Loading...
2005-06-07 City Council minutesPage 1 of 34 June 7, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA, Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 7, 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: Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on May 15, 2005 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Krebsbach CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent for the meeting, revised to move item 6e, Marie Avenue speed study, 6d, communications center contract, and 6k, List of Claims, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the May 24th Planning Commission Minutes b. Acknowledgement of the NDC4 Meeting Minutes and Agenda c. Acknowledgement of the May 2005 Building Activity Report Page 2 of 34 June 7, 2005 d. Acknowledgement of the Withdrawal of the Conditional Use Permit Application by Douglas J. Ellis, 2305 Apache Street, for a Detached Garage e. Acknowledge ISD #197 Parking Improvements f. Adoption of Resolution No. 05-34: "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STREET AND UTILTILY IMPROVEMENTS AT HIDDEN CREEK" g. Acceptance of Donation of an Automatic External Defibrillator and a Bike - Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -35: "RESOLUTION FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECIEPT OF GIFTS TO THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS" h. Approval of Contractor List Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MARIE AVENUE Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDermott SPEED STUDY requesting authorization for completion of a MnDOT speed study on Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Trail Road. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there are any other reasons to do the speed study in addition to the resident who questioned the difference in speed limits on eastbound and westbound Marie Avenue. Engineer McDermott responded that she has had several discussions on Marie Avenue. There has been a request for a speed study and she feels it does no harm to request the study. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of her concerns is the intersection of Dodd and Marie, and she wants to make sure there would never be enough traffic to have a street light at the intersection. Chief Aschenbrener responded that the resident felt it was confusing to have different speed limits and the most recent speed study was done in 1976. Councilmember Schneeman stated that it is confusing to have one speed limit for westbound Marie and another for eastbound. Page 3 of 34 June 7, 2005 Councilmember Schneeman moved to direct staff to send a letter to MnDOT requesting completion of a speed study on Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Trail Road. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief Aschenbrener regarding the proposed communications center contract with Dakota County. Councilmember Vitelli asked Attorney Schleck to make sure to review the paragraph on insurance indemnification and liability, and to also be sure that the Memorandum of Understanding is included in the document. Attorney Schleck responded that he has been in discussions with the county about changing the insurance indemnification clause and he has asked that the MOU be attached to the agreement. Councilmember Vitelli stated that with respect to cost, the county gave the city some commitment that they would not increase the cost more than 2% to 3% and he feel that should be included in the agreement. Attorney Schleck responded that he has already asked for that as well. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Attorney Schleck stated that he the contract was initially proposed for one year but he has asked that it be set up to be automatic renewal until the county's dispatch center is put in place. The Police Chief expects that will be in place in a year and a half. The county also asked for payment up front and he has asked that be changed to monthly payments. Councilmember Vitelli commented that going to county dispatching will save the city a bout $70,000 per year. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the contract as amended. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 4 of 34 June 7, 2005 CLAIMS LIST Councilmember Duggan noted that there is a claim from Scrap Busters for the spring clean up event, and he wondered how much money the city received at the event. Finance Officer Schabacker responded that the city received about $2,400 plus the city receives an annual recycling grant from the county. This year the grant was $11,800, and it is used to help defray the spring clean up costs and the portion of the Administrative Assistant's salary that is attributable to recycling. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the List of Claims. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MEMORIAL Mayor Huber expressed condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr. Sherman Winthrop who passed away recently. He expressed the city's profound appreciation for Mr. Winthrop's decades of incredible service to the city as the city attorney. RECOGNITIONS Mayor Huber recognized Janice Guise and Kelly McDonald for earning Girl Scout Silver Service awards. Mayor Huber recognized the contributions made by individuals and businesses to Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks. He informed the audience that Council hopes to change the date of the celebration and conduct it in conjunction with the city's fiftieth anniversary celebration. Councilmember Vitelli expressed appreciation to the city's staff members who volunteered their time to help at the celebration. Councilmember Schneeman stated that there were many small children at the celebration and there were also 300 boys and girls participating in the baseball tournament at the park celebration and their parents attending as well. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Duggan stated that he attended a Community Criminal Apprehension Fund meeting at City Hall this afternoon. He informed the audience that the fund is used to pay rewards for information leading to the apprehension and arrest of criminals. He encouraged Page 5 of 34 June 7, 2005 residents to make small donations to the fund to assist in this good cause. Councilmember Krebsbach encouraged residents to call City Hall with suggestions for recognizing founding fathers, residents and homes at there fiftieth anniversary. She stated that she would like to have a parade at the celebration and invited residents to submit suggestions and ideas. POLICE OFFICER Council acknowledged a memo from Police Chief APPOINTMENT Aschenbrener recommending the appointment of Steven Meyer as a probationary Police Officer. Chief Aschenbrener introduced Mr. Meyer to Council and the audience. Mayor Huber administered the oath of office to Officer Meyer. Councilmember Vitelli expressed appreciation for all of the extra effort the police department, and in particular Sergeant Garlock, put into the interview and recruitment process. Chief Aschenbrener also expressed his appreciation, and stated that Sergeant Garlock did an excellent job. Officer Meyer introduced his wife, Callie, to Council and the audience. LIQUOR LICENSE HEARINGS Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. Patrick Souen for renewal of the Mendota Liquor off sale liquor license. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Duggan moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the issuance of an off -sale liquor license for Mendota Liquor. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Marriot Corporation for Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 6 of 34 June 7, 2005 renewal of On -Sale Limited Service Hotel and Sunday liquor licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Duggan moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the issuance of on -sale and on -sale Sunday liquor licenses to the Courtyard Corporation for the Courtyard by Marriott. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Brown College for renewal of the on -sale institutional wine license for the Minnesota Room. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the issuance of on- sale institutional wine license to Brown College for the Minnesota Room. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the WON •I Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on applications from Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their on -sale club and on -sale Sunday liquor licenses. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. Page 7 of 34 June 7, 2005 Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the issuance of Club Liquor and Sunday liquor licenses to Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05 -19, HICKEY Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Patrick Hickey, for a thirty foot side yard setback variance for a Home Addition at 2303 Swan Drive. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister informed Council that Mr. Hickey had initially applied for a variance for a front yard setback variance. His lot is considered a corner lot because it is at the intersection of two rights -of -way. There is no actual road to the north. Right -of -way was platted when the neighborhood to the north was developed, but it was never improved and still remains right -of -way. The initial site plan showed the proposed house addition going to the lot line, but since then Mr. Hickey has had the property surveyed and now plans to build to a distance of five feet from the lot line. At the Planning Commission meeting, the city planner recommended tabling the matter because Mr. Hickey did not have a complete application and because he also needs a wetlands permit. The commission recommended denial. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the application since the commission meeting. He reviewed the timeline for a vacation should Mr. Hickey wish to apply for vacation of the right -of -way and wetlands permit. He recommended that Council deny the variance this evening since the variance will not be necessary if Mr. Hickey chooses to pursue the vacation. Mr. Hickey would go the next Planning Commission meeting for consideration of the wetlands permit. Council could discuss the wetlands permit application on July 5 and could also approve the permit conditioned upon the city vacating the right -of -way and Mr. Hickey buying the vacated right -of -way from his neighbor. Because the right -of -way was from the subdivision to the north, all the right -of -way would accrue to the neighbor to the north. Council would have to hold a hearing on the vacation on July 19 and could authorize the code enforcement officer to issue a building permit for the Page 8 of 34 June 7, 2005 addition contingent receipt of documentation that Mr. Hickey has purchased the vacated right -of -way from his neighbor and combined it with his lot. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber, Engineer McDermott stated that there is a constructed ditch in the right -of -way and there is a question of whether that would be considered a jurisdictional wetland or not. Staff is working on that question. Mayor Huber stated that another option is simply to go with the variance approach. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the original application was for a 30 foot sideyard setback variance and that was not acted on. Assistant Hollister responded that at the time Mr. Hickey made application, he did not have architect drawings. Since that time, he has retained an architect and has submitted plans showing an addition five feet from the line, needing a 25 foot setback variance. The sideyard has the same setback as a front yard because of the right -of -way. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Hickey stated that the addition will extend either 20 feet, ten inches or fifteen feet, ten inches from the existing edge of the garage. Responding to a question from Mayor Huber, Administrator Danielson responded that staff has not researched whether a variance was granted for the original house. Mayor Huber stated that the house is currently 20 feet from the right -of -way. It would need to be 30 feet from the right - of -way to be in conformance. Right now, Mr. Hickey has a non - conforming structure. If he adds a 15 foot addition, absent any existing variances he would need a 25 foot variance. Mr. Hickey stated that 15 feet would be great and that his original thought was to request the vacation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is not normally in favor of vacating a street to create an additional lot, but Mr. Hickey is just proposing an addition, not a new structure. Page 9 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mr. Hickey stated that he is talking about a three car garage plus an addition to the kitchen. He showed a photo of his property, stating that evergreen trees were planted in the right -of -way by the original home owner. Councilmember Duggan stated that the vacation process would only add one month. He asked what encroachment the trees have made in the drainage area. Engineer McDermott stated that she does not know but that staff can televise the pipe. Councilmember Duggan stated that the addition would not impact the drainage area at all. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would like to support the project. He thinks that vacating the right -of -way is the correct way to accomplish it and stated that he would be uncomfortable voting to approve something tonight because Council does not have final drawings. He would prefer the vacation and the purchase of the land. Council would not then be moving forward with the variance when there is no hardship. Councilmember Schneeman agreed, stating that she would like to expedite the process. Attorney Schleck stated that there are a myriad of ways to approach this. Generally speaking, trying to reevaluate how the existing lot is used with respect to the zoning ordinance is not the best. Further analysis will tell whether this is a wetlands impact issue. Council really needs more information before taking any action. Engineer McDermott stated that she is working with Mr. Hickey's consultant and Dakota County Soil and Water on the wetlands issue. Councilmember Duggan moved to table the matter. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05-20, DUMOND Council acknowledged an application from Mr. William Dumond for a wetlands permit to allow construction of a Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 10 of 34 June 7, 2005 shed at 2247 Swan Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Dumond would like to build a shed within the wetland buffer. He has positioned the shed to hide behind his neighbor's garage. The city planner and Planning Commission recommended approval. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 05 -36, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A SHED AT 2247 SWAN COURT." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Mr. Dumond stated that he understands that he cannot remove any vegetation other than in the shed area. CASE NO. 05 -21, STREETER Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Don Streeter for a wetlands permit for a new home at 879 Mendakota Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the application was recommended for approval by both the Planning Commission and city planner. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 05 -37, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A NEW HOME AT 879 MENDAKOTA COURT." Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 05 -22, SMITH Council acknowledged an application from Mr. & Mrs. Nicolas Smith for a wetlands permit for a conditional use permit for a 48" high black vinyl chain link fence at 879 Mendakota Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and stated that both the Planning Commission and city planner recommended approval. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 05 -38, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A Page I I of 34 June 7, 2005 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 48" HIGH BLACK VINYL CHAIN -LINK FENCE AT 2459 HAMPSHIRE COURT." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. CASE NO. 05 -08, MENKE Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dave Menke, on behalf of the OPUS Corporation, for CUP for a PUD, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, Critical Area Permit, CUP for Fill, and Variances for a Multi - Family Residential Redevelopment at 820/840 Sibley Memorial Highway. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and letters from Ms. Rose Huntley and Mr. & Mrs. Gary Sachs and OPUS. Assistant Hollister stated that Economics Laboratories is in the process of moving its facility to Eagan and has put it property in Mendota Heights up for sale. OPUS has a purchase agreement contingent on their development plan approval. OPUS has appeared before the Planning Commission twice and before Council for concept plan review. The commission has only four members present at the last meeting and had a split vote of two to two. They were unable to come up with a recommendation, so the recommendation to Council is based on the planner's recommendation. Some of his recommendations are at variance with the development as currently proposed. Specifically, he recommends that the total impervious surface be reduced to 25 %. The plan currently is about 28% impervious surface. The planner has also shown a preference for rotating the condominiums 90 degrees and placing them at the western edge of the property rather than the southern edge. OPUS does not want to do that because that would move a three story condominium into the critical area portion of the property. They are proposing that both of the condominium buildings be located within the non - critical area of the property. Only a two story building would be allowed in the critical area. Mayor Huber stated that the planner proposes that Building B be left where it is proposed and moving Building A where townhouses 25 to 30 are proposed to go. The townhouses would slide up where Building A would have been. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Assistant Hollister stated that he believes the planner made the recommendation because he is sensitive to the view of Page 12 of 34 June 7, 2005 the single family neighbors on Cherry Hill Road. He believes the recommendation was based on the planner's motivation by a desire to leave the neighbors' view as unobstructed as possible. Mayor Huber stated that Building B is closest to the neighbors and he is not positive that moving A would serve that purpose. He stated that he is not clear what the planner means. Councilmember Duggan stated that the houses identified as 3, 4 and 5 on Cherry Hill Road are the most impacted. Assistant Hollister stated that Councilmember Vitelli had requested a summary of what could be done on the property under existing zoning. He briefly reviewed his memo outlining the uses that could occur on the property. Councilmember Vitelli stated that an important point for Council and the neighboring residents is contained in the last paragraph of the memo. After analysis of the zoning, a four story office building could be built on the property with only a critical area permit, and multiple four story office buildings could be built with a critical area permit and planned unit development. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it could not be built in the critical area without Council approval and a large majority of the parcel would not have a four story office building. Councilmember Vitelli responded that the point is that the land will not remain vacant. Everyone must realize that something will fill that space. Mayor Huber stated that hypothetical four story office building could be built north of the critical area line. Assistant Hollister stated that there is a two story height limit for residential development and four story for non- residential. Even within the critical area portion of the site, someone could build a four story office building, but a critical area permit would be required. The area where OPUS proposes buildings A and B is not in the critical area. A four story office building could be built there without a critical Page 13 of 34 June 7, 2005 area permit and without any planning approvals if the building conforms to all other aspects of the ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Assistant Hollister when he started meeting with OPUS and how many meetings he has had with them. Assistant Hollister responded that staff first became aware Economics Labs was planning to move to Eagan about 15 months ago. Economics Labs had an internal process to look for a buyer for the process and OPUS came out of the process as the leading candidate. Staff met with OPUS three or four times early has year and told them what the current zoning was. OPUS representatives inquired about residential development on the site and ultimately submitted a concept plan for residential. Councilmember Krebsbach asked to what extent Assistant Hollister contributed to the plan. Assistant Hollister responded that OPUS put forth several ideas, but staff always maintained that the city staff is not in a position to commit Council to any proposal. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern is that staff met with OPUS before it became an official plan before the Planning commission. By and large, this was developed in consultation with staff. Mayor Huber responded that is absolutely and categorically false. OPUS, McGough Construction and Economics Labs have been extraordinarily proactive in contacting the city about what is going on. The president of Economics Labs took it upon himself to let the city know about its plan to leave the city. Staff has kept Council informed about this periodically for the past twelve months. He also had conveyed to Council information about a meeting he had with a representative of McGough when they were talking to developers about a density of 200 units. Administrator Danielson and Assistant Hollister made him aware of that and he took it upon himself (and let Council know) to let McGough know they would have serious problems getting that type of density approved. It was very clear and Council was aware of it. Staff provided McGough with information on the densities of all of the multiple family developments in Mendota Heights and told them what the city's parameters Page 14 of 34 June 7, 2005 were. There were two or three developers looking at the site and staff made it very clear to McGough or Economics Labs that because Council and staff need to review their proposal, staff couldn't be guiding them as to what they should be proposing and then have Council pass judgment on it. His experience is that if anything, staff has been very proactive about telling EcoLab, McGough and OPUS that if they were considering residential, the density must be fairly low and it must be high quality. Beyond that, staff could not tell them they could not see OPUS. There were a number of questions on storm water, and staff met with them perhaps three times just on that. There should not be any suggestion that there was anything sinister about staff meeting with OPUS. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that this plan was so fully developed as a concept plan that Council had little chance to affect it. Generally in other development proposals there has been a committee of Council that has met with a developer. Council had many work sessions on Town Center. This has developed very extensively — when it came to Council as a concept plan it was totally developed. She would like to say to OPUS that the plan is too dense and the buildings too massive. There was no discussion with Council on what could go on the site. Normally Council has a lot more input, but Council never had a workshop on this. Mayor Huber responded that process would be absolutely contradictory to any development in Mendota Heights except Town Center, and in that case the city owned the property. Council has been very consistent and strict in not sitting with any developer, and jointly planning a development with OPUS would be contradictory with city policy. He had one meeting the McGough and shared that information with Council. OPUS met with Council on the concept plan and Council and staff has stayed away from planning this with them. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that as a Council, Council has not had as extensive workshop discussions on this as they have had on other properties in the city. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with the Mayor, stating that he would like to reaffirm that staff is here from 8:00 to 4:30 to help applicants and they have always done a good job of cautioning applicants that Council makes the decisions. He is sure that staff probably met with Mr. Hickey three or four Page 15 of 34 June 7, 2005 times on his small planning issue. He is also sure that no inappropriate signals were given by staff to OPUS. Councilmember Duggan stated that he could not get to the concept plan discussion on this but had submitted a long series of questions stating his concerns. OPUS is an excellent firm and they had a jump start on this type of thing. It is curious that the Council that Councilmember Krebsbach sat on approved a density of eleven units per acre in Town Center and this is 4.56 units per acre. He stated that he is confused by her signals. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her question is how frequent the meetings were between staff and OPUS. She stated that Town Center needed to move through as a total development and it was a very sensitive issue at that time and she did not take a stand on the density. She knows staff is here to be helpful but she is concerned that Mr. Menke said there was considerable investment in this and one of the Planning Commissioners voted against it because of the size of the condominium buildings and another because of the impervious surface. She is concerned about the massiveness of the condominiums and about the density. When she met with Mr. Menke, he said they could take out two townhouses. She is also concerned about taking trees out of the corner of the site. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she resents Councilmember Krebsbach putting Assistant Hollister on the spot and calling his integrity into question. This proposal is totally different from Town Center. Economics Labs sold its property to a private developer. She stated that she has been very happy with the way the information has come to Council. Mayor Huber stated that he thinks the public would have been upset if Council had workshops with OPUS. There were several workshops on Town Center and there was public concern about that. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is not saying that Assistant Hollister did anything inappropriate. Her concern is that this plan came to Council so fully developed that she dos not feel Council had the same amount of time on it as on other projects. Page 16 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mr. Menke stated that this is not unlike any process OPUS takes on in any development. They take the concept plan to a pretty developed level so that they get the feedback they need. They work closely with city staffs with respect to technical issues. OPUS has made a number of compromises and is very excited about this project. The site plan is very similar to the concept plan that Council reviewed. It is a twinhome concept for the northerly two thirds of the site and two condominium buildings on the southerly one third. The condominiums have been reduced from one four story building to two three story, thirty unit buildings, and the density has been reduced from 131 (in the concept plan) to 114 units and it consists of two thirty unit condominium buildings and 54 townhouses. The tree line on Wachtler will remain preserved and a stand of trees to the northwest edge will be preserved. There will be tree removal, but OPUSD has plans for extensive landscaping and will replant over 700 trees to replace those that are removed. There is a surface water retention pond at the center of the property and there is a 100 foot setback from the eastern border and a 100 foot setback on the western border. The Park Commission wanted a Wachtler /T.H. 13 trail alignment, and OPUS supports that. The roadway system has remained unchanged, except the primary ring road will be a public roadway as Council discussed at the concept plan review. The access to Wachtler has been moved slightly to the south to line up with the driveway across the street to provide the safest condition, but it could be moved another ten to fifteen feet. Councilmember Duggan stated that the concern of the neighbor across Wachtler was not just about lights shining into her home, but as they turn onto T.H. 13 they will also shine into her home. He asked if OPUS would be amenable to working with her on landscaping on her property to do something to minimize that impact. Mr. Menke responded that OPUS has already done that for the property owners to the southeast of the property. The elevation of this home as opposed to the elevation of the development site may not allow him to do much, but OPUS will do whatever it can on landscape screening for her. Mayor Huber stated that his concern about the alignment of the access to Wachtler. To someone driving out of the neighbor's driveway headlights first, it would feel like an intersection, but what is more of a concern is if someone is Page 17 of 34 June 7, 2005 backing out of the neighbor's driveway because it would be like the concept of backing into a four way intersection. Their guests would not be familiar with what they would be backing into. A ten to fifteen foot offset might make sense. Mr. Mike Monahan, traffic engineer from SRF, stated that it is his opinion that if the driveway is across from the entrance to the development, it would be safer than offsetting the entrance. Engineer McDermott agreed with Mr. Monahan that the road should be lined up with the driveway. Responding to a request from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Monahan briefly reviewed the traffic study and how the information was generated for Council and the audience. Councilmember Schneeman asked how many cars go in and out of Economics Labs now. Mr. Monahan responded the average daily trips out of Ecolab was 1,157 trips per day, with the highest volume in the A.M. peak hours. The proposed development would } generate 680 trips per day during the week, and there are normally fewer trips per day on the weekend. Councilmember Duggan stated that he does not feel that would be a significant impact on Wachtler. Traffic studies are generally quite accurate. Mr. Menke stated that there was quite a bit of discussion at the Planning Commission about setbacks. The old condition for units 2 through 6 and 44 through 48 had dimensions on the side loaded garages setback as little as four or five feet. Those with the more traditional front load condition had setbacks as little as 21 feet from parking a vehicle to the right -of -way. In the new plan, the side loaded condition with face of garage to right -of -way is now ten feet, and the front loaded condition is now at 26 feet minimum. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Mr. Menke stated that the constrained condition occurred in the central portion of the site. What increasing the setbacks did was increase the impervious surface. It was previously at 26.5 and went to 28 %. The initial submittal was 36 %. Page 18 of 34 June 7, 2005 Today's Ecolab impervious is at 27% and it does not have a lot of water retention on site. Councilmember Duggan stated that six feet was added for the side loaded garages and five feet on the front loaded garages, and in doing that the impervious surface was increased and the holding pond size was decreased. Mayor Huber stated that impervious surface goes to spaciousness. In Ecolab's case, a lot of the impervious surface is in parking lots that people cannot see. A large part of the 28% proposed in the development is structures going up. One should keep in mind when talking about PUD impervious surface functions as an indirect lever on resulting density. He did not think it is comparable to 27% impervious surface for Ecolab. Councilmember Duggan stated that OPUS is asking for 12% higher impervious surface than the city normally permits. He asked whether this development would have an impact on the Metropolitan Council's concerns over the sewer system and infiltration/inflow. } Engineer McDermott responded that the sanitary sewer that _ would be installed with this development is plastic pipe and it would be water tight, so the ground water will not flow into the sanitary sewer and cause I/I. Mr. Menke reviewed overhead elevations of the proposed project and reviewed elevations of the twin homes and the condominiums and reviewed the unit sizes. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she met with Mr. Menke between the concept plan discussion and this meeting. She stated that the community is pleased that OPUS is doing the development. That is not the question. She looked at some condominium buildings that Mr. Menke suggested, and they are massive. The plan was fully developed at the concept plan stage. Mr. Menke responded that the original plan was for a single 68 home building considerably larger in mass and number of units than the buildings that are now planned. Page 19 of 34 June 7, 2005 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she finds that on the river, this is very massive. She asked how the condominiums compare to the Fairfield Inn. Mr. Menke responded that the buildings will not be seen from the river. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she had suggested to Mr. Menke that OPUS take out units 13 and 14 but that was not done. In her meeting with Mr. Menke, they talked a lot about buffering. In her opinion, people are comfortable with developments as long as they perimeter is protected. Mr. Menke reviewed the landscaping plan for T.H. 13 and Wachtler. He stated that only two trees would be saved by removing the two twinhome units. There is 318 feet from the corner of the units to the corner of Wachtler/13. The clump of trees that exists to day is a mixture of trees, many of which are diseased. OPUS will plant many new trees. Mr. Damon Farber, landscape architect for the project, stated that 20 nice trees are shown as remaining. The tallest trees, which are basswood and boxelder will be removed. The trees that will remain are 20 to 40 feet and height and 30 deciduous trees will be added. They will also add 20 evergreen ranging from 6 to 10 feet in height, and there is an opportunity to transplant several trees in that area. Mayor Huber stated that if one or two of the structures were removed, that would also make progress on the impervious surface issue. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her feeling was that removing units 13 and 14 gave a lot of relief to the project. Any of the negative comments she has received from people who live in Mendota Heights have related to allowing so much density, and that relates to Town Center as well as this. That is a very graceful corner, and removing the two units would give it a lot of relief. Her feeling is that the site is a good site for a research facility because of the bedrock and it would be a good place for sensitive instrumentation. She felt if units 13 and 14 are taken out it would give relief and reduce the impact. She does not know what can be done about the massiveness of the condominium buildings. The size of the condominiums will affect the people behind them. Page 20 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mr. Farber stated that there will be a significant amount of new plantings behind the condominiums. He has met also with the neighbors on parcels 1 through 5 and will be adding 12 trees on Parcel 1. They will add maple on parcel five and 20 more evergreens in the woods on parcels 2, 3 and 4. That is a significant buffer. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Building B can be swung so that the western end moves a little further in, rotating it so the corner comes in. Mr. Menke stated that he has met with the Schwabs several times, and viewed the site from their dining room and deck. He believes curving the building would impact them in a negative way. Mayor Huber asked if the building can be moved north to pull it into the development. Mr. Menke stated that moving Building B is a possibility, but OPUS has spent considerable time on the site and on neighboring properties, viewing the impact on the neighbors and think they have arrived at a siting of the building that is the best. Mayor Huber stated that if one looks at units 15 through 22, they seem to be closer to Highway 13 than what is behind 23 and 24, so it is not clear to him why there is not a way to drag the whole situation outside the ring road in order to pull Building B to the north. There is open space next to 23 and 24. Mr. Menke responded that there is detention that exists to the rear of those units and there is also a large stand of existing pines. Mayor Huber stated that there appears to be a bigger drop off area for building B than for Building A and there seems to be a possibility of providing some relief there by shifting B left into the driveway circle rather than rotating it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if the massiveness of the condominium buildings cannot be reduced, then moving building B further in and removing units 29 and 30 would help. Page 21 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mayor Huber stated that if a unit is taken out to give room to slide Building B, there would be some progress on impervious surface and perhaps has a positive impact on the neighbors' sight lines. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the people behind the condominiums are happy with this plan. Mr. Menke responded that he met with all of the property owners, and OPUS will be planting some taller pines on the Schwab property. OPUS has had open and direct communication with the neighbors and has made every attempt they can to orient the buildings for the neighbors. He can certainly explore moving the building but that could have a significant domino effect on engineering on how the site circulates. Councilmember Schneeman stated that if units 29 and 30 were taken out, they would not have to move Building B up so close and have such a short entry way, and that would also reduce impervious surface. Mayor Huber stated that as you go up Cherry Hills there is a very significant stand of trees and the sight line is different. As one gets down to residences 3, 4 and 5, everything opens up. He feels that moving building B could be significant for the neighbors behind it. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he thinks the idea of moving Building B fifteen feet north is a good suggestion because it moves the building further from the single family homes and OPUS would not have to take out units 29 and 30. That increases the distance from the single family homes and reduces the appearance of the size of the buildings. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Mr. Menke stated that each condominium unit will have a balcony. The exterior materials will be a combination of stone, stucco and lathe complimenting the twin homes. Mr. Gary Sachs, 1366 Cherry Hill Road, stated that listening to the suggestions about push the B building in, he wondered if it would be possible to push it enough to put a twin home between the two condominiums so he would not be looking at a 55 foot tall building. His main concern and that of the Schwabs as well is they have open back yards now and will Page 22 of 34 June 7, 2005 be looking at a 55 foot tall building in their back yards. Ecolab is there now, but that building is 200 feet away from where this is proposed. It will be a beautiful area, but the condominiums are massive. He asked if it is possible to have three two -story condominium buildings rather than two three -story buildings. Mayor Huber suggested that a mansard roof on the condominiums would help. He stated that he is concerned that with the peaked roof, the neighbors would lose their view of the horizon. The mansard roof would bring the peak down by ten feet, and the neighbors would not lose the horizon as much. Mayor Huber stated that what has come up tonight is that Building B should be slide north and also mansard the roofs to bring the roof line down. Mr. Menke stated that a traditional roof would be about 48 feet to peak. A mansard roof would be about 40 feet to the peak. Councilmember Vitelli stated that in the package of information from OPUS there are a photograph and a simulation of what is proposed. The computer generated rendering is very accurate in terms of tree location, etc., with the photograph. If one were to draw the horizon onto the rendering, it would be at the second story balcony. It would have to be a one story building for the neighbors to see the horizon. He stated that a mansard roof would do nothing. Mayor Huber stated that right now you can see the Minneapolis skyline over the top of the three story Ecolab building,, so he did not agree that the condominium would have to be a one story building to protect the skyline. Councilmember Vitelli stated that if the condo is pushed down to where the Ecolab building is now, you could get by with three stories, but where the condominiums are proposed to be located, they would have to be single story to see the skyline. Councilmember Duggan agreed, stating the line for the horizon is just below the top balcony of the condominium. Page 23 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mayor Huber stated that reducing the height of the building will make the building look smaller and feel smaller, and that is a positive thing to think about doing. Mrs. Gail Schwab stated that her view is drastically affected. Her view is beautiful now. OPUS has been very accommodating, but that is not a replacement for her view. Her view of the river would go right through the condominiums. Pushing the building in is an exciting idea and would offer some relief, and she appreciates it. Mr. Menke stated that OPUS will take under consideration the movement of Building B in a northeasterly direction (perpendicular to the long dimension of the building). He cannot commit to an actual dimension. He would also remove units 13 and 14 and commit to a mansard roof on the condominiums. Mayor Huber raised the issue of storm water and park contribution. He stated that what he thought he has said was that as OPUS works on the storm water line on Wachtler, to the extent that the shoulder on Wachtler needs added fill on top of the storm water line to accommodate the trail, Mr. Menke could talk to Council about whether that part of the project may have an offset to the park contribution. He had never contemplated that the park fees could be offset in total by the storm water project. He stated that he had never contemplated and there is no way he would support it. Mr. Menke stated that the scope of the storm water and trail grading was $70,000 to $80,000 early on. The engineers refined the solution a proposed solution, they propose a pipe from Emerson to T.H 13, versus a pipe that was going to terminate about half way down Wachtler, so the scope has changed. Today storm water runs from Emerson underneath Wachtler through some pipes in various conditions of disrepair and open ditches across the property. That storm water is not related to the OPUS property, it is off the site. The discussion he has had with staff is how to get the county or city to make that repair. OPUS is dealing with the storm water for its development. He posed the of idea whether completing pipe work and trail work at the same time would have merit, and that is the purpose of the proposal he put forth. The benefits would be that it would not be a two prong disruption to install trail in the future and pipe installation now. Page 24 of 34 June 7, 2005 Mayor Huber stated that it is one thing to offset against park fees the incremental portion that would be needed to build the trail above and beyond the storm water that needs to be taken care of. Councilmember Vitelli stated that there is a proposal for the tax payers to pay $140,000. If it wasn't taken out of park fees, the tax payers would have the money. He does not look at this as taking it from park fees as much as taking money from the tax payers. If the city just wanted a trail there, he would agree with the $20,000 for grading. The water is running there now, and Ecolab is there now and the city doesn't have to do anything. Now that development is proposed, OPUS is looking at the city to fund $120,000. Mr. Walter Rockenstein, from Faberge and Benson, stated that there is another way to look at this. Up until now the city has been getting a free source for getting rid of its storm water. The city has been putting it in a private property. That storm water is ultimately the city's responsibility. OPUS could say the city should pay the entire cost. The time has come to deal with the storm water. OPUS is paying all the cost to deal with the storm water they are generating. Councilmember Duggan stated that as he remembers the law, half of the money generated for park fees must be spent on this development. Mr. Rockenstein stated that there was a change in the law that now says there must be a nexus between any fee the city makes to a property and the benefits to be received. The city could take the park fee and spend it somewhere else but cannot charge a fee that has no nexus to the property. Attorney Schleck stated that the issue of storm water drainage and who can do what and who is getting what kind of benefit should be discussed further because there are ways to interpret what Mr. Rockenstein is saying. Mayor Huber stated that he would like to have OPUS bring specifics brought back to the next meeting. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he thinks the development is good for Mendota Heights. He thinks it is a professional development and professional plan. It is clear to him there is Page 25 of 34 June 7, 2005 demand for the housing. A lot of people have told him that they are going to buy units. He thinks it probably maximizes the tax revenue for that property. The biggest disadvantage is that three residents are severely impacted by the size of the buildings and the view. That makes a decision difficult for Council. Council has to think about the other alternatives as well. This land will develop and everyone needs to realize that in the south end of the property there could be a four story office building without any Council approvals. Councilmember Duggan moved to table further discussion to June 21. Councihember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 10:39 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:47 p.m. CASE NO.05 -13, FRETSCHEL Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Richard J. Fretschel for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, conditional use permit and variances for an animated digital sign at 1897 Delaware Avenue (Henry Sibley High School). Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and a letter from Mrs. Janice Chasman. Council also acknowledged an opinion letter from Attorney Schleck. Assistant Hollister reviewed the history of the request and the Planning Commission discussions on the application. Mr. Fretschel has applied for a zoning ordinance amendment to allow digital animated signs. Since Council has expressed concern over digital signs, staff felt Mr. Fretschel should also apply for a conditional use permit. Also, since Henry Sibley High School is in the R -1 district and the signage requirements in R -1 are very strict, staff felt he should apply for a variance. At the May Planning Commission, there were four members present and there was a 2/2 split vote. Since the commission was not able to pass a recommendation to Council, staff fell back on the planner's recommendation. Mr. Fretschel made the case that while he appreciates Mr. Grittman attempting to write ordinance language to allow digital signs, he thinks the language will not allow him to meet his objectives for his sign and he has suggested alternate language. The two aspects he finds the biggest obstacles are the 500 foot distance from a residential Page 26 of 34 June 7, 2005 property and Mr. Gritkman has proposed that there be only one message per day on the sign. Mr. Fretschel objects to that. It is Mr. Fretschel's representation that he is acting with the blessing of the school district. Mr. Fretschel stated that he is here to discuss a petition to get a sign at Henry Sibley. He knew when he first started that that there were issues related to signs like the one he proposes. He sent a letter to each of the Council members personally, addressing the issues. He knew this was going to be a long process and thinks what he has presented to Council and the Planning Commission is the culmination of a lot of ideas and a lot of hard work. Mr. Fretschel stated that he met with the planner on the issues and that is how he came to the proposed zoning amendment language. Councilmember Duggan stated that he appreciates Mr. Fretschel's time and efforts in taking him around to look at similar signs. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that everyone is concerned about a proliferation of signs. She stated that she feels a large public high school should have a sign with restrictions that it be a monument sign, that it not rotate, and that there be beginning and ending times but she also was concerned that there would be a proliferation of these signs. Because of that she asked the city attorney to give Council information on how the signs can be limited. Attorney Schleck stated that this issue has very far reaching consequences. It comes down to First Amendment issues of freedom of speech. There are much broader implications of whatever the city does. The courts have found that cities have the right to impose time, manner and place restrictions on free speech, or signage, under certain very specific conditions. Cities have the ability to restrict signs in terms of content neutrality, in terms of having a substantial interest in restricting such signage, for instance, Courts have found that if a city chooses to restrict a sign based on the fact that it might be disturbing to traffic, that is a valid reason to restrict signage. It must be a narrowly tailored restriction. Council has to leave open alternative channels of communication. The issue in this case is the issue of content neutrality. The courts have interpreted content neutrality such that cities cannot restrict the messages on signs. They also found cities cannot restrict based on zoning classification. That is the Page 27 of 34 June 7, 2005 potential issue that Council is struggling with — how to narrowly tailor an ordinance to allow these signs but at the same time try prevent a proliferation in commercial districts. The question is if that can be done in such a way that if the city were challenged in court, the city would have a good chance to win. There are two other cities that do this. The Edina city attorney told him that Edina is dealing with a proliferation of the signs in the commercial districts. They have even put one in front of City Hall. There is an ability to do some restrictions, but Council must leave open other avenues of expression in signage. It would be difficult. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if it is possible to limit the signs to schools. Attorney Schleck responded that he thinks the city would struggle with that, because it would have to be considered to be content neutral. Businesses could argue that it is not content neutral if it is only allowed for schools. He thinks it would be a very burdensome signage ordinance. Mayor Huber stated that Brown College falls into the category of schools. Boltz Tae Kwan Do could also be considered a school. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that another important issue is in the language that the planner provided, (bullet e); the sign could only be changed once a day. Attorney Schleck responded that the Edina ordinance contains a similar provision, and he feels that can be upheld. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the language can be in the ordinance to allow the signs only for schools. Attorney Schleck responded that he thinks the city would be subjected to a challenge if it did that. There are ways the city could restrict how the signs could be used, but by limiting it to schools is not the right way. There could be language on how far they had to be from residential districts. Mayor Huber questioned whether there could be language requiring a distance of 500 feet from Mendota Heights residences versus 500 feet of a residential district. Page 28 of 34 June 7, 2005 Attorney Schleck stated that he thinks the city would be subjected to a challenge, and also, the zoning classification could be changed on the other side of Delaware. Mayor Huber stated that he is concerned about treating the people on the other side of Delaware the same way as Mendota Heights residents.. Attorney Schleck stated that what he is saying is that, depending on what Council does, the city may not be successful if someone sues the city on the ordinance. It is difficult to divide it along zoning classifications or business classification. That would get into content neutrality. Mr. Fretschel stage that saying 500 feet from any residents of Mendota Heights would solve the problem. He stated that he knows Council does not want the sign. The people in West St. Paul have no problem with it for the most part. The 500 foot requirement would not work for where he wants to put the sign. He stated that he is confused with the attorney saying that if the signs were restricted to R -1 they would automatically go to commercial. Attorney Schleck responded that based on case law, if it is restricted to R -1 and someone challenged it, the city would likely lose. Mayor Huber stated that Council's concern from the beginning was whether an ordinance can be written that restricts the signs and whether the city would prevail if there was a challenge. The city attorney is saying that the city would probably lose. One of Council's concerns from the beginning was over a proliferation of the signs, and the city's ability to restrict them is not very good. Attorney Schleck stated that zoning is the ability for a city to exercise its police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. That is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is a First Amendment issue. Council is talking about the right to free speech. It is a completely different issue. This is much more difficult than just approving a sign. St. Paul has been dealing with the same issue with respect to billboards and lost. Superintendent of Schools John Longtin stated that there was a question voiced earlier about whether Mr. Fretschel has the Page 29 of 34 June 7, 2005 support of the school district. The answer is obvious — he does. That is why he is present along with members of the school board. The sign would be nice for the school and serve a valuable service to the school and the community. The school district has partnered with the city on parks and law enforcement and want