SUNFISH LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

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

Attendants:

Mayor: Dan O’Leary

Councilmembers: Mike Hovey, JoAnne Wahlstrom, Steven Bulach and Shari Hansen

City Attorney: Tim Kuntz

City Planner: Ryan Grittman

City Engineers: Jeff Sandberg

City Treasurer: Ann Lanoue

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

City Clerk: Cathy Iago

and Members of the General Public.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor O’Leary opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

a. Administer Oath of Office to Councilmember Shari Hansen: Mayor O’Leary administered the oath of office to Councilmember Shari Hansen who was appointed to fill his unexpired term.

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

Clerk Iago added Item 8.d. Discussion of 115 Salem Church Road which was tabled from the August meeting because Councilmember Wahlstrom was not present for the discussion.

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

Councilmember Bulach moved to adopt the agenda as amended, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

3. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any questions or comments relating to any items on the Consent Agenda.

Mayor O’Leary asked that Item 3.f. Receive Public Safety Report be pulled from the Consent Agenda so that Chief Shaver could make a presentation relating to surveillance equipment. He advised that the Chief was absent from the August meeting to attend the “Night to Unite” festivities in West St. Paul and Council had make an adjustment that listed the Staff Reports under the Consent Agenda in order to expedite the proceedings. He suggested that the Chief could put more information in his report rather than give a verbal report later in the meeting. He noted that if there was an issue staff wished to discuss with Council in greater detail, they could remove their report from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. He pointed out that the staff should remain at the meeting until after any Public Hearings are concluded in case questions arise from the public, but after the Public Hearings they would be allowed to leave the meeting.

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

Councilmember Hansen moved approval of the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item 3.f. Receive Public Safety Report for further discussion, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

a. Special Budget and Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 7, 2018

b. List of Bills

c. Monthly Financials

d. Receive Building Inspector Report

e. Receive Forester Report

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

Sena Kihtir, 331 Salem Church Road, explained that she received approval for a home addition and variance in 2016 and that she was asked to paint the addition to match the existing home. She stated that in the minutes from the Planning Meeting she was asked to match with an earth tone color and it is her opinion that the color she chose matches the color scheme even though it is not identical to the existing paint color. She pointed out that her next door neighbor has a two-toned color scheme of white and dark brown. She stated she was unaware that the color she chose was not in compliance because the minutes stated that the City cannot regulate color.

Ms. Kihtir explained that she received a letter from staff stating that her home was not in compliance and then a letter from the City Attorney stating that she was in violation of the conditions imposed and the zoning ordinance and that the City could seek legal proceedings. She stated she would prefer to resolve the matter without legal proceedings. She noted that she is not against repainting her home and that she thought the color she chose matched the color scheme of the existing portion of the home. She questioned why the matter is so confusing since there is no ordinance that regulates paint color and it is her opinion the minutes and the letter appear to be contradictory. She commented that it also appears to be discriminatory since other homes have two-toned paint.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the City received a complaint from a neighbor relating to the paint color and when Council reviewed the matter they unanimously agreed that the blue color did not “match” the existing color of the home which was a condition of approval. He explained that the purpose to match and to use earth toned colors is so the homes blend with nature. He pointed out that the City also requires additional screening between properties to minimize the impact on neighboring properties. He further explained that the City does not have an ordinance but does impose conditions with approval of such requests that future additions “match” the existing home.

Ms. Kihtir asked why she received a letter from staff that the project was complete if there was a problem.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the letter was sent before the complaint was received.

Ms. Kihtir pointed out that the Commission minutes state that the City cannot regulate color.

Planner Grittman explained that the condition requires the color to match. He noted that if the entire home was painted the same color, the property would be in compliance.

Ms. Kihtir commented that in her opinion the City has more important issues to consider and stated that there are other homes painted blue in the City.

Mayor O’Leary explained that the City received a complaint and, therefore, is required to respond to it.

There was discussion regarding the condition imposed as part of the approval of the original request to add an addition to the home. Mayor O’Leary pointed out that Ms. Kihtir needs to abide by the conditions of approval.

Ms. Kihtir asked if she could paint the entire home white.

