Loading...
2005-09-20 City Council MinutesPage No. 1 September 20, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 20, 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, Councilmernbers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 19, 2005 as amended. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the special meeting held on September 6, 2005. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6e, 2005 Auditor engagement, 6f, street striping, 6g, Petrangelo planning fee, and 6i, police secretary recruitment, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Approved Minutes from the August 10, 2005 Airport Relations Commission Meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the Treasurers Report for August 2005. Page No. 2 September 20, 2005 c. Acknowledgement of the Fire Department monthly report for August 2005. d. Acknowledgement of a request from the Somerset Heights PTA for release of the city's $15,000 in funding support for the Somerset School Playground Reconstruction. e. Approval of a Minor Amendment to a Planned Unit Development for Temporary Signage and Authorization for Code Enforcement Officer to issue permit for the Dorn Properties for Town Center. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -79, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT" for Dakota County Traffic Safety Grant Program. g. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -80, "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE AT THE IRS MILEAGE RATE." h. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -81, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NINE -FOOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT AT 1054 OVERLOOK ROAD." i. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -82, "RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED, ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL, AND ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR THE 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 20205 -01) ." j. Approval of the list of Contractor Lists dated September 20, 2005. k. Approval of the list of claims dated September 20, 2005, and totaling $341,430.72. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 2005 AUDIT Council acknowledged a memo from Finance Officer Schabacker regarding authorization for the Mayor to sign an engagement letter with HLB Tautges Redpath for the 2005 audit. Councilmember Schneeman stated that this will be the third year that HLB Tautges Redpath will have done the audit and she would like to do an RFP for audit services every four years. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize Mayor Huber to execute an engagement letter with HLB Tautges Redpath for the 2005 audit. Page No. 3 September 20, 2005 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 STREET STRIPING Council acknowledged a memo from Operations & Projects Coordinator Kullander regarding 2005 street striping quotes. Councilmember Krebsbach asked for clarification on new information in the add -on agenda and what the implications of that information are. Mayor Huber responded that Operations & Projects Coordinator Kullander received a quote from Century Fence since the original memo was prepared. The quote is about one -third lower than the original recormnendation. Councilmember Duggan stated that the other quote was for $13,150. The quote from Century Fence is $10,500 and approximately $2,200 for work that was not included in the original project. The Century Fence quote is less than the other quote and more streets will be done. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize issuance of a purchase order to Century Fence Company to apply epoxy paint striping and markings to city streets. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PETRANGELO FEE Council acknowledged a letter from Ms. Lorilee Petrangelo ADJUSTMENT REQUEST requesting the city to refund the conditional use permit fee she paid for a conditional use permit for an 8 foot by 8 foot shed at 1040 Douglas Road. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from Administrator Danielson. Mayor Huber stated that this is a pretty small project but there are outside costs that the city incurs no matter what the size of the project is. This is a fairly minimal project and he suggested that Council consider a fee of $175. Ms. Petrangelo stated that she was very surprised with the process over a 7.5 by 7.5 foot shed. She spoke to Councilmember Schneeinan, who referred her to the city administrator because she thought this case made some common sense judgment. She stated that she would never have thought there would be a $350 fee from Page No. 4 September 20, 2005 the city for a small shed just to provide a little storage. She stated that she understands that the process would be necessary if she were a developer doing a large project or someone wanting to start a cafe, but she and her husband feel they are being penalized for a $400 project. She stated that it is her civil duty to inform Council to make sure that everyone knew she sought out the administrator's help and he is familiar with what the property looks like. She felt that a $400 project begs a change in the ordinance. She stated that none of her neighbors object to the shed and no one had any questions or complaints. It is difficult for grass roots families to be penalized with such a heavy burden. She stated that she went through the process and now got a letter that they also owe for a building permit. They would be happy to pay for the building permit but the $350 fee is a heavy burden. Mayor Huber responded that the city has a standard that when an accessory structure needs a conditional use permit process and no matter where the line is drawn for size, there would always be someone right over that. The city planner reviews all of these applications and bills the city for his time. Whether a shed exceeds the size threshold minutely or by quite a bit, the city still incurs costs. This required a conditional use permit and the city has bills to pay because of it. Because it is minimally over the threshold, he is suggesting that the fee be reduced to $175. The planner is retained for reviewing projects as a consultant and there is also