- DRAFT -
SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
7:00 P.M. - ST. ANNE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
Attendants:
Acting Mayor: Judy MacManus
Councilmembers: Roger Conant and JoAnne Wahlstrom
City Attorney: Tim Kuntz
Engineer: Don Sterna
City Planner: Bob Kirmis
City Treasurer: Mike Blair
Building Inspector: David Neameyer
City Forester: Jim Nayes
Police Chief: Manila Shaver
City Clerk: Cathy Iago
and Members of the General Public.
Mayor Richard Williams and Councilmember Mike Hovey were absent.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Acting Mayor MacManus opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2. APPROVE AGENDA: Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved approval of the Agenda, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)
3. CONSENT AGENDA: The Acting Mayor asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda. She referred to page 2 of the August 7, 2012 Council Study Meeting minutes and questioned the sentence stating her comment regarding the Forester taking a more aggressive and proactive approach in his duties.
Forester Nayes recalled that there was discussion relating to him taking a more aggressive approach to removal of burdock as part of his duties.
The Acting Mayor asked that the sentence be removed from the minutes since she was not present at the meeting.
Councilmember Conant stated that he was misquoted in the draft Planning Commission minutes and that he would discuss this with the City Clerk so that it could be corrected.
Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved approval of the Consent Agenda with the amendments to the Special Council meeting minutes of August 7, 2012 as requested, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (3-0)
a. 1) Special Council Meeting minutes, and 2) Regular Council Meeting minutes of August 7, 2012.
b. List of Bills
c. Monthly Financial Statements
4. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: Acing Mayor MacManus asked if there were any comments from the public.
Lynette Olsen, 2180 Charlton Road, asked if Council had seen the article in the Star Tribune newspaper regarding getting permission slips to fish on Sunfish Lake. She expressed her displeasure that the article appeared to be advertising that residents on the lake would sign a slip for anyone wishing to fish on the lake. She further explained that she heard Sibley High School was conducting a fishing project for a science class and may also ask for permission to fish on the lake.
Councilmember Conant stated he was not aware of the article and sympathized with residents who received calls asking for permission to fish on the lake.
Acting Mayor MacManus stated she had seen the article and commented that it must have been a slow news week.
5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: None.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Planner’s Report: Planner Kirmis stated that he would be reporting for Mr. Brixius who had a conflict with another meeting this evening.
The Planner advised that the Planning Commission met on August 15 to conduct public hearings for an application at 2400 Delaware Avenue to construct a 4.850 sq. ft. pool and deck; five accessory buildings including a 475 sq. ft. cabana; 76 sq. ft of changing rooms; a 32 sq. ft. toilet; and a storage area. The size of the pool area and number of accessory buildings required a major site plan review and a conditional use permit. He stated that the applicant also requested a variance to allow a solid wall fence to screen the west side of the pool area and an additional conditional use permit for a security gate at the site’s driveway entrance. He advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of all the requested applications and that discussion of this matter by Council would be held under the next agenda item.
Planner Kirmis stated that a public hearing was also held for an application for a major site and building plan review and variance to expand a non-conforming structure shoreland setback at 345 Salem Church Road. He advised this application was withdrawn by request of the applicant. He stated that a number of questions regarding the zoning history, the lot development history, and the appropriateness of the proposed house size and height were raised at the public hearing. He also explained that a neighboring property owner raised issues regarding the City’s consistency and criteria for evaluating this type of application. He stated that staff had researched the property and found that the existing home was constructed in 1980, prior to the 200 ft. shoreland setback regulation and therefore, it was a legal use at that time. He noted that staff compiled additional information relating to the property and will keep it on file for future reference.
The Planner advised that there are no pending applications and therefore, the September Planning meeting has been cancelled.
b. Consider Approval of Major Site/Building Plan Review, Two (2) Conditional Use Permits and a Variance for MABM, LLC, 2400 Delaware Avenue: Planner Kirmis explained the request for a major site and building plan review, a conditional use permit for the construction of additional accessory structures, a conditional use permit for the construction of an entry gateway, and a variance from the fencing requirements for the property located at 2400 Delaware Avenue.
