SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

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

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 DeCourcy arrived at 7:08 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 Wahlstrom moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Hovey 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.

Councilmember Hovey moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. 4-0)

a. Special Budget Meeting and Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 4. 2015

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Mayor asked if there were any comments from the public.

Ibby Hammett, 2196 Charlton Road, had several questions. She asked if Council had decided to do improvements to Charlton Road and if this would be discussed tonight.

Engineer Sterna explained that no decision had been made by Council and that he would present preliminary information on options and discuss potential costs for those options during his report. He noted that no formal decision had been made at this time to proceed with any improvement to the road.

Ms. Hammett asked if the police had been patrolling on Charlton Road and explained that there was a smashed mailbox at one of the homes and that four other mailboxes had been left open. She commented that the some of the residents had agreed to get locked mailboxes installed to prevent thefts.

Chief Shaver stated he could have the police patrol the area and offered to send information to Ms. Hammett regarding costs and installation of the locked mailboxes.

Ms. Hammett explained that she had experienced excessive speeding and cars passing her when she was traveling on Delaware Avenue and attempting to turn onto Charlton Road. She asked if a four-way stop sign would be feasible at that location.

Chief Shaver stated that West St. Paul had recently purchased a speed recording device that he could use on at that location and drivers would not be aware that the speed was being recorded. He stated that the Engineer would have to address if a stop sign could be installed, but that he could provide information on speeders.

Mayor Park asked when the device would be placed and the Chief stated he would contact his staff and report back to the City.

The Mayor asked if there were any further comments from the floor and there was no response.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None.

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Consider Major Site and Building Plan Review, 100 Salem Church Road, Rhett and Shayna McSweeney: Planner Barness explained that the applicants propose to construct a swimming pool and pool terrace on the property located in the R-1 Single-Family District. She stated that swimming pools are a permitted accessory use in this district. She explained that a concrete pool deck, retaining walls and landscaping are also included and that the re-grading of the site requires removal of several trees. She stated that the project meets all setback requirements for accessory structures and advised that accessory uses must be screened from abutting properties and public ways. She noted that the property has substantial existing tree coverage and therefore, no additional screening is required. She explained that the applicants would provide a safety cover as required and do not plan any lighting in the area, although safety lighting in the pool is permitted.

The Planner explained that the City Engineer had some initial concerns with the proposal, which were addressed by the applicant. The Engineer recommends approval of the requests with a few additional conditions as listed in his report dated August 18, 2015, as follows:

1) Location of the existing septic and wells on site must be shown on the plan;

2) Submit an updated site plan that depicts areas of disturbed soils and a soil report containing

information on the suitability of the oils for infiltration;

3) Type of protection for the trees that are to be saved must be indicated on the plan;

4) Size and species of trees to be removed must be shown on the plan;

5) Any slopes steeper than or equal to 3 to1 horizontal to vertical will require erosion control

Blankets; and

6) Temporary stockpile locations need to be protected to prevent sediment loss and a plan for

erosion control and restoration following final grading needs to be submitted;

7) Applicant must document condition of shared driveway prior to construction in case any

damage occurs and the contractor must adhere to load limits when delivering material to the

site; and,

8) The City Engineer must complete the review of the plans for retaining wall on the site.

9) Submit a new landscape plan for placement of the rain garden and identify the plants to be

Installed.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if it would be a salt-water or chlorine pool.

Mr. McSweeney stated it would be a fresh water pool with a ultra-violet filter.

Planner Barness stated that the proposed improvements are compatible with surrounding properties and that the building materials used would preserve the character and nature of the area. She explained that the proposed improvements will not adversely affect any natural resources in the community and would not negatively impact surrounding properties. She advised that the proposed pool accessory area is comparable in size and quality to similar projects on other properties and the existing tree screening appears to be sufficient to screen the area from surrounding properties and public ways.

The Planner stated that Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the request based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions listed in the proposed resolution.

Mayor Park asked when the applicant plans to begin construction.

Damon Roth stated that construction is planned to begin next week.

Councilmember Bulach asked the height of the retaining wall and Mr. Roth responded it would be approximately 10 ft. in height.

