- DRAFT -

SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

7:00 P.M.

Attendants:

Mayor: Molly Park

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, Cathy DeCourcy, and JoAnne Wahlstrom

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Michelle Barness

Engineer: Don Sterna

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

Councilmember Steven Bulach and Building Inspector David Neameyer 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 and there was no response.

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy 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 DeCourcy moved approval of the Consent Agenda as presented, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

a. Special and Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 5, 2014.

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

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

5. PUBLIC HEARING: a. Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for Street Improvement Project 2014-01

Mayor Park opened the public hearing to discuss the proposed assessments for Street Improvement Project 2014-01. She asked the City Engineer to provide an overview of the project for those present

Engineer Sterna stated that the improvement project was nearly completed and that project had been delayed slightly due to damage to a power line that had to be repaired and the installation of a culvert insert. He explained that the final lift was completed and restoration work is being done He advised that the sub-grade on Windy Hill Road required some deeper repair than originally estimated, He advised that the culverts were replaced, the hammerhead turnaround was installed and a section of the road was widened to meet City standards. He explained that the location of a culvert on Angell Road was shifted to minimize the loss of trees adjacent to the road and that the cul-de-sac at the end of Angell Road was made slightly larger to accommodate vehicle turnaround. He stated there are a few minor items to be addressed and that the improvement project should be completed by next week. He noted that authorization for final payment to the contractor should be presented at the next meeting.

The Engineer explained that he resolved a few concerns raised by property owners during the project and advised that any further concerns received by Council or staff should be referred to him.

Engineer Sterna stated that the next step in the process if to conduct the hearing on the proposed assessment for the project. He explained that after the public hearing is closed the affected property owners have 30 days to appeal their assessment and the City then certifies the assessments to Dakota County for placement on the 2015 taxes. He stated that a property owner may pay the full assessment early with no interested charged and the payment must be received prior to October this year. He noted that the assessments would be spread over a standard 10-year payment with interest, but may be paid in full with interest for the year paid anytime during the 10-year period.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the total project cost was $333,486 and that the City proposes to assess 56 percent of the project, $185,500, to benefitted property owners and the remainder would be paid by the City from the sale of bonds and general tax dollars. He explained that notice of the public hearing was mailed to affected property owners and also published and posted on the City website. He explained that the proposed assessments for Angell Road would be $4,500 per buildable unit and for Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court would be $6,500 per buildable unit. He stated the assessments would be spread over a 10-year period with the first payment due in 2015. He noted that the interest rate of 4.5 percent was recommended by the City’s fiscal agent Ehlers & Associates in order to assist with payment of the bond debt. He reiterated that the property owner has thirty days to pay without interest prior to October 3, and noted that the proposed resolution for Council action this evening should be corrected by inserting the date of October 3 versus October 1, 2014. He also explained that anyone wishing to pay the balance of the assessment in any subsequent year may do so prior to November 15 in that year with interest calculated to the end of that year.

Mayor Park opened the public hearing for comments from the audience and asked that anyone wishing to speak give their name and address for the record. She explained that comments or questions would be received by Council and then directed to staff.

Dr. John Lamey, 55 Windy Hill Road, asked for a breakdown of the costs for the improvements on Windy Hill Court versus Windy Hill Road. He stated that Windy Hill Court contains more area of bituminous surface than Windy Hill Road and yet all the property owners in both areas are being assessed the same amount.

Engineer Sterna explained that the assessments are based on the classification of the roadway and Windy Hill Road is classified as a “local collector” street. He stated that the City’s assessment policy for a “local collector” street is a 60/40 percent cost share and that Windy Hill Court has a different classification He described how the neighborhood traffic use contributes to the road classification and that Windy Hill Road is used to access Salem Church Road. He further explained that the amount of benefit appraisal showed that the properties in this area could bear an $8,500 per buildable unit assessment on both roadways and if the City assessment policy had been utilized the assessment would be higher. He noted that the City decided to utilize a 55/45 percent cost share and apply this rate to both neighborhoods equally.

Dr. Lamey stated that in his opinion the assessment should be based on the amount of blacktop used and the property owners on Windy Hill Court should have been charged differently.

The City Engineer explained that the City determined the assessments by benefit to property owners and attempted to assess a fair and reasonable amount to all property owners. He commented that the assessment policy was adopted to have a basis for fair and reasonable assessments and it is staff’s opinion that Windy Hill Court and Windy Hill Road are similar in use and therefore the assessments are equitable. Engineer Sterna explained that the City paid 100 percent of the drainage improvement costs and assessed the property owners $4,500 per buildable unit for the overlay improvement.

Mayor Park asked if there were further questions.

Dick Bancroft, 100 Windy Hill Road, commented that on the positive side the contractor did an exceptionally good job on both Windy Hill Road and Court and with the exception of a brief power outage, the project went well. He asked if the residents would receive a cost reduction since the city bids were lower than expected.

Engineer Sterna responded no and explained that the City was assessing less than the City assessment policy outlines and also that the City could not assess more if the bids had come in higher than estimated.