The Planner explained swimming pools and accessory structures associated with swimming pools are allowed uses in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. He noted that the five (5) additional accessory structures which include a dining area, cabana, changing areas and a toilet area are integral to the design of the proposed pool terrace area and will be used in association with the swimming pool. He stated that the applicants have coordinated the appearance and design of the proposed projects so that they will have no adverse impact on adjacent residences. He advised that the proposed pool area and accessory structures otherwise comply with applicable zoning regulations and do not pose a threat to public health, safety or general welfare.
Planner Kirmis stated that the entry gate does not create a safety hazard for the public or adjoining properties; meets all setback, size and design requirements of the City ordinance; and is not expected to have any negative impact on neighbor viewsheds or property values.
The Planner stated that the applicant has requested installation of a solid wood fence on the west side of the pool terrace whereas the City ordinance allows a maximum of 50 percent solid for passage of light and air. He noted that the proposed solid wood fence has been determined to be reasonable in conjunction with the pool design and the property owner’s desire for privacy and that it meets all other size, material, and aesthetic requirements outlined in the City zoning ordinance. He explained that the criteria for granting variances recently changed and that the City must identify practical difficulties if strict terms were to be applied and must find the request to be reasonable. He noted that the Planning Commission made four (4) findings to support the variance request; 1) the request is a reasonable use associated with the swimming pool use; 2) the fence is an integral part of the pool terrace; 3) the request complies with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and has no negative impact on adjacent properties; and 4) the solid wood fence meets all other requirements of the ordinance.
Planner Kirmis reviewed the two (2) conditional use permits requested. The entry gate poses no safety hazards, meets setbacks and is more than 30 ft. from a public street.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the stone columns could be reduced by one foot to meet the height requirements.
Architect Dan Green stated that the plan has been revised and the gate now meets the 6 ft. height requirement.
The Planner advised the second conditional use permit was for multiple accessory buildings that are essential to the pool activities, integral to the design and common with pool use. He explained that the Planning Commission concluded that other adjacent properties have pools so the request is compatible with neighboring properties and would have no negative impact. He further stated that the accessory building pose no threat to safety and would screen the pool from adjacent lots with the combination of fencing and landscaping. He noted that the accessory structures meet all other requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major Site and Building Plan review if Council approves the variance and two conditional use permits and that all approvals would be subject to conditions outlined in the Planner’s report and the additional conditions that were recommended by the City Engineer. He deferred to the City Engineer for explanation of his conditions.
Engineer Sterna explained that he had prepared a memorandum outlining his recommendations based on the revised plan submitted by the applicant relating to the location of the rain gardens for dispersing the pool drainage, requesting additional silt fencing during construction and revising the plans to show the gas line for future maintenance. He stated that the applicant had complied with moving the rain garden and directing the discharge from the pool to the front yard grass area.
City Clerk Iago explained that the Engineer’s recommendation and any other conditions would be incorporated into the draft resolution for Council consideration.
Acting Mayor MacManus thanked the Planner for his report and asked if there were any comments or questions from Council.
Councilmember Conant expressed concern relating to how the variance process has evolved since the new regulations were adopted. He commented that in his opinion there is no technical reason or practical difficulty to show that the fence cannot be built to current standards. He commented that the variance regulations appear to be weakened but should not be abandoned and that in his opinion there is no need for a variance since the fence can be built to meet standards. He suggested that plantings could be installed for privacy and that Council should not approve every variance request without identifying practical difficulties relating to the request.
Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed.
Councilmember Conant stated that he only disagrees with the fence variance and would support the other requests.
Acting Mayor MacManus stated she has a problem with the five accessory structures. She explained that other residents had trouble receiving approval for only one additional accessory structure and that she did not wish to set precedence by approving five structures. She asked why the applicant could not combine the changing areas into one structure.
Councilmember Wahlstrom expressed concern relating to installation of a chain link fence and indicated that she was not aware this type of fence was allowed with the exception of a dog run.
