SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 2015

7:00 P.M. – ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, and Steven Bulach

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

Engineer: Don Sterna

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

Building Inspector: Mike Andrejka
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.
Councilmember Cathy DeCourcy arrived at 7:05 p.m.

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 and there was no response.

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom 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.

Councilmember DeCourcy arrived at 7:05 p.m.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: a. Presentation: Results of Airplane Noise Departure Study, Dana Nelson, MAC Manager of Noise, Environment and Planning: Mayor Park introduced Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) representatives Dana Nelson, Manager of Noise, Environment and Planning and Derek Anderson, Acoustic and Technical Systems Coordinator, who were present to provide results from the airplane noise departure study conducted in Sunfish Lake in August, 2015.

Dana Nelson distributed presentation slides of the Sunfish Lake Noise Monitoring Study and explained that she would review the outline which included the scope of the study, the methodology and results, conclusions, and response to questions from those present. She explained that the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) approved the scope of the report on July 22, 2015, and determined that the noise monitoring would be focused on assessing existing aircraft departures over Sunfish Lake for a period of one week and limited to one location that was determined by the City and MAC staff. She advised that MAC and Mayor Park determined that Musser Park met the criteria for the study location as is it City owned property, in a residential area that is not near any noisy commercial business and corresponds with known flight departures.

Ms. Nelson referred Council to the map which contained the Aircraft Departure Density and advised that the darkest color on the map showed that the City was located under the known departure area. She asked Derek Anderson to review the equipment used to conduct the study.

Derek Anderson displayed the equipment that was used to monitor the noise levels and advised that the equipment is annually calibrated and certified to insure its accuracy.

Ms. Nelson stated that the study began on August 4 at midnight and concluded on August 10 at midnight and the equipment recorded 253 departure events, 226 from Runway 12L and 27 from Runway 12R. She explained that the time recorded above the 65 decibel threshold during the week long study was 1 hour, 20 minutes, 47 seconds and the time above 80 decibels was 12 seconds. She advised that the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) chart shows that the location did not exceed the 65 decibels to qualify for residential noise mitigation funds and that the average was 51.6 decibels DNL.

Ms. Nelson explained that the study concluded the noise measurements were as expected and correlate with the Modeled 2014 Aircraft DNL average. She stated that the DNL are within a normal range for small town and quiet suburban areas. She explained that there are 39 permanent monitors installed and that all aircraft operations that recorded a noise event in Sunfish Lake also recorded events in at least one of the permanent monitors. She concluded that the noise trends experienced in Sunfish Lake are recorded and monitored at locations closer to the airport. She offered to respond to questions.

Mayor Park asked how this study compared with the studies in St. Louis Park and Edina which are similar to Sunfish Lake.

Ms. Nelson explained she did not have specific numbers for comparison however, St. Louis Park is under the arrival path for aircraft and has a higher number of noise events and more activity being monitored. She further explained that Edina is under a heavy departure path, more than Sunfish Lake, and would have higher noise levels.

Councilmember Hovey stated that the study matched with departures but asked if there were any events that were not recorded activity.

Ms. Nelson explained that an event would have to exceed 65 decibels for more than 8 seconds to be recorded. She provided a comparison of the noise level by explaining that normal conversation at 5 ft. would be register at 60 decibels and a vacuum cleaner at 3 ft. would register at 70 decibels.

Resident Dan Lee stated he was a pilot and indicated that the numbers could be skewed.

Ms. Nelson explained that the MAC is required by the FAA to use the DNL metric to assess aircraft noise impacts and that the airport attempts to provide other metrics relating to the noise levels through its published reports.

Mr. Lee noted that the aircraft used to use the freeway structure for the departure path and asked why the airport has deviated from using the path over the industrial areas.

Ms. Nelson explained that she is not familiar with past corridor procedures and advised that due to residential areas in Mendota Heights there is a three-mile corridor that is used for departures off Runways 12L and 12R. She also explained that the airport tries to concentrate departures to the Center of the corridor due to the residential areas at the corridor boundaries, however, crossing the corridor is not always an option with two air traffic controllers monitoring the operations on parallel runways. She noted that the MSP Noise Oversight Committee work plan for 206 includes advocating for greater use of the crossing-in-the-corridor procedure.

Mr. Lee suggested the airport at least limit where the aircraft executes a turn over residential areas.

Resident Nancy Driano pointed out that the week chosen for the study was not a very busy week for airplane traffic over the City. She suggested that Ms. Nelson review other departures to see how the numbers compare.

