Loading...
2005-11-15 City Council MinutesPage No. 1 November 15, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 15, 2005 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 Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting, further revised to delete item 8b., Acacia property concept plan, from the agenda and to add item 8e, appointment of a police secretary. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes:4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on October 18, 2005. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on November 5, 2005. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6d, Metropolitan Environment Partnership Grant, 6f, firefighter appointments, and 6j, H& R Block signage, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the approved minutes from the October 12, 2005 Airports Relations Commission Meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the October 2005 Treasurers Report. Page No. 2 November 15, 2005 c. Acknowledgement of a memo regarding possible Council/Parks Commission Workshop topics. d. Acceptance of the resignation of Firefighter Mark Kaufmann, effective November 1. e. Approval to close City Hall on the Friday after Thanksgiving, November 25, 2005. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -111, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING." g. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -112, "A RESOLTTION SEEKING FUNDING FROM DAKOTA COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF THE COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM." h. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -113, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SIGNAGE FOR VERA SALON & SPA AT THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." i. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -114, "RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT 1 FOR INDUSTIAL PARK STREET REHABILITATION." j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated November 15, 2005. k. Approval of the list of claims dated November 15, 2005, and totaling $395,498.50. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ENVIRONMENT PARTNERSHIP Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDermott regarding GRANT acceptance of a MetroEnvironment Partnership grant for rainwater gardens and requesting authorization for preparation of planning, design and grant reporting assistance. Councilmember Schneeman stated that it was a real coup for the city to get the grant. Rain gardens are a very popular way to help with storm water management. City Engineering has plans for rainwater gardens at City Hall that residents could think about using when they are doing their landscaping. Councilmember Schneeman moved to accept the MetroEnvironment Partnership Grant and authorization for BRAA to assist City staff Page No. 3 November 15, 2005 with planning, design and grant reporting for an amount not to exceed $7,700. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 H &R BLOCK Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding a minor amendment to the planned unit development for Town Center for signage for H &R Block. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he was taken by surprise at H &R Block, a business office, being in what he expected to be an upper end retail area. He would like to table this to allow more time to meet with the developer to find out where the retail is headed, with H &R Block moving into what appears to be a first floor location. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that while H &R Block is not retail, it is a very reputable organization and will bring people to the center who will then go to the retail shops. Councilmember Schneeiman asked if H &R Block is open year -round or only during the tax season. Mr. Ross Feffercorn responded that they are primarily open during the tax season. H &R Block is considered a retail tenant in the world of retail leasing and they will only go into retail. He stated that he has been working with them for some time and they will only enter into a retail lease. He stated that he meets with staff members and members of Council on the third Wednesday of the month and H &R Block was on the list of potential retail tenants since July. He stated that more than half the population uses firms like H &R Block and he feels they will bring people to the center who would not otherwise be there. H &R Block has over 2,500 retail locations on street level throughout the country. Accountants and CPA firms who would go into the second floor of the building do not feel any competition with H &R Block and the lease does not prohibit another tax preparation firm. He stated that they are very compatible with tenants like Nextel and Sprint in his other retail locations. He feels they are a strong tenant for the center. H &R Block will be located between Vera's Salon and Fantastic Sams. It will be in the middle of the development. Councilmember Schneeman stated that it bothers her that they are not open year- round. Page No. 4 November 15, 2005 Mr. Feffercom responded that they would typically be open from December through June — the summer months are slow as is fall. What he likes about H &R Block is that they are not high traffic demand in the summer months because he expects very high traffic demand at Cold Stone Creamery and Caribou Coffee during the summer months. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Feffercorn stated that H &R Block will definitely not go up to the second floor as they consider themselves first floor retail. Councilmember Vitelli moved to table discussion to allow him more time to talk to Mr. Feffercorn about tenant strategy in general. Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Krebsbach FIREFIGHTER Council acknowledged a memo from Fire Chief Maczko regarding APPOINTMENTS appointment of four new probationary firefighters. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Chief Maczko informed Council that there are four vacancies on the department created by the retirements of Aaron Coates, Tim Oster, Ed Adrian and Mark Kaufmann. The fire department has been going through the selection and interview process for about four months. The four candidates were selected from a pool of nineteen candidates who were tested for physical agility. He introduced the candidates, Vince Belmares, Hayley Heidelberg and John Mendez and their families to Council. Candidate Dale Stein was not able to attend the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to appoint Vince Belmares, Hayley Heidelberg, Dale Stein and John Mendez to one year probationary status as firefighters. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli complimented Chief Maczko and the fire department, stating that it is a volunteer department and it is very encouraging to see that the department is able to recruit such talented individuals. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mrs. Betty Schuster, 1900 Wachtler Avenue, stated that the City Attorney has stated that when a subdivision is brought before Council, if the subdivision meets all of the ordinance requirements it cannot be denied. She stated that she hopes that Council will be fair Page No. 5 November 15, 2005 and consistent with respect to her subdivision application (Case No. 05 -42). Attorney Schleck responded that he does not get to snake any decisions. He agreed that he had made the statement in a document to Council, but he is not empowered to make any decisions on whether a subdivision gets approved or not. Mrs. Schuster stated that there was a memo that stated that the Council wanted to wait until the infill workshop before snaking a decision on her subdivision. Now the Council wants to put a moratorium on subdivisions for six to twelve months to enact new subdivision laws. She stated that her subdivision should have been decided based on what is on the books now and the infill report should have been done over a year ago. HURT TRAIL, Council acknowledged a memo from Operations & Projects Manager Guy Kullander regarding a Dakota County alternate location for the North Urban Regional Trail. Mr. Kullander introduced Ms. Lynn Moratzka, from Dakota County. Ms. Moratzka stated that she and Ms. Mary Jackson, from Dakota } County, and Ms. Nancy Daubenberger, from MnDOT are present to discuss the NURT routing proposal and provide an update on what has been happening since September 6. She stated that on September 6, Council requested that the county pay to shift the road alignment frontage road near 689 Highway 110 and the cost estimate was about $50,000. She believes it would be between $50,000 and $100,000. She took the city's resolution to the physical development committee on September 27. The board is very sympathetic to all of the city's concerns and have many concerns of their own. They directed the county staff to seek cost sharing agreements to move the road or other alternatives with the city and MnDOT. On October 5, county staff had conversations with MnDOT and they stated they could not cost share moving the frontage road but that they had reevaluated an earlier alternative which had been discarded and they asked that the trail be placed on the north side of the frontage road along most of the residences with a mid -block trail crossing to the south side just east of 689, which would allow no shifting of the road to the south. In mid and late October, the county staff met on site with city and state staff to evaluate the sight lines and safety and the consensus that a mid block crossing would be safer than running the trail between the frontage road and the highway. She reviewed the conceptual drawings and showed where the crossing would occur on the road. This has been done on the Big Rivers Regional Trail Page No. 6 November 15, 2005 crossing old Sibley Memorial Highway. When they looked at this alternative, they looked at the traffic counts on the frontage road as compares to the Big Rivers Regional Trail crossing. She reviewed pictometry of the Big Rivers Regional Trail crossing. Ms. Jackson stated that 689 Highway 110 is the closest house to the proposed trail. The proposed cross over is about midway between that address and the driveway to the east. Ms. Moratzka asked for Council's input on the options and stated that she can go back to the physical development committee at their next meeting with Council's comments. The four options are: build the trail in the existing roadway with county funding without shifting the road, hove the frontage road in front of 689 at city and county cost sharing, design the trail with the mid block crossing as supported by MnDOT, or not build the trail and relinquish the federal funding to MnDOT for reallocation to other projects. The county staff recommendation is to go with the design with the mid block crossing. Mayor Huber stated that this seems to be a solution that, while not perfect, he could support. As long as the county has done some site visits and made comparisons with other mid block crossings and is comfortable with the trail safety, he can support it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that this is different from Highway 13 because it is a frontage road going to the high school so she did not know that people would expect people to cross in the middle of that. Ms. Moratzka responded that there is a crossing directly across Highway 13 that has higher traffic counts. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if MnDOT feels it is a safe crossing. Ms. Daubenberger stated that she was on the site visit with Ms. Jackson several weeks ago and their concern about a mid block crossing was whether there would be proper sight distance for vehicles traveling on the road and for pedestrians to see them in time as they come around the curve and corners. While she and Ms. Jackson were on site, they timed how long it would take vehicles from the second they saw them until they passed, and they decided that bikes and pedestrians could easily cross there given when they Page No. 7 November 15, 2005 would see vehicles coming. That is why the mid block crossing was recommended to the county. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the crossing would be in the area where there is no parking. Engineer McDermott responded that it is not posted for no parking. Ms. Daubenberger stated that as a bicyclist herself, she would suggest that people take extra caution if there are vehicles parked there. She did not recall seeing many parked cars, if any, when she was on site. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Ms. Daubenberger is speaking for MnDOT in telling Council that the proposal Council sees is blessed by MnDOT as a safe method for crossing the street at that location for this pathway. Ms. Daubenberger responded that this it is as safe as a crossing can be and about as safe as putting the crossing at the stopped condition at the end of the frontage road where it meets Oak Street. While there are never any guarantees, MnDOT believes it is rather safe to cross there. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Ms. Daubenberger is in a position at MnDOT where she frequently checks the safety of crossing and turns. Ms. Daubenberger stated that she gets involved in those decisions but often defers to the state's traffic experts. In this case, the expert was Mr. Lars Impala and he was on site visit with them. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she is very pleased with the proposal. The trail will be very important. She has driven the frontage road several times since some of the stores have opened at Town Center and the last time there were eight cars backed up at the stop sign. It is important to have a safe place for people to walk and to stroll with their children. Councilmember Schneeman moved to approve the trail alignment with the mid block crossing as proposed by Dakota County staff. Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays:0 Page No. 8 November 15, 2005 Ms. Moratzka informed Council that the county staff has not worked with the residents yet, but after staff meets with the county board next week they will begin to meet with the residents. They needed to resolve all of the alignment issues before meeting with the property owners. SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding a proposed subdivision moratorium. Council also acknowledged a proposed ordinance prepared by the City Attorney to implement a 12 month moratorium. Administrator Danielson stated that Council and staff recently met in a workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss infill development, which is the resubdivision of larger lots that are capable of being subdivided. The city is nearly developed and that is one of the few types of development that can occur. The planner gave Council several options to think about at the workshop. Council and the conunission discussed all of the options and Council's primary concern was how this affects the entire city. They directed that planner to look at all of the lots that could be developed and come back to Council and again discuss the topic.. With that work still pending, Council asked Administrator Danielson to develop a moratorium on all subdivision until that work is done. What is before Council tonight would establish a moratorium for 12 months, which is the longest time a moratorium can last by law. The city can reduce the time moratorium lasts, and Council wants to get this done as expeditiously as possible. The planner has been given that direction and is working to get it done much quicker, but it much easier to fall back from the 12 months than it is to establish it for three months and then extend it. Councihnember Krebsbach stated that she feels infill is one of the most important issues before the city and has been for the past four to six years. She is in support of the moratorium, and one of the reasons is that it opens the discussion to the entire community rather than just a case by case basis. It gives everyone a chance to discuss infill and what is the appropriate way to proceed for the next ten to twelve years. Mayor Huber supports the moratorium because the planner is still gathering information. He hopes something can be done by March or April rather than twelve months. While he is in support of a moratorium while the information is gathered, he is not convinced that he supports of any of the options that were presented by the planner, but this is still in the information gathering process. When Page No. 9 