Planner Barness explained that the plans for the retaining wall are being reviewed by the City Engineer.

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

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adopt Resolution No. 15-18 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL AND POOL TERRACE AREA AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the Findings of Fact dated August 19, 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 explained that Council considered a landscape plan from Virginia Coss for new screening plantings along the driveway easement to her property located at 295 Salem Church Road at their August meeting. She stated that the City Forester visited with Mrs. Coss in July and recommended three (3) new screening trees be installed adjacent to the driveway easement. The Forester re-visited the driveway easement on August 21, 2015 and created an alternative screening plan as requested by the Council and attached to the Planner’s report dated August 26, 2015. She noted that the Forester suggested the three (3) new trees be installed as shown on the submitted plan according to planting and care instructions and as described in his email dated July 24, 2015 and attached as Exhibit A.

Councilmember Wahlstrom explained that she visited the site and took photographs with her computer to show those present. She commented that Ms. Coss is present to respond to questions.

Mayor Park stated that Dan Lee, neighbor to Ms. Coss, is also present to comment on the plan.

Planner Barness advised that Mr. Brackey, owner of the easement, was notified of the landscape plan, however, he was unable to attend this evening. She explained that when the Coss home construction was approved in 2000, a condition was attached that extra screening should be installed along the westerly portion of the property to screen the driveway from the property at 315 Salem Church Road. She stated that Austrian Pin trees were planted where space was available in that area, however they did not survive. She further advised that the Zoning Ordinance requires replacement of plantings if they die and Ms. Coss was asked to replace the plantings in this area. She reiterated that the Forester had reviewed the area and assisted with the new landscape plan being submitted this evening.

Forester Nayes noted that the “key” on the map was in error and pointed out that the open circles should be listed as open space and the solid circles should be listed as trees. He explained that he walked the area and reviewed the existing plants and some shrubs that were planted near the fence by Ms. Coss. He indicated that if the City approves this plan, the trees identified would have to be maintained and replaced and the existing trees would have to be maintained by the property owner at 273 Salem Church Road. He stated that Mr. Lee at 315 Salem Church Road asked if more trees could be added to the plan in the event that existing plantings on his property assist with screening and he had concerns if those plants died the vehicle headlights would not be screened from his property.

Planner Barness advised that she prepared a resolution that details the history of this matter, identifies the plantings to be installed and their maintenance based on the Forester’s recommendation and clarifies that three (3) trees must be replaced by Ms. Coss if they do not survive.

Mayor Park asked the Forester to explain his recommendation for plantings.

Forester Nayes stated that there are large Oak trees that shade the lawns and the driveways in this area and that his recommendation would be to install Balsam Fir or Canadian hemlock trees, which grow better in shaded areas. He pointed out that arborvitae or Japanese Yew would do well in shade, however, the deer would destroy them. He explained that the three open areas would be large enough to plant the trees without removing existing vegetation, but he did not recommend any additional plantings in the area.

Mayor Park asked what size tree he recommended for planting and how long a growth period it would take to create screening.

Forester Nayes stated he recommends at least a 4-ft tree, which normally grows 1-ft. per year in the sunlight, but he was unsure if the growth would be the same in the shade.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked the height of the split rail fence and if 4ft. would be sufficient to deter the headlights from vehicles.

Forester Nayes explained that a 4-ft. tree should be sufficient to deter the headlights and that a split rail fence is approximately 3 to 4 ft. in height. He pointed out that the Lee’s have been clearing Buckthorn and other invasive species of growth from their property, which is good, but did provide additional screening on their property.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked Mr. Lee for his opinion.

Dan Lee stated he understands where the new trees will be planted, but he noted that the existing trees are not currently screening his property now. He commented that the trees should be placed near the closest point to his home where the headlights shine into his kitchen windows, not near the end of the driveway.
He described the location of the driveway where the headlights create problems on his property.

Forester Nayes agreed that the existing trees do not shield the headlights since they are sparse and he noted that yews would be better for screening, but deer would destroy those plants unless they have protective fencing installed around the plantings.

Mayor Park asked Ms. Coss if she used the driveway more during the summer or winter months.

Ms. Coss explained that she normally travels from November through May and does not use the driveway during those months.