Ms. Nelson disagreed and noted that in the last 42 days, 30 were south flow operations due to weather.

Mayor Park asked if Ms. Nelson could extrapolate the measured data for the busiest month of flights over Sunfish Lake.

Ms. Nelson estimated that for the peak month of departure operations over Sunfish Lake, this monitoring location would have over 1,000 noise events.

Ms. Driano asked if the aircraft could climb faster to reduce the noise impact.

Ms. Nelson explained that the aircraft are climbing as fast and efficiently as they can in accordance with standard operations for all airports. She noted that the MAC utilizes grant monies to operate and maintain the airport and the FAA requires the airport to be open and available 24 hours per day; the MAC must adhere to the FAA’s requirements so they do not lose the grant funds.

Attorney Kuntz asked the distance of the runway from the monitoring device placed in Sunfish Lake and who directs the flights. He also asked when the aircraft turn is executed.

Ms. Nelson stated she was unsure the distance to Sunfish Lake from the runway and that the Air Traffic Control tower directs the flight path. She noted that the turn of the aircraft is dependent on the destination but, at a minimum, it occurs at the 3-mile mark after departing the runway.

Resident Jim Smith asked the difference in frequency for different planes; he noted that some planes are not as noisy but create a vibration in his home when flying over the property.

Derek Anderson explained that some older aircraft create the lower frequency vibrations and may not exceed the noise threshold.

Resident Shannon Werb pointed out that the noise disruption causes strain on residents wishing to be outdoors and asked if the FAA reviews any other type of data than the model used in Sunfish Lake.

Ms. Nelson explained that other noise events have been recorded and are shown on the MAC website. She advised that the FAA is conducting a study as to whether or not the 65 decibel DNL threshold is valid and are currently studying 20 airports throughout the USA. She commented that if a policy change occurs it most likely would be to metric measurements.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions and there was no response. She note that the Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) and Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) have been very cooperative and a pleasure to work with regarding the noise issues. She thanked Ms. Nelson and Mr. Anderson for their presentation.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Major Site and Building Plan Review, 2165 Charlton Road, Margaret Gehrig and Shannon Werb: Planner Barness stated that the review for Major Site and Building Plans at 2165 Charlton Road includes a plan to construct a new pool approximately 600 sq. ft. in size, a concrete pool deck, a patio area, rock retaining walls and landscaping improvements. She explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the request at their September meeting and found the proposed plan meets all ordinance requirements pertaining to setbacks, locational standards and specific design requirements for the pool as an accessory use. She noted the property does not have lake frontage, therefore, the shoreland setback requirements to not apply. She advised the application also meets ordinance requirements pertaining to lighting, design, grading, drainage and stormwater management, landscaping and screening. She advised the pool would have a safety cover and the only lighting proposed at this time is safety lighting within the pool. She noted that the applicants were advised that any future plans for lighting in the area must be reviewed and approved by the City.

The Planner stated that grading, drainage and stormwater management plan was reviewed by the City Engineer and he recommended conditions as listed in the Findings of Fact dated September 16, 2015. She noted that the plan includes a rock infiltration area for treating stormwater runoff that exceeds the ordinance standards and that the applicant must provide retaining wall plans for review for any walls that exceed 4-ft. in height and that they must be designed by a registered professional engineer. The Engineer also asked that the contractor document the condition of the road and public right-of-way prior to construction and make any repairs necessary prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Planner Barness stated that he landscaping plan was reviewed and approved by the City Forester and that four (4) trees would be removed. She explained that the Septic Inspector had reviewed the plan and found the new pool has no impact on the existing septic system.

The Planner stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions included in the proposed resolution. She advised that the application meet all criteria related to compatibility with surrounding properties.

Planner Barness explained that one neighbor to the west of the property had appeared at the Planning Commission meeting to express concern regarding screening of the pool area from her property. She noted that the existing tree coverage provides sufficient screening of the proposed pool, however, the neighbor was concerned about visibility if any of the existing plantings were removed in the future. She noted that Planning Commission determined that the plan meets requirements for screening at the time of this review, but encouraged the two property owners to work together to ensure that both properties have sufficient screening for privacy in the future.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked where the property was located and Planner Barness showed the location.

Councilmember Bulach asked when the applicant would begin work on the project and if the landscaping would be completed this fall.