staff time involved. The fee just recognizes that when people have a project that requires staff review they must participate in the costs. The other alternative is that city could say it will not have any fees but then taxes would have to be increased to everyone whether or not they ever have any planner or staff review. The fee is to recoup costs the city has to pay out of pocket and recover there from the people who use the services. Ms. Petrangelo responded that the ordinance is black and white there are situations that do not mandate the surveillance. She stated that she would not be here tonight if the city inspector had been at the property next door and came onto her property without any notice or awareness from her and made measurements. The whole process was not civil and it is standard operating procedure. Mayor Huber stated that he appreciates Ms. Petrangelo's point of view but Council must decide if it wants to reduce the fee. Mayor Huber moved to reduce the Petrangelo conditional use permit fee to $175. Page No. 5 September 20, 2005 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he will not vote in favor of the motion. The reason is that the city has a law on the books that says a conditional use permit is required for this. If Council approves the fee reduction it is opening the city to negotiations on the next conditional use permit and the next and on and on. The sheds combined on this property exceed the point at which a conditional use permit is required by 42 square feet. The next one could be 75 square feet. If Council thinks the size requirement is too low, they should change the ordinance. Councilmember Duggan stated that there was a case before Council where someone replaced a fence and a conditional use permit was need and someone said a fee is a fee. One cannot make a law for every situation. If an inspector goes by a property and sees that something is going on it is his job to let Council. Ms. Petrangelo stated that she would like the city to uphold her rights as a property owner. It cripples a young family trying to keep up his property to be charged a $350 fine. } Councilmember Vitelli responded that it is not a fine. The Petrangelos had a choice to build a shed 40 square feet smaller and avoid the $350 fee. Ms. Petrangelo stated that when she was a child, she could get off the school bus and she could run anywhere she wanted in the city and it was safe. In today's world, a young family needs to provide a safe place for their children to play. When they built their playhouse they did not know the total square footage that is allowed. She thinks something should be done to amend the ordinance to take into consideration the practical experience of a home owner. They should not be put in the double bind of providing a playhouse and not being able to build a seven foot shed without the city charging an extravagant amount of money for their permit. Councilmember Vitelli stated that there are a multitude of fees that the city charges at certain points and Council does not have the time for every applicant to come in and negotiate a different fee. That would be like someone going in to the state and saying the fee they are charging for his SW is unreasonable and he would like the state to take into consideration that he has a young family and does not have enough to pay for it and he would like to pay $38 less. Page No. 6 September 20, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that Council recently looked at all of the city parks. The city has wonderful parks with lots of play structures in them and available to everyone and he is not aware there have ever been any incidents involving children. He stated that the fees in this city are much lower than most other cities. In this case, he agrees to reducing the fee because it is a de minimis situation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the hearing notice mailing was another cost to the city. There was an application for a shed and the neighbors had the right to be notified of the application. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 3 Huber, Duggan, Schneeman Nays: 2 Krebsbach, Vitelli COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Huber informed the audience that this past week Otto Gutzmer, a Council member in the early 1970's, passed away. Mr. Gutzmer was a great friend to everyone in the community and was very well respected. He was an asset to the community. Mayor Huber expressed Council's condolences to Mr. Gutzmer's family. POLICE PERSONNEL Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Aschenbrener regarding restructuring of the police clerical positions. Chief Aschenbrener stated that since police secretary Bekky Trost resigned, Cathy Ransom has filled that role as well as her own job and has been doing a great job. He has reviewed what has been going on since the current job descriptions were prepared and has looked both internally and externally at police support positions. It seems to be best to hire two half time police secretaries rather than one full time person to give the department more flexibility. He recommended that Mrs. Ransom be promoted to Police Secretary, Grade 12, Step D of the pay matrix, and that she be moved to Step E after six months. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the police secretary position description, authorize the promotion of Cathy Ransom to Police Secretary, and authorize staff to proceed with recruiting and hiring two half -time police secretaries. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SOMERSET ASSESSMENT Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing Page No. 7 September 20, 2005 HEARING on proposed assessments for the Somerset neighborhood and Somerset Court street reconstruction project. Council acknowledged the proposed assessment roll and an associated memo from Engineer McDermott. Engineer McDermott stated that the Somerset Court project was completed last year and involved seven benefiting properties. The proposed assessments are $2,000 per lot. The Somerset neighborhood project is substantially complete. The contractor will complete the final lift of pavement on the streets where the watermain was replaced in 2006. The proposed assessment for the Somerset neighborhood improvements is $3,900 per lot. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that a resident raised an issue this summer about people cutting through from Dodd to Butler, especially on Sunday mornings. She also felt that 30 miles per hour is pretty fast for the Somerset neighborhood streets. Engineer McDermott responded that staff did some traffic counts last year and it did show there was more traffic during church times. Staff also did a speed study. Emerson had some speeders but the others did not. Councilmember Sebneeman stated that Chief Aschenbrener has stated in the past that the children present signs are not effective. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he thinks the assessment numbers are good and that he has received many good comments on the project. He complimented the city's engineering and public works staff. Councilmember Duggan stated that when this project was initiated in 2004 the project assessments numbers were the same and he thinks that is commendable. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. Ms. Colleen Bergstrom, 13 Mears, asked who is being assessed $2,000. Engineer McDermott responded that is the proposed assessment for Somerset Court property owners. The street reconstruction on Somerset Court was not as extensive as the Somerset neighborhood because they already had curb and gutter. Page No. 8 September 20, 2005 Mr. Heinz Otte, 22 Somerset Road, asked whether the interest rate has been deten-nined. Engineer McDennott responded that if Council adopts the assessment roll this evening, the residents will have 30 days to pay their assessment in part or full. If they do not pay the assessment off, the Somerset neighborhood assessments will be certified to the county for collection over 19 years at 6% interest. The Somerset Court assessments will be certified for collection over 10 years. Mr. Mike Giefer, 35 Somerset Road, stated that at the original hearing there had been some discussion about putting in speed bumps to handle traffic. Mayor Huber responded that there were questions from the residents because there was concert about traffic cutting through between Dodd and Delaware. There were several different options discussed but none of them were done. Council has always passed on speed bumps, and he does not think speed bumps are the way to go. They create problems with snow plowing and people are not used to them so they can cause damage. Council decided not to depart from its past practice. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 05- 84, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SOMERSET NEIGHBORHOOD AND SOMERSET COURT STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND SURROUNDING AREA IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO.2004, PROJECT NO. I AND PROJECT NO. 3)." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 XCEL UPDATE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding a presentation by Xcel Energy staff to update Council on the conversion from coal to natural gas and High Bridge power plant upgrades as they affect Mendota Heights. Ms. Colette Jurek, Ms. Sylvia Rossi, and Mr. Conrad Miller were present on behalf of Xcel. Page No. 9 September 20, 2005 Mayor Huber stated that although there had been talk about having a discussion on the franchise on the agenda but that is not going to be discussed this evening. Ms. Jurek, Xcel Community Relations Manager, stated that the Xcel representatives are present at the invitation of the city staff to present an informal update on the project, specifically as it relates to the high bridge plant. Ms. Rossi stated that through the Metropolitan Emissions Reduction Project (MERP), Xcel will convert the High Bridge power plant from coal to gas. The new plant requires construction of a new 20 inch pipeline from the Mendota Station on Highway 13 to the High Bridge Plant. A new pipeline will be constructed to the plant. The majority of the pipeline will follow existing right-of-way. Xcel will also be upgrading a 20 inch pipeline from Eagan to the Mendota Station. Some pipeline along the north side of 1-494 between Pilot Knob and T.H. 55 has also been identified for replacement. Work will be done within the existing corridor and easements. Councilmember Krebsbach stated at the last presentation she asked if the pipe was going to be enlarged and Xcel said it would not, that the existing pipe was adequate. Ms. Rossi responded that the two areas where they have targeted replacement are areas that have already been relocated due to projects and Xcel wants to replace the relocated areas so it is the same type as the original design pipe. The pipe in those areas will be 26 inches. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Ms. Rossi stated that the gas comes in to the station at a certain pressure and goes out at a reduced pressure for distribution. Mr. Miller stated that Xcel receives its gas for the metro area from the Oklahoma/Texas area. Xcel receives the gas from Northern Natural Gas at 350 pounds of pressure at Cedar Avenue and Highway 13. It is distributed through the 26 inch pipeline to the Mendota Station where it is reduced for distribution. Xcel is just bringing the line back to its original condition in areas where it had been relocated. The bulk of the system is made of X48 grade steel. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like the residents to know the quality of the pipe and its condition. She also wanted it Page No. 10 September 20, 2005 known that at the last discussion, Xcel indicated it would not be replacing pipe but is now going to replace some pipe. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Miller stated that Xcel and all gas utilities are regulated by federal requirements that are enforced by the Office of Pipeline Safety. He explained what Xcel to monitor its system and lines for safety. Also responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, he stated that the increase going through the pipeline will be about a 70% increase. Councilmember Duggan asked if Xcel has a back up for its plants should there be a failure at one of the plants and whether there are plans for service delivery to areas if there is a major catastrophe of some sort. The concern is that service not be broken, particularly in the cold weather. Mr. Miller responded that the High Bridge plant has redundancy, so the loss of a single plant will not cause outages and blackouts. On the gas side, Xcel receives gas from Northern Natural at a number of delivery points and sources. Ms. Rossi reviewed the electric transmission line upgrade. The conductor will be replaced and the steel lattice towers will be replaced with H -frame structures. Existing right -of -way will be utilized and Xcel will work with landowners to restore any excavated areas to their original condition. Councilmember Duggan stated that he believes Xcel may have been approached by Mendakota Country Club about increasing the height of the support line in the middle of their property.. Ms. Rossi stated that she is not aware of it, but that Mendakota would probably be working directly with the project engineer. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would appreciate a letter to Mendakota telling them what Xcel is doing and if they are interested in sharing in the cost, that Xcel would be happy to talk to them. It makes more sense to talk to Mendakota now if they want the line higher rather than after the project is done. Ms. Rossi reviewed the permitting requirements and notifications and also reviewed the schedule for the project, which will start in spring, 2006 and be completed by the summer of 2007. In summary, Ms. Rossi stated that there will be air quality benefits, increased Page No. 11 September 20, 2005 electrical capacity, existing gas and electric facilities will be utilized, construction activities will be coordinated with the property owners, and properties will be restored to their original condition. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Ms. Rossi stated that Xcel meets, and in many cases exceeds state standards and guidelines for safety. CASE NO. 05-08, OPUS Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding the PUD final development plan and final plat for the OPUS development at 820/840 Sibley Memorial Highway and authorization for the Mayor to execute the developers agreement. Mr. Dave Menke was present on behalf of OPUS. Assistant Hollister stated that OPUS submitted the final development plan and plat on August 10, but it was decided it would be better to postpone consideration to this meeting. The city is not the only agency to pass judgment on the plan. The Metropolitan Council, DNR, Dakota County and MnDOT all have review. Part of the reason this was postponed from the August meeting was to wait for feedback from those agencies. The Metropolitan Council passed final approval on the comprehensive plan amendment. The DNR has given its approval of the proposed project because part of the property is in the critical area. The Dakota County plat commission will consider this at its next meeting because the property is adjacent to county right-of-way. OPUS is waiting for approval of an access permit from MnDOT. Staff has submitted a revised resolution this evening with changes to the wording suggested by Councilmember Duggan. He reviewed those changes for Council. OPUS suggested some language clarifications as well specifying garage setbacks from the public ring road versus the private roadways, and those have been incorporated into the resolution. OPUS also requested that the resolution be amended to state that the park dedication of $2,700 per unit be as described in the development agreement. Attorney Schleck informed Council that the entire park contribution is payable in one lump sum when the CIC is filed. That will be done before any of the units are conveyed and he believes that will be some time next year. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if it is included in the developers agreement that the condominium is the same as Council approved in terms of height and that the four story height was not as much or higher than the three story structure. Page No. 12 September 20, 2005 Attorney Schleck responded that it is. The development agreement was overloaded that the plans that were submitted and approved are what will be built. There was discussion on a modification to the developers agreement with a cap on the credits that will be provided for installation of the trail. The credit applied to the park dedication fee will be $60,000. It will be no more than $60,000 but could be less if the trails cost less. Councihneinber Duggan stated that portions of the developers agreement include reference to protective covenants. Attorney Schleck responded that the references to covenants refer to the common interest community dedication — the owners of the condominiums will abide by the terms of the agreement. Councilmember Duggan asked about the substantial changes clause of $25,000 or more on page 9. Attorney Schleck responded that if there is a material change of value equal to or in excess of $25,000 in aggregate, they would have to come back for plan approval. He also responded to a question from Councilmember Duggan regarding city expenses on page 12. Mr. Menke stated that the development plan before Council is very similar to the June 29 preliminary development plan. OPUS submitted a letter with the final development plan with respect to the setback condition along the public ring road, a change in the street names at the request of city staff, some small adjustments between the twin homes. They also minimized the walkout conditions that might front Wachtler at the request of Council. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what the height of the condominium is above grade and if fill is being added to put the condominium on top. Mr. Menke responded that it is roughly 50 feet at the rear, four stories with a mansard roof as Council requested. That is equivalent to the three story pitched roof. Mr. Tom Becker stated that at the rear of the condominium building closest to the homes there are just 3 to 4 feet of fill. The finished floor of that building is up just a little bit from today's grade. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Menke if they were able to keep the trees they thought they could. Page No. 13 September 20, 2005 Mr. Menke responded that the idea of tree preservation along Wachtler is still being maintained as * well as the hillside in the southeast comer. A good share of the trees at the very comer of T.H. 13 and Wachtler can be retained. Councilmember Schneeman cited the comment in the Metropolitan Council amendment review that the DNR has approved the critical area plan with the comment that the proposed residential use, rather than business use, will better fit the critical area requirements. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 05-85, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL PLAT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 820/840 S113LEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY.,, Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05-34, ST. PAUL'S Council acknowledged an application from St. Paul's United UNITED METHODIST Methodist Church for a lot split to create one additional lot at 700 Wesley Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Bill Gydesen and Mr. Paul Burke were present on behalf of the church. Assistant Hollister stated that the church made application for subdivision of the eastern 100 feet of the church property. The Planning Commission recommended approval. There was one neighbor at the meeting who raised a question about possible deed restrictions prohibiting subdivision. Council asked staff to research that and staff went down to Hastings to review the covenants. There is a three page covenant document which was referred to the city planner for review. He was also asked to review document relating to the original approval of the church in 1986. He found no restrictions that prohibit subdivision. Another issue was parking. Council asked the planner to review the parking situation in relation to the ordinance. He found that the lot has the appropriate number of parking spaces. It has been suggested that if Council approves the subdivision that there be language in the resolution of approval to the affect that the church acknowledges that by subdividing this property they are giving up potential expansion parking and should they wish to do something in the future to expand that would affect parking the Page No. 14 September 20, 2005 church has no guarantee whatsoever that this does not bind a future Council to granting a variance. Mayor Huber stated that Council has been consistent in telling people they should not take any action that will create a hardship for a future variance request. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it affects the resale value also. He asked if the fifteen foot restriction covers the stand of trees the neighbors are concerned about. Assistant Hollister stated that fifteen feet does appear to cover it, but he can reword the resolution and specify the trees themselves. Councilmember Duggan stated that there was a memo from Project Coordinator Kullander regarding costs. Administrator Danielson responded that the church needs the resolution to file it at the county, and they will need to pay the park dedication and utility hook ups before they will be given the resolution. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the city would normally list the fees in the resolution. Councilmember Duggan stated that the new memo does not list them, but they were listed in the last memo. Attorney Schleck stated that it is all of record and the fees do not need to be included in the resolution. Mayor Huber stated that the Council has a resolution to approve the subdivision and other things have been noted such as SAC and park dedication fees. He wanted to be sure the church representatives understand those requirements and also to understand that if the church goes ahead with the lot split and later decides it wishes to enlarge the church, they might not get a variance from the parking requirements because the church created the hardship. Mr. Gydesen responded that churches cannot do anything without going before the Church Building and Location Committee of the State of Minnesota. They looked at this for expansion and the feeling is the church does not have any way to expand the sanctuary Page No. 15 September 20, 2005 so they will not need additional parking. If the church grows, they will add a service. Responding to a question from Mr. Gydesen, Administrator Danielson stated that there are some fees that are charged with new lot divisions. Each new lot must pay a $2,700 per lot park dedication fee. They must also pay a fee to hook up to sewer and water and use the streets. Mr. Gydesen responded that all of the sewer and water assessments were paid long ago. When the church was first built, they dedicated the entire 60 feet for the street rather than 30 feet from the property to the north and 30 feet from the church. The church paid assessments for its property, including the portion they would like to subdivide off. Attorney Schleck suggested that Council can adopt the approving resolution tonight but will not deliver the certified copy to the church until staff and the church agree on the costs. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council should snake sure everyone understands the condition that the trees within fifteen feet of the eastern lot line of the new lot must be preserved. Mr. Gydesen responded that as far as the church is concerned they will remain, but they cannot commit the new owner of the lot. A number of the trees that were planted by the church were planted at the neighbor's request on his property. He stated that he does not think anyone will want to take them down Attorney Schleck stated that the owners of the lot could file a covenant against the property saying the trees shall not be removed. If Council wants to look into that, he would like more time to look into it if it is going to be a condition. Councilmember Duggan stated that he feels the primary reason for the requirement is to give a natural subdivision line for the lots that the church sold off. It provided a better screening for the church. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would like Attorney Schleck to do some research. There is no guarantee the trees will remain, if the city is just depending on the purchaser of the lot and the requirement should not be placed in the resolution if the city has no way to control it. Page No. 16 September 20, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that the concern was that the trees be preserved at the edge of the parking lot and that there be adequate room for snow storage. He stated that although the trees will eventually die, he felt the requirement should be left in the resolution. Mayor Huber stated that some of the trees are on the new lot and some are on the neighbor's lot. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he supports the condition but would like to be sure the trees stay. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what the means are by which the city can specify that the trees are not removed by the subsequent property owner. Attorney Schleck responded that the issue is in order for the city to make this requirement having no other ordinance to abide by, taking the condition further could potentially be viewed as a condemnation or a taking. Councilineinber Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 05-86, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL LOT AT 700 WESLEY LANE," as submitted. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 USE INTERPRETATION - Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative TUTHILL BUILDING to a request from Stone Systems and Services (SileStone) for an interpretation on whether the manufacture of stone countertops is a permitted use in the I District. Assistant Hollister stated that SileStone has been meeting with the planning staff over six weeks to discuss the possibility of moving into the Tuthill building on T.H. 55. They have submitted their plans for expansion of the building, which nearly doubles its size. The planner has reviewed the plans and finds them in conformance with the city ordinance. The question is whether granite counter tops is a permitted use. The planner feels Council is well within its bounds to find it a permitted use. Monument works and cabinets are permitted uses. This is similar to monuments since it is granite and it goes on cabinets. Page No. 17 September 20, 2005 Responding to a question about parking, Assistant Hollister stated that the existing parking spaces will accommodate the building expansion. Engineer McDermott stated that engineering had questions and comments on the storm sewer design and wanted additional calculations. Staff will work with the owners to get the issues resolved. Mr. Tim Walsh, General Counsel for C & C North American, an affiliate of SileStone, stated that the firm started in Eagan in a shop it has outgrown. This produce revolutionizes the industry. It is a stone product that can be made to conform to any look. He described the business and the product for Council. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber, he stated that about a truck load of the slab material will come in to the facility once a week. Councilmember Duggan stated that he has concerns about the reclamation system. Mr. Jeff Bitners stated that it is a self - contained system. The water system is a circular system. The dirty water comes back to a concrete pit and then it is run through a series of filters and goes f back into the system as clear water for use. The water is not dumped into the sewer system. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Tuthill building is a good looking building. She asked if it will look like it has a warehouse added to it. Mr. Walsh responded that SileStone will be buying the building because they like the building. They are expanding it and will match the nature and look of the structure. It will look the same, but bigger. Councilmember Vitelli moved to determine that the use is permitted in the I District. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BROWN COLLEGE Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding PARKING Brown College parking. In March, Brown College received approval for a zoning ordinance amendment and conditional use permit to allow the teaching of massage therapy. One of the discussion items Page No. 18 September 20, 2005 in March was a request from Council that Brown return in 6 months to update Council on the parking situation. There is a letter from Brown College to Councilmeraber Vitelli on August 8 outlining several changes they are in the process of making to improve the parking situation. Ms. Terry Anderson and Kevin McGauhy were present on behalf of the college. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is pleased with the response from Brown. Mr. McGauhy stated that since the parking has been restricted on one side of the street and the back parking lot has been reconfigured, about 60 spaces were picked up. There is also an agreement with the landlord across the street. Those, along the relocation of LeCordon Bleu has given the school ample parking. Later this month the school will have a contractor come in to do some retaining wall and drainage corrections and that will also expand parking by about 30 spaces. WORKSHOPS Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding scheduling joint meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. Councilmeraber Duggan suggested that Council invite all of the commissions to attend a joint meeting to discuss the 50th Anniversary celebration. After discussion, it was the consensus that a workshop with the Planning Commission on infill development and driveway replacements be held at 7:00 on November 2 and that the joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission be held at 6:00 p.m. on December 6, prior to the regular Council meeting. 50TH ANNIVERSARY Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council allocated $ 10,000 for the anniversary celebration and asked if the anniversary committee can meet that budget. Councilmeraber Duggan stated that the normal park celebration generates about $5,000 on top of the city contribution and he feels the committee should be able to raise $10,000 to $15,000 from the community to defray expenses. Page No. 19 September 20, 2005 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilineinber moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:44 p.m. Katl&n M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J. H?er/ Mayor