Attorney Kuntz stated that the condition of approval states the addition must “match” the existing home, therefore, if the property owner wants to change the color of the home, she would have to request an amendment to the original resolution of approval.

Mayor O’Leary questioned if she could paint the entire home beige to be in compliance and then repaint it in a year.

Planner Grittman responded no and explained that the condition that the color must “match” remains with the property.

Ms. Kihtir commented that if she had not added the addition the home could have been painted any color and that seems unfair.

Planner Grittman agreed, however he explained that the City attempts to insure that the exterior of homes must match in type and color when applications for additions to homes are reviewed.

There was discussion regarding the time frame for Ms. Kihtir to submit an application to amend the original request to the Planning Commission. Mayor O’Leary requested that the Planner specifically indicate in the notification of her request to the Planning Commission that is sent to her neighbors that it is to allow her paint color selection choice. He also asked the Planner to be sure the complaining neighbor receives notice and explained that this gives ample opportunity to anyone that objects to the paint color to attend the Planning Commission meeting to voice their objection.

Ms. Kihtir explained that the letter from the City required the home be painted by September 15; she asked if that deadline would remain and pointed out that it may be difficult to paint the home before winter.

Councilmember Bulach moved to waive the September 15, 2018 deadline for Ms. Kihtir to be in compliance and directed that she make application to amend the original resolution and extend the deadline to complete the repainting of the home by June 1, 2019, seconded by Councilmember Hansen and carried. (5-0)

Ms. Kihtir thanked Council for their time.

3.f. PUBLIC SAFETY: Chief Shaver reviewed his report dated August 28, 2018 and stated there were three (3) False Alarms, a property damage accident with a deer and a vehicle, a parking complaint and other miscellaneous calls for service.

Chief Shaver advised that there was an accident involving a semi-trailer on Salem Church Road that caused some damage to the road surface. He stated that the City Engineer reviewed the damaged area and advised that it should not cause any problems with the roadway.

The Chief provided a demonstration of a security/surveillance camera that could be used to monitor the dumping on Upper 55^th Street near the Keenan property. He noted that the City had found furniture and other debris in the area and that the Keenan’s had experienced break-ins and damage to a storage building on their property. He explained that Council had discussed the use of a camera or a gated barrier placed across the road to deter dumping in this area.

Chief Shaver explained that the camera shown this evening could be monitored from a computer in the police car or at a home. He stated the camera also had infrared capability that could be used to monitor dark areas at night. He advised that the camera could monitor the area 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and could be moved to other areas if needed. He commented that the City of West St. Paul had 4 or 5 cameras strategically located throughout the City, however, Sunfish Lake would only need one or two.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the camera needs an electrical hookup.

The Chief stated it does need electricity that could come from a power pole or a residence. He explained that the camera also works on a battery, however, the tape would run in a loop and have to be reviewed more often.

There was discussion regarding who would monitor the camera and the fact that using higher pixels to review the tape would reduce storage.

Mayor O’Leary asked what it would cost.

Chief Shaver explained the camera is approximately $5,000 to $6,000 and the installation of a power pole, if needed, would increase the cost.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the Council had a preference for the camera or a barricade on the road. He commented that the camera may be more flexible, however the cost to install electric may be high.

Councilmember Hansen asked what the cost difference would be to install a barricade.

Engineer Sandberg advised the cost would be similar.

Councilmember Hovey asked if West St. Paul would be willing to let the City use or rent one of their cameras.

Chief Shaver stated that West St. Paul could loan the camera on a short term basis, but Sunfish Lake would have to purchase a camera if there is an ongoing need. He further noted that there may be a cost to install a power pole.
Engineer Sandberg commented that there is a power pole located on the south side of Upper 55^th Street.

Chief Shaver offered to install a camera at that location and monitor the activities so that Council may determine if they wish to purchase a camera.

Council thanked the Chief for his report and presentation.