Mayor Park explained that she received a letter from Dr. Lamey dated August 29, 2014 objecting to his assessment and read the letter for those present. She further advised that a letter was received from James and Ann O’Hagan, 35 Windy Hill Road, dated September 2, 2014 in support of Dr Lamey’s objection to the assessment and also read this letter aloud.

The Mayor stated that Dr. Lamey’s objection related to the amount of the assessment for property owners on Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court based on the length of the roadways and the amount of bituminous material used. She advised that Dr. Lamey suggested that the assessment on Windy Hill Road should be lowered by 16.67% and the assessment for Windy Hill Court should be increased by the same percentage for a portion of the road as outlined in the letter.

Mayor Park explained that the O’Hagan letter stated that he questioned why the project did not extend to the top of the hill on Windy Hill Court, which he indicated is used by everyone as a turnaround, and he was told that portion would have to be paid for by the residents.

The Mayor presented the two letters to the City Clerk for the City record and asked that Council formally receive the letters.

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to formally receive the letter from Dr. Lamey dated August 29 2014 objecting to his assessment and the letter from Mr. & Mrs. O’Hagan dated September 2, 2014 in support of Dr. Lamey’s letter, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

Councilmember Hovey noted the City would impose a 4.5% interest rate for the assessment and asked what the total Bond interest rate is for the project.

Treasurer Lanoue stated she was unsure of that number since the City may lose some funds if all the assessments are paid in full.

Mayor Park questioned if the City has the ability to increase or decrease the assessment amounts for properties after the amounts had been noticed and sent to property owners. She pointed out that this issue was not raised at other public hearings when the assessments were discussed.

Engineer Sterna indicated that when the analysis was done for Windy Hill Road staff reviewed the fact that there was a portion of the road that was private and the City Assessment Policy for private roads is an 80/20 cost share, which would have increased the assessment amounts if that formula was used.

Dr. Lamey stated that in his opinion the cost of the road segments should be based on grading and the amount of bituminous surface.
Mayor Park pointed out that the assessment policy cost sharing is based on the road classification.

Engineer Sterna explained that the assessments were based on all of Windy Hill Road and Windy Hill Court functioning as one neighborhood and therefore the same classification was applied to all properties. He noted that there were two property owners who discussed their proposed assessments with the City prior to formalizing the final assessment roll and the City reached an agreement with these property owners; he noted that one was Mr. Bancroft who would be paying for three buildable units.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the assessments would be higher if the City had strictly adhered to the City’s assessment policy.

Engineer Sterna explained that the appraisal benefit showed $8,500 per buildable unit could be supported, however, staff determined that $6,500 was a fair and equitable amount based on the road classification.

Mr. Bancroft pointed out that there was another property owner that has approximately 40 acres of land that possibly would not develop or would use Salem Church Road as the access, but they would still be assessed for the project.

Engineer Sterna indicated that the City met with that property owner and they were not in favor of paying assessments for more than five buildable units when preliminary platting of the land showed six units may be possible. He explained that the City reached an agreement with this landowner and advised that the City may wish to limit access and may require access from Salem Church Road for one or more units if the land is developed.

Mr. Bancroft asked if the landowner would construct a private road for the development and the Engineer responded that the City may require a City street be constructed.

Mayor Park commented that in general cities prefer not to have private roads. Mr. Bancroft commented that some cities do and some don’t.

Engineer Sterna explained that the City discussed the land development access issues with the property owner on Windy Hill Road and staff and the Mayor determined that it would be fair to assess for 3 buildable units that would access on Windy Hill Road.

Mr. O’Hagen asked how many units could be developed on the vacant parcel and the Engineer responded that he was unsure but estimated six units or less.

The Mayor asked the City Attorney what happens to the schedule for levying the assessments if the Council makes changes to the assessment roll.

Attorney Kuntz explained that if changes are made the City must re-notice the public hearing with the changes amounts which could delay the adoption of the assessments to November.

Dr. Lamey stated he is a reasonable person and would consider withdrawing his objection if information from the Engineer relating to the breakdown of costs on could be processed within the next few days.

Engineer Sterna stated he would calculate the information this week.

Mayor Park asked if the information could be sent to Dr. Lamey or if it would have to come before Council.

Attorney Kuntz stated it is public information and could be sent to Dr. Lamey.
Mr. O’Hagan agreed that he did not wish to hold up the process and that he should have spoken up when the project was first discussed.

Dr. Lamey agreed and asked that the information be sent to him.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Council has the option to close the hearing and proceed to adopt the assessment roll as it is presented this evening, which allows Dr. Lamey to make a decision based on the information he receives. He stated that the other option would be to table the matter to the October meeting and then vote on the resolution.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if there was any benefit to delaying the matter. Attorney Kuntz commented that Council would have the information from the engineer and still have time to send the assessments to the County.

Councilmember Hovey stated the matter could be delayed in his opinion if it does not adversely affect the City.