Landscape Architect Tim Johnson from Southview Design was present and stated that the applicant wishes to begin work as soon as possible with weather permitting.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the construction vehicles would access from the southern area of the site.

Mr. Johnson stated the trucks would access from Delaware Avenue on the southeast side of the property.

Forester Nayes recommended that the Fire Number sign identifying the property be moved to the southeast access area.

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

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-20 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING MAJOR SITE AND BUILDINGS PLANS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL AND POOL TERRACE AREA AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2165 CHARLTON ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact dated September 16, 2015 and subject to the conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

b. Review Landscape Screening Plan for Driveway Easement Area - 295 Salem Church Road: Planner Barness referred to her report dated September 30, 2015 and explained that at their September meeting the Council considered an alternative landscape plan from Virginia Coss for new screening along the driveway easement to her property at 295 Salem Church Road. She stated that the August 21, 2015 plan submitted by Ms. Coss showed existing plantings along the driveway and potential location for three (3) new Canadian hemlock trees to replace screening that had died. The three (3) new trees were recommended by the City Forester who visited the site to ascertain suitable locations where additional vegetation for screening could be planted. She advised that the alternative plan was shared with the neighbors and the fee owner of the easement area where the plantings would be installed. She noted that the fee owner of the land, Mr. Brackey, supported the plan and the neighbor, Mr. Lee was not in support of the plan. She explained that Council discussed options for planting and suggested that a screening trellis be installed rather than the trees; the City indicated that the trellis option may provide more effective screening between the two properties. She advised that when the option was presented to Mr. Brackey, he indicated his preference would be to stay with the original requirement for some form of vegetative screening rather than the trellis.

The Planner stated that Ms. Coss’ attorney, Daniel Cole, sent a letter to Attorney Kuntz and advised that his client was still willing to install the three (3) trees recommended by the City Forester. She explained that the original screening plan for the property was adopted in 1999 and the trees were required to be placed where space was available for their growth. She noted that none of the original screening trees can be found along the west side of the driveway today and the City Ordinance requires that any plant material which is diseased or dies shall be replaced with like kind of the original size. She pointed out that at this time the City is unsure exactly where the original screening trees were placed, so the City must attempt to enforce the original requirements that the tree be placed as permitted by existing trees. She stated that the City is not required to adopt an entirely new screening approach, but to ask that the property owner install replacement screening for trees that died and only as space permits.

Staff recommends that the City approve the alternative landscape plan dated August 21, 2015 for placement of the three (3) new Canadian hemlock trees in the locations illustrated on the plan and to adopt the plan dated August 21, 2015 as the new landscape screening plan for the driveway easement in the future. She further advised that a draft resolution was prepared for approval of the alternative landscape/screening plan that has two (3) Exhibits attached; Exhibit A contains the City Forester’s July 24, 2015 screening tree recommendations, Exhibit B contains the City Forester’s August 21, 2015 screening tree recommendations, and Exhibit C contains the City Forester’s August 21, 2015 alternative landscape/screening plan.

The Planner explained that the City Attorney had recommended an additional sentence be placed in the resolution to require maintenance and replacement of existing screening vegetation, as well as the new trees to be installed, as follows:

"For the purposes of City Code Section 1218.02, the required landscaping that has to be replaced, if the future it becomes diseased or dies, is the following: the three new Canadian Hemlock trees identified on the August 21, 2015 alternative landscaping plan and the existing screening vegetation of fourteen (14) Balsam Fir Trees, and one (1) Blue Spruce, and the owner of the private driveway easement is responsible for replacement."

Staff further recommended that all other vegetation remain natural on the easement.

Mayor Park stated that in her opinion the recommendation by staff would accomplish what is reasonable to provide screening based on the ordinance requirements. Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed and commented that it is time to move forward with this issue.

Mayor Park asked if Mr. Lee had any comments on the new tree location.

Mr. Lee stated the location of the new tree installation does not work to screen the site lines from his property.

Forester Nayes explained that the proposed plan shows the only open space areas where the new trees could be installed without removing existing vegetation. He explained that the previous plan viewed by Mr. Lee contained a typing error and that the location was corrected on the plan at the last meeting: he showed Mr. Lee the corrected plan for the location of the new trees.

Dan Cole, Attorney representing Ms. Coss, stated that this is the third time this matter has been discussed by the City and noted that there were no complaints received about the screening issue in the last seventeen years. He commented that some of the original plantings had died and that the City Forester had recommended plantings for replacement of the dead trees. He noted that his client is willing to install the suggested trees and would adhere to the City Ordinance requirement to replace any dead or diseased plantings. He stated that his client should not be subject to any different requirements than those identified in the City Ordinances.