5. PUBLIC HEARING/PRESENTATIONS: a. Public Hearing: Vacation of Public Street Right-of-Way and Public Way for a Portion of Wood Duck Pass that Adjoins Lots 8 & 9. Thirty Oaks Addition: Mayor O’Leary opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the vacation of pubic street right-of-way and public way for a portion of Wood Duck pass that adjoins Lots 8 and 9 of the Thirty Oaks Addition.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the property owner at 8 Wood Duck Pass had difficulty finding a location for installation of a new septic system and had identified the area near a cul-de-sac that was not being used to place the new system. He advised that the City had discussed options and determined that vacating a portion of the cul-de-sac that was not currently used would provide sufficient area to locate the septic system. He explained it would be the western portion of the cul-de-sac that abuts Lot 8, the Korus property and Lot 9, the Telander property. He stated that Notice of the Public Hearing was mailed to affected property owners, published and posted as required.

The Attorney advised that if Council concurs with the request for vacation of portion of the cul-de-sac, they should adopt the proposed resolution, subject to the conditions that the property owners of Lots 8 and 9 execute a Release, Waiver of Claims and Convent Not to Sue the City. He stated that both property owners agreed to sign the documents; he stated Ms. Telander had already signed and the Korus’ agreed to sign if the vacation is approved.

Attorney Kuntz explained that the City asked the property owners to decide who gets what portion of the land to be vacated due to the irregular shaped lot. He advised that they had agreed on the portion of land for each and had provided a survey of the properties. He stated that they also agreed to provide Quit Claim deeds to each other for the land.

The Attorney stated that both parties are present this evening. He advised that Barbara and Tracy Telander asked if a similar Quit Claim Deed would be provided to them and that they wanted to make sure that the septic system and driveway are located entirely on the Korus property.

David Korus, 8 Wood Duck Pass, stated he would provide the deed upon approval of the vacation and that the driveway and septic system would be entirely on his property.

Mayor O’Leary commented that he would support the request and, in his opinion, there does not appear to be any negative impact to the City.

Attorney Kuntz explained that Barb Telander advised him that the City had not plowed the cul-de-sac.

Councilmember Bulach noted there is no turn-around now and asked if the property owner would create a driveway for Lot 9.

Barb Telander, owner of Lot 9, responded that she would create a driveway for Lot 9 to have access.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there were any comments from the public and, hearing none, closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.

Councilmember Hansen, moved to adopt Resolution No. 18-29 titled, RESOLUTION RELATING TO VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC WAY FOR A PORTION OF WOOD DUCK PASS THAT ADJOINS LOTS 8 AND 9, THIRTY OAKS ADDITION, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, subject to the conditions as listed, seconded by Councilmember Wahlstrom and carried. (5-0)

6. PLANNING COMMISSION/PLANNER’S REPORT: a. Planner’s Report: Planner Grittman reviewed the following information listed in his report dated August 29, 2018 and advised the August Planning meeting was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. He stated that an application for a tear down and new home construction at 2 Sunfish Lane would be presented at the September Planning meeting and heard by Council at their October meeting.

Council thanked the Planner for his report.

7. ENGINEER’S REPORT: 1. Engineering Activities Undertaken in August: A. 2019-2023 CIP Update: Per Council direction at the budget workshop and discussion with the City Treasurer, staff revised the City Engineering/Public Works budget activities for 2019.

B. Fire Marker Replacement: The Engineer explained there was a slight price increase in the fire marker replacement quote from March 23, 2018. The vendor advised that metal prices had increased since the initial quote and that the original quote did not include sales tax. He explained the total difference from the $7,979.53 quote is $752.24, for a total of $8,731.77. He advised that the new quote from this vendor remains below the quote received from the other vendor and staff recommends proceeding with the project.

Treasurer Lanoue questioned if the vendor included the sales tax because they were billing WSB & Associates and explained that the State does not require the City to pay sales tax.

Councilmember Bulach moved to authorize the Engineer to proceed with the Fire Marker Replacement project with Advantage Signs & Graphics, Inc. with the cost increase for the signs but minus the $599.74 for sales tax, and to advise the vendor that State does not require cities to pay sales tax, seconded by Councilmember Hovey and carried. (5-0)

2. Building and Site Reviews in August: A site review for a proposed new home at 2 Sunfish Lane was completed and the Engineer’s report was provided for the Planning meeting in September.

Engineer Sandberg explained that the City Attorney asked him to provide an update on the Norton easement acquisition for the Charlton Road project. He advised that he had positive meetings with the Norton family and that they generally agreed to provide the easement but added some conditions. He asked if he should work with the City Attorney to resolve the items requested. He noted that one of the requests was to eliminate one of the assessments. He advised that the City Attorney indicated that it may be feasible to argue that one of the driveways from their property has access from Delaware Avenue, therefore only one property has access from Charlton Road.

Councilmember Hovey pointed out that the church could also argue that they could create a driveway access from Highway 110 so they should only be assessed for one parcel.

Engineer Sandberg pointed out that the Norton driveway already exists on Delaware Avenue and the church does not currently have another access point. He commented that the purpose of the negotiations is to avoid condemnation.

Mayor O’Leary suggested that staff advise the Norton’s that it may be less costly to negotiate than to enter condemnation proceedings.

There was discussion regarding the other requests from the Norton family.

Engineer Sandberg advised that he and Engineer Sterna had worked together to reduce the area on the west side of the pond to 15 ft. x 15 ft. which would reduce the permanent easement area and require only a temporary easement for that portion of the property.

After discussion, Council concurred that staff should continue to negotiate the easement acquisition in the best interest of the City and that it may be appropriate to consider reducing the assessments to one parcel for the Norton property but that Council does not appear to support any further requests.

Attorney Kuntz advised that the City had passed a resolution authorizing the condemnation proceedings and that the clock was running to resolve this matter.

Engineer Sandberg stated he would advise the Norton’s that the agreement should be concluded within two weeks and that the matter would be presented to Council at their October meeting.

3. Public Works Activities Undertaken in the Month of August: Engineer Sandberg advised that Charlton Road was leveled and graded in August, however, it may require another grading due to the recent rainfall. He stated that Grieve Glen Road was repaired and, in his opinion, it looks good and will add a few years of life before the complete reconstruction is scheduled. He explained that the Sunfish Lake outlet was cleaned out on August 16 and that the lake level was down and no flow was present from the outlet as of August 22.

4. Anticipated Engineering and Public Works Activities for September: The Engineer advised he would be soliciting quotes for Snow Plowing Services and would attempt to receive three (3) quotes for presentation to Council at a future meeting.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the Engineer had reviewed options for the gate at Upper 55^th Street.

Engineer Sandberg stated he did not prepare a formal report since the Police Chief was presenting the surveillance camera information this evening.

Council suggested tabling discussion of the gate to the October meeting and asked the Engineer to review some options for blocking the road.

Councilmember Bulach asked if there had been any dumping or debris in the area since the last report.

Forester Nayes stated he did not find any large items in the area, just minor debris.

Council thanked the Engineer for his report.

8. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS: a. Consider Resolution Adopting the Proposed Budget & Setting Not-to-Exceed Tax Levy for 2019 and Schedule Special Truth in Taxation Council Meeting on December 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.: Attorney Kuntz referred to his memorandum dated August 29, 2018 and explained that Council should adopt the Not-to-Exceed Tax Levy and Proposed Budget for 2019 and schedule a Special Truth in Taxation Council meeting on December 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. to finalize the Tax Levy and Budget. He explained that Council must submit the preliminary budget and tax levy to Dakota County by September 30, 2018.

Treasurer Lanoue distributed the revised budget that included the $32,000 increase in the Engineering budget and the $73,131 increase (28.5%) in the Fire Department budget for 2019

Councilmember Hovey questioned why the Sunfish Lake portion of the cost sharing formula was so high compared to the other cities.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the formula is based on the number of fire calls in each city and she noted that all three cities contributions increased.

The Treasurer noted that the tax rate would remain the same and that $35,000 would be added to the Cash Reserve. She referred to the property tax levy history from 2008 and explained that the City had received no complaints with the tax increases over the years.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the budget would change in 2020 when the bonds are gone and the Treasurer responded yes and explained that the budget changes each year based on several factors.

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

Councilmember Hovey moved to adopt Resolution No. 18-30 titled, RESOLUTION SETTING THE NOT-TO-EXCEED TAX LEVY FOR COLLECTED IN THE YEAR 2019 AT $623,278 and scheduling a Public Hearing to discuss the proposed 2019 Budget and Tax Levy on December 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Bulach and carried. (5-0)

b. Consider Approval of the Final Draft 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): Engineer Sandberg stated he would finalize the document and suggested this be tabled to the October meeting.

Council concurred.

c. Discussion of Deer Population Management Plan for 2019 Hunting Season: Council was referred to the City Attorney’s memorandum dated August 29, 2018 and explained that Council had adopted a three-year plan with two components; 1. An agreement between the City and Metro Bowhunters Resource Base, Inc. (MBRB); and 2. Hunting by volunteer residents on private and/or public land.

Chief Shaver provided a brief review of the Deer Management Plan and explained that plan outlines the dates for the MBRB hunts in Musser Park and the dates that resident hunters may hunt within the City on private property.

Councilmember Hansen asked who she should contact if she wanted hunting to occur on her property.

Councilmember Hovey suggested she contact Sgt. Matt Muellner or the Police Department to discuss the matter. He advised that the City had not received any complaints over the last few years and that he would provide a final report on the 2018 season at the first meeting in 2019.

d. Other: Discussion of 115 Salem Church Road: Councilmember Wahlstrom explained that she received a call from a neighbor near 115 Salem Church Road who expressed concern that the property may be housing a daycare center and that there was a large amount of shingles on the driveway and a large recreational vehicle parked on the property. She showed Council some photos of the property and the concerns mentioned by the neighbor.

Mayor O’Leary asked the Planner to advise Council what could be done regarding these concerns.

Planner Grittman explained that the large recreational vehicle may be parked on the property as long as it is completely on the driveway and it is licensed and operable.

Councilmember Hovey asked if the property owner had applied for a building permit to reroof the home.

Inspector Andrejka stated he would have to check and advised a permit is required to reroof the home. He asked that he be contacted by phone when this type of complaint occurs so he could respond more quickly and check the site. He noted that he did not see the email sent to him in time to review the property prior to the meeting.

Mayor O’Leary explained it was over the holiday and that is why an email was sent rather than a phone call. He explained he asked the Inspector to determine if there was any construction on the property and he asked the Planner to review if a daycare center was allowed.

Planner Grittman explained a daycare center with 12 or fewer persons is allowed as an access use and no permit is needed if the center meets the requirements of a home occupation.

Councilmember Bulach stated he can view the property since it is close to his home and advises there are other items in the yard and their trash cans are located by the road. He expressed surprise that a daycare facility would be allowed.

Planner Grittman explained that most cities allow daycare since it is appropriate to have childcare facilities close to residential homes and/or places of business.

Mayor O’Leary asked if the City had any nuisance ordinances that would apply to the debris.

The Planner explained that the nuisance ordinance relates to debris that poses harm or classifies as a threat to public safety.

The Mayor suggested it may be appropriate for the Planner to contact the home owner to discuss the concerns raised by the neighbor.

Attorney Kuntz suggested that the Building Inspector review the property to determine if construction is occurring on the site and discuss his findings with the Planner prior to the Planner contacting the property owner.

Inspector Andrejka stated he would check the property and that he may have to charge a double fee if a contractor failed to request a permit for the reroof. He explained that in the other cities he works with he has the authority to issue a stop work order on properties where work is being done to determine if a permit was issued and asked if Council would agree that he has the same authority in Sunfish Lake.

Council agreed that the he is authorized to review properties in Sunfish Lake as necessary and encouraged him to do so.

Councilmember Wahlstrom asked if a license is required to run a daycare center in a home.

Treasurer Lanoue explained that the State of Minnesota and some counties issue licenses for daycares, although, some people do not apply for state licensing.

Planner Grittman stated he was unsure if licensing was required; he referred to Section 1221 of the Zoning Code that identifies daycare as a Home Occupation and Permitted Accessory Use.

Inspector Andrejka explained that he brought copies of his report to the meetings and asked if he would be required to do so in the future since he is not required to read his report.

Council advised that staff does not have to bring copies of their reports to the meeting.

Attorney Kuntz asked if the a copy of the Building Inspector report is included in the Public Agenda Packet and the Clerk responded that she would place a copy of the Building Inspector’s report in the public packet.

Mayor O’Leary asked if there was any further business and there was no response.

9. ADJOURN: Mayor O’Leary moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

____________________________ ________________________________

Catherine Iago, City Clerk Dan O’Leary, Mayor