Attorney Kuntz pointed out that the information must be sent to Dakota County by November 1 to be certified to the 2015 taxes; he commented that it would be close to the deadline if delayed.

Dr. Lamey commented that he would have 30 days to pay in full and still retains the option to continue with his objection, therefore, he suggested that Council proceed with taking action this evening so the matter would not be delayed.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments and hearing none called for action to close the public hearing.

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (4-0)

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-26 titled, RESOLUTION ADOPTING SPEICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2014-01 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the resolution would have one amendment to the date for prepayment from October 1 to October 3.

Councilmembers Wahlstrom and DeCourcy agreed to include the amended date as part of the motion.

Motion carried. (4-0)

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Major Site and Building Plan Review and Three (3) Conditional Use Permits, 2566 Delaware Avenue, Crystal & Michael Boyle: Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting a Major Site and Building Plan Review and three (3) Conditional Use Permits (CUP’s) allow construction of a new home and pool terrace. She noted that the CUP’s were to allow a second accessory structure on the lot, the pool to be placed between the structure and the ordinary high water level setback from the lake, and to permit redevelopment of a substandard sized lot for net lot area. She stated that the property is located between Hornbeam Lake and Wood Duck Pond and falls within both the R-1 Single Family Residential and Shoreland Overlay Districts. The applicants propose to demolish the existing home on the property to construct a new home and attached garage in approximately the same location.

The Planner explained that the proposed structure meets all setback and building coverage requirements with the exception of the net lot area. She explained that the deck and patio also meet setback requirements and that a retractable cover would be installed on the pool; the City Code requires either a retractable cover or fencing around the pool area.

Planner Barness stated that the applicants have been working with the City Engineer to address his recommendations and some of the issues have been resolved while others will be addressed during the construction process. She stated that the applicants provided a revised survey and grading, drainage and erosion control plan that addresses the engineering conditions. She explained that applicants agreed to place protective fencing around the secondary septic drain field as well as around the existing and proposed well locations. She noted that the new grading plan shows silt fence protecting the septic area and stockpile location so that erosion will be contained during construction. She further explained that the Engineer approved the stormwater management plan which shows the water moving into an underground treatment system that was found to be in compliance with City policies and standards.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the pool would be saltwater or treated with chlorine.

John Sonneck, with Charles Cudd Homes, stated the pool would be saltwater.

The Planner explained that the City Engineer recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.

Planner Barness stated that there would be landscaping around the home and staff recommends that a landscaping plan be submitted for approval. She noted that five (5) trees are slated for removal however, the site is heavily wooded so there would be minimal impact to neighboring properties.

The Planner stated that the applicants also revised the plan for the space above the garage so that this area is not designated as a separate dwelling. She explained that the kitchen sink was removed from the kitchenette area and the door was removed so that the area has a direct connection to the remainder of the home. She advised that the City Engineer and City Attorney agreed these revisions are sufficient to address the City Code requirement for single family dwellings in the community.

Planner Barness stated that the garage was reduced in size to meet City regulations and that the overall design of the home meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements. She pointed out that the property falls within the Aircraft Noise Abatement Zoning District and the applicant would be provided information from the Building Inspector regarding the additional building materials that are required in this district.

Councilmember Hovey questioned the location of the underground drainage system and the Planner showed its location on the plans.

John Sonneck explained that the underground system is a new method for dealing with storm water and pool water and that the system costs $50,000 to install.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that everyone in the City has wells and he wished to insure that chemicals were not contaminating the aquifer.

Mr. Sonneck explained that the pool water is filtered and backwashing is minimized; he noted that the saline used for the pool would minimize chemical use.

The Planner stated that the proposal is compatible with neighboring properties, the design meets City standards and the project would have minimal impact on natural areas. She advised that there would be a 300 ft. buffer between this home and the nearest neighboring property.

The Planner explained that the lot does not meet the net area requirements, however, it is a legal non-conforming lot and satisfies the criteria for a CUP as outlined in the City Zoning Code. She noted the property is similar in size to adjacent lots, can provide for a well and septic system treatment, allows for a home and site structure meeting setback performance standards and has frontage on a private road. She further explained that a CUP is also necessary to construct a pool as a second accessory structure on the property in addition to an existing detached porch. She stated this project also satisfies the criteria for a CUP as outlined in the City Zoning Code. She advised the third CUP is required to construct a pool between the principal structure and the setback from Hornbeam Lake. She explained that erosion control and stormwater management measure will be implemented to prevent soil erosion or possible pollution of public waters both during and after construction. She pointed out that silt fencing will be provided around the pool terrace area and an underground stormwater treatment system will treat runoff and water drainage from the pool area. She also noted that there is significant existing tree coverage and vegetation that will remain between the home location and lake to further assist with stormwater runoff treatment.

Planner Barness stated that Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the requests based on the findings of fact, dated August 20, 2014 and the conditions as listed in the proposed resolution.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if a lighting plan was submitted. The Planner explained that the applicants submitted lighting designs but had not made a final decision on what would be used for lighting. She stated she discussed the lighting requirements with the applicants and reviewed the City’s regulations relating to a certain foot candle measurement from the property line.