November 15, 2005 the planner presents that information, there will likely be more questions. He can envision there being several iterations of this. He is fine with putting the moratorium in place, but as city officials, Council is responsible for moving this along as expeditiously as possible. Attorney Schleck clarified that the moratorium only applies to residential zones R -1, R -1A and R -1B. Ms. Joan Olin, here in regard to 1140 Orchard Place, stated that the infill study indicated that the fully developed scenario results in three general types of development proposals in the community. The first is new development in the focus areas. Assistant Hollister informed her that focus areas are mainly the golf courses. The second type is redevelopment in areas that were underdeveloped and are now aging. She does not think that relates to her property because her neighborhood is not underdeveloped. Theirs is the last and probably only lot. The third option is infill development in areas where over sized parcels are seen as opportunities for re- subdivision. She stated that she does not know if that applies to her property either because they have owned it since 1972. They are not developers who have come in like the owners of Par 3 and buy it to change it to residential. In reviewing the study, she noted four concerns of the city. One is conversion of open space to residential. Their property is zoned residential. Another concern is conformity with the neighborhood. They approached Council in 1995 when the Orchard Hill plat was developed. They gave a development proposal to the city, trying to anticipate access off of Lexington. They were not ready to develop the property at that time. They do not see development of their property as being out of conformance with the neighborhood. Another concern is inadequate street frontage or flag lots. Their lot already has a street, called Carly Lane. Mallard Lane comes off of the back. Another concern was over variances. She does not see any need for variances on her property. She noted that the last page of the study says that current applications may be subject to a moratorium or Council may choose to exempt certain subdivision requests based on timing or other factors. Because they have such a large lot, she asked that Council exempt them from the moratorium at this time because the four concerns that precipitated the moratorium really do not apply to their property. To take such a large lot out of their hands at this time seems unfair. Attorney Schleck suggested that Ms. Olin submit a request for an exemption from the moratorium in writing. He stated that it would Page No. 10 November 15, 2005 be best to have exemption requests in writing in order to keep track of them. Mayor Huber stated that he wants to make sure all of the information is gathered so he does not want to go through it so quickly that something is left out, but he wants to get through this as expeditiously as possible. He hopes this is wrapped up by March or April. He stated that if the Olins came in with an application, Council could extend it out for 120 days anyway, which would take it out to mid - March. He did not think the city would be holding the Olins up for any appreciable length of time beyond that. He thinks Council must move along on this and he does not see any reason the moratorium will take a year. When the planner comes back with his information will likely result in more questions for him and public input as well. That process will take some time, but he did not think it would take much longer than March or April. Mr. David Olin stated that they would like to ask for an exemption and will submit a formal request to the Council. Ms. Olin stated that she thinks Mendota Heights has done a wonderful job in the development of the city and does not think a lot of changes are necessary. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that the moratorium gives the Council a chance for a fully informed discussion and a larger engagement with the residents on the next stage of residential development versus one lot at a time. Ms. Olin stated that when they came before Council ten years ago they asked for access off of Lexington and were told unless they had a plan before Council, it would not be considered. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that would be something Councikl would talk about (access to the Olin property). There are a lot of important issues in every neighborhood because there are large parcels left. One of the good things about this is that residents will be very aware of the really desirable large parcels that are left in the city. Mrs. Betty Schuster asked how the moratorium will affect their application, because they submitted their subdivision application before the infill report. She did not think they should be subject to the moratorium. With the 80% ground rule, that will never be worthwhile because people will have to leave their land the way it is. Page No. 11 November 15, 2005 Council has to compare apples to apples. Some of the property in the city and in their area is about the same size as her property but many of them drop off and the living area is very small. Some of the lots on Hilltop have only 16,000 square feet of usable area. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mrs. Schuster's neighborhood is very important for the study inside the moratorium. Mrs. Schuster responded that this subject has been on -going for 30 years and she does not know why. Her property has a bigger frontage that the lot across the street and it is all buildable and there are no drop offs. She asked how the moratorium will affect her lot. Attorney Schleck responded that Minnesota law states that if a moratorium is posed under MS 462.355, that applications that have not been preliminarily approved by the City Council are subject to the moratorium. Mr. Scott Miller, 1021 Wagon Wheel, stated that he would be directly affected by the moratorium. He does not have any immediate plans to subdivide but cautioned Council not to impose a moratorium. He felt there are downsides to it that have not been examined. He stated that he attended the workshop and the infill report has quite a bit of ambiguity and ideas that have not been tested and he feels the report has some major flaws. If Council chooses to enact a moratorium he hopes it becomes visionary rather than reactionary and that Council examines creative alternatives and looks at the causes and affects. There will be people who will be affected by the moratorium who are not aware of this. He stated that he believes what is not broken should not be fixed. The city has guided the city well over the past 50 years and the city has developed very nicely and there has usually been a compromise when a subdivision has come in because of the way the neighbors come in and everyone works together on a solution. Maybe there needs to be workshops or a task force to help guide development for the next 50 years rather than a moratorium. The report did not take into account what will happen when gas goes to $5 per gallon and people move in from outer areas. Reactionary will be restrictive and short sighted. This will send out mixed signals. On one hand the city is promoting concentrated development and in other areas Council will be saying to some of the residents that they have to wait while Council figures out what it wants to do. He felt if Council wants to be fair there should be a moratorium on all development, not just residential. Page No. 12 November 15, 2005 For clarification, Attorney Schleck stated that the purpose of a moratorium is to allow a municipal governmental body time to study an issue that affects the community as a whole. It prevents a governmental body from taking the same issue on a case by case by case basis. It adds consistency and predictability to the process for the residents. The moratorium being discussed tonight is nothing more than a time out for the city to study what is going on with respect to infill and infill development. The result of the moratorium may either be some changes to the subdivision ordinance or there may be no changes at all. It is just a time out, not a restriction on future subdivision. The purpose of a moratorium is to allow time for workshops and task forces to guide the city without being under the restrictions of the 60 day rule and some of the other requirements imposed on cities for development projects. A moratorium is not a complete cancellation of the right of a parry to subdivide a piece of property. It is simply a time out for the city to study it in more detail. Mayor Huber stated that it is also an opportunity for Council to think about the issues and come to a common thinking so that Council handles future applications consistently. EIS ORDINANCE Councilmember Schneeman agreed about the comment from Mr. Miller about being visionary description. That is the way she looks this. She wants to have a handle on where Council is going and what it is doing and so no one is given preference over someone else. This is a learning situation for Council. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he agrees with Councilmember Krebsbach's comments, in particular the concept of drawing input from the city and making sure people are aware Council is doing this and that Council wants to listen. He stated that he would not support any exception to the moratorium unless the owner comes forward with a development plan. Mr. Miller stated he is licensed realtor in Minnesota and Wisconsin and a licensed building official in Minnesota. He stated that the moratorium does not take into account existing lots. The multiple listing service only lists one lot in Mendota Heights for sale and that lot is $274,900. If there is a moratorium, it will create a bonanza for the next year for the people who are sitting on lots they have subdivided in the past. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the lot Mr. Miller referred to may be the only lot for sale right now but there are other lots that would be available to sell if someone wanted to sell them. People Page No. 13 November 15, 2005 are not precluded from selling lots that have already been subdivided. She stated that she would not be vote for any exceptions to the moratorium. She believes that people would want Council to take a comprehensive look at this. Mr. Tim Minea, 772 Ridge Place, stated that the Schuster must be wishing they made their application in May when there were different procedures in order in terms of approving subdivisions. He felt that the moratorium is directed at the Schuster application. It looks like the Council has an agenda. Mayor Huber responded that Council has had four applications in that neighborhood and this is something that has been building for a while. Mr. Minea stated that he came to the workshop and read the infill study and there was no bombshell and nothing that really said what the rationale is for a moratorium or a change in the ordinance. What he learned is that