Loading...
2005-07-05 City Council minutesPage No. 1 July 5, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 5, 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, Coimcilmembers 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 Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on June 7, 2005 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the special meeting held on June 29, 2005. Councilmember Selmeeman seconded the motion. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6d, rescheduled meeting, 6f, SuperAmerica door change, 6h, OPUS signage, and 6i, Moen Leuer development, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the unapproved minutes of the June 28, 2005 Plam-fing Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the June Building Activity Report. c. Approval to Reschedule the Starting Time for the July 19 meeting to 8:00 p.m. Page No. 2 July 5, 2005 d. Approval of Appointment of Denise Urmann as a Probationary Police Officer, effective July 20, 2005. e. Approval of Sign Permit for Enterprise Dental, 2418 Enterprise Drive. f. Approval of the list of Contractor licenses dated July 5, 2005. g. Approval of the list of claims dated July 5, 2005, and totaling $1,147,395.54. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MEETING DATE CHANGE Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk recommending that Council reschedule the October 4 meeting to avoid a conflict with observance of Rash Hashana. Councilmember Schneeman moved that the October 4 regular meeting be rescheduled to Wednesday, October 5. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan informed Council that he has been contacted by someone in the area of the Synagogue who is concerned about traffic on the holy days and suggested that the city work with MnDOT to increase the road width or do something so that no organization would have to pay for the full cost. He suggested that Council discuss the request at a workshop. Councilmember Kxebsbach stated that the Synagogue owns the property and she thinks the city should contact them. Councilmember Schneeman suggested that perhaps there is a shuttle that people could take from Town Center to the synagogue and other activities at other institutions. SUPER AMERICA Council acknowledged a memo from Code Enforcement Officer Berg regarding a permit application for an exterior door change at 1200 Mendota Heights Road (Super America). Councilmember Kiebsbach stated that when the SuperAmerica facility was approved, there was an understanding that there could be no exterior storage and no other signage and it is beginning to creep up. She felt the city should send them a letter reminding them of the agreement. Page No. 3 July 5, 2005 Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize staff to issue the appropriate permit to allow an exterior door change at 1200 Mendota Heights Road. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OPUS TEMPORARY SIGNS Council acknowledged a request from OPUS for temporary signage and a sales trailer to market its development at 820/840 Sibley Memorial Highway. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Councilmember Duggan wanted to be certain about placement of the signs on T.H. 13 in view of visibility. He wanted to be sure no one will be blinded by a sign in that area and he would also like to see what the temporary trailers look like. Mr. Dave Menke, from OPUS, stated reviewed the dimension from the Wachtler/T.H. 13 intersection to the proposed sign location. One sign would be just to the west of the existing second access to the site, which will continue to serve as the access to the sales center. It is about 300 feet from the intersection. The sign will be set back 20 feet from T.H. 13. The second sign will also be 20 feet from T.H. 13. He reviewed a plan for the sales center, stating that it will be 35 by 70 feet, two trailers put together. He showed elevations and sample photos and informed Council that OPUS spent $200,000 to $300,000 creating the sales center. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 05-44, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AT 820/840 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY," amended to correct the trailer and signage removal date to December 31, 2007. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MOEN — LEUER P.U.D. Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding continued discussion on a request from Moen -Leiser Construction for consideration of their re-submitted preliminary plat and preliminary development plan for a P.U.D. at 1-494 and 1-35E. Page No. 4 July 5, 2005 Administrator Danielson stated that at the last meeting Council was presented with a request from Moen-Leuer to extend their PUD. After a preliminary PUD is approved by Council, an applicant has six weeks to submit a final plat and final development plan, and Council can grant a six week extension. Both of those time periods have expired, and Council was faced with a decision to extend the conditional use permit further. Council was concerned about the application and why the development has not proceeded more quickly. Moen-Leuer's representative at the meeting stated that there were complications with the application to St. Paul Water for a water extension to the site. Council did not deny the request but asked the applicant to appear tonight to answer what the financial viability