Mr. Lee pointed out that the people who care for her home use the driveway.

Ms. Coss explained that the driveway runs north or south and in her opinion the headlights do not shine into the Lee’s kitchen window. She pointed out that they could see a car traveling the driveway, but the lights should not reach the window.

Mr. Lee disagreed and stated they can see the headlights when the vehicle reaches the gate. He explained that Ms. Coss has planted several types of plants but they do not survive due to the large Oak trees shading the area.

Mayor Park questioned what type of plantings would be a functional solution and asked if smaller trees are removed what could be planted in the area.

Forester Nayes advised that whatever is planted in the area will not survive or will look sparse within 10 years due to the shade from the Oak trees; he commented that the only way to get full screening in this area would be to remove the Oaks.

Mr. Lee commented that the purpose was to install plantings to screen the driveway and in his opinion the driveway should never have been approved at the current location.

Ms. Coss stated that she has lived in the home since 1998 and has replanted along the easement several times, but the lack of sunlight and the deer prohibit growth of plantings.

There was discussion relating to whether or not the plantings should be installed on the Lee property versus the easement and whether or not a berm or enclosed fence could be used for screening instead of plantings.

Planner Barness advised that a solid fence could not be placed in the area due to setback requirements.

Mayor Park asked if an open lattice type fence with some type of planting that would block the headlights could be placed in the area.

Forester Nayes explained that a lattice panel or a wire panel with some type of vine would work in the summer months but may not block the view in the winter. He suggested installing a decorative guardrail at a height which would block the headlights from shining onto the neighboring property.

Councilmember DeCourcy favored installation of a berm.

Planner Barness explained that a trellis type structure should meet the code requirements. She noted that the original landscape plan approval did not require such an installation and it would be up to Ms. Coss to determine if she was willing to spend the money for its installation.

Mayor Park asked the City Attorney for an opinion.

Attorney Kuntz explained that ultimately Council must determine the best possible outcome to meet the conditions of approval under the circumstances and based on the variables such as deer, lack of sunlight and uncertain growth of the plantings. He suggested that Council should review the options and determine the best plan of action.

Mayor Park commented that it appears Council wishes to achieve the function of screening the headlights whether it be a berm, guardrail, trees or a trellis.

Mr. Lee pointed out that the easement was in place prior to the home construction and in his opinion the driveway should not have been placed in the easements and that the headlights would be shielded if the screening would do what it was supposed to do.

Councilmember Bulach commented that it appears to be a stalemate. He indicated that he understands both sides, however, the Council that required the screening at the time the home was constructed had no idea that the plantings would not survive. He advised this could go on forever with the plants dying and being replaced and that he was unable to vote on the landscape plan since plants will not grow in this area.

Mayor Park asked if a berm would be more appropriate.

Forester Nayes pointed out that extensive soil would have to be placed to install a berm and the additional soils may suffocate and kill the large Oak trees.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked Mr. Lee what he would prefer to see installed.

Mr. Lee commented that it would be a long cycle of growth if the recommended trees last ten years, but he would not be opposed to some type of split rail or lattice fencing installation to shield the property. He agreed that it would not look perfect all year long.

Mayor Park asked Ms. Coss for her opinion.

Ms. Coss stated she has no problem with either solution but suggested that Mr. Brackey should also be contacted to solicit his opinion.

There was discussion regarding whether or not the Planning Commission should review the options for installation and if there is sufficient time for planting evergreens this year in order to insure their growth.

The Forester advised the trees would have to be installed in September or early October in order to get a good start and the Planner explained that Council may act on the matter without Planning Commission review since this was an update on the landscaping plan that was originally approved by Council. The Planner also agreed that any options should be reviewed by Mr. Brackey as the owner of the easement.

Attorney Kuntz agreed that Council may determine and approve an option without Commission review. He pointed out that the lattice fencing appears to be a reasonable option and that Ms. Coss would also have to maintain the fencing and plantings if that was the preferred choice; he noted that Council could identify the new choice and maintenance plan from this point forward and memorialize their findings in a resolution.

Mr. Lee asked if the final determination by Council would be adopted into the landscape plan and maintained and incorporated into the plan for the future and the City Attorney responded yes.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked how to move forward with this matter.

Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council direct the Planner and Forester to discuss the matter with all parties and bring an acceptable plan back to Council at a future meeting. He further noted that Mr. Brackey must be contacted by staff to insure that the plan meets his approval. He indicated that staff would have to work quickly if the matter were to be resolved prior to the winter months.

Councilmember Bulach offered to work with staff, the affected property owners, and a fencing company to determine what type of lattice fencing and plantings could be installed to resolve the matter.

Mr. Lee and Ms. Coss agreed that to work with staff and Councilmember Bulach.

Mr. Lee stated he would prefer to go with Councilmember Bulach to the fencing company to view the options rather than have samples brought to his home.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if Ms. Coss would be available to “skype” on computer with staff to resolve the matter if she were out-of-town and Ms. Coss responded yes.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to authorize Councilmember Bulach, Planner Barness and Forester Nayes to work with the three property owners on Salem Church Road and a fencing company to identify a lattice or trellis fencing with plantings or a split rail fencing option that would provide screening between the Lee and Coss properties and to prepare an updated plan for screening between the two properties and maintenance of the screening for Council review and approval at a future meeting, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

Mayor Park thanked staff and the property owners for their work and input to resolve this matter.

c. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness reviewed the following information listed in her report dated August 26, 2015. She explained that the Planning Commission discussed a proposed Alternative Energy System Ordinance and reviewed regulations in other communities to determine which should be included in the Sunfish Lake ordinance. She noted that the Commissioners requested additional information on some regulations and that she would prepare a draft ordinance for review and discussion at their September meeting for presentation and discussion by Council at their October meeting. She noted there would be one application considered at the September Planning meeting.

The Planner advised that the Building Inspector would discuss the building materials information during his report. She referred to the planning and zoning inquires she addressed in August and offered to respond to any questions from Council. She noted that there would be one application reviewed at the September Planning meeting along with the discussion of the proposed Alternative Energy System Ordinance.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Inspector Andrejka stated he issued eight (8) and closed four (4) permits in August. He stated that he presented his report on Building Standards at the Planning Commission meeting and distributed copies of the report to Council. He advised that the Commissioners toured Menards in West St. Paul to view newer building materials that are not currently included in the Sunfish Lake ordinances. He explained that he determined three (3) grades of materials and identified them as follows;

1) Builder’s Grade, classified as economical with a life expectancy of 25 yrs.
2) Architect’s Grade; classified as more durable, better appearance, with a life expectancy of 40 yrs.

3) Engineer’s Grade, classified as most durable, most appealing visually, with a life expectancy of 100 yrs.

The Inspector explained that there is no background to determine if the newer products view by the Commissioners have the durability to last 50 years or more and commented that all the products identified in the grading system are highly subjective to personal opinions. He noted that he uses the State building code regulations to approve materials that are used for construction, however, the Council and Planning Commission have more leeway to restrict what materials are used by adopting code regulations. He commented that he had invited the Commissioners to visit new home construction sites with him to review products being used and that Council was also welcome to do so.

Mayor Park commended the Inspector for the information compiled in his report and for the informative visit and review of the newer building materials. She asked if he would recommend that Council adopt regulations that prohibit the use of Builder’s grade materials, with the exception of repairs to older homes with those materials, and only allow new home construction with the two higher grades of materials.

Inspector Andrejka explained that in his opinion it is not easy to distinguish which of new Builder’s grade of materials may be better than older products and therefore it may be possible to authorize use of some newer materials with Council approval.

Mayor Park noted that the information contained in the report could be a wonderful tool for the Planning Commission, Council and residents when considering new construction in the City. She suggested that the information in the report could be incorporated into the City’s “Design Guidelines” booklet distributed with the application for new construction.

Council concurred that the information in the report was excellent.

Councilmember Bulach noted that other communities have a list of acceptable construction products and that neighbors question the materials being used in new home construction.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the former building inspector had suggested that vinyl siding, which is listed under Builder’s grade of materials, may be included as an acceptable product for construction.

Councilmember DeCourcy questioned if it should be the contractor’s duty to establish these guidelines.

