council to review the information for discussion at a future meeting.

E. Snow Plowing for February: Engineer Sterna explained that he received a complaint from a resident relating to icing on the road and an unintentional event where large rocks were placed on the road during a sanding operation. He advised that he asked the contractor to apply just salt for the rest of this snow season since it has been a mild winter with a lot of freezing and thawing occurring. He suggested that he would discuss vendor solicitation with Council at a future meeting to determine if a higher level of service should be pursued.

F. Building and Site Reviews: The Engineer stated he conducted one (1) pre-application meeting for a future project and one (1) pre-construction site visit this month.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of February: None.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for March: Engineer Sterna stated he would solicit quotes for crack sealing and sealcoating and also street sweeping. He advised he talked to Pine Bend Paving regarding the grading of Charlton Road.

The Engineer stated that the City was asked to participate in the Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP) and that the residents who monitored the three (3) lakes should be contacted to determine if they are willing to continue this program.

Engineer Sterna advised that he had discussions with the City Planner and Attorney regarding small vacant lots in the southeast corner of the City that would not be able to support two septic system locations. He advised that the talked to staff at the City of Inver Grove Heights regarding an extension of sewer lines to these lots and they advised they could reserve from capacity when their sewer line is extended to 65^th Street.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the City would have funds to place a fire hydrant at Charlton Road and Highway 110 and explained that the Fire Chief was excited to hear this may occur.

Engineer Sterna explained the cost would be approximately $10,000 to $15,000 to extend the line from West St. Paul across the highway and that this could be discussed at a future meeting.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.