Architect Dan Green and Landscape Architect Tim Hagstrom were present representing the applicant. Mr. Green stated that no chain link fencing is proposed, only a wood fence and an ornamental metal picket fence. He also explained that the multiple changing room areas were proposed in an attempt to break up the solid wall of fencing. He pointed out that although the cabana has a roof, it is open on the sides and yet it is still considered an accessory building even though it is not fully enclosed. He indicated that the fencing was proposed between the changing rooms to provide privacy, but commented that vegetation could be used instead.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the changing areas are connected by the solid fence and if they are considered one accessory building. Mr. Green stated he was told they would be defined as multiple accessory buildings.
Attorney Kuntz pointed out that two Councilmembers raised the issue of the variance request and its practical difficulty not relating to the property. He noted that both the Planner’s report and the Planning Commission recommendation make the observation that there are no practical difficulties related to the property. He asked the architect if he could identify what makes the property unique to support the variance request.
Architect Green explained that the solid fence request related to the fact that the pool area must be located adjacent to the existing home and driveway, since the home is a walkout and the site only supports the pool in this area. He further noted that there were large trees located on the lot that further prohibited placement of the pool in any other area. He advised that it was his solution to place the buildings and fence as shown on the plan as a buffer to adjacent properties.
Councilmember Conant pointed out that the City cannot grant a variance to resolve a problem caused by the property owner.
Architect Green explained that when he discussed the design of the pool and terrace he was advised by the Planner that a variance would be needed and that the accessory buildings would require a conditional use permit.
Planner Kirmis pointed out that the total square footage of the accessory buildings is 580 sq. ft. and the architectural design divides the square footage amongst all the components versus placing a large building on the site. He pointed out that the zoning code language is subject to interpretation, although the changing areas are called individual structures, they are not as large as other accessory buildings normally proposed.
Acting Mayor MacManus indicated that she had read and reviewed the plan and maybe they should not be considered as five individual structures. She explained that she favors the design but has a problem with permitting so many accessory buildings; she suggested there may be a better way to package the plan.
Chuck Liddy, representing the architectural firm, explained that if the changing areas are combined the square footage would total 625 sq. ft.; he advised they were designed to be small 4 ft. x 4 ft. areas and attached to the fence to be more aesthetically appealing and to avoid one large building that resembled a garage.
Mr. Liddy stated that the applicant would agree to install a fence that is 50 percent open and therefore, the only remaining issue is the conditional use permit for the accessory buildings.
Architect Green explained that the structures must be 6 ft. from the garage area and suggested the possibility of grouping the buildings into two groups.
Councilmember Wahlstrom suggested placing them closer to the cabana area. Mr. Liddy explained that the north end of the site was where the slope begins and that it would be preferable not to construct them into the hill. He pointed out that if the roofs were taken off the buildings they would not be considered accessory structures. He commented that the applicant has a large family and they preferred to have guests be able to change and use the toilet facilities outside, rather than going through the existing home.
There was further discussion and suggestions relating to the placement of the changing areas.
Lynette Olson questioned the lighting for the pool area.
The Acting Mayor stated she recalled the lighting would be minimal in this area.
Mr. Liddy stated and the lighting would meet all ordinance standards.
Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there was further discussion and hearing no response she called for a motion.
Councilmember Conant moved to approve the request for the Major Site and Building Plan Review and the Conditional Use Permit for the Security Gate, subject to the proposed fence meeting the ordinance standards and therefore not requiring a variance and the applicant addressing the request to reduce the number of accessory buildings to one, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom.
In discussion, Attorney Kuntz asked if Councilmember Conant wished to clarify the motion to deny the variance request for a solid wood fence and to require the applicant to draft a new site plan showing a single accessory structure versus the individual changing rooms shown on the current plan. He explained that because Council does not have a plan showing the size and location of a single structure, it would be difficult to identify its size and placement for future reference.
Attorney Kuntz asked if the Acting Mayor would grant him permission to address the applicant. Acting Mayor MacManus granted permission.
The Attorney asked if the applicant was willing to withdraw the variance request for a solid wood fence.
Architect Dan Green, speaking on behalf of the applicant, responded yes. Mr. Green pointed out that even if the changing areas are combined into one building structure, the proposed cabana is also defined as an accessory building.