Planner Barness explained that plan drafted by the Forester clarifies the plantings for future reference.

Mayor Park questioned the location of the three new trees on the plan.

Forester Nayes showed Council the circular marking on the plan for the installation of the new trees and advised that this is the only area where planting could occur without removing existing vegetation.

Mr. Lee stated that the plantings should provide screening and they would not screen the driveway from his property in this location.

Mayor Park asked if it is Mr. Lee’s expectation to never see vehicle lights from the driveway.

Mr. Lee explained he expects the landscaping to screen the lights and that the property owner will maintain the plantings. He noted that in the past he allowed the property owner to use water from his property to water the trees, however, that was not continued and the plantings died. He further explained that Mr. Brackey had removed some of the vegetation from the easement which allowed the lights to be seen on his property. He commented that screening should be the same for all properties and not discretionary on the part of the City.

Mayor Park asked the City Attorney to define the City’s regulation on screening.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the City has a responsibility to insure reasonable screening occurs, however, in his opinion it is not likely that natural vegetation would provide 100% screening between the parcels.

Mr. Cole commented that the neighbors could install further screening on their property.

The Mayor advised that the Lee’s had done an excellent job of adding natural vegetation to screen the refurbished chicken coop on their property as required and commented that it appears Ms. Coss has been agreeable to providing reasonable screening of the driveway as required.

Mr. Cole explained that Ms. Coss has no objections to the chicken coop at its present location.

Mayor Park noted that some buckthorn was removed from the Lee property which resulted in some visibility of the driveway.

Forester Nayes explained that City favors removal of invasive species, and that buckthorn is considered bad in certain areas of the City.

Mayor Park explained that Council should determine a reasonable solution to resolve this issue.

Forester Nayes commented that the area for planting screening vegetation contains large Oak trees that may prohibit growth and that only time would tell if the trees would survive.

Councilmember Bulach stated that he visited the site and, although he was unsure of the originally approved landscape plan, in his opinion the plantings on the Coss side contain bare trees and the attempt to screen have failed. He noted that he was not part of the Council in 1999 that approved the plan, but he does not consider the existing plantings as screening and that more needs to be done on the Coss property to screen.

Mayor Park pointed out that existing trees would have to be removed in order to plant more than the three trees recommended and noted that those plantings would most likely not survive for more than five years due to the large Oak trees that prohibit growth.

Councilmember Bulach indicated that additional trees could be planted if Mr. Brackey cuts down scrub trees.

Forester Nayes pointed out that plantings would not survive long term and to completely screen between the two parcels there would have to be two rows of trees planted, which exceeds the original approved plan.

The Mayor asked if three trees would reasonably screen the area.

Forester Nayes indicated that it may be possible to plant one additional tree in the area proposed, but he was unsure until he viewed the site.

There was discussion relating to the time-frame for installation of the trees prior to winter. Forester Nayes explained that the trees should be installed within the next two weeks and then watered until the winter freeze occurs in order to survive the winter.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if Ms. Coss would be willing to plant the trees within the next two weeks.

Mr. Cole explained that she was currently out-of-town and indicated that this has matter has been on-going and it does not appear to be a crisis situation for the plantings.

Mayor Park asked if Ms. Coss would agree to plant the three trees as recommended.

Mr. Cole responded yes, but indicated it may not be possible to do so within the next two weeks. He stated he would contact her to inform her of the Council decision.
Attorney Kuntz advised that a resolution was drafted by the City Planner and he had recommended additional language be included to identify the specific type and number of trees in the landscape plan from the date of adoption going forward for future reference. He noted the trees as follows; 3 Canadian Hemlock, 14 Balsam Fir, and 1 Blue Spruce. He further advised that the date by which the three new trees must be planted should also be included in the resolution. He suggested that it may be better to wait until next summer to install the plantings.

Councilmember DeCourcy explained that Gerten’s Greenhouse offers a one year warranty on trees.

Mayor Park asked if the trees must be replaced if they are planted later than two weeks and die and the City Attorney responded yes.

Councilmember Wahlstrom pointed out that this issue has come up in the past when landscaping has not been installed or completed as required; she asked who is responsible for checking the trees.