Mr. Sonneck stated he has constructed other homes in Sunfish Lake and that he is aware of the lighting requirements.

Councilmember Wahlstrom pointed out that the City does not allow clear or transparent lights.

The Planner explained that the ordinance does not specify no clear lights but generally prohibits them.

Mayor Park commented that it is a beautiful home.

Councilmember Hovey asked when the septic system would be reviewed. Mr. Sonneck explained that perk tests were done and that he would meet with the Septic Inspector to determine the best side for placement of a new system since the existing system is not large enough. He also stated that the silt fence is already installed and the current well would be abandoned.

Councilmember Hovey asked how the pool maintenance and drainage system work. Mr. Sonneck explained that the system manages rate control by storing the water and slowly releasing it.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if demolition had started on the property.

Mr. Sonneck responded that they are removing siding from the home for possible resale, but the actual demolition would not start until next week.

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

Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-27 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING REVIEW FOR A NEW HOME AND POOL TERRACE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ACESSSORY STRUCTURE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A POOL TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE HOME AND THE SETBACK FROM THE ORDINARY HIGH WATERMARK OF HORNBEAM LAKE, AND A CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT OF A SUBSTANDARD SIZED LOT AS PERTAINS TO NET LOT AREA, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2566 DELAWARE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 300 FEET OF THE SOUTH 750 FEET OF THE WEST 50 ACRES OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OFF THE SOUTHWES QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION THRITY-ONE (31), TOWNSHIP TWENTY-EIGHT (28), RANGE TWENTY-TWO (22), EXCEPT THE WEST 735 FEET THEREOF, based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (4-0)

b. Major Site and Building Plan and Two (2) Conditional Use Permits Review, 1 Grieve Glen Lane, Joe and Jolene Owens: Planner Barness explained the applicants are proposing to construction a sport court on the property at 1 Grieve Glen Lane. The property is located within both the R-1 Single Family Residential and Shoreland Overlay Districts. She stated the proposed sport court is 2,800 sq. ft. in area and would be located in the side yard southeast of the home. She advised the Sport Court is at an elevation tucked behind existing berms on the property in an effort to help obscure the view of the court from adjacent homes and the road right-of-way. She stated the proposed sport court is required to meet Ordinance standards for accessory structures, setback, grading, drainage, stormwater management, lighting and conditional use permit criteria.

The Planner stated the sport court would be a third accessory structure on the site in addition to an existing in-ground pool and detached garage and will involve installation of a 10 ft. high chain link fence. She noted that both the third accessory structure and the 10-ft high chain link fence require conditional use permits. She explained that currently the City has no limit on the number of accessory structures permitted by CUP approval, however there are other properties within the community that have three (3) accessory structures, though such cases are rare. She noted that the proposed sport court adds more than 1,000 sq. ft. of hard surface to the property which requires a major site and building plan review.

Planner Barness stated that the proposed request is in compliance with the R-1 Single Family District Standards and the Shoreland Overlay District Standards. She further stated that the proposed sport court meets all setback requirements and would be constructed with a poured concrete subfloor covered with an interlocking high impact tile. She noted that the structure also meets the high water elevation requirements and that no lighting is proposed for the structure as lighting is prohibited.

Mayor Park asked the color of the fence and the Planner responded it would be black and would be minimally visible from adjacent properties.

The Mayor asked if there were issues with the site grading.

Planner Barness explained that the City Engineer requested that the sport court be rotated to improve runoff from the court to the pond; the Engineer also had recommendations relating to construction access, drainage and screening. She advised that the applicant submitted a revised plan addressing these issues and it was found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if lighting was proposed.

The Planner responded no and explained she received some questions from neighbors relating to lighting and noise. She explained that she advised the neighbors that lighting is prohibited and the applicant was asked to provide a few additional trees as a buffer for noise.

Planner Barness stated that the Planning Commission recommended additional screening be placed in the area of the site where trees are lacking. She further noted that the applicants were sent a letter outlining the noise and lighting regulations.

Mayor Park asked if evergreen trees were requested for buffering and if a height requirement was included.

The Planner stated that the trees would be more for noise buffering due to the elevation of the sport court; she stated that Council could require a height and type of tree or they could request that the City Forester make a recommendation. She noted that a tree protection buffer was required to be installed to protect the roots of existing trees during construction.

Planner Barness reviewed criteria for approving an additional accessory structure and its possible impact on surrounding properties.

The Planner stated that Bob Moser was present representing the applicants.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the proposed sport court was the size of a tennis court or larger.

The Planner stated a tennis court could be in the range of 5,000 sq. ft. so the sport court would be smaller; she noted that the City does not limit the size for non-lake frontage lots.

Mayor Park noted that another sport court had been installed recently and asked how this compared in size.

Planner Barness stated she was unsure.

Councilmember Hovey asked about the safety lighting and what it involves. He also asked if floodlights would be permitted.