Councilmember Conant amended the original motion to allow two accessory buildings and Councilmember Wahlstrom agreed to the amendment.
Attorney Kuntz asked if the architect for the project could adapt the plans with two accessory structures. Mr. Green responded yes.
The Attorney suggested that Council take action to restate the original motion and direct the Planner to draft a resolution that includes the fact that the applicant will withdraw the variance request, that the plans be revised to show the two accessory buildings and grants approval for the security gate and revised site plan, subject to conditions. He asked the architect if the applicant plans to begin construction this year and if a revised plan could be drafted for Council review and approval at the October meeting. Architect Dan Green responded yes.
Councilmember Conant as maker and Councilmember Wahlstrom as second agreed to restate the original motion to direct the Planner to prepare a draft resolution for consideration at the October meeting that recites the following:
1) Acknowledges that the variance request for a solid fence was withdrawn by the applicant on September 4,
2012;
2) Grants approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Security Gate that meets ordinance standards;
3) Grants approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Two (2) Accessory Buildings that will be shown on the
revised Major Site and Building Plan as prepared by the applicant for the October meeting;
4) Grants approval of the Major Site and Building Plan referencing the revised plans to be prepared by the
applicant and to be reviewed and approved by the Planner and Engineer;
5) That the Major Site and Building Plan approval includes all conditions as outlined by the Planning
Commission and Engineer; and, Council further directs the Planner to notify the applicant that the City
wishes to extend the 60-day rule for action on this matter an additional 60-days. Motion carried (3-0)
Attorney Kuntz asked that the Architect circulate the revised plans to the City Planner and City Engineer as soon as possible. Mr. Green agreed.
c. Consider Resolution Approving Variance and Major Site/Building Plan Review, Prange/Klarer, 2144 Charlton Road: Planner Kirmis stated that the proposed resolution documents Council action taken at the August meeting and contains all the conditions of approval for the requested Variance and Major Site and Building Plan Review for the property located at 2144 Charlton Road.
Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there were any questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-12 titled, RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SITE AND BUILDING REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A HOME ADDITION AND EXPANSION WITHIN THE REQUIRED 200 FOOT SHORELINE SETBACK FOR THE PRANGE-KLARER HOME AT 2144 CHARLTON ROAD IN SUNFISH LAKE, MINNESOTA, based on the findings of fact and subject to conditions as listed in the resolution, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)
Council thanked the Planner for his report.
7. INSPECTOR’S REPORTS:
a. Building Inspector: Inspector David Neameyer stated that he issued several building permits during the month of August and offered to respond to questions.
Councilmember Conant asked the status of the Bellamo building permit at 14 Sunfish Lane and also the Dobranz property at 2078 Charlton Road.
Inspector Neameyer stated he would be contacting Mr. Bellamo this week for an update on his progress with the building permit. He further stated he had nothing to report on the Dobranz property.”
Councilmember Conant questioned if the Dobranz property is considered a nuisance and if Council should discuss removing the structure from the property. He stated he was uncomfortable with the home being vacant.
Attorney Kuntz explained the property is not considered a nuisance at this time. He advised there were some real estate inquiries earlier in the year, but no contact was made with the owner or their representatives. He suggested he would discuss the matter with the Building Inspector and Police Chief and attempt to make contact with the property owner to determine what they plan to do with the property.
Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if the home was unsafe for occupancy and if it should be boarded up.
Inspector Neameyer responded that it is unsafe and he would have to discuss further options for action on the property with the City Attorney and Police Chief. He explained that any further action on the property may require an expenditure by the City.
Acting Mayor MaManus asked if the City has any liability for the property. Inspector Neameyer stated that the City is not liable since the property has been posted.
Council concurred to direct staff to attempt to contact the property owner and report back at the next meeting.
Council thanked the Inspector for his report.
b. CITY ENGINEER: Engineer Sterna reviewed his report dated August 31, 2012 as follows:
Public Works & Engineering Activities Undertaken in the Month of August: The Engineer stated he updated the 2013 Public Works budget per Council discussed at the August 7 Study meeting and forwarded the information to the Treasurer to be included in the budget for approval this evening. He advised that the 2013 budget includes the cost for preparing a feasibility study for the 2014 Street Improvement project as outlined in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that would be adopted under a separate item on the agenda tonight.