Mayor Park noted that the information was very educational and pointed out that the Planning Commission discussed the fact that the City Code does not contain any regulations to enforce the type of materials used.

The Planner pointed out that the current Zoning Code lists allowed materials, however, it does not address the newer materials on the market. She explained that there is language in the code that authorizes the Council to allow any materials not listed to be used with their review and approval. She agreed that the information from the inspector could be included in the “Design Guidelines” distributed to applicants for new home construction and that she could include the Architect’s and Engineer’s materials to the guidelines.

Councilmember Hovey noted that the City employs expensive and talented consultants to review the applications and it may be a waste of time for applicants to have to appear before Council for approval of materials that staff deems appropriate.

Planner Barness pointed out that Sunfish Lake has more restrictive guidelines than most cities.

Mayor Park pointed out that knowledge that can be shared is valuable and in her opinion the information would not be a hindrance to construction but a valuable tool to be used for current residents and anyone requesting new construction. She preferred to have the information documented for future use.

Councilmember Hovey agreed that more information is better for residents.

Councilmember Wahlstrom noted that the guidelines could be updated as needed when new materials are developed.

The Planner pointed out that updates to the guidelines would not require a public hearing such as required with ordinance amendments.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further questions or commented and there was no response. She suggested that Council direct staff to prepare documentation incorporating the information into the “Design Guidelines”.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to direct the Planner and Building Inspector to prepare a “Design Guidelines” document for inclusion with new construction applications that incorporates the building materials information provided by the Building Inspector and to send the information to Council for their review and approval, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

Attorney Kuntz suggested that Council adopt a resolution at a future meeting that authorizes incorporating this information into the new “Design Guidelines” in order to keep track of actions taken on this matter.

Council thanked the Inspector for his report.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in August: A. Angell Road Culvert Surface Repairs: Engineer Sterna stated the contractor had been complacent in responding to requests to repair the roadway surface and address the deflection in the crossing culvert. He explained he called the contractor and sent several emails, and a letter to officially notify them of the issues. He advised he will discuss options with the City Attorney to begin the process of using the contractor’s warranty bond to hire a different contractor to make the repairs. He noted that he will continue to attempt to work with Danner to hopefully avoid legal process to correct the issues.

B. NPDES Permit Audit with MPCA: The Engineer advised he met with the MPCA on August 13, 2015 for approximately 2 hours for the purpose of conducting an audit of the Sunfish Lake MS4 permit. He explained that MPCA forwarded a list of several housekeeping items that staff is addressing; such as an implementation plan for education and educational materials for residents along with an employee training plan. He stated that Meghan Litsey with his firm would be coordinating distribution of these materials and revising the implementation plans on behalf of the City. He further advised that his staff is working with the Planners and City Attorney regarding a few “housekeeping” ordinance revisions that are required by the MPCA. He advised that the MPCA requested the housekeeping items be completed by October 30 and the ordinance revisions after completion of the other items.

C. Building and Site Reviews: Engineer Sterna stated that he reviewed two (2) major site and building plan applications for properties located at 100 Salem Church Road and 2165 Charlton Road, and one (1) minor site and building plan application for property at 2410 Delaware Avenue.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of August: A. No Public Works activities were undertaken in the month of August.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for September: A. 2015-2016 Snow Plow Quotes: The Engineer stated that he plans to solicit three (3) quotes from snowplow contractors for Council consideration at their October meeting for the upcoming winter season.

The Engineer explained that Council had requested information on possible improvements to Charlton Road and noted that several studies of the road had been completed over the years. He advised that the last study was done in 2009 and a feasibility report was prepared at that time. He noted that the majority of the problems with the roadway occur on the north end due to erosion and the flatness of the road surface. He explained that he compiled preliminary cost figures of $90 per linear foot for improvements from Highway 110 to just south of St. Anne’s Church parking lot for an estimated total cost of $45,000 to $50,000. He pointed out that MnDOT owns a substantial portion of right-of-way on Highway 110 and therefore they should pave that portion of the road, which would somewhat reduce the costs for the City. He explained that the City would need to obtain easements along seven (7) properties in this area and the City has prescriptive rights on some of the properties; he noted that the City may be able to work with the property owners to negotiate the easements without paying substantial costs to obtain them. He pointed out that paving of the roadway in this area would substantially reduce the City’s annual maintenance costs for the road as this portion of the road utilizes most of the maintenance funds. He explained that if the project moves forward, the City could assess the property owners for a portion of the costs. He commented that over the years that the majority of the residents have been opposed to any improvements on the road, however, it has been apparent over the last few years that the opposition has lessened.

