Loading...
2006-06-06 City Council minutesPage No. I June 6, 2006 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 6, 2006 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, I,' rebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilineinber Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmeraber Schneeman moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 21, 2006 as amended. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmeniber Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6c, Dakota County CIP, 6e, purchase agreement with Xcel Energy, 6j, SuperAinerica sign face change, 61, Delaware Avenue final plans, and 6m, St. Thomas airdome, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the May 23, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of the May 2006 Building Activity Report. c. Authorization for City Administrator to execute acceptance letter to Xcel Energy for Temporary Construction Easements. d. Authorization to hire Michael Shepard as a Police Officer. e. Authorization for the police department to begin the process of selecting a replacement for Secretary Cathy Ransom. Page No. 2 June 6, 2006 f. Authorization to solicit bids for a Breathing Air Compressor for the fire department. g. Approval for payment of $8,024.08 to Mrs. Shapiro for damages to her home as the result of a sewer backup at 1033 Brompton Place. h. Approval of an Amendment to the Dakota County Fire Mutual Aid Agreement. i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated June 6, 2006. j. Approval of the list of claims dated June 6, 2006, and totaling $397,428.00. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DAKOTA COUNTY CIP Councilmember Duggan asked if the county has considered extending a passing lane on Delaware all the way to Marie as long as they are working at the Delaware /110 intersection. Engineer McDermott responded that the county has a very tight budget and all of their resources are allocated for this year already so they wanted to hold off. Councilmember Duggan moved to support completion of the CSAH 63 traffic signal project and request that the Delaware Avenue improvements be included in the 2007 -2011 Dakota County Capital Improvement Program for the year 2008. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PROPERTY SALE TO Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDermott regarding XCEL ENERGY continued discussion on Xcel Energy's proposal to purchase a city owned parcel adjacent to Valley Park. Mayor Huber asked if Council wants to sell the property or lease it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that for the $24,000 plus $550 per year in taxes, she would prefer not to sell city property. The county assessor's website shows a value of $72,900.00 for the land. Engineer McDermott stated that she spoke to Dakota County and they said the value is high and they believe the land would be valued at closer to $24,000.00 because it is landlocked. The property can never be built on and there would never be any access to the property. Page No. 3 June 6, 2006 Mayor Huber stated that the property will never be very valuable or usable to the city so selling the property might be the best approach. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he never understood Xcel's view of why they want to buy the property. That he has never understood why Xcel wants to spend $25,000.00 to buy it. Mr. Barry Simonson, from Xcel Energy, stated that in planning for the project to upgrade the pipeline, Xcel detennined that they need pipelines above ground on this parcel. They will need to enclose that area with a fence for security purposes. That was the reason for preferring to purchase the property. Mayor Huber stated that the city would retain more control under an easement situation and that would be his preference. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that any property within Mendota Heights of 30,000 square feet is more valuable than $24,000.00. She encouraged council to reject the proposed resolution and direct staff to draft language for an easement. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to reject the proposed resolution j and direct staff to draft language for an easement. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SUPER AMERICA SIGN Council acknowledged a memo from Code Enforcement Officer CHANGE Berg regarding an application from TLC Sign Services for alteration to the existing free standing sign at the SuperAmerica on Mendota Heights Road to eliminate the need to physically change the fuel prices with manually installed price numbers. Mayor Huber stated that the question to him is how this sign differs from the Henry Sibley sign request. It was not obvious to him or the distinction was thin. He feels Council owes it to those who supported the Sibley sign to make absolutely sure that what is requested here is demonstrably different from what they were asking. Councilmember Schneeman stated that what counsel objected to on the Sibley sign was the rolling and scrolling. She asked how the sign would be changed. Mayor Huber stated that he needs to hear more and learn more and would like this laid over to another meeting. Page No. 4 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Vitelli stated that he was confused that the material submitted has a picture of a sign showing diesel $3.88 per pack. He stated that he would be adamantly opposed to theirs advertising anything but gas. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that when Council approved the SuperAmerica there was no diesel because Council did not want the trucks there. She asked that someone from SuperAmerica be present at the next meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to table the matter to the next agenda. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DELAWARE AVENUE Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDennott IMPROVEMENTS regarding approval of the final plans and specifications and advertisement for bids for Delaware Avenue improvements. Councilmember Duggan stated the resolution talks about the engineering but does not discuss sharing of costs. He thought this was a shared project with West St. Paul. Engineer McDermott responded that the Joint Powers Agreement addresses the responsibilities and the cost sharing. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 06 -37, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO DELAWARE AVENUE FROM DODD ROAD TO ANNAPOLIS STREET (PROJECT #200523)." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ST. THOMAS AIRDOME Council acknowledged a memo regarding a request from St. Thomas Academy to grant them a variance from the fire code to allow them to keep their airdome inflated continuously. Mayor Huber explained that Council allowed St. Thomas to build the temporary air dome. They are still on track to have their fundraising in place. When the permission was granted for the temporary dome, neither St. Thomas nor Council was aware that there was a fire code Page No. 5 June 6, 2006 in place that would require them to take it down every six months. The fire marshal would feel better in terms of it being in compliance with what the state fire marshal prefers, that if Council is in concurrence with leaving it up, that fact should be documented. In response to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Administrator Danielson stated that Council granted St. Thomas permission to have the dome for up to six years, and that has not changed. Councilmember Duggan asked that the resolution be amended to state that St. Thomas is exempted from deflating the air dome as detennined by the fire marshal. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the ordinance seems to have taken people by surprise but it has been discussed by Council for quite some time, at least a year. Council has been touring the city and this is part of a larger set of issues in terms of the integrity and health of some of the city's neighborhoods. Police Chief Aschenbrener stated that the parking issue first came up when the city started looking at the property maintenance ordinance. Some parking issues were addressed in that ordinance but not long term street parking, parking in cul-de-sacs and parking in front of neighbors' residences. Council looked at a multitude of ways to deal with them. Council discussed the problems and possible solutions in workshop and staff worked up what he thought was a reasonable solution with a 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. parking ban. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 06- 38, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ST. THOMAS ACADEMY ALLOWING THEIR AIRDOME TO REMAIN INFLATED CONTINUOUSLY," as amended. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Joan Olin complimented Council on the 50th Anniversary Celebration, and in particular, the fireworks. She stated that they were wonderful and that it was a great celebration. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Mayor Huber stated that there are several people present in the PARKING RESTRICTIONS audience to discuss the parking restriction ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the ordinance seems to have taken people by surprise but it has been discussed by Council for quite some time, at least a year. Council has been touring the city and this is part of a larger set of issues in terms of the integrity and health of some of the city's neighborhoods. Police Chief Aschenbrener stated that the parking issue first came up when the city started looking at the property maintenance ordinance. Some parking issues were addressed in that ordinance but not long term street parking, parking in cul-de-sacs and parking in front of neighbors' residences. Council looked at a multitude of ways to deal with them. Council discussed the problems and possible solutions in workshop and staff worked up what he thought was a reasonable solution with a 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. parking ban. Page No. 6 June 6, 2006 Mayor Huber stated that he does not recall discussing on- street parking when the maintenance ordinance was discussed. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council did increase the number of cars that could be parked in a driveway from 2 to 3 as part of the property maintenance ordinance. Mr. Galen Funk, 1733 Lansford Lane, stated that he has been a resident for over 25 years and this ordinance is like cutting off an arm because of a sore finger. If there was a problem intersection and the city decided to put stop signs up there, would the city put stop signs at every intersection. The parking issue is specific to specific neighborhoods. The cure presents more of a problem than the problem that existed ahead of time. He has four drivers in his house, five vehicles and two motorcycles. He was unaware that he could only park three vehicles in the driveway. If he has people over to his house and he determines at 1:30 in the morning that they should not drive home and they are parked on the street, is he going to call the police at 1:30 and ask for a permit for them to park on the street. That is an issue that should be addressed. What would someone do in a situation like that. This morning he took a ride through all of the council members neighborhoods and found twenty to 25 cars and trailers parked on the street, but he did not see a traffic issue. The ordinance was published yesterday so it is effective. It is subjective, and selective and arbitrary because if he had called the police department this morning they would have had to issue tickets. He thinks the ordinance is bad policy and that government and asked Council to reconsider it. Mayor Huber stated that the ordinance is technically not in effect yet because signs have not been posted at the entrances to the city. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council does not arbitrarily adopt ordinances. Ms. Cathy Roach, 1721 Vicki Lane, stated that she has lived there for 40 years and her concern started when a home on her cul -de -sac became a rental unit. Because of the issues that arose, she looked at the city's ordinance. The mission of the city to preserve the value of the residential properties within the city and the civility of the neighborhood and to ensure compliance with city laws and make corrections and provide a mechanism to litigate. The definition of the family says that a group of not more than four persons not so related maintaining a household can be in a single family residence. Another dealt with storage which says that not more than four currently ` Page No. 7 June 6, 2006 licensed and operated vehicles can be parked or stored on the property. When she sees ten cars in the area, sometimes there have been six at this particular resident in the front driveway and four in the street for a total of ten on numerous occasions, she has a real concern because it is a residential unit. If there are ten cars, are there ten people. She was also concerned with an ordinance that says all vehicles must be parked on bituminous or concrete surfaces. There has been an issue with another home in her area where an abandoned car in some cases has been parked on grass. She initially tried to deal with the 24 hour parking regulation in the ordinance. That just became a game. If she waited 24 hours to call because a car had been there, then called the police, they would come and tag it and wait another 24 hours. This year there has been a car for sale parked on the street. Parking during snowfall was not an issue this past winter, but the ordinance says the car has to be moved within 30 minutes after 2 inches of snow has fallen. She was pleased that the council created a license for landlords but her concern is who is going to monitor it and what clout goes into it. The ordinance says that rental single family housing will not become a nuisance to the neighborhood, foster blight and deterioration or create a disincentive for reinvestment in the community. Her paper cannot be delivered when there are cars parked in front of her house. It could be very difficult for any emergency vehicle to come down her street when there are cars parked on both sides of the street. It is often difficult for her to drive out of her driveway when she backs out and there's a car immediately behind her at the rental unit and when there is also a car parked next to her driveway she has to work for a way around to get out. She feels that is hazardous. She would like whoever is monitoring the license ordinance to look at how many residents there are in the unit, how many residents are living in the unit and when how many adults and children there are under eighteen years of age. When she sees ten cars she wonders what is happening there. Her concern for a rental unit that has developed within this past year is concern over her property value, concern about the definition that the city has made for what a household is, and she needs to know who is monitoring the license. She thinks that some of the original ordinances that dealt with parking, and dealt with density and when she sees more than that she is concerned. Mr. John Clemency stated that he and his wife built their house three blocks from City Hall twenty years ago and this is the first time that he has appeared before the council. They have six children with various schedules. What Council is asking them to do is a parking dance every morning and every evening. His son works at a golf course five in the morning. His daughter who is home from college Page No. 8 June 6, 2006 works at Axels and every day he goes to work some time in between there. And because of complaints from separate, segregated neighborhoods, everyone has to do this dance. He doubted this is a public safety issue. If not he has no idea why the police are involved. The ordinance says permission will be granted for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to .... He asked who makes that decision. The ordinance says to call City Hall to seek this permission Monday through Friday during business hours. There are tunes when he does not know who is going to be staying at his house Monday through Friday from 8:30 to 4:30. If someone has too much to drink and he forbids them to drive, where does the car go. If his kids come home from college for a weekend with some of their friends, where does that car go. He respects the police department and the job they do, but the citizens are not here to make their jobs easier. He asked if handing out tickets between 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM is the best use of the officer's time. The thought of asking the police department for permission to do anything should make everyone in the council chambers mad. If this is not a public safety issue it must be a nuisance complaint. He has not been able to get an answer from anyone about how widespread this is. Why does this affect his ability to park his car overnight in front of his house because his neighbor does not like it. He does not care for green houses. Should he have everyone in his neighborhood sign a petition to ban green houses. He does not like boats in driveways. The lady before him mentioned the problem she has and he is very sympathetic with that. She listed a number of ways to handle rental situations which appear to him have not been done. He asked how many have been tried and enforced. Overnight parking throughout the city is the lowest common denominator. He believes this is a bad law. It is not equitable to those with large families and those with high school and college kids. Council is setting a precedent that allows those with complaints to rule the day. This law is not only unnecessary, it adversely affects a significant number of residents, particularly those with large families. He stated that no one knew this was on the agenda until after it was passed and he asked that Council hold a public hearing to allow residents to voice their opinions and he thinks the law should be rescinded. Mr. Gene Fish, 969 Chippewa, stated he has lived there for fifteen years. He has five children. Two of them work at SuperAmerica all hours of the night. Another daughter recently moved home with her two children. He has six cars and did not know he can only park four. His two children who work at SuperAmerica work midnight to 7:00 a.m. three nights a week. Do they have to park in Saint Paul the other four nights and walk home? What must he do, move, tell Page No. 9 June 6, 2006 his children they cannot live with them, sell some of his cars? He has many concerns. It is like a snow emergency every day. Mr. Duane Kosick, 1635 Pamela Lane, stated that he and his wife have raised four children in Mendota Heights and had lived here for twenty years. He stated that he is present to oppose the parking ban as well as his neighbors. He has spoken to Councilmernber Schneeman as well as the police chief and the city administrator. He is here to personally inform Council that there is no parking problem in Evergreen Knolls. After his conversations with Councihnember Schneeman and the staff, his understanding is that on the vast majority of the 70 miles of roadway in Mendota Heights, there is no parking problem. There absolutely are isolated problems and they should be addressed. He sympathizes with the person with a rental unit in her neighborhood. Council should deal with that but not fix a problem that doesn't exist. Councilmember Schneeman told him that the council was trying to get ahead of the problem. The goal was to deal with the issue once and for all so that the council would not have to deal with it on a case by case basis. The police chief wanted a uniform policy across the city for ease of enforcement. The sad thing about this is that council did not think about the residents. There is no parking problem. He urged council to rescind the ordinance and hold a public hearing to hear additional comments. Ms. Pat Kaplan, 1710 Vicki Lane, stated that she has three grown sons and since 1988 until 1999 they never had less than four cars. She knew that was a temporary situation, and the kids were going to move out of her house. They shuffled the cars around and made do because she knew it was not going to last forever. The kids are now out of the house. She and her husband have three cars and one of theirs sits outside all the tune. A year ago their lives changed. Six people or however many moved in next door to theirs. Everyone in the audience could have rental units next door to them in the future. All the parking spaces in front of their houses will have cars in them. For the last year she has woken up every morning with two or three cars in front of her house. They are never the same cars. There are some in the afternoon and some in the morning. Her mailman has not been able to deliver her snail for a year. He has to get out of his truck regardless of weather to deliver the snail. She is sick and tired of waking up in the horning and not knowing if all the cars in her neighborhood are from people who live there or if they are from people who should not be there. Anyone in the audience could sell their home tomorrow and it could become a rental unit. She asked how the people in the audience would like to wake up in the horning every day and have cars parked all over their street up and down the Page No. 10 June 6, 2006 neighborhood and not know who they belong to. And she has had three parties and people have not been able to park in front of her house. They had to park down the street and walk to her house. Not everyone has this problem but maybe they will have rental houses next to them in the future. Mr. Bob Fleming, 1902 Glenhill Road, stated that Council really needs to look at the rental policy. Council needs to work on a solution. He does not think that Council has spent enough time reviewing what people are allowed to do and not allowed to do with rental. Mr. Ed Chavez stated that he owns 1720 Vicki lane. A letter he had received from the city stated that there are some hot spots and when he talked to the city administrator he was told that his property was the hottest spot. It is the house that Ms. Roach and Ms. Kaplan were talking about. He thanked Ms. Kaplan and her group. They are the ones who found his tenants for him. They thought they were the perfect tenants for that area and he thinks they are. Since he bought the property he has made many improvements in the house. He spent at least $15,000.00 to bring it up to mint condition and his tenants keep it that way. From the information he has from the police, Ms. Roach has made nine calls to the police and all of them were just about parking, and the vehicles were legally parked. There was one ticket issued and that was during snowfall. Every single time that either Ms. Kaplan or Ms. Roach have called to complain it has been for the same reason and they have been told by the police that there was nothing to pursue. The cars were legally parked. He drives by regularly and there are no cars parked there in the morning when he goes by or in the evening. He does not know why Ms. Kaplan has not complained more to the police or the city every day when she does not get her mail. That would be a good reason. He would be really angry if he did not get his mail or newspaper. He did not think the cars being parked across from Ms. Roach's driveway is a violation of law. The people who live in the house enhance the quality of the neighborhood. They are professionals who are pursuing higher education. They are people who are in construction and people who are working in the justice system. They are very honest people. Someone is complaining about an issue that does not exist. The renters are young and they are different from the rest of the people who live in the area. He knows that the average age in Mendota Heights is high. The renters are professionals and they work hard. They come home and 6:00 or 7:00 at night and they go to work in the morning in their cars. And they have friends and they have family. Five people are living in the house. Four of them are Page No. 11 June 6, 2006 related and two of them are brothers. They can put two cars in the garage and four in the driveway. Mr. Ned Rukavina, 1704 Vicki Lane, stated that he is in the neighborhood of the "hot spot." He has mixed feelings about this issue because he has children who are going to be coming home and will need a parking spot on the street. The reason why he attended other meetings is the rental issue. There is an issue with the parking. The people who live in the rental home are very nice — nice to his neighbors and his children — but there is a parking issue. His children ride their bikes and that is a safety issue he would like addressed. There is other rental property in the city where cars park on the lawn and the property is in disrepair and there is inappropriate fencing. That is why he is here. The city needs to create some ordinances and put some teeth into maintaining properties which will enhance property values and give the city more taxes to spend on parks and other things. The ordinance got people's attention and he is hoping the city can address this issue and people can park as they need to. Mr. Randy Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, stated that he has lived there 20 years. He spent three years as a reserve police officer with the Mankato police department and he has a degree in law enforcement. He has been on the end of citizen complaints that have been the fault of the city with not enacting the correct ordinances or enacting bad ones. The police department does not want to be out doing this. The ordinance is a bad idea and everyone who voted for it has made the Vicki Lane problem everyone else's problem. Before tonight he never heard anything about this. He read about the ordinance in the Pioneer Press and has heard about it ever since then. Before that he heard nothing. Those problems were not his and they're not the problem of anyone here this evening. They are a problem on Vicki Lane. There are ordinances in place and rental guidelines in place and they should be enforced. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Swenson if he is speaking for the police department when he said this is an ordinance they do not want to enforce. Mr. Swenson responded that he is speaking for himself although he has heard from people who would have called the police department and have talked to the dispatchers and the officers on the street and unofficially they do not like doing this. Council is using an atomic bomb to swat at a fly. From what he has heard there's a problem on one cul-de-sac and that's all the city needs to work on. Page No. 12 June 6, 2006 Mr. John Napody, 979 Delaware, stated that he too feels that the ordinance is totally out of line. One of his questions is what constitutes a neighborhood. He thinks the city is harming more people by having the police call on homes at 2:00 in the morning and tell them their cars are illegally parked. He could just park across the street, which is West St. Paul, and if everyone on Delaware does that, West St. Paul will be calling the city. He asked Council to rescind the ordinance so it does not create more problems than exist. Mr. John Nides, 2094 Patricia, stated that he has been a resident for 24 years. He stated that he has to apologize from the standpoint that he has a smaller house and small garage and he has three children who drive cars and two adults who drive cars and he has a collectible car in the garage. He has an agreement with his children that if they want to go to college and not live in a dorm he would work with them to buy a car for them so that they can commute every day to the University and Hairline. He needs his car and his children need their cars. The problem is that now there is an issue that he has boys of drinking age and they have parties and their guests like to park in front of the house and sometimes like to stay over night. He does not think people want to put down more concrete in their front yards to appease the Council. Many people have small yards and they cannot park any more cars in their driveways and need that space in the front. He thinks the police department is doing a fantastic job, but in his neighborhood and other neighborhoods he sees boats in the middle of the yards and in between houses and cars with no license plates or tags and nothing has been done. The police department has enough on their plates. This is not an earth shattering issue. It is an issue between people who have rental homes and people who do not and the council has to look outside of the box to see what they can do to make things work if rental is a problem. The city has to use a rental housing permit situation and have people purchase them and use the money for city parks. He thinks there is a problem in "our own backyard." Every day he and his wife make a loop around city hall all the way to Victoria and for the last eight months they have seen a car parked in the city hall parking lot with four flat tires — no license tabs or anything. The police department cannot even control their own problems. Mr. Josh Swenson, 775 Creek Avenue, has lived in Mendota Heights for 20 years. He remembers the big debate about the curb and gutter in Friendly Hills and everyone voiced their opinions. He is glad there are so many people present this evening. He understands that ; Council had a workshop to try to determine the best resolution. The �,. Page No. 13 June 6, 2006 minutes show they discussed what the best solution to the problem would be. He asked if they had any other possible solutions. Mr. Brent Kotny, 2258 Copperfield Drive, stated that he has been a resident for over 20 years and there is not much of a problem in his neighborhood. If there are areas that are hot spots, those issues should be handled rather than blanketing the entire city and making everyone's lives very difficult. Mr. Bill Roach stated that he has lived in Mendota Heights for 40 years. He stated that he is sorry that the other people in the audience have not had this problem. He has been backing out of his driveway for the past year at 6:00 in the morning and there is one car next to his lawn and two cars in front of the Kaplans' house and he has to be very careful backing out. When there are nine or ten cars and four or five of theirs are in the street he must be careful because of the low tolerance between the cars. Councilmernber Duggan moved to reconsider the motion that was made at the last Council meeting. Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Councihneinber Krebsbach asked if Council could have a discussion before going to a motion. City Attorney Diehm stated that Council can make a motion and a second to reconsider and vote on that and then open up the table for Council to debate the decision. Council can have their discussion now or decide if they even want to reconsider. If that motion to reconsider passes, council can then restate their positions. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the matter can be tabled for more study. Mayor Huber responded that broadly speaking, there are three things Council can do tonight —just drop it, say that things are fine as they are, or say they will go back and take a second look and come back with something that works differently. Councihnember Vitelli stated that Council does not take any actions on public comments. He stated that this should be put on the next agenda rather than being rash and snaking a decision now. Mayor Huber responded that one way to keep this matter from not being enforced is to direct staff to not install the signs and that would VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 2 Huber, Duggan Nays: 3 Page No. 14 June 6, 2006 stop the ordinance from going into affect. That would allow Council time to think about whether there are other ways to go about this. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber about whether he would like to withdraw his motion, Councilmember Duggan stated that many people have come this evening under a lot of stress and Council would be asking them to wait for four to six weeks or more to get an answer. He is comfortable with the motion on the table. If it passes, Council can discuss what it should do in relation to the 28 to 45 complaints that have been filed to address a small problem. Council discussed whether signs should just be at Vicki Lane rather than at all the entrances to the city. Council was not comfortable with that and he would support moving the signs just to the areas that are challenged. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to direct staff to delay the implementation of the ordinance until Council has a chance to discuss some of the points within the ordinance that have been raised this evening. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. C Councilmember Duggan asked that a committee consisting of citizens and representation from the Planning Commission and Council, be established to review parking needs in the city and perhaps to review again rental housing concerns to come up with a more equitable decision that will work to resolve rental housing problems and do away with the unacceptable parking restrictions. Councilmember Vitelli stated that his question on delaying implementation is how will Council know when implementation will begin. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she did not put a date on it based on how many times Council will need to discuss it. Council can decide that at another meeting. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she feels Councilmember Duggan's suggestion is an excellent idea. Council needs to look at this snore. She stated that she hopes Council has a chance to state why they voted on this in the first place. She stated that Councilmembers get a lot of calls — not just from these particular streets. People do not want to make a complaint that hurts their neighbor's feelings. She has lived in Mendota Heights for 47 years Page No. 15 June 6, 2006 and has seven children. She did not let them park on the street out of consideration for her neighbors. Some of her children are angry about this ordinance. The problem is that people do not park in front of their house. The problem is when they park across the street. She wishes people would think more about being good neighbor. Councihnember Vitelli stated that one of the reasons he voted against reconsidering is that Council worked on this for a year. He is not one to just switch his mind. Council discussed the options at length. He has had 14 people comment to him that Council is doing the right thing. They are not here tonight because they assume that what Council decided was decided. They would probably want to be heard also. Other cities have such an ordinance and he is going to ask staff to make sure that people know how many cities have similar ordinances. This is an isolated problem this year but he predicts it will not be isolated in five years. He suggested that people drive around West St. Paul and see if that is the way they want Mendota Heights streets to look in five or ten years. In his opinion, what Council has done is take a look ahead and make sure that does not happen in Mendota Heights. Property values are deteriorating in cities like that. He is willing to reconsider, but he does not change his mind all of a sudden because people come in and yell. Mayor Huber stated that he agrees that Council went a little too far on the ordinance and seems to be impacting a lot of people who do not have parking issues or do not have issues with people parking around theirs. At the same time, if Council cannot come up with a suitable way to deal with the issue, council will fail the Roaches and Ms. Kaplan. Council must come up with a way to address their issues and cannot simply walk away. Council must find a way that is a bit more targeted. Everyone will work together to come up with a better answer. Councilmeinber Vitelli stated that when he made his decision on the ordinance, he did not look at Vicki Lane. He looked at the total picture. Councihnember Krebsbach stated that someone said Council was not thinking about the people in Mendota Heights. Part of Council's job is to anticipate. Council is aware of what goes on in the city but does not make a big issue publicly about some of the issues that go on. There have been other neighborhoods where there has been a very severe problem. There is nothing that the police could do. They did get a resolution in the end. The Clemency family is typical of many Page No. 16 June 6, 2006 families in Mendota Heights where there are children in college and they are young and working and coming and going from home. The decision on the ordinance was difficult but it was made with the intent of being able to head off problems in neighborhoods. Council must look at many issues. The rental permitting was adopted. Council did a bus tour around the city one Saturday and looked at situations in the city. People must realize that council has been very responsible and presents the City very positively but is also realistic about what can go on in the city. With regard to rental housing, these neighborhoods were not built for rental housing. Where there is a rental, there are usually a certain number of parking spaces for rental unit. She stated that when people look at this issue from the city point of view, she would appreciate their ideas and feedback as Council looks at how it can be legally enforceable throughout the city. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LIQUOR LICENSE HEARINGS Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding hearings on liquor license renewals. He informed the audience that Clerk Swanson has recommended that the hearings on the applications from The Wine Market and Mendota Liquor be continued to allow staff to address some unresolved issues related to the license renewals. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved to continue the hearings on the applications for off -sale liquor license renewals from Mendota Liquor and The Wine Market to June 20. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Marriot Corporation for renewal of On- Sale Limited Service Hotel and Sunday liquor licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the hearing be closed. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the issuance of on -sale and on -sale Sunday liquor licenses to the Courtyard Corporation for the Courtyard by Marriott. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 17 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Brown College, Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts, for renewal of the on-sale institutional wine license for the Minnesota Room. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmernber Duggan moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the issuance of Club Liquor and Sunday liquor licenses to Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: 2006 STREET Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT hearing on the proposed 2006 street reconstruction project. Council acknowledged a report from Engineer McDermott, along with the project feasibility report, proposed assessment roll and a copy of the city's street rehabilitation and reconstruction policy. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmeraber Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the issuance of an on- sale institutional wine license to Brown College, Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts, for the Minnesota Room. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on applications from Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their on-sale club and on-sale Sunday liquor licenses. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmernber Duggan moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the issuance of Club Liquor and Sunday liquor licenses to Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: 2006 STREET Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT hearing on the proposed 2006 street reconstruction project. Council acknowledged a report from Engineer McDermott, along with the project feasibility report, proposed assessment roll and a copy of the city's street rehabilitation and reconstruction policy. Page No. 18 June 6, 2006 Engineer McDermott infonned Council that the purpose of the hearing is to consider ordering the 2006 street reconstruction project, which includes the reconstruction of Woodridge Drive, Arcadia Drive, Maple Park Court, Fallsview Court, Cascade Lane, Maple Park Drive from Sylvandale to Cascade and Sylvandale Road. The proposed improvements include the addition of storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter and the bituminous surfacing. Both Maple Park Court and Fallsview Court are proposed to get new watermain as well, based on water main break records the city has for the neighborhood. The total cost of the project is $1.6 million, $445,000 of which would be assessed do the benefiting property owners, $1,049,000 would be from the general tax levy and $86,000 would come from the water revenue fund. The feasibility report was approved and it is proposed to assess $7,000 for streets and $825 for curb and gutter. When this area was built in the late 1970's, certain properties did get curb and gutter and most did not. Those that did will not be assessed a second time for the curb and gutter. It is the city's policy to assess 50% of the street reconstruction which would equate to about a $9,000.00 street assessment in addition to the curb and gutter. Staff and proposes to assess had a unit rate of $7,000.00, which varies from the city policy of that. The logic for that is that prices have gone up considerably this year because of oil prices. Staff held an informational meeting on May 25 to provide property owners with additional information and allow them to ask questions prior to this evenings meeting. Twenty-five property owners attended, representing seventeen of the 58 properties on the proposed project area. Staff heard several issues. The majority of the property owners who were present did not support the addition of curb and gutter in their neighborhood. Comments revolved around maintaining the rural nature of the neighborhood. Also the city's street reconstruction and rehabilitation policy was questioned. The policy states that if the street is reconstructed with curb and gutter, the city will pay 50% of the cost but if curb and gutter is not installed, 100% of the project cost would be assessed to be benefiting properties. She commented on the recent Somerset neighborhood project, stating that council approved not putting curb and gutter on Colshire, which is more of an alleyway than a street, and since that time she has received several comments from residents who wish that curb and gutter had been installed on Coleshire. Another concern that was raised was speeding and traffic on both Sylvandale and Maple Park Drive. She ordered speed counts done last week and one car was over 30 miles an hour on Sylvandale and several on Maple Park Drive. She shared that information with the police chief who will do increased Page No. 19 June 6, 2006 enforcement in that area. One property owner spoke in favor of the > project at the meeting, and she has spoken to several since then who are in favor of the project. One of them, Kathleen Russell, 716 Maple Park Court, cannot attend tonight but called today to let staff know they are in favor of the project. A couple of the residents she has spoken to are experiencing drainage problems on their lots which would be corrected by the improvements and the addition of the curb and gutter. She recommended that Council authorize the improvements on the streets after conducting the hearing. Councilmember Duggan asked whether any other issues were raised by the residents at the meeting other than drainage. He also asked when the streets were improved last. Engineer McDermott responded that another issue that was raised was the condition of the streets. The streets were rebuilt in 1983. She did not know if they had been sealed since then. The life of a street is 20 to 25 years, and longer if there is curb and gutter because water does not then seep underneath the roadbed and get damaged by the freeze /thaw cycle. Councilmember Duggan asked how many people present at the informational meeting were opposed to the project. Engineer McDermott responded that out of the seventeen properties represented, she heard from three people who were in favor of the project. Responding to a question from the Councilmember Duggan, Mayor Huber stated that the reason the city pays 50% of the cost when curb and gutter is installed versus the property owners paying 100% if it is not, is basically the carrot and stick philosophy. It is an incentive to go to curb and gutter, which the city believes makes a better street and a longer lasting street. The City Council felt that if curb and gutter is not done, the pay back is 10 years, but if curb and gutter is installed, it is 19 years. Councilmember Duggan asked whether the streets that have had curb and gutter for 30 years have borne out that philosophy of extra lifetime or if there have been streets that had curb and gutter that have worn out. Engineer McDermott responded that none of theirs that she knows about. Typically, once curb and gutter is in place, a simple overlay Page No. 20 June 6, 2006 can be done, which is much less costly to the residents and to the city. Mayor Huber asked what the interest rate on the assessments would be. Finance Officer responded that the interest rate will be determined after bonds are issued and after she reviews the rates charged on past projects. Councilmember Vitelli asked if there has been any input from public works on the cost of maintaining this neighborhood, because eventually like Somerset, it just cost the general tax payer too much to maintain those roads. Engineer McDermott stated that this neighborhood is almost at that point now. There are other neighborhoods in the city also in this condition. They are not simply potholes, the streets are breaking up too much to be patched. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Mayor Huber stated that the reconstruction and rehabilitation policy was adopted in 1993, but the work had been done on it in 1992. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Celestine Vonfeldt, 701 Woodridge, stated that his problem is aesthetics more than anything else and he sees nothing before council that indicates that curb and gutter will save the road any better than not having curb and gutter. He is confused as to why his assessment will be double if he does not have curb and gutter then if he does. It does not make sense to him. Engineer McDermott responded that if curb and gutter is installed the City assesses half of the cost. If it is not installed, the city assesses 100% of the cost. Whether the assessment would be doubled or not she could not answer. Mr. Vonfeldt stated that he was here in 1983 and it was decided then to put in a nice road without curb and gutter. Aesthetics is his issue. His neighborhood is like a village now with no sidewalks or curb for streetlights. And was neighborhood looks better than the Somerset neighborhood that recently was done. Page No. 21 June 6, 2006 Mr. John McClung, 683 Arcadia Drive, stated that the project in 1983 was done without curb and gutter. The city is proposing a seven ton road. He would like to see that type of road built on Sylvandale road with curb and gutter. That is an arterial street that carries traffic for other neighborhoods not just his neighborhood, and that the city just do an overlay on the rest of the neighborhood streets. An overlay was done in 1983 and it lasted 23 years and it would cost a lot less money for the property owners and the city taxpayers. It would meet the needs of the neighborhood and the city's needs. Mr. Jack Davies spoke against the engineering, stating that there is no level piece of road in the neighborhood and the drainage is beautiful. There is no under mining of the road anywhere along the side and that is what this is supposed to eliminate. For all of the years that the road has not been charged it is working fine. The middle of the road is worse than the side of the road. Ms. Sarah Hulse stated that she is one of the newer residents to the neighborhood and lives at the end of the Woodridge Drive cul -de- sac. Her issue is more specific to her house and her neighbors houses. A sewer line is proposed to run from the cul -de -sac through an easement between her yard and her neighbor's yard. Her concern is that there are many older trees there