Forester Nayes explained that he conducts a final inspection once the landscaping has been installed, however, there are no annual follow-up inspections. He indicated that the Planner would have to prompt an annual reminder from the application process.

Mr. Cole commented that Council should make a determination to approve the plan as recommended by the Forester and should not attach any additional conditions that were not part of the original approval.

Councilmember Bulach stated that in his opinion the landscaping plan approved in 1999 was not done correctly and appears to be a hodge-podge of plantings.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the City needs to determine some solution to resolve this matter.

Planner Barness pointed out that the original landscape plan approval required 12 ft. Austrian Pines to be planted on-center as space permitted and noted that there are no Austrian Pines visible on the site today. She was unsure what was originally planted on the site and explained that staff now conducts pre and post construction visits for newly approved building applications. She agreed with the Forester’s recommendation that trees be replaced as space permits and that it is reasonable to install hardier trees for replacement purposes. She indicated that the City must insure that the plantings are replaced, however, she was unsure if the City task should be to request an entirely new design for screening from the original plan.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-21 titled RESOLUTION APPROVING A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SCREENING PLANTINGS ALONG THE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT TO 295 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to the recommendations from the City Forester and conditions as listed and with amended language that identifies the number and species of trees that must be replaced is they are diseased or have died, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy.

In discussion, Attorney Kuntz asked that Council identify a date by which the new plantings must be installed.

Mr. Cole suggested that the date be October 31, 2015 and Forester Nayes suggested October 23, 2015.

Mr. Cole stated he would contact Ms. Coss by email to advise her of the date chosen.

Councilmembers Hovey and DeCourcy, as maker and second of the motion, agreed to amend the resolution to include the date of October 31, 2015 for installation the three (3) Canadian Hemlock trees.

Motion as amended carried. (4-Ayes: Hovey, DeCourcy, Wahlstrom, Park; 1-Nay: Bulach)

c. Review Chicken Coop Screening – 315 Salem Church Road: Planner Barness explained that she received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Lee dated October 5, 2015 which outlined their compliance with the chicken permit regulations for screening. She explained that she received an email from Ms. Coss expressing concern that the required screening was not present. She stated that Forester Nayes had visited the site and found that seven (7) new shrubs, dogwood and viburnum, were planted and will take several years to grow large enough to significantly screen the coop. She advised that the Forester recommended additional plantings be installed if shrubby understory vegetation directly between the coop and split rail fence is removed in the future.

Staff agreed that the permit meets all requirements for approval for an additional three (3) years with the conditions as listed in the draft resolution. Planner Barness noted that the conditions are the same as the one year permit with the exception that the property owner must maintain existing plantings for screening and must install additional plantings if existing natural understory vegetation is removed.

Mr. Cole asked if the screening from the adjacent property includes screening visibility from the home.

Planner Barness explained that there are no sightlines from the house to the chicken coop, only from the driveway.

Mr. Cole stated that Ms. Coss was not opposed to renewal of the permit.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-22 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE YEAR RENEWAL FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT FOR CHICKEN KEEPING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LINDEKE ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to conditions as listed in the resolution.

In discussion, Mayor Park asked for clarification that the Lee’s must plant an additional seven (7) new shrubs if they remove natural understory vegetation between the chicken coop and the property to the east per Exhibit A attached to the resolution.

Planner Barness responded yes.

Motion carried. (5-0)

d. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness reviewed the following information listed in her report dated September 30, 2015 and advised that a Public Hearing would be held at the October Planning Commission meeting to discuss a proposed Alternative Energy System Ordinance and the Commission would also review a Major Site Plan and Shoreland Setback Variance for property at 27 Sunnyside Lane.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

Council took a brief recess at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated he issued five (5) permits and closed one (1) permit in September.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in September: A. Angell Road Culvert Surface Repairs: Engineer Sterna stated that the contractor corrected and re-rounded the culvert, replaced the material around the pipe and properly compacted the area to prevent this from occurring in the future. He explained the first lift of the pavement was placed and it is anticipated the final lift would be installed within the next 2 to 3 weeks. He noted that this is the busiest time of the year for paving operations and that has caused the delay for the paving. He stated that site restoration should also be completed within the next few weeks.