Councilmember Hovey agreed that in 1990 almost 75% of the residents opposed the improvements, but in 2009 it was more of a 50-50 split in opinion. He agreed that the road shows most deterioration on the northern end and most residents on the southern portion of the road wish it to remain gravel.

Mayor Park noted that during discussions of the Dobranz property, they appeared to favor improvement to the road. Attorney Kuntz agreed that while the boundaries of the property were being discussed, the City asked the Dobranz family to allow retaining prescriptive easements and advised them that if the property was subdivided in the future, the City would require an easement be dedicated to the City.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that the purchasing easements would be cost prohibitive to the City, however, there are options that could be discussed with residents such as dedicating easements or off-setting assessments with dedication of the easements and these options were discussed in the 2009 feasibility report. He reviewed the obstacles such as the steep hill on the corner near the Crandall home and drainage improvements that would be necessary along the southern portion of the road. He also discussed the possibility of reducing the width of the roadway in some areas to reduce costs.

Councilmember Hovey explained that there are places on the road that cannot support emergency vehicles passing in those areas.

The Engineer agreed and stated he would prefer the road be similar to the improvements done on Windy Hill Court at 22 ft. wide, but he noted that along Acorn Drive the road is 19 ft. wide, with additional materials placed under the shoulders of the road to accommodate emergency vehicle access.

Engineer Sterna offered to prepare a formal memorandum with options for improvements on the roadway and estimated costs for each option.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated that the residents on the north end of the road have been patiently requesting improvements over the years and that she supported paving the road from Highway 110 to the church parking lot area.

Ibby Hammett stated her opposition to paving and that she was aware of four (4) property owners at the southern end of the road that also do not want it paved.

Councilmember Hovey asked how much the City spends annually for maintenance of the road and the Engineer responded approximately $10,000.

Treasurer Lanoue advised that $6,500 had been spent to date on Charlton Road maintenance.

Engineer Sterna stated he would prefer that the road be paved from the corner near Crandall’s homes to the north in order to deal with drainage issues on the road. He offered to prepare his report with cost estimates for three (3) segments of the roadway identified as; Highway 110 to St. Anne’s church parking lot; 2) Highway 110 to the Dobrantz parcel; and , 3) Highway 110 to the Crandall corner. He advised that once the cost estimates are reviewed by Council, the City could conduct and Open House with the residents to review the proposed improvements and receive input. He also stated he would meet with MnDOT to discuss their plans for Highway 110 and paving the right-of-way at Charlton Road.

Councilmember Hovey asked if there were any updates on closing the turn-lanes and stated he would prefer to have an improvement done near Sunfish Lane as this would most likely assist with traffic more than full closure of the turns.

Engineer Sterna stated he would discuss the matter with MnDOT and provide the Council comments at the meeting.

Councilmember Wahlstrom stated she was contacted by a resident who asked if a mirror could be placed ion the curve at Charlton Road near the southern end by the lake.

Engineer Sterna stated he would review the matter and report back to Council.

Councilmember Hovey asked Ms. Hammett if she had any further comments.

Ibby Hammett stated she was concerned that paving the road would encourage speeders and asked if Council had considered a cul-de-sac to reduce speeding on the road.

Engineer Sterna stated that would limit emergency vehicle access and suggested a speed hump as an option.

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

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

Council took a brief recess at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated no burning permits were issued in August. He advised that he spot sprayed burdock and thistles along Charlton Road from St. Anne’s Church to the sharp turn near Sunfish Lake. He stated that he also sprayed the wildflower demo space with Roundup to prepare for fall seeding.