and to dig that up to put in a sewer line will destroy a lot of the trees. Right now there is no storm sewer. The water runs down the cul -de -sac down and her old driveway through a bunch of rocks and plantings she has put in. From what she understands of the environmental gardens people are planting, that is what she has done and it is working beautifully. She thinks that having the water run through there and keeping the hill alive and watered is better than putting in two big gutters and running a long trench down the length of the property and destroying a lot of trees and plantings. Engineer McDermott responded that she can look at other methods of installing pipe, such as directional boring which does not require digging a trench. She stated that she will visit Ms. Hulse's property. Councilmelmber Duggan asked Ms. Hulse what her recommendation is. Ms. Hulse responded that she does not see the need for curbs and is in favor of just an overlay. Mr. Ed Driscoll, 704 Woodridge, stated that his neighborhood has concerns about aesthetics. City staff reported on the development on Page No. 22 June 6, 2006 the other side of Dodd Road (Somerset neighborhood) and constantly during that reconstruction there were a lot of complaints, not just about reconstruction but also about the contractor who paid little heed to the desires of the neighborhood. He asked Council to give additional consideration tonight. If anything is going to be done, he would prefer the overlay, but it is the method of how this is done that he is concerned about — a contractor coming in to the neighborhood and doing things the neighborhood has no control over. His son lives in the Somerset area, and people complained bitterly during that project. This is one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the Twin Cities area. The people on Woodridge have spent a lot of money on gardens and aesthetics and the city should be careful about how it tampers with that. Councilmember Vitelli responded that all of the feedback he got from the Somerset neighborhood was positive and he would challenge the statement that there were a bunch of complaints over there. He had many comments from the residents saying that it was an outstanding job. Mr. Driscoll stated that he frequently walked through the Somerset neighborhood in the evenings when the project was being done and sat with people on their porches and had them show him their concerns. Their concern was principally with the contractor. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that as far as she is aware, the contractor and Engineer McDermott made sure that the people's concerns were addressed. As far as street reconstruction, she has always been open to whether there was curb or not but let the neighborhood decide which way they wanted to go, but it is city policy to go with curb. When these neighborhoods were developed, here and in other cities, there was a gracious country lane look. She made a point, when driving through Edina the other day, to look at the streets and they are narrow and tarred streets without curb. Those neighborhoods entertain large numbers of people and they park half - street/half -lawn. Mr. Driscoll asked council to be sensitive to what exists in the neighborhood. He asked that council consider the investment the property owners have made and give the aesthetics they have contributed to some consideration. Mr. Charlie Bans, 1100 Sylvandale Road, stated that the count of residents who do not want curb and gutter is eleven to one. An overlay would be satisfactory just like it was twenty years ago. So far Page No. 23 June 6, 2006 he has heard that one person who is not here supported curb and gutter. He does not know anyone else who supports it. Councilmeraber Duggan stated that one individual present this evening talked about the possibility of a seven ton road on Sylvandale. He asked Mr. Bans what he thought of that. Mr. Bans responded that he disagrees. It is all one neighborhood. Mr. John Karos, 663 Maple Park Drive, stated that he is in favor of the curb and gutters. His property has a drainage problem and he also thinks curb and gutter looks better. Curb and gutter will make the streets easier to plow in the winter and it will make the streets last longer. He aunt is on the comer of Coleshire and Dodd and she was opposed to curbs when Somerset was done and now wishes Coleshire had curb. He feels curb and gutter would make the neighborhood look better, especially on Sylvandale. His neighbor has curb and gutter and he thinks his property would look a lot better to have curb and gutter continued. Mr. Leighton Siegel, 727 Woodridge Drive, stated that he owned his home in 1983 when this issue was raised as well. His street does not have any problems with drainage or erosion of the road from water. To try to change the street for those reasons is a fallacy despite the good work the city's engineers have done. An overlay was done in 1983 and the road has held up all those years. It is a beautiful drive down the street. Is not a straight street, it is curved, and the beauty of the street would be destroyed by putting in curb and gutter. Mr. Jed Taylor, 670 Maple Park Drive, stated that the street in front of his house has alligatored quite a bit where the curb would be and the people downstream from him have curbs. He felt it would be good if he had curbs. There is a catch basin upstream from him on the roadside of his neighbor's property that looks like it is being washed out. The water seems to accumulate at the edge of his property and breaks up the road. He did not think the road should be built to high tonnage standards. There is not a lot of traffic. Mr. Jeff Jaffe, 682 Woodridge Drive, stated that the neighborhood is not one big happy family and all of one mind. A significant number of people who live on Woodridge are present tonight and they are uniformly against curb and gutter. He asked whether Woodridge could be dealt with differently because there is almost unanimous opinion that curb and gutter is not good for their street. Page No. 24 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Duggan stated that he recalls in a previous location that a survey of streets was done, and when a street seemed to definitely be against curb, Council decided not to do that. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that when Friendly Hills was done, the neighborhood went into a task force anode and they came up with a recommendation ultimately to do curb and gutter in all of Friendly Hills. Mayor Huber stated that he does not recall any neighborhood ever being for curb and gutter except Curley's. The other neighborhoods were always against it but Council tried to work with them on their concerns. There always is some level of opposition. Mr. Tom Peine, 706 Maple Park Court, stated that he can appreciate opinions on aesthetics, but he believes that the neighborhood would look much more unified with curb and gutter. He lives in a neighborhood where two cul -de -sacs merge and back into Ivy Falls. If one looks at the opposition to this project, most if not all of them are on Woodridge. Woodridge does not make a neighborhood. There are many more streets in the neighborhood. He can appreciate their opinions on aesthetics, but their homes are on the high ground and they will not experience drainage problems. However, because they are not experiencing those problems, those who live downstream experience a lot of problems with their water. The water comes off their asphalt roofs and down their concrete or asphalt driveways and into the street. He gets out with an umbrella wondering how many bags of soil he's going to have to buy. When he moved into his home eighteen years ago, Administrator Danielson was the City Engineer and he came out to look at his property. When the street was rebuilt, city water was directed directly down one -third of his property. When the city engineered his street, the water was engineered to go off of the street and into his yard. Mr. Danielson was very accommodating and made several suggestions. He stated that he put in many plants and brought in considerable soil. Mr. Danielson had the city come out to benn it up. He lives in an extremely fragile neighborhood. There is a beautiful falls 150 yards from his house. There are two homes near him that are losing their foundations. One of them worked five years ago and brought in cranes and rip rap and still everything goes down. Two years ago they brought in concrete and spent a lot of money, and it is washed down when the rains come. This neighborhood is not flat, and those who live on Woodridge live on the top of the hill. They need to come up with a solution on where their water is going. He does not have curb in front of his property. The people across the street do and those on Page No. 25 June 6, 2006 the cul -de -sac do. It is an embarrassment on city planning to allow each individual homeowner the option of putting curb and gutter in. It does not make a neighborhood. The city is as effective as its neighborhoods and the entire neighborhood has to be considered, not just the street. He felt that it would look beautiful to have unity after seventeen years of having one street without curb and gutter, another with half curb and gutter and others with no curb and gutter. The problem is that a solution must be found for the rainwater. Mr. Charles Halverson, 786 Sylvandale Road, stated that those on Maple Park and Woodridge should speak for themselves but he likes the road that is in front of him, without curb and gutter, and has liked it his 41 years there. Mr. Jeff Messerich, 703 Maple Park Court, across from Mr. Peine, stated that he has nothing against Woodridge and thinks it's a beautiful street, but there is a big issue. He has curb and gutter along the edge of his property and the water comes down Cascade Lane. The only reason he does not have water problems or the edge of his yard eaten away is because the curb protects it. The water just sweeps around the corner and eats away the front end of the Peine yard. There has to be a solution for all the water that comes down the hill. He agreed with those living on top of the hill that they have a beautiful look, but if there is some middle ground that can be found, it would be great. Mr. Sean Carey, 665 Arcadia, stated that water backs up into is basement. He has had problems with the snow plows tearing up his yard. He stated that one problem is that the area is in transition, with a lot of new families with children and that is a real concern. Maybe there is some way traffic can be slowed down. People are going through the stop signs and that is a concern of his. He stated that he is in favor of curb and gutter. Ms. Sally McRae Jaffe, 682 Woodridge Drive, stated that she is not for curb and gutter. Even though she lives on the top of the neighborhood, her basement floods as well. She stated that she wants to address the historical piece. There are some very nice old homes in the neighborhood. If there is a chance for Mendota Heights to pull off some uniqueness to the community and a chance to do that in the Ivy Falls neighborhood, that should be considered part of where the people live. She does not want curb and gutter. Ms. Nancy Lewis, 676 Woodridge Drive, stated that what she likes about her neighborhood is that it is a neighborhood. She asked why Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 26 June 6, 2006 it has to look the same as other neighborhoods. The neighborhood has large blocks with large lots and she does not think not having curb and gutters on Woodridge would ruin the look of the neighborhood. The lots on Arcadia and Maple Park have different issues. She thinks Sylvandale is also different issue — speed is a problem and there should be speed bumps. The two homes that are losing their foundations are not in her neighborhood, they are on the other side. She does not think everything needs to be the same. If Maple Park and Cascade as a group want curb and gutters, she thinks they should have curb and gutters, but if 95% of one street does not want them Council should listen to those people. Mr. Bill Krebsbach, 679 Woodridge Drive, agreed that everything does not have to be the same. There is strong sentiment from the people on Woodridge that they do not want curb and gutter but that does not mean that there are not others who have very serious issues that are different from the aesthetic concerns the people on Woodridge have, and those issues need to be addressed as well. Council has a real challenge to come up with a comprehensive plan two meet the needs of the neighborhood. He is not in favor of curb and gutter. Mr. Russ Koebrick stated that he does not want curb and gutters. Ms. Hulse stated that everyone recognizes that it is a fragile environment. Her concern is that if the rain water is redirected the bluffs will die. She asked Engineer McDermott to look at that so that it does not end up that more is lost than is gained. There being no further questions or comments. Councilmember Vitelli moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Mayor Huber asked if not installing curb and gutter on Woodridge would defeat the city's ability to handle runoff. Engineer McDermott responded that it would not. She stated that she would like to comment about doing an overlay on those streets. Soil borings have been done and the problem is not just what can be seen on the road. The subgrade needs to be built up and that is part of the problem. If only an overlay was done on those roads that are cracking, the cracks would reappear here in one to two years. Her street was overlaid with a one inch overlay a couple of years ago and the cracks are back. Page No. 27 June 6, 2006 Mayor Huber stated that an overlay would not work and engineering could look at whether there could be complete reconstruction without curb. That means that even if people prefer that curb is not installed the streets would still need to be fully reconstructed. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that is a really important point for the Woodridge neighborhood, to what extent do they want no curb. Is it a financial issue that the overlay may be less expensive, but if curb is not installed and it still ends up hypothetically costing $15,000 per lot, is that something they still support. To what extent do they support it financially. Council needs to know where the line of support is. Is there also support that per household they would pay more for street reconstruction but no curb. Councilmember Vitelli was concerned about the erosion downstream. He asked if the water could still be controlled downstream, if Woodridge does not have curb and gutter, so that people downstream do not have the erosion problems. Engineer McDermott responded that Woodridge is at the top of the hill. If they were at the bottom of the hill and did not want curb and gutter, that would be a problem. The storm sewer and curb and gutter could be constructed in the rest of the neighborhood and not constructed on Woodridge. Mayor Huber stated that at some point water needs to be directed somewhere and engineering would have to do some specific plans and specifications. Engineer McDermott is trying to answer questions, but it should be understood that fall engineering plans have not been developed or looked at in that regard. Councilmember Vitelh stated that Engineer McDermott mentioned a high frequency of repair on watermains. He asked how curb and gutter versus no curb and gutter factors into that high rate of failures and who does it cost money. Engineer McDermott responded that the watermain repair frequency is unrelated to the street. The city would pay for watermain replacement since the city owns the system. Staff felt that since the streets were being rebuilt and the two cul -de -sacs have a high watermain repair frequency, the watermain should be replaced at this time. Page No. 28 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Schneeman asked Engineer McDennott to reiterate the city policy that if only rehabilitation is done the property owners would pay 100% of the cost and reconstruction with curb and gutter is done, the city would pay 50% of the cost. Responding to an audience question, Mayor Huber stated that it is the city's assessment policy and whether the city assesses at 50% or 100 %, people have a right to challenge an assessment. City Attorney Diehm stated that the policy has been in place since 1992 and the city has been following the policy for 14 years. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mayor Huber made the comment at the beginning of the discussion that the policy is carrot and stick. The city adopted the policy to try to encourage neighborhoods to go with curb and gutter, which has been a good choice for many of the neighborhoods. The first neighborhood was Friendly Hills and they were split. Council asked that there be only one direction that the whole neighborhood go in. They went into task force mode and as a neighborhood decided to go with curb and gutter. From that time on, every neighborhood has gone with curb and gutter and the policy has stood. It is a way that the city has reconstructed its streets and in many of the neighborhoods it has been an absolute plus for the neighborhoods in terms of improving the neighborhood. She is always willing to listen to part of a neighborhood that does not want curb and gutter because she thinks it has more of a suburban historic feel of a gracious neighborhood that built up along a road that did not have curb and gutter. Certainly they can go without curb and gutter, but the policy is that they pay 100% of the cost and she would like to know where the people stand on that. Councilmember Duggan stated that the big question is where the Woodridge Drive water goes, since the homes below them are challenged by it. He believes he is hearing from staff that the excessive runoff would be controllable in many cases. Engineer McDermott responded that the way the storm sewer is proposed at the present, storm sewer could be installed on the remainder of the streets without having storm sewer on Woodridge Drive. Councilmember Duggan stated that Engineer McDermott has stated that if an overlay is done, the cracks would reappear in two to three Page No. 29 June 6, 2006 years. He asked what the depth was on the overlay in 1983 that seems to have lasted all this time. Engineer McDermott responded that she does not think it has lasted all this time, but she does not know what the depth of the overlay was. Councilmeraber Duggan stated that one of the unique and wonderful things about Mendota Heights is that it has neighborhoods and they have stood the test of time in that they have different characteristics and he does not think anyone objects to that aesthetically. He supports Woodridge's desire not to have curb and gutter, continuing the character and essence of the area. He is hearing that there are solutions to the drainage problems and he supports what Woodridge wants to do. The neighborhood he used to live in had curb and gutters but the approach to it did not. He loved that feeling. From a point of view of aesthetics he supports what Woodridge wants to do. From the point of view of engineering challenges and saving money, the city must look at whether there are other solutions to the areas that have drainage problems. There is also the question of cost and whether the Woodridge property owners are willing to pay the additional cost under the policy that has been in place since 1992. Councilmernber Krebsbach stated that the key issue is between whether it is an overlay or a reconstruction. The issue for Woodridge is if it is a reconstruction without curb and gutter, do they still support it because financially it is more expensive. With regard to overlay, one of the things Engineer McDermott has said is that it is not just about the surface, it is about the subsurface and that requires reconstruction. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber, Administrator Danielson stated that one piece of information staff can get is a more accurate estimate on what Woodridge would cost if it was reconstructed without curb and gutter. Mayor Huber's concern is if the project is ordered in and the cost is really high and the people on Woodridge say that they do not want curb but they do not want to pay so much. He does not think there is enough information available tonight to order street reconstruction. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach regarding confirmation that Woodridge would need reconstruction, Engineer McDermott reiterated that soil borings have been done and the Page No. 30 June 6, 2006 pavement management program that the city purchased last year also recommends reconstruction of Woodridge. Mayor Huber stated that nothing will happen this evening with respect to ordering the project. Council will discuss it again at the next meeting when they have additional information. There may be some interest in doing the full reconstruction with curbs everywhere, but perhaps not on Woodridge. Engineer McDermott will prepare information on what the cost would be for the Woodridge residents. She will also look at the issues raised by Ms. Hulse on runoff. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council wants a quality, long -term solution. They want to solve the drainage problems downhill. Lastly, with regard to curb and gutter, it should be by street. If Council decides Woodridge can go without curb and gutter that is fine. Mayor Huber stated that if it appeared that not curbing Woodridge ends up with there still being a problem downhill, then he would not agree to it. If it can be engineered so that there would be no drainage problems, that would be fine. To have another street come out not wanting curb and the drainage situation is not engineerable, he would not approve of that. Mr. Leighton Siegel, 727 Woodridge, stated that he is delighted that Council is capable and able to change what is previous bad policy. One piece of bad policy that needs to be addressed is carrot and stick. The double payment for not doing curbs is really bad policy and he asked that Council get rid of it. Mr. Bill Krebsbach stated that the boring samples show that the bituminous (1983 overlay) was five inches. The majority of the borings were taken in 1980. Councilmember Duggan asked what the proposed reconstruction depth would be. Engineer McDermott responded that it is 14 inches of class 5 and 3.5 inches of bituminous. These are the recommendations made by the geotechnical engineers who are the experts. Councilmember Vitelli moved to direct staff to prepare a report for June 20 examining the points that Council has asked them to study. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Page No. 31 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like information on 1 the bluff in teens of the stonn water going underneath and not watering the bluff. She would also like responses to Ms. Hulse'points about the trees, the running of the storm water line, and what would be the damage and what would be the alternative if that is not done. Councilmember Duggan asked the residents who have major drainage problems to contact the city so that the City Engineer can address the engineering remedies. It would be helpful to know which of them have problems so that she can address theirs. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber stated that Engineer McDermott will have to work on a Woodridge reconstruction solution first, including looking at borings and cost estimates, and get the cost information out to all property owners on Woodridge. She will have to make sure that it can be done without curb on Woodridge. Engineer McDermott stated that she will also do a cost estimate for an overlay and some recommendations. - RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 10:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. BID AWARD Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDermott regarding proposed industrial park street improvements. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 06 -39, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK STREET REHABILITATION AND CITY HALL PARKING LOT (IMPROVEMENT NO. 200502)." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays 0 CASE NO. 06 -09, WILKIE Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Diane K. Wilkie, for a front yard setback variance for a garage addition at 739 Cheyenne Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application for Council and the audience. Ms. Wilkie is requesting an 11 foot variance from the Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 32 June 6, 2006 front yard setback requirement to allow her to expand her existing garage. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 06-40, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AT 739 CHEYENNE LANE." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach commented that the Planning Commission did comprehensive work on the planning cases. CASE NO. 06-13, GARDNER, Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Kevin Gardner (on FOR JAMES HANSON behalf of James Hanson) for a critical area permit for grading of fill and driveway re-alignment and paving at 796 Sibley Memorial Highway. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Hanson has a driveway that partially encroaches on a neighbor's property, and that has been a matter of complaint from the neighbor for quite a while. Mr. Hanson now proposes to realign his driveway to keep it entirely on his property, and also to pave those parts of the driveway that are not paved since the ordinance requires that they be paved. Secondly, the neighbors on both sides of Mr. Hanson's property allege that Mr. Hanson has done a significant amount of earthwork which has exacerbated their flooding problems. The second part of the critical area permit application is for a grading plan to address and alleviate those problems for the neighbors. There was a lot of detailed discussion between Mr. Hanson's representative and the neighbors on both sides and the Planning Commission conclusion was that Mr. Gardner should submit a detailed grading plan designed and intended to address the concerns of the neighbors. This would be subject to input by the neighbors and review and approval by the City Engineer. That plan currently does not exist but that was the motion by the Planning Commission. Mayor Huber stated that not only must the plan exist, it must also be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and it must be done by August 31. There will be no tolerance for any slippage. Councilmember Duggan stated that given the time deadline, he does not know that there will be enough time to determine that they have solved the drainage problems. If this is approved, he would want language in the resolution that if efforts taken to correct the drainage Page No. 33 June 6, 2006 are not successful, the applicant will take all additional steps necessary to correct the drainage. He stated that he does not think that one will know that the drainage is corrected by the end of August. There should be language in the resolution that says if there is a drainage problem down the line, it probably will not show up until next year. There should be language that requires him to take care of the drainage. He does not want the applicant to be off the hook. City Attorney Tami Diehm agreed that it would be appropriate to add the language. She added that the second finding of fact in the resolution states that the proposed work, including modifications directed by city engineering staff, will relieve drainage impacts of previous work on adjoining properties. Council would be adopting this resolution and giving the permit with the understanding that the proposed work will relieve the drainage problems. The new language would be: if these efforts do not correct the existing drainage problems the applicant will take whatever additional steps staff reasonably determines necessary to remedy the situation. A timeframe would be a good idea. She added that Council would have the ability to revoke the pen-nit if this is not later found to be true and while Council would then need to reconsider another permit, they would be able to put those qualifications in. It was the consensus to make the timeframe to be until August 31, 2006. Mr. Gardner stated that the pen-nit is being requested at the guidance of the city to bring the property into compliance with the zoning ordinances. He has not gotten too detailed of a plan right now. He is waiting to get approval by the Council before putting too much time into a plan. Councilmember Duggan stated that according to the planner's report, there are a series of nonconforming offenses, and that the existing fence will be brought into compliance with the requirements. Mr. Gardner responded that there was a fence that was within 30 feet of the right of way that was taller than 3 feet and he believes Mr. Hanson has brought it into compliance. Councilmember Schneeiman asked about whether a brown fence that is still up and is crooked will be taken out. Page No. 34 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Duggan asked if all the fence has been removed from the property or just the piece that was out of compliance. His concern is that all the fence will be taken down and Mr. Hanson will come back for a permit for fencing. Mr. Hanson responded that there are still a couple of pieces of fence that are still up. The reason they were moved back is because he is waiting to get the paving done and then he will come in for a fence permit. The concerns right now are about drainage on the south side for the neighbor and on the east side with the encroachment of the driveway and the third concern was over the brown fence that was close to the right -of -way on the Wachtler side. He has satisfied taking down the fence on the Wachtler that was too close to the road and he is satisfying the south side by doing the regrading of the ground and getting a permit for the driveway. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan about whether the remaining fences are non - conforming, Engineer McDermott stated that she believes the fences were not installed properly and may be in violation of the property maintenance ordinance. Councilmember Duggan encouraged Mr. Hanson to take the fencing out and come back with a request for a uniform fence. Mr. Hanson responded that he will remove the fence tomorrow. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would like to add that while there are still some issues, he complemented Mr. Hansen on all the work he has done in the past year. He stated that it looks much better than it has in the last 30 years. Mr. Hanson responded that he has only owned the property for the last year and a half. His father owned it before and passed away a year ago. He is here to do everything the best way that he can to be compliant. Ms. Nancy Schmidt, 788 Sibley Highway, directly north of Mr. Hanson, stated that her main concern has to do with about 500 cubic yards of fill that was brought into the property on the north side along the old driveway. That was not shown on the survey. That fill crosses over onto her property for a total distance of about 200 feet. Engineer McDermott responded that is one of the pen-nits conditions — that they provide a new grading plan addressing removal of the fill �„ Page No. 35 June 6, 2006 on the Schmidt's property and addressing the drainage issue on the south side. City staff will review the grading plan for the city's standard requirements. Ms. Schmidt stated that during the process of putting the fill on her property, Mr. Hanson cut down thousands of dollars worth of trees, filled the catch basin and buried her survey stakes and has also buried part of her chain link fence. Engineer McDermott suggested adding a condition to the resolution that the applicant restore any property comers that have been disturbed on the property line between Ms. Schmidt's property and Mr. Hanson's property. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 06-41, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR GRADING OF FILL AND DRIVEWAY RE-ALIGNMENT AND PAVING AT 796 S113LEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY," as amended with respect to setting August 31 as the deadline and adding the condition regarding restoration of the property comers. Councilmeinber Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 06-14, BURNS Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Ryan C. Bums for a conditional use permit for a six-foot fence at 906 Nina Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and Planning Commission recommendation, stating that Mr. Bums applied for conditional use permit a six foot fence. He lives on a comer lot. Both the planner and Planning Commission recommended approval. Councilmeraber Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 06- 42, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE AT 906 NINA COURT". Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 06-15, ULLMAN Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Thomas W. Ullman for a conditional use permit and variance for a detached garage at 651 First Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Page No. 36 June 6, 2006 Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Ullman currently has a detached garage and would like to replace it. A conditional use pen-nit is required for detached garages. Both the Planning Commission and city planner recommended approval with conditions. Mayor Huber stated that he wants to be sure that Council is treating this property and the neighbor's property the same (the neighbor was before Council some time ago) with respect to the setback from Laura. Mr. Tom Ullman stated that his father is the property owner. The only concern he has that was not addressed much is that this is an extremely small lot compared to the property across Laura. He was hoping that the city would allow a setback of 12 feet. He showed a picture of the lot. He stated there are serious elevations problems. The setback he is proposing matches the setback of the neighboring property, which has a Brookside address. The usable back yard is already very small. He showed a photo with stakes showing the 15 foot setback the Planning Commission recommended. Engineer McDermott informed Council that 660 Brookside Lane was granted a 12 foot setback variance for a garage addition. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber regarding future street reconstruction, Engineer McDennott stated that right now Laura is pushed over towards Mr. Ullman's side of the property. She could look at centering it a bit so that he has more driveway once the street is reconstructed. Mr. Ullman stated that there is only about 5 feet between an existing tree.and the back wall of the new garage. In a couple of years the tree will be very large and he. would like to keep it for shade. If he builds the garage where the Planning Commission recommended, the tree roots will probably affect the garage slab in the not to distant future. If he could go a bit closer to Laura he could avoid that problem. The house is set back 12 feet. Mayor Huber stated that the Planning Commission has recommended approval for the application that is before Council. He is uncomfortable with changing the application without having the chance to think about the implications. He would suggest tabling it to a future meeting if Mr. Ullman wants to change the request. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Planning Commission spent considerable time on this application and she is not inclined to consider any changes tonight. Page No. 37 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Vitelli agreed that he would not want to approve something this evening other than what the Planning Commission reconnnended. He was concerned that if the garage gets much closer there will not be any room to park a car in front of it. Mr. Ullman stated that his main concern is over the green ash tree but that he would rather have action taken this evening that revise the plan and come back. Councilmernber Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 06-43, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 651 FIRST AVENUE." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 06-16, WOHLERS Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Thomas R. Wohlers for a conditional use pen-nit for an accessory structure at 2218 Lexington Avenue South. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and Planning Commission discussion for Council. He stated that Mr. Wohlers had first come to staff to discuss building a two car attached garage. The code enforcement officer noticed that there was an accessory structure in the back yard and referred Mr. Wohlers to the planning staff. Mr. Wohlers infonned staff that he did not have a permit for the accessory structure in the back yard. According to ordinance, all homes are required to have a minimum two car garage. Staff decided to let him go forward with his two car attached garage addition and instruct him to either tear down the accessory structure or apply for a conditional use pen-nit for the accessory structure. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the garage style door be removed and replaced with a different style door; that the attached garage must match the existing house in color; and, that the accessory structure must not be utilized for parking of motor vehicles. Councilmember Vitelli asked what the Planning Commission and staff envision as the kind of door that would be acceptable after the garage door is removed. Assistant Hollister responded that was left up to the applicant. Page No. 38 June 6, 2006 Mr. Wohlers stated that there is a service door currently on the south side of the building. If he takes the garage door out there would just be the single service door remaining. He would put a wall where the garage door is. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 06-44, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 2218 LEXINGTON AVENUE SOUTH." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 06-17, BUELOW Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Ronald W. Buelow for a Critical Area Permit for fencing and a free-standing address number sign at 1666 Mayfield Heights Road,. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister informed Council that Mr. Buelow would like to install two additional sections of fence and a free-standing address number sign. Although the improvements are minor, since the property is within the critical area it was staff's determination that it requires a critical area permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Buelow suggested that Council empower staff or the Planning Commission to make decisions that obviously have no impact on the critical area and bypass coming before Council. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 06-45, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR FENCING AND A FREE-STANDING ADDRESS NUMBER SIGN AT 1666 MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ROAD." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 06-18, WEINTRAUT Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Steven J. Weintraut for a Wetlands Permit for vegetation removal and various improvements 869 Mendakota Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Weintraut lives on the lot immediately adjacent to the golf course. Mr. Weintraut is seeking a Page No. 39 June 6, 2006 wetlands pen-nit for removal of trees and buckthorn, the installation 1 of a firepit, walkway system and dock and construction of a retaining wall on his property. His intent is to build walkway that undulates all of the way down to the lake and then provide a dock that would jut over the late to a certain extent. There would be a fire pit as part of that as well as retaining walls and the removal of various vegetation, not only buckthorn, but also trees. The commission had a very long discussion on the issue and recommended approval with conditions. He then read the conditions contained in the Planning Commission recommendation. There was a lot of discussion about the dock. Contrary to common belief among city staff, conunissioners and Councilmembers, that the city does not allow docks on the lakes in the city. Staff could not find any written prohibition on docks. The city has not been favorable to docks when they have been proposed. Although staff did not find any written prohibition, there have been applications made for docks and council has denied them. Councihnember Schneeman noted that Council has required people to remove docks after they have been put in. Councihnember Duggan asked how much of the actual dock and landing area is in the water. Looking at the dock design, it does not appear to encroach on the water. Mr. Weintraut responded that the dock would extend into the water. He does not think the dock would damage the wetlands. It would go over the wetlands, over the cattails, and would not kill the cattails. He reviewed a DNR article about using a boardwalk to get to the open water as being permitted by the DDR and an acceptable use of the wetlands area. Councihmember Schneeman asked Mr. Weintraut if he has considered using a portable dock that does not have pilings down into the lake. Mr. Weintraut stated that he would be open to that. With a floating dock some of it would be aluminum and the top would be cedar. He has no problem with looking at floating docks but has not done that yet. Councihnember Duggan asked Mr. Weintraut would consider a wood dock. He feels aluminum is invasive to the natural beauty of the area whereas a wood dock would blend in better. Page No. 40 June 6, 2006 Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Mr. Weintraut could come back with some options for the dock. She suggested tabling the matter to the next agenda. Councilmember Vitelli asked whether Council wants docks all around Rogers Lake. He stated that he would prefer keeping the status quo and not allowing docks. Mr. Weintraut responded that there are already three private and one public docks on Rogers Lake. Councilmembers Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli stated that they would approve the application without the dock this evening. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would like to have staff do further investigation to see if a dock would be appropriate and allow him to come back to request it in the future. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 06 -46, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL AND VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS AT 869 MENDAKOTA COURT," without the dock. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TURNERS GYMNASTICS Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding a request from Mr. Sean Carey, from Laser Technologies, Inc. for an interpretation of B -1 zoning with respect to the Turners Gymnastics Building. Assistant Hollister informed Council that the Turners building is up for sale, and staff have been visited by several entities interested in putting the building to some sort of use for the past couple of months. The building unusual and has served a unique purpose for several years. Mr. Carey would like to use the building as the base for his laser copier and printer business. He met with the city planner and city staff to determine whether what he proposes fits within the zone. Planner Grittman felt comfortable that this could be considered to be the intent of the B -1 zone although it is not an explicit use in the ordinance. He reviewed the list of permitted uses in the zoning district. Laser Technologies is a hybrid office use and there is a showroom or tech area where potential customers can come and view the equipment. There is not direct retail sale from the site. Page No. 41 June 6, 2006 Responding to Councilmember Schneeman, Assistant Hollister stated that Council could say that what is proposed fits in the B -1 zone, that it does not fit in the zone, or that the ordinance would need to be amended to allow it and Mr. Carey could apply for the ordinance amendment. Mr. Carey pointed out that Ricoh is running a very similar business in the B -1 District across from City Hall in the former Gould building. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, he stated that his sales are business to business and it is not always installation. They are a field service organization that goes out and repairs printers and copiers and they also sell and service copiers and printers. They rarely sell a copier or printer without labor. They do the service work on site. Councilmerber Krebsbach stated that she would like it to be a conditional use. Councilmember Vitelli agreed, stating that Council could set the terms that it not be just retail sale, but also sale that includes installation and maintenance on a time a materials basis. Assistant Hollister stated that council could simply declaring it a permitted use and than allow him to go forward. In the meantime the city could go forward and amend the ordinance to make it a pennitted use and put language in the ordinance that defines the use more specifically and restrictively. If Council wants to declare it a conditional use, the ordinance would have to be amended and Mr. Carey would then have to apply for a conditional use permit. Councilmember Vitelli stated that in defining it as a permitted use, council should make sure that it is stipulated for the record that all sales include time and material, installation and labor. Than a year or two from now Council would not find that over the counter sales are occurrng. Attorney Diehm recommended that Council could snake the finding that it is a pennitted use because it is an office of general nature and because of those specific findings mentioned by Councilmember Vitelli. Councilmember Vitelli moved to find that it is a pennitted use because it is an office of general nature and because of the specific Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FIRE DEPARTMENT SALARY WORKSHOP JULY 4 MEETING Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 42 June 6, 2006 findings that all sales include time and material, installation and labor. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. It was the consensus to wait until the June 20 meeting to set a date for the fire department workshop. Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding the need to reschedule the July 4 meeting, which falls on the first Tuesday of July. After discussion, Councilmember Schneeman moved to cancel the July 4 meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli complimented Councilmember Duggan on the success of the 50th Anniversary Celebration, stating that he has received numerous positive comments that the celebration was tremendous and the fireworks were wonderful. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would like to review the salaries for the Fire Chief and Assistant Chief at the fire department workshop. Councilmember Vitelli expressed appreciation to Assistant Patrick Hollister for his ten years of service to the city. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the 50th Anniversary Celebration was a wonderful event for the community. She expressed appreciation to everyone involved in planning and working at the event, especially the Public Works staff. Mayor Huber also complimented Councilmember Duggan on the anniversary celebration, stating that he had many positive comments from residents and that many people have asked that it be done again next year. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she was not able to attend the anniversary celebration, as she and her family were in Seoul, Korea to meet their adopted daughters' families. She was extremely Page No. 43 June 6, 2006 impressed with the respect that Korean families have for their parents. Councilmernber Duggan stated that he is planning an appreciation event for 50'h Anniversary Celebration donors and volunteers for 6:00 p.m. on June 20. He expressed appreciation to all of the residents who came out to celebrate the anniversary, the sponsors and donors, the anniversary committee, the city administration staff, the fire department, police department and public works department, and an the to Councilmernber ScImeeman, and to Ralph & Kathi Dumond and their family. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmernber Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 20. Councilmernber Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 p.m. Kafhleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: �Wyor