B. Charlton Road Improvement Memo: The Engineer advised that he would discuss this item separately.

C. MnDOT TH 110 Improvements for 2017: Engineer Sterna stated that MnDOT proposes to several improvements which include resurfacing, overlay and access modifications from I-35E to Robert Street. He noted the biggest changes that impact Sunfish Lake is the proposed closure of the TH 110 median openings near Sunfish Lane. He explained that MnDOT proposes to lengthen the westbound left turn lane at Delaware Avenue by 200 ft. to increase storage. He further explained MnDOT proposes to lengthen both the right and left turn lanes at Charlton Road by 200 ft. to allow for better deceleration room form turning vehicles on TH 110 and improve safety. He advised that MnDOT proposes to close both median openings around Sunfish Lane to improvement safety. He stated this is due to low traffic counts for turning at this location. He stated that MnDOT will lengthen the left turn lanes at both Charlton Road and Mendota Road which will extend closer to Sunfish Lane. He noted U-turns or "T" turns could be accomplished at Charlton Road to get back to Sunfish Lane or, if turning right onto TH 110 from Sunfish Lane, a U-turn could be made at Mendota Road to travel west on TH 110. He explained that safety is the driving force behind MnDOT’s recommendations and that he asked them to provide a short memo to the City which includes traffic accident information to support their recommendation.

The Engineer advised that MnDOT proposes to improve the median island on TH 110 to help prevent vehicles from turning left from Charlton Road. He stated that signage would be replaced and MnDOT is willing to extend the length of the paving to the limits of their right-of-way on Charlton Road.

Engineer Sterna explained that he asked MnDOT if they could add a section of approximately 400 ft. of Charlton Road to their project, however, the City would have to acquire the land and easements next year and transfer it to MnDOT ownership for construction. Once construction was completed, MnDOT would transfer ownership back to the City. If the City has concerns about this process, another option would be to have MnDOT pave only to their right-of-way limits and the City may have to remove some of the pavement on their right-of-way if Charlton Road improvements are ordered at a later date. He discussed the use of the Minnesota Statutes 429 process to assess Charlton Road improvements, however, he indicated that the costs to obtain the easements may outweigh the benefits to property owners. He further advised that the City could use General Fund monies to fund the project if the easements are dedicated and no assessments levied. He suggested that he could draft a plan to pave the roadway to "Crandall’s Corner" on Charlton Road to determine if MnDOT would be willing to include the improvements their project. He stated that if the longer option for the Charlton Road improvement meets resistance, the City may proceed with the shorter project, Option 1, paving only to the end of the church property.

Mayor Park asked if Council needs to make a decision this evening.

The Engineer responded no and suggested that Council review his memorandum and forward any questions to him. He noted that it would be appropriate to conduct an open house event with residents to receive their input before determining which option should be pursued.

D. NPDES Permit Audit with MPCA: The Engineer explained that he prepared a memo dated September 30, 2015 reviewing the audit meeting with MPCA for the City’s NPDES permit renewal. He briefly reviewed the six items to be addressed and noted that most of the items are minor in nature and could be completed by the end of October as requested by the MPCA. He advised that if Council concurs with the "Action Plan" as outlined in his memorandum, they should take action to authorize the City Engineer to respond to the MPCA as outlined in his memorandum dated September 30, 2015.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to authorize the City Engineer to respond to the MPCA with the City’s action plan as outlined in his memorandum dated September 30, 2015, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

Mayor Park noted that the newsletter editor, Holly Hammett, had placed information on illicit discharge in the Sunfish Lake Quarterly which shows the City has met that requirement. Engineer Sterna agreed and noted that his staff had sent the information to Holly for publication.

E. Building and Site Reviews: The Engineer referred to his report with the list of major site and building plan reviews he conducted during the month and final site and preconstruction visits he completed.

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

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for October: A. 2015-2016 Snow Plow Quotes: Engineer Sterna explained that he requested four (4) quotes and received two (2) for plowing this winter season. He stated that one quotes was from last year’s contractor, Professional Snow Removal Services, and that he was concerned with their performance as they used more salt on the road rather than a sand/salt mix. He explained that after comparing the costs, he would recommend the bid award to Executive Contractors, Inc. for the 2015-2016 season as they would provide the best value for the City. He stated that he would evaluate their performance during the snow plow season.

Mayor Park asked if the engineer would provide training for the contracting staff.

Engineer Sterna responded yes and advised that he would work with their staff so they become familiar with the City’s roadways.