The Planner pointed out that safety lighting is not defined; however, normally it is low lights that are directed downward and used for access purposes. She explained that no up-lighting or floodlights are allowed and that fogged lighting is encouraged for the safety lighting

Councilmember Hovey asked if the lighting is tested by the City to insure it does not exceed the foot candle requirement.

The Planner responded no and explained that a special tool is used for that purpose.

Police Chief Shaver explained that the City does not have the tool however it could be purchased.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the applicants plan to place any other structures on the property.

Mr. Moser stated not to his knowledge.

Councilmember Wahlstrom stated she had concerns relating to impacting the neighbors with noise.

Mayor Park stated she had received on email from a neighbor regarding the application.

The Planner advised that the adjacent neighbors had received notice of the application and had corresponded with staff with questions about lighting, noise and sport court location. The Planning Commission visited the site and thought the sport court would be mostly concealed by the berm and existing vegetation.

Mr. Moser agreed that the court may only be visible from one area and once the additional trees were installed it should be concealed.

There was discussion relating to the size and species of trees for installation at the site. The Forester pointed out that if the berm is 4 ft. tall and 6 ft. trees are planted, the neighbors should not be able to see the sport court or the fencing surrounding it. He advised that 6 ft. tree establish themselves more quickly than larger trees. He suggested that the trees be offset to provide better screening and provide more noise coverage.

The Forester recommended White Pine and White Spruce for installation.

Councilmember Hovey suggested that the Forester view the site and determine what plantings should be installed. Council concurred.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-28 titled RESOUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORT COURT AS A THIRD ACESSORY STRUCTURE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 10 FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE SPORT COURT, AND A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SPORT COURT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 GRIEVE GLEN LANE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 GRIEVE GLEN, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed in the resolution and amended to include the planting of additional trees as recommended by the City Forester and that the applicant provide additional information on any security lighting, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (4-0)

Council took a brief recess at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 .m.

c. Shoreline and Side Yard Setback Variance Review, 345 Salem Church Road, Mr. & Mrs. Schaefer: Planner Barness explained that the applicants are requesting a shoreline and side yard setback variance to allow the expansion of the existing garage by adding a third stall. She stated the property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is in the Shoreland Overlay District. She advised that the subject parcel is unique and if required setbacks were applied, there would be minimal buildable area remaining. As a result the existing home and attached garage are legally non-conforming as pertain to the required 200 ft. shoreline setback. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that legally non-conforming uses may be expanded to improve livability, but the expansion may not increase the non-conformity. She stated that the proposed garage expansion would be away from the shoreline but within the required setback area and therefore the applicants are requesting a variance from the shoreline setback. She further advised that the garage expansion would intrude into the side setback to the south, for which a setback variance was also being requested.

The Planner explained that after discussion of this request at the July Planning Commission meeting the applicants reduced the size of the garage expansion thereby reducing the intrusion into the side yard setback by approximately 5 ft. which results in a 40 ft. side yard setback rather an a 35 ft. side yard setback. She advised the proposed size is now 528 ft. versus the 592 ft. previously requested; however, a variance is still required since the Code requires a 50 ft. side yard setback.

Planner Barness stated that the revision still angles the garage addition to preserve a mature pine tree near the garage and to reduce the driveway area. She explained the revised plan makes an effort to address the concerns expressed at the Commission meeting. She further explained that the applicants provided site and building plans for the structure.

Mayor Park asked if the home was constructed with a variance.

The Planner stated that the home was legally constructed in 1981 and the current setbacks were adopted by ordinance after the home was built.

Planner Barness explained that the applicants advised the Commission that they were unable to open both doors on their vehicles when both cars were parked inside the existing garage and the expansion was requested to provide space for parking and also for storage purposes. She commented that the revised plan reduces the square footage and that a minimal amount of space may be saved if the garage stall was not angled, but variances would still be necessary. She noted that a third garage stall is quite common in the City.

The Planner displayed a drawing of the structure and stated the cedar materials used would match the existing garage. She explained the garage height would remain at 11 ft. whereas the Code allows the structure to be up to 30 ft. high when attached. She noted the driveway extension was includde to access the garage door.

Planner Barness stated that no tree removal is planned and the site has a lot of tree coverage so no new trees are proposed at this time.

The Planner stated that the City Engineer requested that grading south of the proposed garage be adjusted to provide a larger swale for drainage of storm water runoff from the area, that the applicants address drainage heading to the home and existing garage, that locations of site utilities in the vicinity of the garage be indicated, and that that engineered drawings of a retaining wall be provide if the wall exceeds 4 ft. in height. She explained that the Engineer had requested more information on his recommendation for a drainage swale on the south side of the garage and for a solution to drainage heading towards the home, to be provided for his review prior to the Council meeting. The applicants provided this information and therefore the City Engineer recommends approval of the grading and drainage with conditions and he noted that the drainage would not impact the wells or septic system.

Planner Barness pointed out that there are three factors to consider when reviewing the variances requested and to identify practical difficulties:

1) Circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner, such as topography, natural features, narrowness, insufficient area or shape of the property etc. The Planner displayed an aerial view of the lot with an overlay of the current setback requirements and noted that if the setbacks were imposed, the lot becomes unbuildable. She noted that the new regulations adopted after the lot was originally platted rendered it a legally non-conforming lot and, as such, any future expansion of the home or garage structure requires a variance.

2) Is the request a reasonable use of the property but cannot be done under the rules of the Ordinance. The Planner explained that a garage is a permitted accessory use in both the R-1 and Shoreland Overlay District and the proposed size of the garage meets ordinance requirements. She noted that the request is to construct something that has traditionally been considered a reasonable use in Sunfish Lake, a three-stall garage. She pointed out that the applicant stated the current garage does not function well as they are unable to open the car doors with two cars parked in the existing garage and they wish to make the garage more functional. She noted that this is open for discussion and interpretation.

3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the locality, for example, will it be out of scale, out of place or inconsistent with the surrounding area. The Planner noted that the proposed design of the expansion conforms to the existing structure and fits in with the character of the area in that it will be comparable in quality to garages on other properties.

Councilmember DeCourcy asked if the Planning Commission recommended additional evergreen trees be installed for screening and the Planner responded yes.

The Planner displayed an aerial photo of four properties in the same area and pointed out that several homes around the lake have legally non-conforming structures. She commented that this photo was displayed to show how this request is relative to surrounding properties. She also showed a diagram of how close the proposed garage would be to other properties and stated that it would approximately 141 ft. to the nearest home; she showed other setbacks between properties on the lake that vary from 140 ft. to 250 ft. She commented that some properties are similar and some have larger setback distances.

Planner Barness stated that staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests based on the Findings of Fact and with conditions as recommended by staff. She explained she had not prepared a resolution prior to the meeting and would do so pending Council action on the matter. She stated that Mr. & Mrs. Schaefer and their architect, Keith Heaver, were present to respond to questions.

The Planner explained that there were comments from neighbors received at the public hearing relating to how the side yard setback may impact their property. She stated there was discussion relating to reducing the size of the expansion to minimize impact and to require additional plantings to screen the structure from the neighboring property. She also noted that the Commission discussed the fact that the applicants have the ability to request a conditional use permit for construction of a detached garage that could be up to 1,000 square feet and set closer to the property line than the current request. Though this may not be advantageous on the site given conditions, it is a request that the applicants could choose to present to the City for consideration.

Planner Barness stated that the Commission recommended variance approval conditions to include pre and post construction site visits, meeting the City Engineer’s conditions, and the installation of a minimum of three (3) evergreen trees that are 8 to 10 ft. in height on the southeast side of the structure under the supervision of the City Forester.

Mayor Park commented that variances require discussion of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. She noted that there were several examples in the aerial photos that show similar setbacks in this area around the lake.

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

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adopt Resolution No 14-29 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE EXPANSION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 345 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, based on the findings of fact and conditions as listed and with a condition that three (3) 8 to 10 ft. tall evergreen trees, as recommended by the City Forester, be installed to screen the structure from neighboring properties, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom.

In discussion, Mayor Park asked for the Forester’s input on the trees.

Councilmember Hovey commented that the City does not require trees on other properties.

Forester Nayes commented that it is reasonable to plant larger tree, but they will grow slower; he recommended White Pine, Balsam Fir or Canadian Hemlock.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the properties to the south would complain about the screening impeding their view of the lake.

Mr. Schaefer explained that the trees would cover the rear portion of the garage but would not be in an area where the lake is viewed from adjacent properties.

The Mayor asked for any further comments and hearing none called the question.

Motion carried. (4-0)

d. Planner’s Report: Planner Barness reviewed the following information listed in her report dated August 27, 2014. She noted there were numerous inquiries and that she would respond to questions if needed.

The Planner explained that she and the Building Official worked to complete the Affordable Housing Survey. She noted that Sunfish Lake has only low density properties, with no multi-dwelling units and that she provided an estimate of future housing in the City.

Planner Barness explained that she prepared an article for the City Newsletter relating to Chicken and Bee Keeping within the City.

The Planner advised that there would be two (2) applications reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September Meeting: 1) Major Site & Building Plan & Conditional Use Permit at 45 Salem Church Road for construction of a new home on an undeveloped lot, and; 2) Major Site & Building Plan & Conditional Use Permit at 329 Salem Church Road to expand a detached garage on the property.

Mayor Park noted that although the City does not contain affordable housing units the City does contribute funding for units to be constructed in other communities.

Council thanked the Planner for her report.

7. STAFF REPORTS: a. BUILDING INSPECTOR: Mayor Park stated that David Neameyer was not present this evening and received his report. She explained that David had submitted his resignation and that Council would be discussing this matter later on the agenda. She noted that Mike Andrejka was present for the discussion of appointing an interim replacement for the inspection position.