2400 Delaware Avenue Site Review: Engineer Sterna advised that he completed a review of the proposed site improvements associated with the application for this address and provided his recommendations as conditions to be attached for approval at the request to the City Planner.
Finalized the 2012 CIP: The Engineer explained that he finalized the 2012 CIP based on previous Council discussion from the August 7 Council meeting and attached the information to this month’s engineer report. He advised that the CIP would be considered for approval this evening and that the document would be used as a tool to assist with managing the City’s infrastructure improvements and budget process. He suggested that the CIP be reviewed and updated annually by Council.
Charlton Road Dust Control: The Engineer advised that a dust control agent was applied to Charlton Road in August. He explained that the 2012 budget allotted $1,500; however, the amount was not sufficient to cover a 20-foot width, so he authorized the expenditure of up to $1,650 to insure a consistent width along the entire roadway. He noted that he made an adjustment to the 2013-2018 CIP to plan for the higher budget number in the future.
2012 Street Crack Sealing Contract Finalization: Engineer Sterna stated that the fully-signed final contract documents for this year’s crack sealing work were received and he would be requesting payment be made to the contractor for this work. He noted that this ends the street improvement work for the year, with the exception of grading Charlton Road once more before winter arrives.
Anticipated Engineer/Public Works Activities’ for the Month of September: 2013 Snow Plow Quotes: The Engineer stated he would solicit three (3) quotes from contractors for Council to consider at the October meeting.
Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization (LMRWMO) Stakeholders Meeting: Engineer Sterna explained that he would attend a watershed stakeholders meeting to discuss the Watershed Restoration and Protection Study. He stated that five (5) lakes were chosen for the study and that Sunfish Lake was included as one of the study lakes. He advised that he would email the information to Councilmember Conant tomorrow as he had volunteered to participate in the study. He explained that the goal is to study water quality, aquatic plants and modeling. He stated that the goal of the study would be to determine where pollutants are coming from and that the City would receive documentation on the outcome of the study. He indicated that his concern relates to what the mitigation plan would involve and what it would cost.
Councilmember Conant asked if anyone could attend the meeting. The Engineer responded yes.
Acting Mayor MacManus commented that most of the attendees are engineers, but anyone may attend.
Councilmember Conant asked if a lakeshore resident could attend. Engineer Sterna responded yes and pointed out that they want support from homeowners around the lake. He commented that in the future it would be beneficial to have notice of the meeting earlier. Engineer Sterna agreed to send the notice sooner.
Councilmember Conant referred to the 2013 Final Budget Items report distributed by the City Engineer and asked if these items are included in the budget to be adopted this evening. He stated he was uneasy with the “Miscellaneous Costs” and asked for an explanation of what items are covered under these costs.
Engineer Sterna explained that the costs include answering calls from residents, attending meetings, soliciting quotes, etc.
Councilmember Conant asked if the payments are made directly to WSB Engineering firm and if the costs include payment for his service as the City Engineer. The Engineer responded yes and explained that the City pays $50 per hour for his attendance at meetings with a three (3) hour maximum; he noted this cost has not increased for several years.
Councilmember Conant asked for an explanation of “LGU” Role for Wetland Conservation Act. The Engineer advised that “LGU” refers to Local Government Unit.
Acting Mayor MacManus recalled that the City used to be reimbursed for participation in the CAMP Program.
Engineer Sterna stated he would contact the DNR to determine if the costs are reimbursed.
Councilmember Conant asked if the address for Harmon Park had been resolved. The Engineer explained that he had discussed the issue with staff and would contact Dakota County to provide an address for the park this month.
Lynette Olson asked if the Engineer had reviewed the wash-out ditch area near her home and if he had replaced the reflector in that area.
Engineer Sterna stated he had reviewed ditch and in his opinion there is no way to stop the wash-out. He pointed out that a substantial amount of run-off occurs in this area and that it is the nature of a gravel road to wash-out when this happens. He advised he would be replacing the reflector.
