Loading...
2012-10-02 City Council minutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 2, 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 C) Approval of MSP Airport 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment Letter. a. Acknowledgement of September 18, 2012 City Council Minutes • Corrections to the minutes were noted • Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the corrected minutes. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 b. Acknowledgement of September 24, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes c. Approval of MSP Airport 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment Letter d. Approval of Planning Case 2012 -27, Wetlands Permit and Variance, Mendakota Country Club e. Receipt of September 2012 Building Activity Report f. Approval of Massage Therapist License, Laura Duncan October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 1 g. Receipt of August 2012 Treasurer's Report h. Approval of Contractors List i. Approval of Claims List Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT AGENDA TOPIC C) APPROVAL OF MSP AIRPORT 2020 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET COMMENT LETTER Councilmember Petschel stated that the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) has come up with a 2020 Long Term Comprehensive Plan for the airport. They are at the point in the plan where they are asking for comments for the environmental assessment /environmental assessment worksheet (EA/EAW). Councilmember Petschel has worked with City Administrator Justin Miller on drafting the city's response. Councilmember Petschel clarified that when the plan was first presented, at the end of 2020 the MSP Airport was supposed to be at 630,000 operations, which would have been at capacity. Since the plan was drafted the Delta merger and a concept called `up- gauging' in terms of number of flights and type of aircraft have occurred, which has resulted in a reduction in operations at the airport. Whether they do any of the 2020 long term comprehensive plans, the FAA is estimating that airport operations at most airports should increase about two percent per year. This plan is in line with the FAA. Whenever there is a plan that is increasing operations, the desire is to make sure that MAC completes every step they are legally required to do before it can begin looking at expansion of the runways. Therefore, the Mendota Heights response asks that when MAC gets to seventy percent of capacity they are required to show how they are going to increase capacity. They are also required to work with the Noise Oversight Committee in terms of continuing to attenuate homes that might move into a louder noise contour, which they have agreed to do along with Delta. At the October 30th City Council meeting, the concept of precision -based navigation will be presented. This means that the airplanes will not be flown by the pilots but by a computer. They will be flying from point -to -point in straight lines. It is a cleaner operation but it definitely has an effect on the noise contour. It is being requested that MAC thoroughly examine the effect of precision -based navigation on the noise contour in light of the new plan. Councilmember Petschel listed some of the plans at MSP: • Gate areas to be enlarged with more seats and bathrooms • Gut and redo the baggage area • Gut and redo the international arrival from a terrorist standpoint — homeland security to control • At some point they are going to decide if the Sky Team members are terminal and everybody else will be put over at Terminal 2 self - contained and easier for going to be limited to the main October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 2 All of the changes are going to be need - based. Councilmember Petschel stated that the changes are more amenity- based, as opposed to adding more runways. She believes that the city's response addresses that and she endorsed the letter dated October 3, 2012. Councilmember Petschel moved Acceptance of MSP Airport 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment Letter Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS A) MENDOTA HEIGHTS BP — CONSIDERATION FOR HAVING CURRENT PRICING SIGN UPDATED Mr. Sean Hoffman, Mendota Heights BP, commented that they are looking at replacing their existing price sign with an updated sign. They currently have a forty -five foot tall sign at a bad angle. They would like to replace the sign with a fourteen foot tall, LED sign. This sign would not flash, could be turned off at night, would not rotate, and would be environmentally friendly as it would not take as much energy to operate and could be changed without the need to climb a ladder. Mayor Krebsbach informed Mr. Hoffman that the Council would need a foi inal application for the proposed sign and the Council would want to give an informal review because of the City's ordinance against digital signage. In response to inquiry by Mayor Krebsbach, City Attorney Tami Diehm commented that current ordinance prohibits all types of digital signage and this topic has been before the Council in the past. If the Council is interested in amending the code to allow limited signs of this type they could direct staff to bring forward a proposal or could invite the business manager to submit an application. Mayor Krebsbach requested that an application be submitted. Councilmember Duggan expressed his support for this type of digital sign. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) MARIE AVENUE STREET PROJECT ASSESSMENT Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained the Marie Avenue project consisted of rehabilitating Marie Avenue between Delaware Avenue and Dodd Road. The project is substantially complete and is within budget; however, the schedule was slightly delayed due to watermain issues and the storm damage in June. Staff is confident that the assessment amounts are adequate for the project and requested that Council approve the assessment roll as proposed. Staff has not received any objections or requests for deferral to the assessments. Should the Council approve the assessment roll, any residents that are on the roll could pay their entire assessment at the City within thirty days or it would be placed onto their property taxes and payable over a ten -year period at a six percent annual interest rate. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 3 Councilmember Duggan commented that when this project was brought before the Council there were concerns expressed in regards to the placement of mailboxes. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that they were not able to get the mailboxes relocated out of the trail. However, they were able to make the trail a little wider so the trail can be plowed with the City's small equipment. Councilmember Petschel commented that residents also requested narrower striping to slow traffic and asked if this has been completed. Assistant Engineer Ruzek answered that the streets were striped a few days ago at the eleven foot street width. Mayor Krebsbach asked if the street was finished. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that there are still a few minor punch-list items, a fence that needs to be constructed, grading around the pond, some minor restorations, and the addition of a baffle to one of the storm manholes to assist with sediment removal. Mayor Krebsbach requested a brief clarification on the public hearing process. Staff would like for each resident who wishes to speak to come forward and state their name and property address for the record. Council and staff would hear their comments and respond as Council directs. Mayor Krebsbach asked if once the public hearing is closed, can a resident come back to the podium to speak. Attorney Diehm replied that if Council would like to retain the ability to take additional public comments, then she recommended that the public hearing remain open. Councilmembers expressed their desire to open the public hearing, hear comments from the residents, and have the comment and discussion period among Council and staff before closing the public hearing. Administrator Miller clarified that anyone wishing to either ask for a deferral under city policy or formally contest the assessment, the city must receive the request in writing before the public hearing is closed. If either is received, staff recommended that the Council adopt the assessment roll complete, without those assessments, and they would vote on each of those afterwards. If anyone would wish to further contest their assessment, then they would have ten days to file in the District Court. By putting it in writing, they preserve their right to further contest the assessment. Councilmember Duggan asked if the residents were made aware of their rights and these requirements to contest their assessment. Mr. Ruzek replied that each resident received a letter that stated the amount to be assessed to the specific parcel identification number and the process for contesting the assessment in writing before the close of the public hearing. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing for the Marie Avenue Street Project Assessment. Mr. Mick Rosenberg, 602 Marie Avenue, asked when he should expect to see the bill for the assessment. Mr. Ruzek replied that once the assessment roll is adopted, it basically starts the process where any resident to be assessed can pay the assessment at City Hall within the next thirty days without any interest. The assessment can be paid after November 2, 2012 and before the end of the year but interest would accrue beginning with the closing of this hearing. After December 31, 2012 the assessment would be paid at Dakota County. Councilmember Vitelli moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 4 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MARIE AVENUE REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201107). Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan made a point of clarification that there were no additional costs to anyone even though the project took longer than expected. Councilmember Petschel asked for confirmation that once the road barricades are removed, the speed cart will be set up in the area to collect data on traffic speeds, as requested by the residents. Public Works Director John Mazzitello stated that pre- construction speed data was gathered and staff will take some post - construction data and measure how well the narrow lanes are working for controlling the speed. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 B) MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD / DIANE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD STREET PROJECT ASSESSMENT Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek explained that this project entailed three separate neighborhoods that were of similar treatment types so staff combined them together for economy of scale. The first project was Mendota Heights Road which was rehabilitated from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue. The rehabilitation consisted of a complete two inch mill over the entire street and two inch overlay on top of that. The existing pavement seams were taken all of the way down to the gravel base and patched in. The new striping was installed on this street and staff has received a number of compliments, especially as they were trying to make it safer for children crossing the road with the crosswalks being more visible. A right turn lane was added at Dodd Road for traffic going north on Dodd Road. The rest of the project consisted of the Diane Road Neighborhood. The Diane north area consisted of a complete pavement replacement. Staff did encounter some sub -grade correction in an area, which was built into the project costs so the project did come in on budget. Another area consisted of a mill and overlay; a six inch edge mill and paved one and one -half inch over the entire street, curb and gutter were replaced in both of the neighborhoods. Eagle Ridge Road had a large eight inch thick asphalt section that was reclaimed, mixed in with the existing soils, the top layer was removed and a new four inch bituminous surface installed. Minor curb and gutter were replaced All of the streets did have existing storm sewer systems and the other utilities were in good condition. Mendota Heights Road spans multiple zoning areas so staff used a front footage assessment for this project. There was one residential property, the school district, and two city parks that were assessed. It is a State aid street so the city used its MSA funds to pay for most of the project. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 5 For the north section of Diane Road, this was a complete pavement replacement. This was a rehabilitation project so residents have the choice to pay the assessment in full at the City within thirty days (November 2, 2012), after which it would be certified to Dakota County and be put on the residents' property taxes over a ten year period at six percent interest. Councilmember Duggan asked why there are different dollar amounts in relation to the assessment on Diane Road. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that there were different treatments. Diane Road was actually constructed at different times. The north section, which has the higher assessment amount, was constructed with only two inches of bituminous over six inches of aggregate base. The two inch section was not adequate by the city standards and so the two inch bituminous and approximately one inch to one and one -half inch of the gravel were removed and replaced with three and one -half inches of new bituminous. The south area was constructed at a later time and had a three inch bituminous cross - section and so staff felt comfortable that a standard mill and overlay would rehab those streets. Councilmember Petschel complimented the contractor who completed the project on Mendota Heights Road. Assistant Engineer Ruzek stated that McNamara Contracting was a good contractor to work with. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing for the Mendota Heights Road / Diane Road Neighborhood Street Project Assessment Ms. Stephanie Greenstein, 923 Douglas Road, in regards to the South Diane Road project, asked if it went down in price. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that the original assessments were $1,802.45; however, the city received very good prices on the project and so the price did go down to $1,287.42. Councilmember Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach asked why the price on the South Diane Road project went down. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that the bid price for bituminous carne in lower than expected. Mayor Krebsbach asked if the city also received a better price because of the larger scale of the projects. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied in the affirmative. All three projects this year came in well under staffs estimates. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201110) AND DIANE ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION (PROJECT #201106). Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 6 C) HUNTER AND ORCHARD NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Hunter and Orchard Neighborhood improvements were identified as a 2013 reconstruction project and includes Culligan Lane, Glenhill Road, Hunter Lane, Orchard Circle, Orchard Place, and Veronica Lane. The feasibility report for the Hunter Orchard Improvements was accepted by Mendota Heights City Council on August 21, 2012. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Ruzek gave a presentation that was given at the neighborhood informational meeting. City Engineer John Mazzitello addressed some of the issues that were brought up at that informational meeting. Issues that were identified for this project included excessive speed on Hunter Lane and Orchard Place; parking issues around the synagogue and the top of the hill; general knowledge that the streets have failing bituminous surface, are in relatively poor condition, and no longer meet the city's minimum design criteria; and stormwater drainage issues. The scope of the project includes street reconstruction on Hunter Lane, Orchard Place, and Culligan Lane (East), and storm sewer improvements. Staff is proposing a complete water main replacement and is proposing to rehabilitate the lift station at Veronica Lane. The project would also include street rehabilitation on Culligan Lane (West), Glenhill Road, Veronica Lane and Orchard Circle. The total estimated project costs are $2,399,195.96 Pursuant to the city's Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, benefiting property owners would be assessed at fifty percent of the street reconstruction costs. City costs for the reconstruction would include fifty percent of those costs plus one-hundred percent of the storm sewers, sanitary sewer, lift station rehabilitation, water main replacement, and appurtenant work. For the $2,399,195.96, staff is proposing that $537,225 would be collected through special assessments. The city would bond for $883,842.83 and utility funds would cover the storm sewer, water main, and sanitary sewer improvements of $978,128.13. It is proposed that construction would begin in June of 2013 and be substantially completed by the fall of 2013. City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that the project is the result of taking responses from the area residents. Staff has identified four major issues that the residents have with the project 1. Drainage issues on Hunter Lane and Orchard Place - construction would install curb and gutter and storm sewer. 2. Speed - residents felt that speed through the Hunter / Orchard area was excessive 3. Road widths - proposed at thirty feet wide in the main line sections 4. Curb type - a number of residents prefer a surmountable curb. The proposed project shows a twenty-seven foot wide section at Lexington and Orchard Place, widening to a thirty foot section between Lexington and Orchard Circle, where it tapers to a twenty-five section October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 7 with curb bump outs. It widens back to thirty feet between Orchard Circle and the ninety- degree curve, where it is twenty -seven feet wide. This section was not reduced to twenty -five feet because of the angle of the curve. There is a thirty foot wide section from the curve down to Culligan Lane, where again it turns into a twenty -five foot section with the curb bump outs for speed control; and on the very southern end, staff is proposing a thirty -six foot wide section to be able to accommodate on- street parking on both sides of Hunter Lane. Staff is proposing a barrier curb with a six inch vertical face that is in accordance with the other streets that have been reconstructed within the city, and is in accordance with the Street Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Policy that was originally adopted in 1992 and reviewed by Council this past June in a workshop and not amended. Councilmember Vitelli asked for clarification as to why the reductions at the ninety degree curve; why is it not the thirty feet like the rest of the road. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that in order to prohibit the on- street parking the street needed to be narrowed. Councilmember Povolny asked if twenty -seven feet would be wide enough for a semi -truck to go around the curve. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied that staff has not done any turning movements for that. However, it would basically be like a right turn since it is a ninety - degree angle. He is confident that a semi could make that turning move. Councilmember Vitelli asked what the fire department has recommended for street width. Assistant Engineer Ruzek answered that both the fire chief and the assistant fire chief replied that if the city is allowing parking on both sides of the street, they would prefer the city standard of thirty -three feet. If there is parking on one side of the street they would be okay with a thirty -foot wide street. Mayor Krebsbach stated that Eden Prairie, Woodbury, and Eagan have surmountable curbs throughout. She is unaware of any water problems or parking problems in those areas. Councilmember Vitelli responded by stating that it is not a good thought process to look at what other cities are doing as Mendota Heights has standards that Council and staff have been following. Mayor Krebsbach commented that she is open to what the residents want. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that Eden Prairie, Woodbury, and Eagan were developed largely in mass; meaning entire subdivisions were put in at once. The reason the surmountable curb was invented was so that streets could go in without any development on them. The driveways could be placed wherever the developer felt. In the case of Hunter and Orchard, the driveways are already there and city policy stipulates that barrier curb is to be installed. Mayor Krebsbach stated that exceptions have been made to city policy in the past. The Council would not be abandoning policy; it would be a modification of the policy. Councilmember Duggan asked what the current width is where Orchard and Hunter meet. Assistant Engineer Ruzek replied it is twenty -two to twenty -four feet wide. Councilmember Duggan asked if staff would ensure that however it is constructed it would not create any water problems in the area. Councilmember Duggan, when looking at the cost to Hunter Lane, Orchard Place, and Culligan Lane (East) of an assessment of $8,850, asked if that is the highest assessment that has been passed on to residents. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that in his tenure as a Public Works Director this is the highest assessment. However, he believes that there was a one - hundred percent assessment of a previous project but that was prior to his being with the city. Councilmember Duggan asked why this October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 8 one is so high. City Engineer Mazzitello answered that one of the reasons is the sheer extent of the repair and a second reason is the larger lots. Councilmember Povolny asked if surmountable curbs are installed and water problems ensue, would the residents be re-assessed to put the barrier curbs in to fix any water issues. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that surmountable curb does allow for some storm drainage. A barrier curb provides better storm drainage. There are portions along Hunter and Orchard that absolutely need to have barrier curb because of drainage issues. Mayor Krebsbach asked if there is a difference in cost in the types of curbs in terms of this initial construction. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the cost between the two different types of curbs would be negligible. Assistant Engineer Ruzek stated that a surmountable curb is approximately fifty cents more per foot. Councilmember Vitelli expressed his desire that the Councilmembers keep in mind the reasons listed in support of a barrier curb; catch more water runoff, consistent with other city streets, provides a better snow plow path, and reduces damage to lawns from plowing activities. He sees no reason for deviating from city standards. Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing for the Hunter and Orchard Neighborhood Street Improvement Project. Assistant Engineer Ruzek referenced a letter received from Mr. Lawrence Culligan, 1941 Glenhill Road, requesting that his lot be excluded from the assessment roll. Staff's response is that this would be an item that would be addressed at the assessment hearing. A second letter received was from Wes Cutter and Joyce Paxton, 1169 Veronica Lane, stating that they wish for a wider road, up to thirty-six feet wide. They desire rain gardens. They requested the city take down some of the hill for safety reasons. They prefer the surmountable curb. Ms. Carol Adams, 1991 Hunter Lane, stated that she lives at the bottom of the hill and has had water in her yard from it rushing down Hunter Lane. She is strongly in favor of barrier curb. She believes that the widening of the road would only increase the amount of water and that surmountable curb would cause worse problems for those residents living at the bottom of the hill. Mr. John Mathisrud, 1860 Hunter Lane, would not like to see any bump out curbs. He does not believe there is a speed problem. He is fine with the barrier curbs. Mr. George Kinkead, 1905 Hunter Circle, pointed out that coming over the top of the hill with the wider streets he is concerned with the speed of traffic. Living at the bottom of the hill, it is very difficult to see the cars when coming out of his driveway. Mr. Paul Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, stated that if the roadway gets to be thirty feet, that would be four additional feet on each side. His property is at a higher elevation and he asked how the engineering department is going to address that problem. He also asked what is the city's definition of a unit. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 9 Mr. Katz, in regards to a graphic that showed a thirty foot section with a 4:1 grade, asked how that would be handled on Hunter Lane. Currently there is a ditch between the roadway and his property and that fills up with water during a large rain, and there are small culverts that go under the driveways. Mr. Stephen Hunter, corner of Orchard Place and Hunter, asked how the narrowing of an entire section of road will slow down traffic rather than just narrowing at an intersection. It is already difficult for two cars, one from each direction, and a walker or cyclist to pass each other. He stated he had no preference for curb or street width. Ms. Vicki Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, expressed her concern on the width of the street and does not feel anything should be done that would encourage parking on the street. She also believes that the hill is extremely treacherous. She would prefer the road be as narrow as possible and would prefer the surmountable curb. She also believes that cutting down the hill some with sewers installed would change the water flow down on the other end. Ms. Martha Whitcomb, 1200 Culligan Lane, asked if the street widths and curbs would be the same where East and West Culligan come together. Mr. Charles Campion, 1836 Hunter Lane, has been looking for a new road since he moved in seventeen years ago. He likes the character of the neighborhood and the narrow road and he does not see a speed problem. He believes that surmountable curb with storm sewers would solve the water problems. Ms. Mary Magnuson, 1831 Hunter Lane, would support any road width that would help to control speed. Her mailbox gets taken out every other winter or so because of the speeds coming around the curve. She is also concerned that the surmountable curb would be insufficient to accommodate the water run-off in the area. She asked how engineering would deal with the widening of the roadway in a manner that would be equitable. Mr. John Dougherty, 1933 Hunter Lane, explained that there are problems associated with surmountable curbs. His father has tripped over that type of curb. He has had to replace his irrigation system four times and there are issues with plowing in the area. In regards to the width of the road, he asked why he would want his corner lot to be five and one-half feet narrower on one side than on the other. Ms. Becky Dougherty, 1933 Hunter Lane, feels that the barrier curbs will deal with the water run-off better. She does not think that by narrowing Hunter at the point they plan is going to solve the synagogue parking and that increasing the width of Hunter in other areas is going to solve all of the parking problems. Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, in regards to mowing, he believes that people need to go into the road because they have this rather large hill. He does not see how a barrier curb will reduce the grass clippings in the roadway. He also commented that Hunter seems to have more of a drainage issue because of the grade of the hill. He knows there is still drainage on Orchard Place that needs to be considered but believes that surmountable curb would be less necessary for those drainage issues and would be in favor of that. He sees a lot of cars speeding. He does not see how making it wider or adding a bump out is going slow them down to any degree. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 10 Mr. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, mentioned that he and others were unhappy with the condescending tone at times at the previous neighborhood meeting. The survey he was given only had three options for their street; thirty-three feet wide with parking on both sides, thirty -foot wide with parking on one side, or twenty -eight foot wide and no street parking. He does not feel there are any parking problems and does not want to limit parking. He is in favor of a twenty -six foot wide street with surmountable curb, except for the areas where classic curbing would be needed and where the drains are for the storm sewer. He believes that a thirty -six foot wide street near the synagogue is excessive. He also does not care for the look of bump outs with the extra striping. He also believes that narrowing streets at an intersection is unwise because long vehicles such as school buses and fire trucks need the extra room to make the turns. He encouraged his neighbors to go look at wider streets and determine if that is what they really want coming down Hunter Lane. He also addressed the surmountable curb versus barrier curb, drainage issues, bicycles, and speed. Mr. Paul Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, returned and asked when and how the residents who live on these streets would receive additional feedback based on the opinions and questions brought forward this evening so they can assess what the expectations would be. Mayor Krebsbach stated the public hearing could be closed this evening or be extended. However, when the public hearing is closed the Council will make a motion to either accept the engineers report and for them to start working with the specifications; or Council would give staff direction of how they should modify their plan to accommodate the residents. Then there would be a second informational community meeting in January, February, or March 2013 for the residents to see what design plans staff has come up with. It would then come before the Council to order the project, which is anticipated to be in April 2013. The public hearing this evening is a key event for the Council to hear what the residents are saying and to give direction to staff. Councilmember Duggan suggested that since there have been lots of questions raised, he would not close the public hearing until he has answers that he can absorb. He feels that staff needs time to address the questions raised and show what the area would look like if various options were completed. From his viewpoint, the main issues are getting rid of the drainage problem, speed issues, and rural esthetics. Mr. John Apitz, 1831 Hunter Lane, stated he understands what they are doing and it makes sense. He hoped that staff would take into consideration the issue of passing a parked vehicle at the top of the hill because of the inability to see on- coming traffic. He suggested that the street be bumped in a little to break up the visual on the straightaway. He also mentioned that the synagogue needs the parking areas. Generally, he is in favor of the project. Mr. Tim Murphy, 1916 Hunter, proposed that twenty -six feet is a wider street and his preference is a surmountable curb; however, he believes that the drainage issues should be addressed first. Mr. Mike Kurtz, 1827 Hunter Lane, agrees with a lot of the things that have been said and he hopes that staff will be able to tell the residents how wide the road is going to be. He is in favor of the surmountable curb and does not understand why they cannot have barrier curb on the corners. He does not believe there are parking issues on Orchard the bump outs are not very pleasing. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 11 Mr. Jay Phillips, 1127 Orchard Place, returned saying that in the earlier neighborhood meeting a lot of these same comments came forth about the beauty of the neighborhood and Mr. Mazzitello stated that every neighborhood says that. Mayor Krebsbach asked for staff to comment on the questions and issues raised, making note that the public hearing was still open. City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that he has taken down notes from each of the public presenters this evening and would like to quickly address the questions asked of staff and not rebut statements. • Drainage in the yard at 1991 Hunter, this is part of this project and is something staff intends to address within the design, once staff gets to that point • Grade changes west to east as one traverses across Hunter Lane — that too is something staff is fully intending on incorporating into the design, drainage is one of the biggest issues with this project and handling of the storm water is of the upmost importance • What is a unit — each lot that has a driveway that accesses the improved road is considered a unit • Width of the curb on Culligan Lane — staff is currently proposing a thirty -foot width the for the east side of Culligan Lane. Assistant Engineer Ruzek stated that the width of the existing urban section, curb and gutter of Culligan is thirty feet so staff would match the curb style and width of that road. • Road narrowing behavior and how varying curb widths are supposed to slow cars down — the driver is looking ahead and they see the curb narrowing and the white fog line stripe inside of the curb narrowing the roadway, which calls to the drivers attention. The instinctive reaction of the driver is to slow down. Data has been collected from First Avenue and Wagon Wheel where this technique has been used, and the data shows that these systems do slow vehicle traffic. • Width of the curve — staff is proposing twenty -seven feet; however, through the course of the design staff will run turning movements for vehicles to make sure that is adequate to get vehicles around that corner • Shifting in the right -of -way where the road is going to sit — the city typically likes to put the road sections dead center within the right -of -way. There is a sixty -foot right -of -way for Hunter and Orchard so there is thirty feet of city property on either side of the center line. If this were to result in a grading challenge or some design challenge, staff may look at moving it off the center line one way or the other. It is the intent with the initial proposal to keep the section in the center of the right -of -way unless directed otherwise. • Plows and sprinklers — the topic was brought up about Woodridge Drive on the north side of town. This is the only street in the city built with surmountable curb. Each spring the public works department goes out and repairs landscape damage from snow plow activity that has taken place over the winter. • Will a wide section solve the parking problem — looking at the dimensions used to design roads, thirty feet is the narrowest that will still accommodate on- street parking; going narrower than thirty feet would necessitate the prohibition of on- street parking. Coupled on top of that is the public safety opinion of the road widths received from the fire department and the police department. o Councilmember Vitelli asked if the street is narrower than thirty feet would that mean that parking would not be allowed only on one side of the street or would it mean no parking at all. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that there would be no parking on either side October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 12 • City Engineer Mazzitello did make one response to comments about the tone at the September 17th neighborhood meeting — this is the very first time anyone on city staff has heard anything negative about that meeting. Everyone was very professional and adult at that meeting and staff feels that it went very well. • Feedback and timeframe — if everything follows the proposed schedule, after the public hearing is closed this evening, staff is asking Council to vote to order the project. Staff would proceed with the design according to the parameters the Council sets. In regards to the slope of the hill, Assistant Engineer Ruzek stated that there will be limitations there. They would be getting into levels of engineering that is not addressed at this stage. Mr. Mike Kurtz, 1827 Hunter Lane, returned to address the thirty foot width. He stated that he called five engineers. They are putting in a new phase in Woodbury; 20,000 single family lots, surmountable curbs, and unlimited parking on both sides on twenty -eight feet wide streets. Mr. Paul Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, asked if the Council would be amiable to having the engineering staff create a few more options for the residents to take a look at. Mayor Krebsbach replied that she thought that would be a great idea. Councilmember Vitelli replied that he believes the Council could look at different options and make a decision with the information provided. Mr. Katz commented that residents are part of the community, they pay their taxes, and believed the residents should have the right to continue this process in an orderly fashion. Councilmember Duggan reminded City Engineer Mazzitello of questions that were missed; of which he answered as follows: • Keeping even widths throughout the project o Was covered when he replied about the road narrowing concept. • Speed limit of twenty -five miles per hour o That is something that would need to be reviewed by the traffic safety committee. He does not believe it is out of the question because this is not a municipal state aid road. Before making a proposal to lower the speed limit, staff would want to get full surveys with the speed cart of exactly what speeds the cars are traveling. • To widen the road in some areas, lots of fill would be needed. Has that cost been built into the project? o That is something that staff would be looking at in the final design stage. • Several of the home owners might lose two, three, four, five feet of their lot frontage o Staff is not proposing to take any additional right -of -way at this time. The area between the road and the property line is city right -of -way. Since Council has heard lots of ideas from the neighborhood and has a very competent engineering staff, Mayor Krebsbach asked that Council to join her in directing the staff to take a look at the suggestions. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 13 Councilmember Duggan agreed to continue the public hearing until such time as staff is able to come up with an engineering drawing delineating a twenty -six foot wide, a thirty foot wide, and thirty -three foot wide so Council can have comparisons throughout the project. He would also like to see larger maps. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that one of the challenges with this project is that staff does not have a clear consensus from the neighborhood. Councilmember Vitelli commented that this is a contentious subject and that he feels that as a Council they should not continue the hearing because they have heard a lot of diverse opinions. Should the hearing remain open and everyone gathers again, the Council would hear again the same opinions that were given this evening. He suggested the Council begin to formulate some compromise that seems to satisfy people and then move ahead with it. Councilmember Vitelli proposed, after hearing all of the comments this evening, that there be no bump outs installed, no narrowing of the street at the ninety- degree curve, to have a twenty -nine foot wide street with parking allowed on one side, and to install a barrier curb due to the water run -off problems and issues. Mr. Paul Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, stated that the residents are not asking to come back at a future date. He does not believe there should be any bump outs, the road should be as narrow as possible, and he would like the surmountable curb. Ms. Carol Adams, 1991 Hunter Lane, returned and stated that she has not heard any new ideas at this meeting. She expressed her desire for the Council to make a decision tonight. Mayor Krebsbach asked engineer staff to take into consideration what was heard collectively and give Council a design of what that might be like. The Council would look at that proposal next week; or Council could close the public hearing and see if there are enough votes to give staff direction; or Council could give staff direction to give another proposal for them to look at before voting in the project. Councilmember Petschel asked if the process were delayed, would Council be putting the project in jeopardy again — as on the Wagon Wheel project. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the reason staff holds to the schedule that they do is it is their desire to bid these projects in the spring. Should the process be delayed and the project is bid later in the year, there is not as much interest in the project and the pricing is not as good — traditionally. City Engineer Mazzitello stated that staffs' recommendation to the Council would be to provide staff with the parameters to go ahead and design the project and order it tonight. It does not have to be what staff proposed, but they would like to start the design with the ordering of the project. Councilmember Petschel expressed her reasons for desiring barrier curb throughout the city, mainly for run -off and storm water control issues. She is open to street widths narrower than thirty feet. She would like for staff to look at the twenty -seven width at the curve to ensure safety. Councilmember Povolny stated he believes there should be a compromise on the street widths and he is in favor of the barrier curb because of the terrain. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 14 Councilmember Duggan stated that the resolution, in the NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, item number two reads "That the city engineer be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement" — could the phrase "in light of the practical and realistic concerns raised on October 2, 2012 ". City Attorney Tami Diehm stated that she was fine with the language in the resolution or as an informal direction. City Administrator Miller suggested that it not be in the resolution because it leaves it open to interpretation. Councilmember Vitelli suggested the same proposal as he mentioned before; 1) that there be no bump outs installed, 2) no narrowing of the street at the ninety- degree curve, 3) to have a twenty -nine foot wide street with parking allowed on one side, and 4) to install a barrier curb due to the water run -off problems and issues. He then asked the Council for their opinion. Mayor Krebsbach stated that she could support items one and two; she still likes the twenty -eight foot wide streets and surmountable curb with some barrier curb where necessary. Mr. Scott Van, 1870 Hunter Lane, asked where the stormwater run -off is directed to. City Engineer Mazzitello replied that the preponderance of the drainage from the Hunter Lane area goes to the pond behind Veronica Lane and the pond behind City Hall. Orchard drains down towards Lexington, goes under Lexington, and into the pond there and a little bit of the drainage on Orchard Circle goes into a stormwater pond there and some of it discharges into the MnDOT right -of -way system. All of the stormwater in Mendota Heights drains through the pond system and ultimately winds up in either the Minnesota or Mississippi River. Councilmember Duggan suggested that Council direct staff to go with a twenty -eight foot width road, no bump outs, and the intersection of Hunter and Orchard should be wider, no on- street parking, and the combination of surmountable and barrier curb. Councilmember Povolny moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. A resident stated that if there is not going to be any on- street parking the street width should be twenty - six feet instead of going up to twenty -eight feet with no parking. Residents expressed concerns over no parking signs. City Engineer Mazzitello stated that all of the no parking zones are codified within the city code of ordinances. Currently Hunter Lane is not codified for No Parking because of the anticipation of this reconstruction project. Upon completion of the project, if the road is of a width that does not allow for parking it would need to be codified as No Parking when construction is completed and signs would be put up. Mayor Krebsbach called for the vote on the motion to close the public hearing. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Each Councilmember then stated their proposals for engineering. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 15 Councilmember Duggan reiterated his proposal; staff should go with a twenty -eight foot wide road, no bump outs, and the intersection of Hunter and Orchard should be wider, no on- street parking, and the combination of surmountable and barrier curb. Councilmember Povolny proposed barrier curb, twenty -nine foot street width with parking on one side with the exception of by the synagogue, where parking would be allowed on both sides of the street, and no bump outs. Councilmember Petschel proposed no bump outs, twenty -nine foot street width, barrier curb, the safety of the street width at the curve to be investigated, and the street wide enough for parking by the synagogue. Councilmember Vitelli proposed no bump outs, twenty -nine feet wide streets for the entire length of the street with no narrowing at the curb; however, he does agree with the widened street for parking between Victoria Curve and Veronica Lane for the synagogue, and barrier curb. Mayor Krebsbach proposed a combination of surmountable and barrier curbs, would prefer a twenty - seven foot wide street but if there can be a combination she would support a twenty -eight foot wide street, no bump outs, should not be narrowed coming around the corner, and supports the wider parking on both sides up to the end of the synagogue property and across the street. In reply to Mayor Krebsbach question on whether or not he could have something by the next Council meeting, City Engineer John Mazzitello stated that he has something right now. • Councilmembers agreed to eliminate the bump outs. • Councilmembers have also come to an agreement that the curve should not narrow but should maintain a constant width throughout the street. Staff will do that to the best of their ability. • The two points of contention are road width; twenty -seven and twenty -nine feet. If the road is twenty -seven or twenty -eight feet, parking would need to be eliminated. Parking could work at twenty -nine feet. • Curbing decision is three votes for barrier curb and two for combination curb Since staff needs a four -fifths vote, Mayor Krebsbach asked that staff come back to the Council at the next meeting. City Administrator Justin Miller replied that he could not confirm that this would be on the next Council meeting agenda; however, the agenda is published on the city's website the Friday before the meeting and staff could send out another mailing to the residents informing them of the next meeting on this topic. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A) PLANNING CASE 2012 -29, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET, 1018 OVERLOOK ROAD - DANIEL FLEISCHHAKER Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that the city currently allows in code an attached garage up to 1,200 square feet with no special planning requirement needed. The city does allow a garage to up to 1,500 square feet with a conditional use permit. The applicant had originally requested a variance to have four doors on this structure; the Planning Commission and the applicant October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 16 discussed that at length and the applicant agreed to table that request until he can bring further detail to the Planning Commission. As such, with the conditional use permit, this request for a 1,500 square foot garage is permitted by code. The Planning Commission looked at findings that the existing garage fit with the character of the neighborhood and found the images to be helpful. Assistant City Administrator Sedlacek shared images of the current garage and two images of the proposed garage, one with a hip roof and the other with a gable roof. Either of the proposed garages fit with the conditional use permit, the question to be brought back to the Planning Commission at their October meeting is whether or not the applicant will be allowed to have three doors or get a variance for the fourth door. Mayor Krebsbach asked why this is before the Council now if it is going to be returned to the Planning Commission. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that the Planning Commission had a discussion about this and felt that they wanted to give the maximum flexibility to the applicant. If the applicant choses to construct this garage with a single door on the new garage, which could be up to twelve feet wide, the conditional use permit would allow them to move forward on that this year. Essentially the garage can be permitted under the conditional use permit; the question of the door is something that is up to the applicant. Upon a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Sedlacek stated the city does allow on a garage up to three doors which can be three singles or a double and single. A garage door up to twelve feet is considered a single and the applicant is requesting two eighteen foot doors. Mayor Krebsbach asked City Attorney Tami Diehm to clarify why this is before the Council when there is still a request open at the Planning Commission level. Attorney Diehm explained that there are two separate requests that are being made; one for a conditional use permit and one for a variance. If the conditional use permit is granted, the applicant can go ahead and construct the garage. He would just be limited in the size of the door on the new portion of the garage. Mr. Daniel Fleischhaker, 1018 Overlook Road, shared photos of his current garage and explained that the primary reason for the garage door being tabled at the Planning Commission meeting was because of the recent code change not allowing two double doors on a 1,500 square foot garage. However, there are other homes in the area that were built before the code change with two double doors. Councilmember Vitelli asked how the other garages referenced to were permitted to have two double doors. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek replied that most of the homes referenced were constructed prior to the code change. Councilmember Duggan requested to see a comparison of the house size to the proposed garage size. He also asked, should the conditional permit be issued, when it would be established that it is either a double doors or the single door. Attorney Diehm replied that procedurally the variance is not before the Council at this time. The only item before the Council is the conditional use permit, which would approve the size of the garage. The resolution, if adopted, makes it clear that the approval is for only a single door. October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 17 Councilmember Vitelli moved Approval of PLANNING CASE 2012 -29, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET, 1018 OVERLOOK ROAD - DANIEL FLEISCHHAKER Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Duggan) Mr. Fleischhaker asked if the Council would entertain the idea to change the code to allow for two double doors on a 1,500 square foot garage. Councilmember Petschel replied that the Council has a full work plan for the year and garage doors are not on the work plan at this time. B) PLANNING CASE 2012 -30, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE GREATER THAN 750 SQUARE FEET, 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, ROBERT AND DANIELLE WHEBBE Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek explained that code allows for a detached garage up to 750 square feet. The applicant was seeking to construct a 1,500 square foot garage as his preferred option; however, his second option would be a little over 1,000 square feet. Mr. Whebbe could describe for Council his rationale for requiring the variance; however, the Planning Commission did not feel that he had necessarily explored all options and encouraged the applicant to consider things such as an attached garage. There are different code requirements for attaching a garage but it does allow, in the code, to go up to 1,200 square feet with no additional planning approvals. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek shared a scale print of the existing house, garage, and driveway. The intent with the conditional use permit is that the existing garage would be converted into living space, so there would not be an issue with two garages. He also shared an image of the requested 1,500 square foot garage with three garage doors on the front. The Planning Commission had discussion on this item and felt that the conditional use permit was appropriate and supported the idea of a detached garage up to 750 square feet. After discussion, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request for a variance to be larger than 750 square feet. Mayor Krebsbach asked for a summarization of the process the Planning Commission took in making this recommendation. Assistant Administrator Sedlacek explained they are recommending approval of a conditional use permit only up to 750 square feet, which is the codified area that can be had for a detached garage. Mr. Robert Whebbe, 598 Sibley Memorial Highway, came forward to answer question from the Council. He stated he is requesting a 1,500 square foot garage. He explained that it had been recommended to not attach the garage to the roof line of the home due to the added load. Mr. Whebbe did speak to someone about adding a breezeway from his home to the garage because, as he understands it, once it is attached, a 1,200 square foot garage would be no problem. Councilmember Duggan commented that the existing driveway to the existing garage is exceptionally steep and narrow and it is required for the Whebbe family to back out onto Highway 13, which is quite October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 18 busy. Councilmember Duggan believes that relief of some sort needs to be provided. The new driveway proposal is an excellent solution to the problem of being able to turn around. After further discussions in reference to the breezeway it was revealed that it is not part of the request before the Council. Mayor Krebsbach asked for an explanation of what exactly is Mr. Whebbe requesting of the Council at this point. Mr. Whebbe is requesting a detached 1,500 square foot garage. Mayor Krebsbach asked if there were any other garages in the neighborhood that are anywhere near that size. Mr. Whebbe replied that there is a garage located three blocks away. Discussions continued in regards to the size of the proposed garage and options were explored with the applicant. The applicant would prefer the detached 1,500 square foot garage. Councilmember Petschel commented the applicant is asking for a variance and in order to grant a variance the applicant needs to show a hardship. She does not see any hardship in this application. The applicant can build a garage and a large driveway to turn around in. Councilmembers made suggestions for Mr. Whebbe to consider enabling his request to be considered in a separate application. City Administrator Justin Miller clarified for Mr. Whebbe that if he came to the city with an attached garage and it met with the city ordinance, he would not have to go through the Planning Commission. He could bring his application directly to staff. Should Mr. Whebbe figure out a way to attach the garage there might not be as long of a process as was had with this application. Should he request an attached garage over the 1,200 square feet, up to 1,500 square feet, then he would need to go through a similar process. Mr. Whebbe asked, since it is getting late in the season to pour a concrete slab for the new garage, could he park his vehicle over the winter on the spot where the slab would be poured in the spring. City Engineer John Mazzitello explained that parking a vehicle on anything other than a paved surface is a violation of city code and he would need administrative approval or an official variance to do so. Councilmember Duggan moved Approval of PLANNING CASE 2012 -30, REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE OF 750 SQUARE FEET, 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, ROBERT AND DANIELLE WHEBBE Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Petschel moved Denial of PLANNING CASE 2012 -30, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE GREATER THAN 750 SQUARE FEET BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS IN THE RESOLUTION, 598 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, ROBERT AND DANIELLE WHEBBE Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 19 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Povolny shared his appreciation to City Clerk Lorri Smith for saving the city money on the recently published edition of the Heights Highlights. Councilmember Duggan mentioned that Ireland has an event similar to the US Super Bowl called the All Ireland Final and his home county, Donegal, won their All Ireland Final. He also complimented Sibley on their 5K with great weather and a very good turnout. Councilmember Duggan complimented a couple of his neighbors for picking up trash when they walk around their neighborhoods as it is great civic contribution. Councilmember Vitelli said again that the Hunter Orchard group was very civil, the Council received good input, and Council did the right thing this evening. Councilmember Petschel attended a funeral this week for volunteer firefighter George Lowe. It was stunning the affect that a single individual could have on a community. Mayor Krebsbach noted the passing of Dr. Richard Weisbecker, Oral Surgery & Maxillofacial Surgery. She also wished Mrs. Weinsetter well as she has had some challenges with her heath. Mayor Krebsbach commended the Council for their dedication and interest in the public hearing, which was probably one of their most challenging decisions. She expressed her appreciation to staff for their very professional response and the professional guidance. ADJOURN Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. Sandra Krebsbach Mayor Lorri Smith City Clerk October 2, 2012 Mendota Heights City Council Page 20