of the project is and what permits remain to be acquired before the project can move forward. Mr. Michael Leuer stated that he was not aware of the six week window he had to get the plan and plat in. He stated that he has done many developments in the twin cities area and six weeks is not a lot of time to get a final plat submitted. This project is financially viable and he is ready to proceed with it and put up all of the letters of credit, etc. He stated that he is working on getting approvals from St. Paul Water and that he would have asked for an extension if he had known there was only a six week window. Mayor Huber stated that his recollection is that there was some consensus that the appropriate way to deal with this was to not grant extensions but to ask Moen-Leuer for a new application. Council did not ask them to go back through the Planning Commission but to come right back to Council. Council did not discuss the issue of a fee, but one thing that is lacking tonight is that Council is looking for a new application and does not have that. One of the reasons Council wants a new application is that there are a number of dates that trigger when the 60 day application review period begins. A new application is needed to trigger that. Secondly, Council needs to know if Moen-Leuer has the approvals it needs from St. Paul Water. Mr. Leuer responded that he is very close to getting approval. Moen- Leuer is working on the final details on the water agreement and approval is imminent. He is also still waiting for the city's developers agreement. Administrator Danielson responded that Engineer McDermott is working on the developers agreement. Mayor Huber asked Mr. Leuer if he has financing in place. Page No. 5 July 5, 2005 Mr. Leuer responded that he does. Mayor Huber asked Mr. Leuer has a document that verifies that. Mr. Leuer responded that when he does the final plat he will have the letters of credit and everything he needs to file the plat. He also informed Council that he does not know if he is going to build the buildings or if someone else will build them. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Leuer should get the bank, to provide a letter to the saying Moen Leuer has met all the requirements except the final plat and will have financing. Co-uricilmember Vitelli stated that approval was granted on March 1, and the normal time period for submitting the final documents is six weeks. Council could have approved another six weeks, which would have extended it to about June 1. That has passed, and another six weeks would bring it to today. This is so delinquent and he is sure there would be a request for more weeks because there has been no submittal. He thinks Council should require reapplication. This has never occurred during his five years on Council. Mr. Letter responded that Moen Leuer has done over 100 plats and many cities give a developer six months to submit the final plat. Administrator Danielson responded that final plat submission can go longer than six weeks. In this case, it is the PUD that is at issue. Councilmember Duggan agreed with Councilmember Vitelli, stating that Council granted the PUD for a very substandard lot. Normally Council can approve a PUD on a minim-Lim of five acres, and this is less than that minimum by 50%. There was great consideration given and Council even granted a variance. He is not at all happy with not requiring new application fees, stating that all Moen-Leuer had to do was send a letter to the city when they could not meet the deadlines. Council was more than kind to allow a development of this nature. Mr. Letter responded that the staff was not aware of this regulation. He did not think this came up before. He stated that he does not know how many PUDs the city does and he does not think it has ever come to the surface before. He did not think six weeks to have a plat in is the norm. He stated that he knows Council granted a variance Page No. 6 July 5, 2005 and PUD and appreciates it, but if this was a good project ten to twelve weeks ago, it is a good project now. Mayor Huber responded that the timing requirement is an aspect of the regulations that staff does not need to look up much. They are not accustomed to having a developer come back this much later after approval has been granted. He informed Mr. Leuer that he does not think there is much support for going forward without a new application. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. Leuer has stated that he may farm this out to someone else, but the PUD was not granted to someone else. Moen-Leuer had been talking about doing the project this fall. They should reapply and get all of their ducks in order and then return to Council. Attorney Schleck stated that staff's purpose is not to develop the property. Staff is here to assist the developer in identifying interpretations of the ordinances. Meeting deadlines completely falls on the developer. The developer has to do that with financing and other issues related to the development. He stated that the request was denied at the last Council meeting and the only way can be reconsidered is if there is a motion to reconsider. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she voted against the PUD. There was a prior plan and Council put a lot of time and effort into that and the building was more in keeping with what is on Mendota Heights Road. She had a concern with the wood frame construction and that it would look more like residential being mixed in with commercial, and she voted no. Councilmember Vitelli felt that there should be a new application that goes before the Planning Commission and the Council. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is comfortable with the developer coming back to Council but not without a complete checklist of everything Council has requested of him. He asked whether Moen-Leuer would have to go through the usual application process. Attorney Schleck responded that it would be a new application for the same project. Council can choose to waive various requirements of the application if they so choose. Page No. 7 July 5, 2005 Councilmember Schneeman stated that she has a real sense of uncertainty about this. She wondered who is driving the whole thing. She was very supportive of the project since the beginning but when Moen-Leuer was so late in making application to St. Paul Water it gave her concern. That was done after the city's deadline for -plan submission. She agreed with Councilmember Duggan, stating that she would like the developer to show Council everything so that Council knows the firm is in good shape and on stable ground. Attorney Schleck suggested directing staff to make a list of everything that needs to be in place. Councilmember Vitelli stated that an identical submittal should be made. If it is not the same submittal, and if there are any changes, it should go to the Planning Commission as well as Council. Councilmember Duggan moved to direct staff to prepare a document listing all of the things needed in order to satisfy staff and the Council in relation to a new application. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he does not support the motion because it gives staff more to do and it is the responsibility of the developer. Council approved the OPUS proposal last week and they were here one week later with a sign permit request. Council would be putting the onus on staff to interpret what the applicant needs to do. Attorney Schleck stated that he was not suggesting that staff put together a timeline or list of application materials but rather a list of items that would give Council confidence that the application will be complete. Motion died for lack of a second. RELAY FOR LIFE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending that Mayor Huber proclaim July 15 and 16, 2005 as "Relay for Life Days." Ms. Jennifer Curtis, from the American Cancer Society office in Mendota Heights, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to inform Council about the Right to Life relay that will be held at St. Thomas Academy on July 15 at 7:00 p.m. The relay is conducted in honor and memory of those individuals who have lost their lives to cancer. Page No. 8 July 5, 2005 Mayor Huber stated that several city hall will be represented by a team including Engineer McDermott, Nancy Bauer, John Maczko, Janet Bolger, Neil Garlock, Ryan Ruzek and Mayor Huber would be participating and that there will also be a fire department team. He then read a proposed proclamation. Mayor Huber encouraged residents to sponsor the walkers. Councilmember Duggan moved to adopt the American Cancer Society Relay for Life Proclamation, proclaiming July 15 and 16, 2005 as "Relay for Life Days." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 2004AUDIT REPORT Council acknowledged the 2004 Audit and a memo from Finance Officer Schabacker. Mr. Tom Hodnefield, from HLB Tautges Redpath, was present for the discussion. Mr. Hodnefield stated that the audit has been issued and reviewed in detail by city management. His film issued three reports: the annual financial report; a report on compliance with certain state statutes as required by the state auditor; and, a management letter. The opinion is unqualified and is a clean opinion. He explained GASB34, which was implemented this year. In this year's report, all of the funds of the city were changed from modified accrual to full accrual. Mr. Hodnefield then responded to Council questions. Councilmember Duggan congratulated staff on the work they have done. Coi-mcilmember Duggan moved to accept the 2004 Annual Audit Report. Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 WINE MARKET LICENSE Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk, informing Council that there have been no public comments since the hearing on June 19 and that everything is in order with respect to the off-sale liquor license. Councilmember Schneeman moved to authorize the issuance of an off-sale liquor license to Robert and Kristen Kowalski for The Wine Market. Page No. 9 July 5, 2005 Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: CHERI LANE Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing VACATION on an application from Mr. Patrick Hickey, 2303 Swan Drive, for the vacation of a portion of Cheri Lane. Council acknowledged associated staff reports. Engineer McDermott informed Council that in March Mr. Hickey requested that a portion of the right-of-way for Cheri Lane adjacent to his property be vacated and staff recommended that he instead apply for variances. Since that time, Mr. Hickey has been before Council and the indication was that a vacation may be more acceptable. Mr. Hickey plans to add on to his home, and the adjacent right-of-way would require a 30 foot sideyard setback. His neighbors have indicated they would convey a portion of the vacated right-of-way to Mr. Hickey. The right-of-way will be conveyed complete to the neighbor to the north because it was taken from that plat. Because the city storm sewer runs in the area of the right-of- way, the city would retain a drainage and utility easement over the proposed right-of-way to be vacated. She recommended that Council approve the partial vacation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the conditions in her support of this is that vacation of the right-of-way does not result in the platting of a new lot. Engineer McDermott responded that it will not. Staff can revise the resolution to add the condition. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Engineer McDermott stated that Mr. Scott Milburn, from Critical Connections Ecological Services, Inc., has completed the wetlands delineation report and it indicates that the ditch is considered a wetland. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments form the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 10 July 5, 2005 Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 05-45, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A PARTIAL VACATION OF CHERI LANE," as amended to include the finding that the street vacation will not result in a new platted lot. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05-27, HICKEY Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Patrick Hickey for a wetlands pen-nit and sideyard setback variance for a home addition at 2303 Swan Drive. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application, informing Council that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the wetlands permit and denial of the setback variance. Although Mr. Hickey no longer needs the variance because the right-of-way vacation was granted, the variance application is still active and action should be taken on it. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 05- 46, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT TO ENCROACH 60 FEET INTO THE WETLANDS BUFFER FOR A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET FROM THE WETLAND AND DENYING A 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOME ADDITION AT 2303 SWAN DRIVE." Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05-23, DAVISON Council acknowledged an application from Troy and Debra Davison for a conditional use permit for a detached garage at 1301 Delaware Avenue. Co-uncil also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and stated that both the Planning Commission and city planner have recommended approval. No variances are needed. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 05-47, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1301 DELAWARE AVENUE." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. I I July 5, 2005 CASE NO. 05-24, CROSBY Council acknowledged an application from Brian and Andrea Crosby for a conditional use permit for a 42" high silver chain link fence at 2276 Apache Street. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application, stating that the property is a comer lot which requires a conditional use pen-nit for a fence over 36 inches tall. Both the Planning Commission and city planner have recommended approval. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council normally asks for landscaping to buffer fences on comer lots. Mr. Crosby responded that there is an existing chain link, fence that runs parallel to Pontiac and there are bushes that cover the fence. The new fence will be on the back of that fence and will be a continuation of that fence on the back lot. He intends to plant vines on it. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 05- 48, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 42" HIGH SILVER CHAIN LINK FENCE AT 2276 APACHE STREET." Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05-25, JOHNSON Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Cori Johnson for a conditional use permit for a five foot high black chain link fence at 1732 Vicki Lane. Council also acla-lowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister informed Council that a conditional use permit is required for a fence higher than 36 inches within 30 feet of the right- of-way in the case of a comer lot or through lot. This fence would actually not only involve the applicant's property but also her neighbor's property because she wants to hook onto her neighbor's fence. She has received written permission from her neighbor to do that. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 05- 49, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIVE FOOT HIGH BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE AT 1732 VICKI LANE." Page No. 12 July 5, 2005 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05 -26, HINCHLIFF Council acknowledged an application from Jason Hinchliff for a seven foot front yard setback variance for a ten foot deep open front porch at 1155 Dodd Road. Assistant Hollister informed Council that this application involves the string rule. Mr. Hinchliff wishes to add a front porch. The city planner determined that the "string would be bent" and a variance is required. The applicant originally applied for a six foot deep porch and the commission said they were willing to go ten feet. The applicant stated that he would only be interested in going eight feet anyway. The commission recommended ten feet. Councilmember Duggan has recommended that the resolution read yip to ten feet. Administrator Danielson asked at what point does Council grant a variance different from the plans that have been submitted. Assistant Hollister responded that if Council allows the homeowner to expand his house ten feet forward but he chooses to expand only eight feet, in theory he or a future land owner may be entitled to ten feet in the future. He stated that it may be prudent to approve only what the homeowner wants. Mr. Todd Poliflca, the contractor for the project, stated that the plan shows 8 feet. Mr. Hinchliff had only applied for six feet because he thought that was the maximum he could get. Eight feet has always been on the plan. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 05 -50, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEVEN FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN EIGHT FOOT DEEP OPEN FRONT PORCH AT 1155 DODD ROAD." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05 -28, ST. PAUL'S Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Beda Lewis, on UNITED METHODIST behalf of Saint Paul's United Methodist Church, for variances CHURCH to allow a new sign at 700 Wesley Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Page No. 13 July 5, 2005 Assistant Hollister reviewed the application, stating that the church plans to make some changes to their property with respect to signage and met with the planning staff and planner, who determined they need a sign size variance and a setback variance for their monument sign along Dodd Road that identifies the church. The other sign that is proposed is a directional sign within the parking lot. The city planner determined they did not need a variance for the directional sign. Dodd Road has an unusually wide right-of-way at the church property. The church wants to place the monument sign as close to Dodd as they can. When staff measures square footage for sips, the R -1 district allows 12 square feet in area per side. Planner Grittman calculated the square footage for the proposed sign at 40 square feet per side, so in the draft resolution he describes that as a 28 foot size variance per side. It could be called a 56 square foot variance as long as everyone is clear on the meaning. Co-uncilmember Duggan stated that he looked at the application and the description it says the main identification sign is two sided, non- illuminated 4'5" by 11 feet. That is 48 feet, 7 inches per side, which is 97 feet 2 inches total and the actual variance would be 73 feet 2 inches. Mayor Huber felt that since the ordinance says per side, the variance should say per side. Co-uncilmember Duggan stated this would be a generous granting of a variance. There has been a miscalculation somewhere. He was concerned about the differences in the numbers being requested. He could not help notice the resemblance between the church drop off sign and the St. Peter's main sign both in size and height. He was concerned as to the differences in the numbers being requested. He further stated that he knows that the owners of six of the homes nearby signed the petition and six did not. He asked if the homeowners on the west side of Dodd were notified or if they are too far away to be notified. Assistant Hollister responded that notices are sent to propel-ties within 100 feet from the subject property. The homes across Dodd are farther away. Mayor Huber asked Assistant Hollister what he is stating as the variance request. Assistant Hollister responded that the planner says it is approximately 40 square feet per side and that would be a 28 foot Page No. 14 July 5, 2005 variance per side if it were approved as proposed. He agreed with Councilmember Duggan that the calculations is 36 feet 7 inches per side. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would not want it illuminated until 11:00 p.m. She asked if it could go off at 9:00. Assistant Hollister responded that at the commission meeting, there was confusion about whether ground illuminated signs are allowed, and they are. Council has approved a number of signs that have been lit from the ground. It has been common for Council to add a condition addressing light spillage off the property, and the church's sign contractor can speak to that. It would be appropriate to place conditions on that. Councilmember Duggan stated that the ordinance indicates that ground lights cannot be visible and that they need to be screened. Assistant Hollister responded that he is not aware of that requirement but that people often plant landscaping around ground signs. That could be a condition of approval. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, he stated that the church plans to light both signs. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the church has submitted a picture of the parking lot sign in relation to the church. Assistant Hollister stated that the parking lot directional sign does not need any action by the city. It does not need any variances. Planner Grittman is of the opinion there is no size limitation in the ordinance on directional signs. Since the sign ordinance puts a 12 square foot size limitation per side on the principal sign, it would be reasonable to infer the city would not want directional signs to be larger. Councilmember Duggan asked whether the church can be put to its intended use without the variance. Assistant Hollister responded that the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval, but the recommendation was not unanimous. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about the hours the sign would be lit, Ms. Beda Lewis, representing the church, stated that she had told the Planning Commission that the church would like it lit from dusk until 11:00 p.m. Some of the church Page No. 15 July 5, 2005 activities last until 9:00 or 9:30, and it would be difficult to turn it off at 9:00. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would want to look at 10:00 p.m., particularly the one in the parking lot. Ms. Lewis responded that there will not be any lighting on the directional sign. Councilmember Schneeman asked what the city's policy has been on lighting for the other churches in the city. Administrator Danielson responded that he is not sure but that he believes Royal Redeemer's light turns off at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Curt Van Workem, from Pyramid Sign Company, stated that there will be no lighting on the directional sign. It just has reflective lettering. It is 7.75 feet above grade and is a single sided sign. It will be at the drive off of Wesley Lane. He then reviewed the monument sign drawing. He stated that he took some measurements of the sign at Royal Redeemer. The sign cabinet that sits on the base is 32 square feet, 4 feet by 8 feet and 9 feet off the ground. He designed this sign specific to the church's needs. He looked at where it could be placed on the property. The sign will be placed about 70 feet from the centerline of Dodd. One could not see the sign straight on because there is a curve in that area of the road. There is quite a bit of foliage in that area which makes it more difficult to see a sign. The church wants to put plantings in to hide the lighting and that becomes the base. The square footage of the actual content area, just the wording St. Paul's United Methodist Church, is under eleven square feet. If one drew a rectangle around the top of the cross to the bottom of the word church and left to right on the content of the lettering, that would be 21.5 square feet. The sign is vertically oriented because of foliage, placement and one cannot spell out the name of the church from that viewing distance and make it legible to those passing by. All of the features of the site determined the design. Councilmember Duggan stated that the description that was presented to the church says 4 feet five inches by 11 feet and they will pay for all of that. They will not just pay for the letters. He was on the Planning Commission and the planning committee at St. Peter's when he was asked to present their sign. They had similar challenges on sight lines and they had lost much of their property to the highway and they had good reason for variances. The overall Page No. 16 July 5, 2005 height and size of their sign was kept under 24 square feet. Based on Mr. Van Workem's numbers, that is a huge variance. He did not have a problem with the front yard variance. Council also just turned down a sign for Henry Sibley and he is a little uncomfortable with the information. Six people signed their agreement and six have not. He believes in relation to interpreting church signs, the symbol of a cross or flame is excluded from the overall dimension. He is uncomfortable with the variance because Council just said no to a sign that is just as commendable for the school Also, it is stated in the resolution that the conditions noted create a hardship in putting the property to reasonable use. The property is already used. If something is imposed on one by an outside body, that is a demonstrable hardship. He accepts the location because of visibility. Pastor Janet Morey stated that the St. Peter's sign by the street is small, but there is a huge cross by the front door that is very noticeable, and St. Paul's has not been able to have anything that size or a steeple that would identify the building as a church. In fact, many people have said they do not notice it is a church. People think they should be able to drive through the community and find the church. She understands that the history is the church had applied for a steeple in the past and it was declined. The hardship is that the building is not able to be identified as a church. It is a brown building, not much different from the side from a bank or even some of the homes in the area, and it is a hardship since the church has not been able to be located as people drive by. They would be happy to comply with turning the light off at 10:00 p.m., especially if that is what the other churches do. Mayor Huber asked if one is present to oppose the sign. No one responded. He asked Mr. Van Workem what the footprint of the lighting will be — how far from the sign the light will be cast. Mr. Van Workern responded that it will be very controlled, shining directly tip onto the sign from the base. It will shine onto the face and not out. There will also be some nice landscaping. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the city planner recommended approval and the Planning Commission recommended approval and he fully supports the application with the restriction that the lighting go off at 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Vitteli moved adoption of Resolution No. 05 -51, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR SIZE AND SETBACK FOR SIGNAGE AT SAINT PAUL'S UNITED Page No. 17 July 5, 2005 METHODIST CHURCH AT 700 WESLEY LANE," with the condition that the lighting be on only until 10:00 p.m. unless Council has authorized other churches to have their signs lighted longer. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Mayor Huber stated that Council would want the lighting time to be consistent with what has been allowed for other churches, and if that is 10:00 p.m., that is fine. Coimcilmember Schneeman stated that she supports the request, stating that this is very different from the Sibley sign request. She had no problem with the monument sign but did not care for the digital aspect. Cotincilmember Duggan stated that the proposed resolution will need to be amended to reflect the true size of the variance and also to delete the fourth condition, since the property is already in use. Attorney Schleck responded that he would instead change the fourth condition to state the conditions noted above. Assistant Hollister stated that what the planner was trying to say was that one calculates the square footage of the sign, one calculates the entirety of the sign. The findings of fact were offered by the city planner, who is saying that if one only counts the lettered portion of the sign, that would be less than 12 square feet. That is not what the ordinance dictates but is some consolation. Councilmember Duggan responded that almost all signs that have been approved were approved including the sign base and/or the frame structure and he does not think it is wise to deviate from that. This could cause a challenge in the future should someone say the city granted this for the church. This language might allow someone else to come forward and say they should get the same thing since Council allowed lettering only. Councilmember Krebsbach did not feel that the lettering should be separated out. Attorney Schleck responded that Minnesota case law is very clear that granting a variance to one property does not automatically extend a right to that variance to another property. Every property is evaluated individually and the case law shows that if there is a variance for the property on one side and a variance for the property V164MO]WO-COW1910 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 18 July 5, 2005 on the other side does not mean the city has to give a variance to the property in the middle. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed with taking out the reference to lettering and wondered if Council can include that the sign will be illuminated from dusk to 10 p.m. Mayor Huber stated that the motion is for the resolution that has been prepared, amended to adjust the square foot size to be 36 feet 7 inches, and to require that it be turned off at ten p.m. unless staff determines that Council has granted 10:30 or 11:00 to another church. Councilmember Duggan stated that he voted for the motion because Councilmember Schneeman reminded him it is not an electronic sign. N.U.R.T. Council acknowledged a memo from Operations and Projects Coordinator Kullander regarding the NURT trail. Mayor Huber stated that staff has informed Council that MnDot has declined approving the trail on the south side of the frontage road along T.H. 110. Council has two options. Council can say they are willing to consider the north side - the Parks and Recreation Commission is planning to meet with the neighborhood next week. If Council says no to MnDOT about putting it on the north side, there is no need for the commission to have the neighbors come in. He stated that he understands the issues about not putting it close to T.H. 110 from a safety standpoint but can-not agree with putting it on the north side because he has been telling people who live there for as long as he can remember that he would not support it on the north side. He stated that he has a hard time thinking the trail is that heavily used that it has to go into the people's yards. Mr. Kullander stated that this will be a dead issue unless Council approves the north side. The county has federal grant money for the trail and if it is not built this year, the process would have to start over next year on an alternate route and could take five to ten years. MnDOT will not issue a limited use permit for a trail on the south side within the MnDOT right-of-way but they will issue a limited use permit for the north. Page No. 19 July 5, 2005 Mayor Huber noted that MnDOT would build a trail on a bridge. If someone lost control of a semi on the 1-35E bridge, the person in the way of the semi would be dead. Councilmember Vitelli asked if there is enough right-of-way for a trail or sidewalk on the north side. Mr. Kullander responded that there is quite a bit of right-of-way north of the frontage road. Councilmember Vitelli stated that if there is sufficient right-of-way, he feels a trail continuation is needed there and Council should explore it and ask for review by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Schneeman stated that there are many people walking and biking in the middle of the frontage road, including children. She thought it would be very unsafe to have it on the south. She commented that the trail along Lexington in front of homes is beautiful and people get over the idea of a trail in front of their homes. There are very few homes that would be affected and the city would lose half a million dollars if it does not go on the north. With the completion of Town Center there will be children and adults all over the frontage road and she has already heard from people how dangerous it is already. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she drove through the area today and thinks the trail on the north would be consistent with what has been done in street construction projects in other neighborhoods. She would like to have the Parks Commission look at it. One house would lose a significant number of trees, and she hopes that those trees would be replaced. Mr. Kullander responded that the state took a portion of that property owner's land when the frontage was constructed thirty years ago. The house is about 45 feet from the back of the curb, but his house is about 20 feet from the right-of-way. There is still enough right-of- way to put the trail there, but the property owner would lose five or six of the pine trees that screen his home from the street. The county would work with the all of the homeowners on landscaping to provide additional landscaping between the trail and the homes to provide a buffer. Councilmember Duggan stated that he attended the meetings on NURT a year ago. The people on the north side had a primary Page No. 20 July 5, 2005 concern over strangers and people coming through the neighborhood. Mr. Fefercorn was at that meeting and stated that based on his experiences in certain areas, not only were there not any problems, there was an increase in camaraderie. He supports referring this to the commission but stated that they should be given larger, detailed maps showing where the trail would be in relation to the edge of the properties that would be affected. Councilmember Vitelli asked if Council has a problem with asking the commission to give Council a proposal. Mr. Kullander responded that the timeline is tight. Dakota County must let the project by September 1 or the money is lost. They indicated that if the trail goes to the north side they could get the plans completed and still let the project before the deadline. Councilmember Vitelli moved to ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to review the matter and give Cotuncil their opinion on the continuation of the path on the north side of the frontage road. Ayes: 4 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Nays: 1 Huber Councilmember Vitelli stated that the reason he supports this is not the loss of money. He supports it because of the safety issue. People need a place to walk. There is also a problem on Wagon Wheel. People would like to walk all the way around Rogers Lake and cannot do that because of the curves, and that is a safety issue. WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending that the meeting be adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on July 19 for a Council workshop with the Trust for Public Land. POLICE COMPUTERS Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Aschenbrener recommending the purchase of three laptop computers for the squad cars. Chief Aschenbrener stated that this issue came to light last week when Sgt. Garlock, the IT Coordinator and City Clerk began trying to fix laptop problems. Without advance notice, Cingular told the city last week that they were going to shut off the city's laptop service by June 30. He had proposed to purchase the laptops this year, but it was deferred to next year's budget and the department cannot wait for them. Councilmember Vitelli moved to authorize the purchase of three Panasonic laptop computers from PCS for $11,730 and three Page No. 21 July 5, 2005 docking stations from EAT for $2,081.25 plus $180.00 for installation of the docking stations in the squad cars. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Duggan informed Council that he has been approached by several people regarding stucco problems, and he suggested that Council include a discussion on the matter with experts at the next Council workshop. He would also like to see term limits and directional signs on a workshop agenda. Councilmember Duggan stated that he attend the HiPP recognition event last Thursday. He was impressed that the Mayors, City Administrators, County Commissioners and City Councilmembers showed care and consideration and also camaraderie at the recognition event. All are very excited about future discussions on implementing cost savings for the Dakota County communities. Councilmember Duggan recognized Mr. Steve Watson, of Mendakota Country Club, for being elected as the CEO of their overriding body and expressed the city's appreciation for the July 4 fireworks. Councilmember Krebsbach informed Council that she will be meeting with the Mayfield Heights neighborhood on Monday evening at City Hall. When she ran for election, she told the residents that she would periodically meet with neighborhoods, and this is the first. They will talk about whatever the residents wish. Mayor Huber informed the audience that St. Peter's Church is holding an open house on its new facilities on Sunday. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Duggan moved that the meeting be adjourned to 7:00 p.m. on July 19 for a presentation by the Trust for Public Land. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:48 p.m. Kdthleen M. Swanson, City Clerk ATTEST John J. Mayo el