different types of property are developed differently and if the subdivision ordinance is changed people will have to meet the new requirements. He did not see anything in it that serves as rationale for placing the Schuster request under the moratorium. He felt their application should be considered and that there is nothing that prevents Council consideration of it. He thinks there is a danger that Council is giving applications unequal treatment. The Council approved a subdivision on Willow Lane in May. The Planning Commission had recommended denial and the neighborhood opposition and yet Council reluctantly approved it. He sees nothing different with the Schuster request. There are neighbors who approve of it and neighbors who oppose it and the Planning Commission recommended approval. He feels the Schusters are being denied their due process and there is a danger that the two cases are not being treated equally. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that is exactly Council needs a moratorium to study. Mayor Huber stated that in that neighborhood there was an application that was approved and another that was denied and another that went through three or four iterations and was finally approved. There was a concern on whether or not Council was aware of all the issues in infill development. The feeling was that Council needs more education and information to understand what all the issues are, what Council can and cannot do and what the pitfalls are of doing something and of doing nothing. The Page No. 14 November 15, 2005 moratorium treats everyone the salve. He stated that he would not favor granting anyone an exemption. It is his intention to go through this rather quickly. Mr. Minea responded that the infill study was requested in May and it could have been done sooner. The Schuster application came in October. He thinks a moratorium may have some benefit and justifiable but not applying it to the Schusters. Mayor Huber stated that a workshop on the infill study had been scheduled for September but a number of people announced that they could not make it, so it had to be rescheduled. The study was ready several weeks before the rescheduled workshop. Mr. Minea thought that one of the concerns expressed in May was that Council needed to know how many residential properties are capable of being subdivided in the future and question was asked at the infill workshop but there is still no answer. Mayor Huber responded that the question was not how many lots are subdividable but what the impact of these changes would be on lots that are subdividable. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Ordinance No. , "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 301 a/k/a TITLE 11 OF THE CITY CODE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA," to approve a one year moratorium to give Council time to study infill in Mendota Heights as reported by the city planner and other issues that arise at that time. Councihnember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 EAW /EIS ORDINANCE Council acknowledged a memo and proposed ordinance from Administrator Danielson regarding requiring developers to pre -pay of city costs associated with an EAW. Attorney Schleck reviewed the recommendation, stating that state statute provides that in the case of an environmental impact statement that is required, the project proposer is responsible to fund the preparation of the EIS. They are actually required to pre -fund the EIS before it is taken on by the Responsible Government Unit. There is a loophole in the law that does not require them to pay the costs associated with an EAW. The EAW can be required to be paid for by the project proposer if there is a local ordinance requiring Page No. 15 November 15, 2005 payment of the costs. The proposed ordinance provides that if a project proposer comes in for a project for which an EAW is required, that the proposer will be required to pay the city costs associated with preparing it. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Ordinance No. , "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 POLICE SECRETARY Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Aschenbrener regarding the appointment of a new police secretary. Chief Aschenbrener reviewed his memo and recommended the appointment of a half-time secretary for the police department subject to passing results from a drug screen and pre-employment physical. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to appoint the candidate recommended by Chief Aschenbrener subject to passing results from a drug screen and pre-employment physical. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach recommended that Council hold a workshop on rental housing and on-street parking. Mayor Huber felt that the discussion should be held at a regular Council meeting because there are many people who have questions about rental property in their neighborhoods. Holding the discussion at a regular meeting would allow for a broader discussion. After discussion, it was the consensus to schedule discussion on rental housing and on-street parking for the January 17 Council meeting. Councilmember Vitelli encouraged residents to contact any Councilmember or staff to bring up issues and concerns to cover at the meeting. Page No. 16 November 15, 2005 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for discussion on police contract negotiations. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:58 p.m. Katfileen M. Swanson City Clerk