Council received the Inspector’s report for August, 2014.

b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineering Activities Undertaken in July & August: Building and Site Reviews: Engineer Sterna stated that staff conducted two (2) site and building plan reviews.

Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of August: Charlton Road Grading: The Engineer stated that areas of Charlton Road were graded to touch up a few rough spots and that the weather this year has been hard on the road. He stated he would monitor the road condition over the next two months to see if any additional touch up grading is needed before winter.

2014 Street Reconstruction Project Update: Engineer Sterna stated the contractor finished the final lift of blacktop on August 27 and there are only a few remaining items of work involving grading of shoulders and turf reestablishment adjacent to the road. He stated that he would present the first of two pay vouchers for the contractor at the next meeting and would also provide an estimate of the final contract value.

Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for September: 2014-2015 Snow Plow Quotes: The Engineer stated he would solicit three (3) quotes from contractors for Council to consider at the October meeting.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

c. CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes stated no burning permits were issued in August and that he conducted two (2) consultations regarding tree issues. He explained he had several phone conversations regarding chickens, brush disposal at 6 Acorn Drive dead trees along Delaware Avenue and a relating to mattress placed on a possible burn pile along the common driveway along Hornbeam Lake. He noted the mattress issues was resolved by placing them in a dumpster. He stated that Musser Park was mowed.
Councilmember DeCourcy asked why the City mows the Centaurea flowers in the park.

Forester Nayes explained it is a prohibitive weed, known as Spotted Knapweed, and mowing helps control it.

Mayor Park commented that Dakota County declares noxious weeds and ones that must be eradicated.

Council thanked the Forester for his report.

d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated August 29, 2014 and pointed out that there were four (4) false alarms, however; the total number was less that last year at this time. He stated there were two (2) fire alarms, a case of identity theft, a mutual aid call and other miscellaneous calls this month.

Mayor Park presented a card of thanks to Chief Shaver and his staff. She stated that in light of the tragedy that occurred in a neighboring community, the City of Sunfish Lake wished to take this opportunity to thank the police department for their dedication and service to the City and to assure them it is not taken for granted.

Chief Shaver expressed his thanks on behalf of the police department and commented that West St. Paul values the relationship with Sunfish Lake and its residents.

Council thanked the Chief for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adoption of the 2015 Budget and Setting Tax Levy for 2015: Attorney Kuntz referred Council to his reported dated August 27, 2014 regarding Council action to adopt the 2015 Budget and establish a “Not-to-Exceed” Tax Levy for collection in 2015. He explained that all cities must adopt and file the proposed “not-to-exceed” tax levy before September 30 each year and file the information with the County. He further advised that cities are required to conduct a public meeting to discuss the proposed budget and levy and receive public comments. He stated that notices are sent to all taxpayers advising of the date of the public meeting and therefore, Council should also take action to schedule this public meeting; he noted that the meeting has been held in December each year so that the tax levy may be certified to the County prior to December 29. He explained that the City is required to post the notice of the special meeting at St. Anne’s Church and also on the City website.

Attorney Kuntz stated that a resolution was prepared listing the proposed budget and tax levy numbers discussed by Council at the budget study meeting on August 5, 2015. He advised that the City Treasurer provide the numbers that would adopt the same tax rate used last year and would adopt a 17% tax increase. He noted the percentage increase would also be due in part to the increase in property valuations. He commented that the Council may receive several inquiries with an increase of 17% in taxes and that it may not be their intent to increase the levy by that much. He reminded Council that the number may be decreased once it is set but cannot be increased and Council may wish to keep all options open prior to the public hearing.

Treasurer Lanoue explained she made some adjustments to the budget figures as discussed at the special budget meeting in August; $34,000 was included in the public works budget as outlined in the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan; $300 was included for the Website Manager salary; and, $704 was included for the Treasurer’s memberships. She explained there are four (4) memberships, the American Institute of CPA’s at $234, the Minnesota CPAS’s at $259, the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association (MGFOA), and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) at $60 per year.

Mayor Park asked if any of the memberships were overlapping and the Treasurer responded no.

Councilmember DeCourcy stated it is her opinion the City should pay all the membership fees since it is good to have staff keep up-to-date on what is current.

Clerk Iago pointed out that the Treasurer does not attend any conferences and that the City pays for her attendance at the Minnesota Clerk’s & Finance Officers conference each year at a cost of approximately $500.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the amount of the tax levy could be reduce due to the increase in property valuations in the City and suggested reducing the General Fund by $55,162, which would bring the General Fund to $429,889.

Mayor Park asked what percentage increase that would be over last year’s budget.

The Treasurer responded that it would reduce the tax rate 11% and if a resident’s property valuation increases by more than 12 percent, they would have an increase in taxes. She noted that Council would still have the option to reduce the tax levy in December pending public input.

Attorney Kuntz reviewed the possible scenarios for Council leaving the dollar amount as shown with a 17% increase in taxes or to reduce the amount as suggested which results in a lower percentage increase of approximately 12%. He explained that Council may also discuss choosing something in between these two options.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that if the “not-to-exceed” tax levy is reduced to $429,884 the City would have a contribution to the reserve of $22,857 and the tax rate would be reduced by 11.37% which would counter the tax increase due to property valuation increases for some residents.

Councilmember Hovey commented he has a concern relating to reducing the tax levy this year and having to increase it substantially next year; he stated his preference would be to have some increase annually so that residents are not imposed a large increase in upcoming years. He questioned if reserve funds in the amount of $22,000 is sufficient for the City to operate.

Treasurer Lanoue pointed out that the City would have a totally balanced budget in 2014.

Councilmember Hovey asked if it would be appropriate to increase the levy a bit more and pay off the bonds.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the City would not benefit from the bond payoff and noted that each bond issue is unique. She explained that she could discuss pre-payment of the bonds with the City’s fiscal consultant, Ehlers & Associates.

Mayor Park thanked Council for their input and stated in her opinion it would be appropriate to follow the Treasurer’s suggestion for reducing the tax levy.

Attorney Kuntz advised that the General Levy would be reduced and asked the Treasurer to provide a number for insertion into the proposed resolution.

The Treasurer suggested the amount be listed as $389,589 for the “Not-to-Exceed” General Property Tax Levy and that would bring the Final Not-to-Exceed Levy amount to $429,889.

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


Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 14-30 titled RESOLUTION SETTING NOT-TO-EXCEED TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2015 with the amendments to the Not-to-Exceed General Fund in the amount of $389,589 and the Final Net Not-to-Exceed Levy amount of $429,889 as discussed, seconded by Councilmember DeCourcy and carried. (4-0)

b. Consider Approval of 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Engineer Sterna requested that Council approve the final 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document as presented.

Mayor Park asked if the designation of colors for the roadways had been revised or corrected and the Engineer stated he would correct the page and send it to Council.

Councilmember Hovey moved to approve the2 015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document as presented, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

c. Accept Resignation of Building Official David Neameyer and Discuss Appointment of Interim Building Official: Mayor Park explained that David Neameyer had submitted his resignation as Building Official on August 27, 2014 and referred the City to Mike Andrejka to serve as the interim Building Official until such time as Council determines if they wish to advertise for the position. She advised that she discussed options for appointment of a new Building Official with the City Attorney and the City Clerk. She stated that the City Attorney advised the State of Minnesota requires the City to appoint an interim person until such time as the position is filled.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the City must take action to accept David’s resignation and to appoint Mike Andrejka to serve as the interim Building Official for a period of 60 to 90 days. He stated that he and Mayor Park determined it would be appropriate for Mr. Andrejka to submit a resume, references and background information on his experience for Council review. He commented that if the arrangement is beneficial to both the City and Mr. Andrejka, Council could take action to make the appointment permanent at the end of the interim appointment.

There was discussion relating to whether or not the position should be advertised. The City Attorney explained that Mr. Andrejka had expressed concern that he would put in time to learn the position without compensation and, therefore, it would be his expectation to be appointed at the end of the interim period. He further advised that if the Council wishes to actively seek applicants, Mr. Andrejka may wish to discuss his concerns with Council at this time. He noted that Mr. Neameyer had also recommended Mr. Andrejka to serve as Building Official for the cities of Lilydale and Mendota, however; at this time for formal action has been taken to appoint Mr. Andrejka to either of those positions. He commented that the 60 day interim appointment would allow Council and Mr. Andrejka time to determine if it would be appropriate to continue the relationship.

Mr. Andrejka explained that he currently works 30-hours per week for the City of Mendota Heights and that he lives within close proximity to Sunfish Lake. He explained that he would be working with David to transition the position, learn regulations and procedures and that he would prefer to continue the relationship after putting in the time to learn. He stated his working style is similar to the previous building official and that he has extensive experience.

Mayor Park asked if he would also be working for Mendota and Lilydale and he responded that he had been recommended by Mr. Neameyer for the same position in the other two cities, but that he had not formally met with their Councils.

Clerk Iago pointed out that Sunfish Lake previously hired staff based on their qualifications, work experience and/or a recommendation from the former staff members or, in her case, a Councilmember.
Mayor Park agreed that the City historically has not advertised for positions when hiring the Clerk, Treasurer, and Building Official, but rather hired from recommendations and review of the applicant qualifications and work experience. She commented that the City should have sufficient background information to justify hiring to the residents from Mr. Andrejka’s resume and letters of recommendation from other employers.

Attorney Kuntz commented that pending any unforeseen issues, Council could review Mr. Andrejka’s resume and letter of recommendation and determine whether or not to make a permanent appointment at the end of the 60 day period.

Mayor Park asked if there were any further comments or questions.

Councilmember DeCourcy moved to appoint Mike Andrejka as the interim Building Official for the City of Sunfish Lake for a period of 60 days and to request he submit a resume and letter of recommendation for Council review, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (4-0)

d. Other: Mayor Park asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Councilmember DeCourcy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried (4-0)


____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Molly Park, Mayor