Loading...
2010-11-02 City Council minutesNovember 2, 2010 Page 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 2, 2010 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 8:30 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 (Huber) CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the agenda as revised to remove Item 8a, Case No. 10 -30, Daniel and Jodi Saltzman, 1921 Glenhill Road, critical area permit, which was withdrawn by the applicant. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on October 19, 2010, as corrected. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling item 6e for further discussion, and authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Minutes from the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting b. Acknowledgement of the October 2010 Building Activity Report c. Approval of Change Orders on Garage Floor Coating Project at the Fire Hall d. Approval of Tobacco Licenses e. Approval of Seasonal Staff Pay Matrix f. Approval of Seasonal Skating Instructor Job Posting and Position Description Approval of Employment of Seasonal Hires g. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FIRE HALL GARAGE FLOOR SEASONAL STAFF PAY MATRIX Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS November 2, 2010 Page 2 h. Adoption of Resolution No. 10 -90: "RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2011 PAY CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR NON -UNION EMPLOYEES" i. Approval of Contractors List, dated October 28, 2010 j. Approval of the List of Claims, dated November 2, 2010, totaling $768,940.14 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. With regard to Item 6c, Councilmember Duggan noted the change orders are only 4.3% over the initial estimate, which is very reasonable, based on the weather issues that were encountered. Councilmember Duggan asked to comment on item 6e and noted the increase for instructors was 1% for Steps 1, 2 and 3, and even less for other positions. He stated that maybe more time should be allowed to discuss with staff the impact to next year's budget if the percentage is increased slightly. Councilmember Schneeman stated staff has done a good job of setting pay rates and she does not want to second guess their recommendations. Councilmember Krebsbach concurred and noted the part-time pay scale was considered in order to make the Par 3 come out for administration. Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of seasonal staff pay matrix as presented. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Larry Craighead, former Parks and Recreation Commissioner, stated he had served on the Parks and Recreation Commission for eleven years and stepped down two years ago but remained very interested in the city's trails. He stated he had noticed this past summer that trails were not being well maintained, asphalt was splitting and not being patched, and weeds within the trails were not being removed. Mr. Craighead noted that in past years, the city had been asphalting one mile of trail per year. He stated he called City Administrator McKnight about the trail budget who had indicated that the 2009 budget included a trail maintenance budget of $45,000; however, the 2010 budget had only $5,000 and the 2011 budget includes only $5,000. Mr. Craighead stated he thinks the budget should contain enough money to November 2, 2010 Page 3 adequately maintain the trails and continue to pave one mile each year. He asked what can be done to include additional money in the 2011 budget for the maintenance of the city's 20+ miles of trail to assure weed control, crack filling, and to repave one mile a year? Mayor Huber thanked Mr. Craighead for his comments and stated he had not focused on the 2010 trail budget but knew the history has been that trail funding is inconsistent. Public Works Director /City Engineer Mazzitello explained that as part of reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, the city has incorporated trails into the bond sales for those projects to repair the more degraded trail sections. He stated that due in large part to the concerns expressed by Mr. Craighead, staff has scheduled a meeting to review the trail system with the goal of drafting something akin to the city's streets plan that identifies the condition of trail sections, scheduling the worst sections first, scope of repair, cost estimates, and then staff will work with Mr. McKnight on funding. Mayor Huber noted that staff had prepared an exhaustive document for the city's streets, which will be an excellent document to aid with future planning. He agreed that a similar document for the city's trails would be very helpful with planning trail projects and budgeting. Mr. Mazzitello explained that the city has a number of funding sources for streets but funding is more limited with trail projects. However, the first step will be to develop a prioritized list of trail projects. Mayor Huber stated the city's trails get a lot of use and some trails are older and in need of maintenance. Mr. Craighead stated the 2011 budget has $5,000 for trails, which would cover the cost for snow plowing but probably not maintenance. He stated his support for a program that is more in -depth by including pavement conditions, weed removal, and brush removal. He offered to attend the meeting with staff to provide input, if needed. Mr. Mazzitello stated that Mr. Boland from public works will attend the staff meeting to address maintenance needs and he will also bring Mr. Craighead's issues forward. CASE NO. 10 -30 CASE NO. 10 -31 RICHARD NELSON 796 HAVENVIEW COURT WETLAND PERMIT November 2, 2010 Page 4 Councilmember Schneeman stated she was at the Inver Wood Golf Course on Friday and had stepped out of the cart onto a bituminous path that was torn up and dangerous. She stated her appreciation to Mr. Craighead for his comments. This item was withdrawn at the applicant's request. It was noted that Richard Nelson, the applicant, was not in attendance. Mr. Nelson has applied for a wetland permit to install a fence in the rear yard of his property at 796 Havenview Court. The wetlands ordinance requires that any land alteration or construction within 100 feet of a designated wetland requires a wetland permit approving the construction to assure activity does not negatively impact the water quality or function of the wetland. The engineering staff recommended the area between the fence and wetland remain in native plantings and landscaping. The Planning Commission put a number of conditions on their approval recommendation, which are listed in the council packet. Those conditions include: 1. The area between the, fence and wetland edge remain as a buffer area with native vegetation; and 2. The applicant shall receive a fence building permit prior to installation of the fence. Councilmember Krebsbach stated the proposed fence is vinyl which does not blend in and the neighbors had disagreed with the application. She suggested a fence made of a different product. Councilmember Duggan noted there are many vinyl fences in Mendota Heights and property owners have the right to select the fence type and color they desire. He stated that he had wondered about suggesting a fence that is black in color and less visible but the council cannot dictate the color of a resident's fence. He indicated that he would be reluctant to vote against the application because someone on the council does not like the fence material or color. In addition, this location is not within the critical area. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with Councilmember Duggan that the city had no legal basis to tell one resident they cannot put in a fence that exists elsewhere in the city. In addition, the council cannot dictate color. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 10 -32 ROBERT AND KATHERINE THOMPSON — 979 CAREN COURT CRITICAL AREA PERMIT Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 November 2, 2010 Page 5 Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 10- 92, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLAND PERMIT FOR A FENCE AT 796 HAVENVIEW COURT." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated the council has discussed vinyl fences before and has record of placing conditions on vinyl fences. Mr. Sedlacek explained there is no requirement on the type of fence materials except in critical areas where the ordinance requires wrought iron or natural materials. Mr. Sedlacek presented the application of Robert and Katherine Thompson for a critical area permit to allow the installation of a fence within the rear yard of their property at 979 Caren Road. The property is within the Mississippi River Critical Area so construction of a fence requires a critical area permit and use of natural material. Mr. Sedlacek displayed a site plan and pointed out the location of the proposed fence along the west property line to the rear yard area. The applicant proposes a cedar -style fence approximately four feet high with three inch slats and one inch spacing between slats, which meets the city's 30% openness requirement. No comments were made at the public hearing. The Planning Commission put a condition on their approval recommendation, which is listed in the council packet. That condition is: . The fence shall meet the regulations established in Section 12 -1D -6, including the 30% open design requirement. Councilmember Duggan stated he called the fence manufacturer with his concern that the proposed four inch slats with one inch spacing did not meet the city's requirement for opacity. The manufacturer had indicated they were still working with the applicant and had changed the design to three inch slats with one inch spacing, which met the standard. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 10 -93, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR A FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE AT 979 CAREN COURT." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. 2253 AND 2263 WATERS DRIVE BUILDING PERMIT November 2, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Sedlacek advised that, unfortunately, a commercial building permit was issued that was not first presented to the city council and there were some unresolved issues with the development agreement. The permit was issued on Monday, staff issued a stop order on Wednesday, and is working with the developer. Mr. Sedlacek displayed a site plan depicting the existing Phase I office buildings within the Waters Drive planned unit development (PUD), location of the vacant parcel, and requested building on the northwestern edge of the parcel. He advised the single building would be two office condos at 2253 and 2263 Waters Drive and is the same as presented in the 2004 PUD. He advised that the unresolved issues in the development agreement include: the final parking lot wear course, official transfer of property ownership, abandoning plans for Phase II because it was not desirable to Council, and completion deadline for the 2253 and 2263 Waters Drive building. Staff recommended approval of the building permit for 2253 and 2263 Waters Drive as it fits with the previously approved PUD and that the council authorize staff to work with the developer to draft an amended development agreement for consideration at its November 16, 2010, meeting. Councilmember Duggan asked if the map section marked vacant is Phase II of the overall development? Mr. Sedlacek displayed an image of the subject site and outlined the Phase I area and location of the last two buildings, noting that one building is under consideration tonight. Councilmember Duggan asked if consideration is for the permanent abandonment of Phase II? Mr. Sedlacek explained that the city was to work with the State to turn back the Waters Drive right -of -way but that fell through. At this point, the developer does not intend to pursue Phase II. Councilmember Duggan asked if staff has talked with the city attorney regarding properly documenting transfer of ownership? Mr. Sedlacek explained staff has seen documents that meet the development agreement and will make a recommendation on it at the next meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach asked about the ownership history of this property? November 2, 2010 Page 7 Dave Pokorney, representing DDK Construction, stated the original owner was Klingelhutz Development, which changed from three partners to one. The property had a mortgage that was acquired by Duff Investments and Duff Investments foreclosed on the mortgage and obtained title by deed in lieu of foreclosure. Now DDK Construction is in the process of purchasing the lot being built on from Duff Investments. DDK Construction will construct the building and sell it to the two end users of the property. Mr. Pokorney explained Phase II was always contingent upon the city and Mn /DOT working out an agreement on the right - of -way but that did not occur so they agree that Phase II will go away. He explained that today outlot A is owned by Duff Investments and would be deeded to the business association and retained as open space. Councilmember Schneeman asked if code enforcement staff recommends approval of the building permit? Mr. Sedlacek answered in the affirmative. Mayor Huber reviewed the recommended conditions of approval. Councilmember Duggan asked if outlot A should be addressed in the conditions? Mr. Sedlacek noted that is a private property matter. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize staff to work with representatives of Duff Investments to amend the developer's agreement for Waters Drive Business Park Planned Unit Development as follows. Abandon plans for Phase II development. 1. Set July 1, 2011, for completion of the 2253 and 2263 Waters Drive building. 2. Require that wear course of asphalt be completed on or before June 15, 2001. 3. Properly document transfer of ownership This amendment shall be prepared for council review at their November 16, 2010, meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the building permit for 2253 and 2263 Waters Drive. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. November 2, 2010 Page 8 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Schneeman wished all good luck in tonight's election. ADJOURN Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Nancy Ba Acting City Clerk Prepared by Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary Mr. McKnight reminded the council of the canvassing meeting on Friday, November 5, 2010, at 4:30 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Time of Adjournment 9 16 p.m. John J. Hu Mayor