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

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to award the 2015-2016 Snow Removal contract for the City to Executive Contractors, Inc. of Inver Grove Heights, MN, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated that three (3) burning permits were issued in September and that he mowed trails in Musser and Harmon Park around young trees. He also advised that he mowed around the young trees near Salem Church Road and Windy Hill Road. He explained that the wildflower demonstration garden is ready for fall seeding and that is would be done in the latter half of October. He explained that he spot sprayed an oriental bittersweet infestation at 369,389 and 393 Salem Church Road.

The Forester explained that he conducted a survey of the fire number signs throughout the City to determine which signs should be replaced. He stated that the signs should be legible from the road so that emergency vehicles can easily identify the property. He advised that a list of properties requiring new signs was attached to his report. He also noted that there were three (3) addresses with missing or non-readable signs that received new signs within the last two years but have not installed the new signs yet. He stated that the replacement cost for the Wildflower Demonstration Sign would be approximately $55.

Forester Nayes stated that he did clearance pruning from the west end of Salem Church Road to Musser Park and noticed an old lilac hedge that encroaches on the edge of the street on the north across the road. He pointed out that considerable effort is expended annually to accommodate walking safely and visibility in the parks and around the City. He recommended that Council direct the Planning Commission to review the current City ordinances and discuss prohibiting future plantings of trees and shrubs close to City streets.
The Forester advised that he checked the Coss/Lee property with respect to screening for vehicle headlights and the chicken coop and sent his findings to the Planner. He stated he consulted with various residents on burning permits wild animals and tree issues.

Engineer Sterna explained that in the past the fire signs were ordered from Safety Signs and he recalled the cost to be approximately $15 to $20 per sign. He asked if Council preferred he obtain a quote for the sign replacement or if he should order the signs at a cost not to exceed $1,000.

In discussion, Council concurred that the Engineer should proceed to order the 26 signs at a cost not to exceed $1,500.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to authorize the City Engineer to order fire signs for the properties listed in the Forester’s report dated October 2, 2015 at a cost not to exceed $1,500, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

The Forester asked if Council would take action to direct the Planning Commission to discuss plantings near City roadways and he recommended that they consider no hedges, shrubs or trees be planted within 10 feet of any City street.

Mayor Park asked the Planner if this matter could be discussed at the next Commission meeting.

Planner Barness explained that the October Commission meeting would be busy with the discussion of the Alternative Energy System Ordinance and suggested it be delayed until November.

Forester Nayes explained that plantings won’t occur until spring and there was no rush for the matter.

Councilmember Bulach moved to direct the Planning Commission to discuss regulations relating to prohibiting plantings within 10 feet of City streets per recommendation of the City Forester, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (5-0)

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated September 21, 2015 and advised that there were seven (7) alarms this month, which brings the total for the year close to last year’s count. He distributed the results of the speed study conducted on Delaware Avenue after a complaint was received from a resident and advised that approximately 6% of the vehicles were exceeding the speed limit. He further advised that his staff would be displaying a purple ribbon on their uniforms and squad cars in recognition that October is Domestic Abuse Awareness month.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if there was any information on the missing dog and stated there was a $500 reward for finding the dog.

The Chief stated he had not received any information on the dog.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Request to Reimburse Costs for Printing and Mailing Expenses for the Halloween Hayride: Mayor Park explained that the City received a request for reimbursement of the costs for mailing and printing the Halloween Hayride information to all residents in the City. She advised that the City Attorney had found an appropriate State Statute that allows the City to reimburse costs for Parks and Recreation programs for residents and it was his opinion that this event would meet the standards.
The Mayor explained that the committee had not yet submitted a bill for the reimbursement.

Clerk Iago stated that the printing and mailing costs for the Holiday Party postcards does not exceed $100.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked why the City could not also reimburse the Holiday Party costs and Mayor Park explained that event does not fall under the same category.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to authorize the reimbursement of the mailing and printing costs for the annual Halloween Hayride to the committee, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

b. Other: Mayor Park advised that she would be conducting an Open House at her residence on Sunday, October 11, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. to introduce former resident and new Police Officer Kurtis Syvertson to Sunfish Lake residents. She extended an invitation to all present. She further advised that she would be hosting the Minnesota Mayor’s Association meeting in April 2016 and had contacted Miles Lord to speak at the event. She explained that residents Robert Reisberg and Christine Harris offered to host a dinner for the Mayors at their home and she asked that anyone interested in helping with the event contact her.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if a date had been chosen for the Sunfish Lake Holiday Park and there was no response.

Mayor Park suggested that the matter be discussed at a future meeting.

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

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Hovey moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried (5-0)


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor