Loading...
2012-06-05 City Council minutesMendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 5, 2012 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Povolny, Petschel and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein; pulling items B) Acknowledgement of May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes, G) Approval of Pharmaceutical Drop-Off Program Joint Powers Agreement, J) Planning Case 2012-17, Critical Area Permit for a Storage Shed at 1008 James Court, O) Approval of One-Stop Right-of-Way Permitting System with Dakota County, and P) Approval of Pilot Knob Use Permit. a. Acknowledgement of May 15, 2012 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Revised NDC4 Web Streaming Agreement d. Approval of Sign Permit, 760 Highway 110 – BC2 Artisan Bakery e. Receipt of April 2012 Fire Department Activity Report f. Receipt of Pay Equity Report Compliance Letter g. Approval of Pharmaceutical Drop-Off Program Joint Powers Agreement h. Approval of 2011 Year-End Auditor’s Recommendations Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 2 i. Planning Case 2012-12, Conditional Use Permit for a Fence at 917 Chippewa Avenue j. Planning Case 2012-17, Critical Area Permit for a Storage Shed at 1008 James Court k. Approval of Massage Therapy License Renewals l. Approval of 2012 Election Judges m. Approve completion of Probationary Employment Period for Terry Sullivan n. Approval of Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program (CAMP) Annual Agreement o. Approval of One-Stop Right-of-Way Permitting System with Dakota County p. Approval of Pilot Knob Use Permit q. Receipt of May 2012 Building Activity Report r. Approval of April 2012 Treasurer’s Report s. Approve the Contractors List t. Approve the Claims List Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MAY 22, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Councilmember Duggan noted that a sentence at the bottom of page three of the Planning Commission minutes reads that “He commented the Council did not feel there was enough information to approve a variance for Mr. Bader.” Councilmember Duggan believed this may have been said at the Planning Commission meeting but did not feel that was the case in the Council’s consideration. The Council believed there was no justification for a variance and there was no supporting hardship in relation to th e request. It was based on this decision that the Council denied the request for variance. Councilmember Duggan expressed his concern on the language in the minutes. City Attorney Tami Diehm replied that there were two things Council could do; 1) note in the Council minutes of this meeting Councilmember Duggan’s comments, or 2) staff could go back and review the tape of the Planning Commission meeting and suggest to the Planning Commission that they amend their minutes. After suggestions were reviewed and discussions had by the Councilmembers, City Administrator Justin Miller stated that since no action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting based on the comment made it is staff’ belief that the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting are an accurate reflection of what was said by Sedlacek. . In the minutes taken from Council’s meeting tonight it could be noted that the Council felt there was a mistake in the Planning Commission meeting minutes. He recommended the Council adopt the Planning Commission minutes as presented and the Council meeting minutes would reflect their thoughts about how these appear. Councilmember Duggan moved to Acknowledge the May 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes with the notation that Council did not feel that there was an accurate summary of their actions in relation to the variance request. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 3 G) APPROVAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL DROP-OFF PROGRAM JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT City Administrator Justin Miller stated that late in the day of this meeting staff found out through Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener that the Dakota County Board, who was also prepared to approve the agreement this week, pulled this item from their agenda. Staff was not sure why this was pulled but they wanted to make sure everyone was approving the same agreement and asked that Council table this decision. There being no action necessary to table an item, the Council moved on to the next topic. J) PLANNING CASE 2012-17, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR A STORAGE SHED AT 1008 JAMES COURT Councilmember Duggan commented that item three under the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED reads “The property is not in proximity to any bluff line.” He suggested to staff that if it is not in proximity then the statement becomes unnecessary. It should only be included if it is in proximity to a bluff line. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek replied this finding is a very common finding in critical areas; however, if Council would like to make a change staff would entertain that. Councilmember Petschel suggested this request be granted as written and as the streamlined critical area permits come forward in the future, they include the distance to the bluff line. Councilmember Duggan suggested this permit request go forward but that the distance to the bluff line would be added for the record. Councilmember Duggan moved Approval of Planning Case 2012-17, Critical Area Permit for a Storage Shed at 1008 James Court with the Approximate Distance to the Bluff Line Added for the Record. Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 O) APPROVAL OF ONE-STOP RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITTING SYSTEM WITH DAKOTA COUNTY City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that this item was originated by Dakota County. Throughout all of the cities in Dakota County, contractors and companies that wish to install utilities along publicly owned right-of-way need to apply for right-of-way permits from the various municipalities. This system being developed by the county would be a one-stop shop for the contractors; where instead of having to fill out multiple permits for a project, they would only fill out one. The county would have the permit application process and the fees from all of the different cities outlined for the contractor. The contractor could fill out one permit for a project that may stretch from Eagan to South St. Paul; going through Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, etc. Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 4 The county asked for a one-time $2,000 set-up fee from all of the cities and then there would be monthly billing based on the number of permits cycled through the one-stop program to each respective city. Mayor Krebsbach asked if this would be an automatic permitting process. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the city would still review the plans to make sure they do not conflict with anything else in its right-of-way and would receive the fees for its time in reviewing those plans. Only the permit application form would be one instead of multiple for the contractor. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he was not in support of this because the Council would be asking the residents of Mendota Heights to pay a $2,000 one-time set-up fee and $475 a year when there would be no benefits to the residents of Mendota Heights; only to the contractors. Councilmember Povolny asked how much staff time the city would save for the $40 per month. City Engineer Mazzitello replied the process to staff would remain essentially the same as it is right now. Instead of receiving the permits from the contractor, staff would receive them from Dakota County. Staff did not foresee any time or cost savings. Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval of One-Stop Right-of-Way Permitting System with Dakota County Without Authorization of any Payment from the City to the County. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 P) APPROVAL OF PILOT KNOB USE PERMIT Assistant to City Administrator Jake Sedlacek stated the City has owned the parcels that make up Pilot Knob, approximately twenty-five acres, for a little over five years. The city has been heavily into the restoration of that site, is now starting to see the benefits, and is getting requests to use the site. Under the funding sources, this is not a park; this is an open space so the rules apply differently. He, along with Chief of Police Michael Aschenbrener, have been looking at what other cities have done for permitting special events and examples of more restrictive uses. What was presented to the Council was their best draft at a Special Event Permit for Pilot Knob. The emphasis was to try to make sure there were controls in place over what groups could use the facility; but at the same time those groups have to recognize the uniqueness of the site; make sure that there is extra protections built in for the site, and that – unlike a park – no matter what, the site is open to all even though there may be an event going on. Mayor Krebsbach asked if ceremonial fires would be allowed, even though the permit stipulates no fires allowed on the site. Councilmember Petschel stated she had the same question because this is a sacred site and she would not like to think that Native Americans could not have a sacred fire on the site because this document prevents fires. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that this has been a topic of many discussions – how does anyone discern one type of fire from another. Right now the document says that fires are not allowed but given the feedback, staff agrees it is something they need to figure out and are open to suggestions. Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 5 City Attorney Tami Diehm stated that the way the permit is currently drafted it does prohibit all fires, which is a blanket prohibition. If Council desires, staff would revisit that and come back with language that would allow for ceremonial fires, it could be worked into the permit. However, enforcement of that may be a little tricky for staff but they could certainly build in the language. After discussions and suggestions took place on the topic of fires and the associated issues , Assistant Administrator Sedlacek suggested that, since there were no pending applications, staff go back and revisit this language with people that are not necessarily inside of City Hall and bring it back to the Council in two weeks. The feedback from Council was very clear and some of the concerns are valid. Staff would prefer to hone in on the specific issue and bring back a finished product rather than passing something that is not finished. There being no action necessary to table an item, the Council moved on to the next topic. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Jennifer Reeves, President of the Mendota Heights Moms Club stated that her organization voted to donate $150 for trees for any of the parks that are in need of one. The Mendota Heights Moms Club has approximately forty-five members who are all moms located in Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, Lilydale, Sunfish Lake, and Mendota. The Councilmembers expressed their appreciation for the donation. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that information pertaining to the location and type of tree be provided to the organization, which the Council agreed to. Mayor Krebsbach noted two large events that happened together during the past weekend, the first being the 50th Anniversary of the Mendota Heights Police Department, which was organized by Patrol Officers Jeff VonFeldt and Peyton Fleming. Officers VonFeldt and Fleming gave a report on the activities, which included a gathering of past and current police officers, reserves, and staff at the Pool & Yacht Club on Friday evening and a four-hour open house on Sunday afternoon. The second event noted as part of the Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks 25th Anniversary was the Seventh Annual 5K Run/Walk to benefit Special Olympics. Sergeant Neil Garlock organize d the event and provided a report by first mentioning that the event has grown each year, this year being no exception. Over $7,000 was raised for Special Olympics – another record. There were other activities that occurred in conjunction with the Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks 25th Anniversary. Also, the Dedication and Renaming of the Civic Center Ball Field in memory of Former Mayor Chuck Mertensotto occurred. Assistant City Administrator Jake Sedlacek gave the report. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 6 City Administrator Justin Miller explained that this public hearing was for liquor license renewals for businesses in the city. Staff had received the applications and background checks for all of the establishments seeking renewal. Staff recommended the approvals for the following: On-Sale Liquor License including a Special Sunday License Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant, 762 Highway 110 Courtyard by Marriott, 1352 Northland Drive On-Sale Club Liquor License and Special Sunday License Mendakota Country Club, 2075 Mendakota Drive Somerset Country Club, 1416 Dodd Road On-Sale Wine License Mendoberri, 730 Main Street Tommy Chicago’s Pizzeria, 730 Main Street LeCordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts, 1315 Mendota Heights Road Off-Sale Liquor License The Wine Market, 720 Main Street Mendota Liquor, 766 Highway 110 Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the audience and the Councilmembers. Being none, Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved Approval of the Renewal of Liquor Licenses, Including Their Type, for all of the Establishments as Articulated by City Administrator Justin Miller. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) APPEAL OF FIRE MARSHAL DECISION, HUDSON REFRIGERATED LOGISTICS – 1460 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY City Administrator Justin Miller explained that this is an appeal of a decision made by the City Fire Marshal that required Hudson Refrigerated Logistics at 1460 Sibley Memorial Highway to replace recalled fire protection sprinkler heads in their building. Administrator Miller reviewed the lengthy background on this topic and also recommended that Mr. Hudson and his representative, who were in attendance, have an opportunity to state their case. 2002 and 2003 – reports received by the City from Summit Fire Protection noted that Hudson did not have any recalled sprinkler heads Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 7 Beginning in 2004 and annually to present time – the Summit Fire Protection reports do show there is a presence of recalled sprinkler heads July 2007 – the State adopted a new fire code, which was then adopted by the City in October 2007 as part of its fire code. This new fire code stated that recalled sprinkler heads were no longer allowed, whether or not the recall was voluntary, and there was no grandfathering. 2010 – the City started to make Hudson Refrigerated Logistics aware of their need to replace those recalled sprinkler heads November 2010 – Mr. Hudson requested a hearing with the City Council contesting the requirement, which for reasons that are unknown, did not come before the City Council February 2012 – Fire Marshal Jim Lee sent a letter to the company stating that they did have to replace the recalled sprinkler heads. Hudson Refrigerated Logistics again requested a hearing with the City Council, which is the first step they need to take to appeal the Fire Marshal decision. March 2012 – Fire Marshal Jim Lee and City Administrator Justin Miller met with Mr. Hudson and tried to come to a solution but were unable to do so. April 10, 2012 – the City received a letter asking for this hearing It was staff’s opinion that the fire code is clear on this issue as it says that recal led sprinkler heads are not allowed per the fire code. Staff believed it was a liability for the City. Staff’s recommendation was the Council uphold the Fire Marshal’s decision. Administrator Miller stated there is another step in the appeal process. Mr. Hudson could appeal to the State Fire Marshal. Administrator Miller also said that Mr. Hudson has some legitimate arguments but that would be a decision more appropriately handled at the State Fire Marshal level as staff is just the interpreters of the code as it applies to Mendota Heights. Mr. Bob Lee, an attorney representing Hudson Refrigerated Logistics, explained the issue in more detail and their concerns about replacing the sprinkler heads. He explained the operations that take place in the facility and the various uses of each part of the facility. He stated the building is essentially a concrete dock with a metal roof and metal walls, which is insulated and cooled to low temperatures. Aside from the office side of the building, which is sprinkled with a different system, there are no people in this building other than the employees who are running electric pallet trucks moving the pallets of products back and forth. On a typical operational day there would be three people running pallet truc ks in the part of the building affected. Mr. Lee also explained that, when the building was remodeled in 1995, the Fire Marshal at that time required them to install a sprinkler system in the ceiling and an in-rack sprinkler system in the pallet racks. Therefore, half of this warehouse has three sprinkler systems, one in between the ceiling and the roof, one in the ceiling, and one in the racks. The recalled sprinkler heads are located in one section of the ceiling and were installed during the 1995 remo del. The remaining sprinklers in the ceiling, above the ceiling, in the offices, in the front part of the dock facility, and in the freezer are fine and not subject to any recall. In the opinion of Mr. Lee and Mr. Hudson, because of the redundancy of the current sprinkler systems, there was no need to replace the recalled sprinkler heads. In 2010, the then current Fire Marshal looked at this issue and consulted the State Fire Marshal. Unfortunately, the material he provided to the State Fire Marshal was incomplete and misleading, did not explain the redundancy problem, did not mention the in-pallet system, and the information on the Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 8 rest of the building did not describe its actual use – he described it as a storage facility in its entirety. Mr. Lee and Mr. Hudson believed this led the State Fire Marshal to come to the wrong conclusion. Mayor Krebsbach asked for clarification that they did not want this issue heard at the State level. Mr. Lee replied that Hudson was not necessarily looking for a decision to be made on this issue at the City Council level. They would prefer to work with Fire Marshal Jim Lee and City Administrator Justin Miller to prepare a stipulated set of facts and explanation as to what these sprinkler systems look like, submit that again to the State Fire Marshal and receive his guidance as to whether, in fact they have a system that is covered by the state fire code and therefore requires replacement. Additional supporting documentation and materials were presented. Administrator Miller pointed out to the Councilmembers that the topic this evening only related to the recalled sprinkler heads – not any other sprinkler heads located in other parts of the facility. The presence of voluntary recalled sprinkler heads in 2004 and all of the way to 2007 – the City could not have ordered them to be replaced because there was not any backing, any fire code, nor any law that would have allowed that. That is why the previous Fire Marshal did not instruct them to do that. It was not until 2007, when the new fire code was adopted, that the City could begin to require those to be replaced. The voluntary recall ended sixty days before the new State Fire Code took effect. Administrator Miller also stated that the fire code is very clear in stating that recalled sprinkler heads are not allowed. However, Hudson does have valid points that they should bring up to the State Fire Marshal if they wish to appeal. The City does not have the authority to waive that at this time. Mayor Krebsbach asked Fire Marshal Jim Lee if she was correct in understanding that what the action by the Council would be to not allow Hudson to continue to have their recalled sprinkler heads, they would be able to appeal at the State level, but the Council may have some leew ay in terms of when they would expect Hudson to change those recalled sprinkler heads. Fire Marshal Jim Lee indicated that this was correct. Mayor Krebsbach asked what kind of time-line would be appropriate. Fire Marshal Lee replied this would be negotiable but two or three years would be fine. Mayor Krebsbach asked for Fire Marshal Lee’s opinion on Hudson’s request for the City to join with them on any kind of documentation. Fire Marshal Lee replied he did not believe he had the leeway to do that because the fire code is very clear – no recalled sprinkler heads allowed. Administrator Miller stated that staff would be more than happy to provide any documentation that they have that Hudson may not have, to help in presenting their case. However, it wou ld not be a joint application. Additional questions were asked by Councilmembers regarding the reason for the sprinkler head recall, if this were a new building is there sufficient fire suppressant systems in place to satisfy the State requirements, would the piping need to be replaced as well or just the sprinkler heads, and if there were requirements in place for regular testing of installed sprinkler heads. Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 9 Councilmember Vitelli suggested that Council ask the City Fire Marshal to clearly state the actu al sprinkler needs of the facility, and then he would recommend that the City Fire Marshal support Hudson in their appeal to the State Fire Marshal by being in attendance so as to be available to provide the history from the City’s and the prior City Fire Marshal’s point of view of the situation. The objective that would be brought to the State would be to minimize the cost to Hudson. Then if the State says the recalled ceiling sprinkler heads need to be replaced, that would be the end of the situation. City Attorney Tami Diehm reiterated the issue before the Council is that there is a provision in the State Fire Code, which is incorporated into the City Ordinance, that if an entity has recalled components, they need to be replaced if they are covered under the code. It was staff’s position that these were covered. Attorney Diehm then read the provision from the State Statute and pointed out that staff’s recommendation was that the State Fire Marshal would be in a better position to evaluate the various elements of hardship and safety to the occupants, the cost, and the substantial compliance. However, the State Fire Marshal would not hear their variance application until after the City has acted. As staff was not comfortable recommending a variance from the code, they recommended that Council inform Hudson that the City cannot offer them any relief and direct them, should they still be unhappy, to seek a variance from the State Fire Marshal. To the extent that the City could provide information and help would be fine; however, this would not technically be a joint application because the City’s finding would be that compliance with the code is required. Councilmember Petschel moved to Affirm the Corrective Action Decision of the City Fire Marshal Requiring Actual Compliance with the City Fire Code and to Replace the Recalled Fire Protection Sprinkler Heads, as outlined in His February 21, 2012 Letter to Hudson Refrigerated Logistics and is Supported by Prior Communication so Noted March 17, 2010; Not to Provide Relief from Said Requirement; but to Stay any Enforcement Action Pending an Appeal to the State Fire Marshal, Assuming that Appeal is Brought Within Ninety (90) Days Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) SANITARY SEWER AUTO-PAY BILLING OPTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM City Administrator Justin Miller stated that residents in Mendota Heights pay a variety of different utility bills, including sanitary sewer and storm sewer paid to the city. These bills are routinely sent out quarterly and then the residents have the option of either mailing a check, dropping it off, or they can sign up for an automatic bill pay system, which is becoming commonplace in the market. Approximately eleven percent of the residents use the automatic syst em, which staff believes is very low. The more people that use an automatic bill pay system, the more residents and staff can see savings and efficiencies. To encourage use of the automatic bill pay system, staff is recommending the offering of an incentive program. If residents sign up between now and July 31, 2012 a drawing would be conducted of everyone on the system, previous users and new, and give away a free quarter’s bill, up to $150. Councilmember Duggan asked if a statement could be inserted onto the bill stating that the City would recommend use of the automatic bill pay system. Administrator Miller replied that he believed this was already being done but would confirm and if it is not being done, it would be added. Mendota Heights City Council June 5, 2012 Page 10 Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval of An Incentive Program to Encourage Residents to Sign Up for an Automatic Bill Pay System Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli commented that the Par 3 Golf Course revenues still ex ceed expenses and the greens fees are up $7,000 over last year; however, recreational programs are down by an equal amount. The administrative costs seem a little high. Almost every piece of equipment has had repairs. Councilmember Petschel commented that she had a discussion with City Engineer John Mazzitello earlier and asked if he could check with MnDOT to see if they could shut down the light on the east end of the bridge deck at 35E North and Highway 110. She feels the light is not necessary and it causes traffic to back up all the way to Dodd Road and beyond during rush hour. Councilmember Povolny stated he really likes the new speed cart and that the money for it was well spent. Councilmember Duggan congratulated all of the graduates in Mendota Heights from both high school and college. Mayor Krebsbach thanked everyone for the activities that took place during the last weekend. CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 2454 LEMAY LAKE ROAD Mayor Krebsbach stated that, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.d.03, council would be going into closed session to discuss potential acquisition of real property at 2454 Lemay Lake Road. Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn to Closed Session to Discuss Potential Acquisition of Real Property at 2454 Lemay Lake Road. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Mayor Krebsbach called the closed session to order at 9:02 pm and the closed session adjourned at 9:08 pm. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ADJOURN Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m. Mendota Heights City Council ATTEST: Justin Miller Acting City Clerk June 5, 2012 Page 11