The Acting Mayor asked if there were further questions and there was no response.
Council thanked the Engineer for his report.
CITY FORESTER: Forester Nayes advised that no burning permits were issued in August and due to the drought he would not allow any burning to occur until a significant period of rain occurs.
The Forester stated he contacted the Fire Chief to schedule a survey of City streets and private lanes to determine if there are any access issues for emergency equipment. He advised that an article with photos of access issues would be included in the next City newsletter.
Forester Nayes advised that emerald ash borer has been found at the Fort Snelling golf course near the airport, which is only a few miles away from the City. He advised that if residents plan to preserve an ash tree on their property, now is the time to start treatment.
The Forester sated he removed grapevines from trees in the right-of-way, especially pines, along Salem Church Road. He also advised that residents should be watering trees, especially young trees, during this dry period.
Councilmember Conant asked if the emergency vehicles would be surveying Sunfish Lane for access issues. The Forester responded yes and advised that was an area he chose to show how tight it would be for a fire truck to access the area.
Council thanked the Forester for his report.
d. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed the public safety report and offered to respond to questions.
Council thanked the Chief for his report.
8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget & Tax Levy for 2013 and Schedule Special Council Meeting on December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. to Discuss the Proposed Budget & Tax Levy for 2013: Treasurer Blair distributed copies of the proposed 2013 Budget that was discussed at the Special meeting held August 7, 2012.
The Treasurer explained the City is adopting a not to exceed budget this evening and will conduct a Public Hearing in December to receive public comments. After the public hearing, the final budget would be adopted. He explained that the budget was revised after the August 7 study meeting and now shows an increase of $12,500 to include additional funds in the amount of $5,000 for maintenance of culverts/ditches; $5,000 for snow plowing; and $2,500 for dust treatment on Charlton Road. He noted the total budget is $6,500 less than last year but is consistent with last year’s budget items. He explained that he had contacted Dakota County regarding the discrepancy in the number of households listed for Sunfish Lake and was advised they have a new computer system and will look into the matter; he stated their initial thought was that previously vacant lots were not counted as households.
Treasurer Blair noted that the Police budget shows a 3 percent increase, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and that the Fire Department budget has a slight increase based on how the costs are calculated between the cities sharing their services. He indicated that he had not heard from the Planner as to whether or not their costs would increase.
Clerk Iago reported that she had received an email from the Planner’s secretary which stated that the costs for the Planner would remain the same as last year.
Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Conant asked how the Mill Rate is determined by Dakota County. The Treasurer stated he was unsure how it is determined, but he indicated it was partly based on the assessed property valuation.
Councilmember Conant commented that in his opinion the City has a substantial amount of money sitting in reserves.
Clerk Iago noted that Council had discussed the fact that it may be more appropriate not to have such a large decrease in the budget and to use this opportunity to build-up reserve funds.
The Acting Mayor asked if there were further discussion and there was no response.
The City Attorney asked for clarification of the final budget dollar amounts for inclusion in the resolution.
Treasurer Blair reported the following: the General Fund amount is $386,500; the Bond Retirement amount is $28,400; the Total Not-to-Exceed Levy amount is $414,900.
Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there was any further discussion and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-13 titled, RESOLUTION SETTING NOT-TO-EXCEED TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTION IN THE YEAR 2013, and scheduling a Special Council Meeting on December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the proposed budget and tax levy for 2013, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)
b. Consider Approval of 2013-2018 Capital Improvement Plan: Engineer Sterna explained that he had distributed the final version of the CIP for adoption by Council this evening. He suggested that the report be reviewed on an annual basis and be used as a guidance tool for budgeting and projecting improvements. He noted the two major projects, Windy Hill Road and Court and Salem Church Road, are scheduled for 2014 in the document. He explained that it would be appropriate to begin a feasibility report for the projects in 2013 and that the proposed 2013 budget reflects the costs for preparing the report.
The Engineer pointed out that the CIP is not set in stone and is merely a planning tool; he requested Council take action to formally adopt the document and offered to respond to questions.
Councilmember Conant stated he is uncomfortable with the inclusion of improvements to Upper 55th Street. He pointed out that there is only one residence on the street and the property owner may not wish to pay for a road improvement.
Engineer Sterna explained that the next step in the process is to prepare a feasibility study that identifies the need for the project and outlines the costs and methods for payment. He noted that once the study is completed, Council has the opportunity to determine if the project should proceed. He reiterated that the document is merely a tool and that it may be revised.
Acting Mayor MacManus agreed that it is merely a guide for Council reference and that it does not automatically assume a project must be ordered.
Councilmember Conant indicated that persons who read the document do not have the same information that Council is provided; he suggested that the introduction to the document include the information that it is merely a guiding tool so that it is not misinterpreted by residents. He further indicated that the document proposes two separate bond issues for projects that may not actually occur.
Engineer Sterna indicated that he could include more information in the document as a means of explanation to residents and stated that the methods of payment are the best estimates at this time and may change with the feasibility report.
Councilmember Conant commented that some people may read more into the document and suggested that the Engineer also include in the analysis that some adjacent residents may share the costs for the project.
Acting Mayor MacManus pointed out that the document provides information for cost sharing on each type of road within the City. She stated that in her opinion the explanation provided on page one is well done, but if Council wishes, the Engineer could expand it to include more information.
The Acting Mayor asked if there were further comments or questions and there was no response.
Councilmember Wahlstrom moved to adopt the 2013-2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) as presented by the Engineer and dated September 4, 2012, seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (3-0)
c. Consider Approval of the Deer Management Plan 2012: The City Attorney reviewed his report dated August 30, 2012 and outlined the conditions listed as they relate to the contract with the Metro Bowhunters and volunteer residents hunting on private and/or public land.
The Acting Mayor asked if adjacent property owners must grant permission when hunting occurs on private property.
Attorney Kuntz responded no and explained that the private property must be 2-acres in size and the volunteer residents must seek approval from the Council Liaison Mayor Williams and the City Liaison Officer Muellner prior to hunting. He noted that each parcel will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine any safety issues.
Forester Nayes reported there are only a few privately owned parcels that have expressed a willingness to participate. He advised that the volunteers wish to hunt on their own property and only six or fewer have expressed an interest in participating.
The Acting Mayor commented that she did not favor hunting at the Russ Wahl wetland area and pointed out that last year not many deer were taken from the hunt. She explained that in her opinion that allowing hunting is a waste of time and has cost the City a substantial amount of money for preparation of the documentation by the City Attorney for removal of only a few deer. She suggested that Council needs to reconsider the program in the future and commented that they should determine if it is a serious program to remove deer or merely for fun.
The Acting Mayor asked if there were any further questions or comments and there was no response.
Councilmember Conant moved to adopt Resolution No. 12-14 title, RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2012 DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SUNFISH LAKE, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (3-0)
d. Other: Acting Mayor MacManus asked if there was any further business.
Councilmember Conant distributed information from the League of Minnesota Cities relating to granting variances. He noted there are four (4) major factors to consider when granting a variance and advised that a variance cannot be granted if it relates to something caused by the property owner. He noted that in addition to the three factors listed for consideration in the League’s informational document, the variance request must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that the variance request for 345 Salem Church Road was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City ordinance. He further advised that economic issues may not be considered a factor for granting a variance and the issue of economics was raised during discussion of the application for 345 Salem Church Road.
Councilmember Conant explained his concern relates to Council getting close to abandoning the standards outlined in the City Code when considering variance requests and in his opinion Council should take a more rigorous approach when considering such requests.
The Acting Mayor asked if there were any further comments and there was no response.
9. ADJOURN: Councilmember Wahlstrom moved for adjournment at 8:55 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Conant and carried. (3-0)
___________________________ ___________________________
Judy MacManus, Acting Mayor Catherine Iago, City Clerk
We are a small community proud of our heritage and committed to the preservation of our pristine, rural character. We cherish our privacy, yet know we are part of a thriving Dakota County and the greater Twin Cities metropolitan area. With these partnerships in mind, we strive to preserve that unique spirit which is Sunfish Lake, Minnesota.