The Forester explained that he surveyed vegetation along the west side of the Coss driveway at 295 Salem Church and noted information on the landscape map to forward to the City Planner. He advised he had a discussion with the neighbor, Dan Lee, about the process.
Forester Nayes stated he met with the property owners at 27 Sunnyside Lane regarding tree preservation issues with respect to a potential home teardown and rebuild at that location and that he consulted with various residents on burning permit and tree issues.

The Forester advised that he had conducted a “standing room only” demonstration at the State Fair relating to tree and tree root maintenance. He noted that a coyote had killed a small dog on the deck of a residence in the City and suggested residents keep a close watch on their animals when they are outside.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated August 26, 2015 and noted there were seven (7) Burglar Alarms and two (2) Fire Alarms between July 20 and August 19, 2015. He commented that the alarm calls are still slightly below the same time period last year. He reviewed the incidents that occurred during the month and offered to respond to questions.

Councilmember DeCourcy explained that she was contacted by Melissa Prueher, who lives on Sunnyside Lane, and was told that a camera pointed at her children’s playhouse was found in a tree in the yard. She asked Chief Shaver what should be done.

Chief Shaver stated he would contact Ms. Prueher to discuss this matter.

The Chief updated Council on the arrests that were made in conjunction with the party that occurred on Charlton Road during the summer; he noted that the adults were charged with contributing to the delinquency of minors and that the juveniles involved also were sent to court.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget and Setting Tax Levy for 2016 and Scheduling a Special Truth in Taxation Meeting on December 1, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.: Mayor Park referred to the City Attorney reported dated August 26, 2015 which contained the background information, time-line for the truth-in-taxations process, and resolution adopted the tax levy for 2016. She asked the Treasurer to review the proposed budget and tax levy information for those present.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the City must adopt the proposed budget tax levy for the upcoming year and send the resolution to Dakota County in September each year. She noted that Council retains the option to reduce the budget and tax levy at their truth-in taxation meeting in December, but cannot increase the amounts once they are adopted this evening and certified to the County.

The Treasurer explained that the tax levy would be somewhat higher this year due to the $22,000 increase in the Engineering budget for road maintenance, the cost of the new voting machine for the upcoming election in 2016, and various requests from the consultants. She also advised that the bond payments on the 2014 Street Improvement Project would begin being paid in 2016, which also contributes to the increase in the tax levy amounts.

Mayor Park pointed out that Council determined it would be appropriate to adopt the not-to-exceed budget amounts this evening and continue to discuss the Engineering costs associated with road maintenance prior to the December meet6ing.

Engineer Sterna pointed out that when discussing upcoming improvement projects, Council had moved the reconstruction of Salem Church Road in the CIP from 2019 to 2017, however, he indicated that the costs for the project could be split over a two-year span. He also included that the crack-sealing and sealcoating projects could be combined with a 2017 project to help reduce the costs.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No 15-19 title RESOLUTION SETTING NOT-TO-EXCEED TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2016, seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

b. Consider Rescheduling Regular Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 Due to the School District #197 Special Election: Clerk Iago explained that Council may not conduct a meeting between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on a date that an election is being conducted; she advised that School District #197 has a Special Election scheduled on November 2, 2015, the same date as the regular Council meeting. She suggested that Council may reschedule the meeting to begin at 8:00 p.m. that evening or change the date to the next day.

Council concurred to change the time of the meeting to 8:00 p.m.

Councilmember Hovey moved to change the time of the regular Council meeting on November 2, 2015 to 8:00 p.m. and direct the Clerk to post appropriate notice of the time change, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

d. Other: Miscellaneous: Mayor Park explained that she scheduled an event at her home on October 11, between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. and would be sending invitations to each residence inviting children to meet resident and new Police Officer Kurt Syvertson. She stated that this would give the children an opportunity to meet with the police, see the squad car up close and ask questions. She commented that parents, other members of the Police Department and Councilmembers are also welcome to attend. She asked the City Attorney if it would be an issue if all the Council were in attendance at the event. She also asked Council to authorize the event with formal action.

Attorney Kuntz explained that this type of event would not violate the Open Meeting law.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to authorize the Mayor to send invitations to all residents to attend the event at her home on October 11, 2015 to meet the new Police Officer, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

Mayor Park thanked Council asked if there was any further business. There was no response.

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


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor