SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Tuesday, November 7, 2023

First Calvary Baptist Church – 5495 S Robert Trail

8:00 P.M.

Attendants

Mayor:                                 Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers:            Present: Shari Hansen, Steven Bulach, Shannon Nelson

                                                Absent:  Mike Hovey

City Attorney:                    Timothy Kuntz

City Forester:                     Jim Nayes

Police Chief:                       Brian Sturgeon

City Engineer:                    Justin Messner

City Planner:                      Lori Johnson

City Clerk:                            Christy Wilcox

City Treasurer:                  Ann Lanoue

1. Call to Order

2. Approve Agenda

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda.

                Councilmember Hansen moved to adopt the agenda, seconded by Councilmember Nelson.  Motion carried (4-0).

3. Consent Agenda

                Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Councilmember Nelson.  Motion carried (4-0).

1. Approve Regular Minutes of October 3, 2023
2. List of Bills
3. Monthly Financial Statements
4. Receive Building Inspection Report
5. Receive City Forester Report
6. Receive Public Safety Report

The City Forester discussed the issue of pruning along city streets, and he did receive pricing from the subcontractor of his company.  The estimate for Angel Road was $4,000.00, which is a very reasonable cost and is less than the going rate.  Mayor O’Leary asked about doing the remainder of the city.  Forester Nayes said that there is enough money in his current budget to cover the costs, but the whole city does not need it.  Forester Nayes said that for $10,000 he will be able to take care of all the pruning that needs to be done.  It was recommended that this should be done on a rotating year and included in the City Forester’s budget.

Forester Nayes discussed the spray that will be used for the removal of the buckthorn.  Once the contractor is done with the pruning then the buckthorn will be sprayed.  The mayor recommends that the costs associated with pruning and buckthorn control be included in the budget each year.  Forester Nayes indicated that they will begin with the pruning this year once approved.

Mayor O’Leary moved to instruct the City Forester to subcontract out for clearing of brush on all city streets but beginning with Salem Church Road and Angel Road in 2023 for an amount not to exceed $12,500.00.   Further, that the City Forester is directed to come back with a proposal for annual rotating of clearing out of brush and chemicals to inhibit the growth of vegetation, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.  Motion carried (4-0).

4. Comments from the Public

                There were no comments from the Public.

5. Public Hearing/Presentations

                Dawn Wambeke, Executive Director of Neighbors, Inc. was present to discuss the programs and services provided by Neighbors and opportunities available.  Neighbors greatly appreciate the support of the city and look forward to collaborating to continually take steps to improve the well-being of the communities.     

6a           Consider Variance Request by Andrew and Jill Johnson at 116 Salem Church Road          

Planner Johnson referred to her report dated November 7, 2023, as well as the presentation packet that was distributed this evening.  The existing land use is Rural Residential and zoned R-1 with 3.58 acres.

Overview

The applicants, Andrew and Jill Johnson, reside at 116 Salem Church Road.  The property is accessed via the private drive known as Horseshoe Lane, which connects to Salem Church Road.  The Johnson’s would like to construct an addition onto their home which would violate the front yard building setback requirement of 100 feet that is established in the zoning ordinance.  The proposed addition would be setback 68 feet from the front property line, necessitating the need for a 32-foot front yard setback variance. 

The Johnson’s came to an open forum at a City Council meeting earlier this summer to determine if there was a way to establish support for this variance without going through the major site and building plan approval process that will be required prior to construction.  The Johnson’s did not want to spend money on plans unless they could be assured that a variance would be supported by the Planning Commission and City Council.  The City Council directed them to work with staff on a variance application without providing all required plans for major site and building plan approval.  If the City Council approves the requested variance, they would be able to submit a major site and building plan application consistent with an approved variance. 

Variances/Practical Difficulties

The applicant has provided a narrative that outlines reasoning in support of granting the 32-foot front yard setback variance.  A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that:

1. Practical difficulties will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.

It is the conclusion of staff that there are no special circumstances regarding the land, structure or building involved in this variance request.  This is a typical home when compared to others in Sunfish Lake. 

3. Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property. Again, there is nothing unique about the lot in question. It is a standard 3.58-acre parcel. The home exceeds setback locations on two sides of the property.  
4. Practical difficulties caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely economic in nature if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Title. The applicant wishes to pursue this variance because the interior layout of the home makes an addition more conducive towards the front yard of the home. If the interior of the home were remodeled, an addition could be located elsewhere on site (see red arrows drawn on site plan).  While it is true that this would be a significant expense, the ordinance and state statutes indicate that economic considerations cannot be considered when determining whether or not to approve a variance. 
5. Special conditions and circumstances causing practical difficulties shall not be a result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel. This parcel is buildable and all setbacks could be met if an addition were to be placed elsewhere on the lot. 

2. Compliance with the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance or deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use and the proposed variance permits the owner to use the property in a reasonable manner. It is true that other variances have been approved in the community within the last year for a garage addition; however, those variances were approved when it was clear that there was a practical difficulty involved. By approving a setback variance of this magnitude for living space a precedent would be set for allowing structures closer to the front property line within the community.
3. The special conditions and circumstances causing the practical difficulties do not result from the actions of the applicant. The homeowners purchased the home many years ago and they are now wanting to increase the livability of the home by adding more living space. The applicants are choosing to locate living space in such a manner that violates ordinance standards, and an addition could be located elsewhere on the property.

4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district under the same conditions. The adjacent lot to the north was granted a front yard setback variance several years ago. In that case, a clear case for nonconforming lot size and unique lot size was made, and the same cannot be said about this lot. The lots in Sunfish Lake are relatively large and most properties are large enough to accommodate the 100-foot setback, and the home on this property also meets the 100-foot front yard setback. If a variance were to be granted for this home addition, the applicant would be granted special privileges that others do not have. 
5. The request is not a use variance. This is not a use variance.
6. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose of the applicant. There really is no way to minimize the need for a variance in this case. The home is built right at the 100 foot-setback line. The applicant can eliminate the need for a variance by constructing the addition elsewhere on the property.
7. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses. The request does not create an inconvenience for adjacent properties. If a variance were to be granted, the addition would be visible at some points on Horseshoe Lane, though there is vegetation on the east side of the property. 
8. The variance requested is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Ordinance. Granting the variance would not meet the intent of the ordinance as the intent of the ordinance is to keep structures from appearing too close to roadways and access drives. This addition would be significantly closer to the access road than other homes of similar size in the city. 
9. The variance requested is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan does not address setback requirements in the R-1 Zoning District; therefore, this request is neither consistent with or in conflict with the comprehensive plan.
10. The variance requested will not alter the essential character of the locality. This variance would have the potential to alter the essential character of the locality by allowing a home addition to be located closer to a front property line than other homes in the city. This would potentially have a visual impact on those using Horseshoe Lane, as well as it may have an impact on other new construction within the city with a new precedent set.

Planning Commission:  The Planning Commission met on October 19 after an on-site meeting.  The Planning Commission reviewed the site and possible locations for the addition.  There was discussion regarding the state statute on variances and the fact that economic reasons cannot be construed as practical difficulties.  The Planning Commission voted (4-0) unanimously to deny the variance. 

Staff did mention that there have been a few variances granted in the past year or two but staff made a determination that there were unique characteristics to those lots and it was clear they did have a practical difficulty in those circumstances.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinances, staff recommend denial of the 32-foot front yard setback variance for a new home addition subject to the following findings of fact as provided in the agenda packet.

Mr. Johnson indicated that they exhausted all options before going through the process and this issue does not impede on anybody, only impedes on the road.  The two neighbors behind the property do not have an issue with approving this Variance.

Councilmember Bulach believes that this situation is unique.  Councilmember Bulach visited the site today versus looking at the plan.  The site is very dense with woods.  Councilmember Bulach is in favor of approving the Variance due to the uniqueness of the lot with a private road along the eastern portion of the property where the addition is proposed.

Mayor O’Leary acknowledged the work of the City Planner with the preparation of the reports and thanked the Planning Commission for their efforts in dealing with this request.  Mayor O’Leary noted that the Johnsons bought a lot where the original owners should have moved it more forward and while walking the property yesterday, he understands why the owners would not want to remove the pool.  Mayor O’Leary said that we must use common sense in the interpretations of the laws when dealing with a request such as this.  Mayor O’Leary looks at the street as another additional set back because nobody will be building on the other side of the road.  Relating to the legal aspect, the configuration is no different than the topography.  Topography can be a difficult or unique circumstance and the configuration of the home as a unique circumstance. 

Councilmember Hansen was concerned about the environmental impact due to the removal of the pool and other parts of the house and lot.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any further comments from the property owner and public at this time.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the City Council had any questions or comments.

Councilmember Nelson moved to adopt Resolution No. 23-26, RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARAINCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 116 SALEM CHURCH ROAD, SUNFISH LAKE, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, seconded by Mayor O’Leary.  Motion carried (4-0).

6b:          Planner’s Report: 

• There will not be a Planning Commission meeting in November.
• 114 Salem Church Road: A permit was issued for the new home construction.  All site inspections went well, and the project is underway.
• 415 Salem Church Road: An application has been received for major site plan approval for the construction of an inground pool at this address.  The application is missing quite a bit of information and is expected to be deemed incomplete.
• 389 Salem Church Road: Very preliminary conversations have occurred with contractors regarding a home remodeling project that may trigger major site plan approval at this address.  This would not be a demolition of the home but there might be changes to the site to accommodate a new pool and/or garage.
• 2058 Charlton Road: The owner of this property would like to install a split rail fence on site.  Staff is waiting for the plans for the fence before determining the appropriate approval process that needs to be followed.
• Ordinance Updates: Several chapters have been redlined and the Mayor and City Planner will be meeting to discuss the proposed ordinance changes.             

7. Engineer’s Report:

• Engineering Activities Undertaken in the Month of October

• Salem Church Road: Staff conducted a site visit and prepared a recommendation for parking on Salem Church Road.

• Building and Site Reviews in the Month of October

1. Staff conducted reviews for the following properties this past month:

• 114 Salem Church Road and 2184 Charlton Road – staff coordinated the site erosion controls inspection required prior to project start

• Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of October

1. Fire Number Signs – staff coordinated the order of fire number signage for 2400, 2410, and 2430 Delaware Avenue.

8. 8. NEW/OTHER MATTERS:

1. Discussion of Parking on Salem Church Road

Planner Messner presented his report regarding the parking concerns on Salem Church Road.  Planner Messner and Chief Sturgeon conducted a site visit to review the consisting conditions and review the potential of restricting parking where appropriate along the roadway.  Using the information collected, staff is recommending posting “No Parking” along the entire north side of the Salem Church Road and order appropriate signage.

Mayor O’Leary moved to approve no parking on north side of Salem Church Road between Windy Hill Road and Delaware and Authorize the Chief of Police to Authorize Temporary Parking, seconded by Councilmember Nelson.  Motion carried (4-0).   The City Attorney will prepare a resolution to be considered at the next regular meeting.

City Council directed staff to purchase eight (8) no parking signs. 

1. Joint Powers Agreement between Dakota County and Cities/Townships and School Districts for the Absentee Voting Administration

Councilmember Nelson moved to adopt Resolution No. 23-23, Approving Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Sunfish Lake and Dakota County for Absentee Voting Services, seconded by Councilmember Hansen.  Motion carried (4-0).

1. Counting Write-In Votes for Local Elective Office

Councilmember Hansen moved to adopt Resolution No. 23-22, Counting Write-In Votes for Local Elective Office, seconded by Councilmember Nelson.  Motion carried (4-0).

1. Discuss and Accept the Audit Results as Prepared by Abdo

Mayor O’Leary moved to accept and approve the audit results as prepared by Abdo, seconded by Councilmember Bulach.  Motion carried (4-0).

It is noted that the City Treasurer has ordered new checks, and the required declaration has been added to include: “I declare under the penalties of law that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid”.   

Mayor O’Leary moved to direct the City Treasurer, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §118A.03, to arrange for pledged collateral equal to 110% of the deposit not covered by insurance, and to report to the Council within 90 days as to the arrangement that has been made for such pledged collateral, seconded by Councilmember Nelson.  Motion carried (4-0)

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 23-24, Cancelling certain escrow obligations and underlying obligations relating to specific projects occurring in calendar years 2013-2020, seconded by Councilmember Hansen.  Motion carried (4-0).

Mayor O’Leary moved to adopt Resolution No. 23-25, Cancelling certain escrow obligations and underlying obligations relating to Project 19.01 located on property 357 Salem Church Road, occurring in calendar years 2019-2020, seconded by Councilmember Hansen.  Motion carried (4-0).

The City acknowledges and receives the memo dated October 2, 2023, from Abdo which includes two recommendations to consider to be used for accounting software.

9. Adjournment

                Mayor O’Leary adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________                     ___________________________________

Christy Wilcox, City Clerk                                                              Dan O’Leary, Mayor