to continue partnering with the city any way it can. He stated that he too struggles with the issues Council is facing. It is not as simple as just putting up a sign, and people have been trying to think of ways this can be done without any problems for the city down the road. He asked whether signs could be limited only to the size and dimensions and type of structure that is being proposed. He wondered how many businesses would put that type of sign in front of their stores. He stated that the supporters of the sign do not want to work against the city in any way. From his perspective, when he goes to Simley and sees their sign and other digital signs, and he hopes there is a way within the law to do something. Mr. Fretschel is asking for a variance, and a change for an exception and everyone else would have to do the same. He stated that the sign would be a true asset to the school. Ms. Rita Schiffinan, 1595 Diane Road, stated that she is concerned about the Council in terms of its cavalier attitude about this. The Council has a letter from one West St. Paul resident who is against this and 900 signatures on a petition in favor of it. This is a community issue. She has heard a lot about one of the reasons the founding fathers did not want signs is because they wanted to keep this a dark community. — they wanted people to get together to communicate. Council has the ability to keep this a community. The sign would advertise concerts by the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra and other community activities at the school. There is no community center and that is what is happening at the high school. It is the city's community center and that is what differentiates it from churches, etc. Council has to recognize that what was right for the city's founding fathers are different. Information on events cannot be communicated like they were years ago. Businesses and stores no longer allow posters on events. One could find case law on just about every side of an issue, and she is sure one could find case law the other way as well. Everything Council does leaves it open to lawsuits. This is not a public high school sign; it is for the 900 people who signed the petition. Page 30 of 34 June 7, 2005 Attorney Schleck responded that he is not saying Council cannot approve the sign. He is saying that if Council approves the sign, it is likely that it will be very difficult to restrict other businesses from putting up similar signs. Mayor Huber stated that perhaps someone could draw from Ms. Schiffinan's comments that the city attorney was instructed to come up with an opinion that kills the sign. He does not give Council feedback; he gives his best, honest legal opinion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the concern has been Council's ability to restrict the signs, so she asked the city attorney to give an opinion. Mayor Huber stated that it is not acting cavalier to spend money to have legal opinion. Council has spent a year on this and has not been cavalier about it. Ms. Liz Staples, 727 Spring Creek Circle, stated that if every sign in the city looked like the one that is proposed, she would be a very pleased resident and she thinks Council should rethink why it is opposed to digital signs. She thinks signs like this would class up all of the signs in the community, like the Mendota Plaza and SuperAmerica, etc. This should be the gold standard of what signs should like in the city. She is not offended by digital signs. Ms. Nancy Farencruse, 1256 Smith Avenue in West St. Paul, stated that she strongly supports the sign because she is very proud of Sibley and the sign would promote the school. It would also be a wonderful community outreach tool. Ms. Mary McGroary- Usset, 1827 Rolling Green Curve and a school board member, stated that the school district would like to work with the city to take advantage of this. She asked Council to think about if there is a way to look at ordinances to help Council as it struggles with the issue of signs. She stated that she is very supportive of the sign. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that she would like nothing more than for Sibley to have the sign, but she takes the attorney's opinion seriously. Mayor Huber stated that Council keeps coming back to the concern over the proliferation of the signs. There have been many Council and Planning Commission discussions on this. Page 31 of 34 June 7, 2005 It has been an opportunity to hear from the community on both sides, and he thinks that Council views this as a big change and something that has the potential to be significant. It would be nice to see that the community has a sense that people can live with this, but he has not seen much sense the Council has come to something it can live with in terms of the proliferation issue. There does not appear to be consensus in favor of the ordinance amendment. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that once there is one of something, there is more. She would like to look at a potential ordinance that at some point would be very specific to what a sign like this would be but she is not prepared to do that tonight. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he made it clear last time that he will never vote for a digital animated sign in the city. In addition, in the comments from the city planner it has been the experience of other cities that these signs have been enforcement issues. Also, the city attorney's comments are such that it would be a mistake for Council to approve this sign and assume it could ever control it. He stated that as long as he is on the Council he will vote against animated digital signs in the city. Councilmember Duggan stated that he was labeled as the swing vote on the issue a few meetings ago and as the result met with Mr. Fretschel and Ms. Usset and took a tour of digital signs at schools. He has come to the conclusion that he does not want to change the ordinance. He did not come to the conclusion easily. He has traveled around the community at 6:00 a.m. and in the fog, sunlight, etc. and looked at the different signs. He has looked at signs on Robert Street and there is only one sign that has the time and temperature, but he thinks that the rural, residential character of the city would forever be changed. That was his concern when he asked the city attorney if he could come up with an iron clad ordinance. He cannot support opening that gate. Mendota Heights is a very rural, very residential and quiet place. The ordinances crafted fifty years ago made it that way, and he cannot support approving the ordinance. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she probably hates digital signs more than anyone else. When one drives down Highway 10, they are all over and they area worse than noise pollution. The proposed monument sign is beautiful and she Page 32 of 34 June 7, 2005 thinks a message board would be wonderful for the school, but she would never vote for a digital sign. Mr. Fretschel stated that Council should drive by the fire station - there is a sign lighted with a changing arrow. This has gone on so long because many people believed in it. People did yeoman's work to craft language, to design a sign that looks good and does what they want it to. For the city attorney to suggest this could go to the Supreme Court because Council can't decide where this will stop seems bizarre to him. It took time to get the petition and the people have spoken. He does not think that having digital signs really means much to people. He stated that he said from the beginning that he would raise the money for the sign. He did his homework and this was a sign simply for the community to get messages from. He presented the city with the issues and came back to discuss what the language should be. His group researched things. The St. Thomas sign is huge. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the size of the sign does not bother her. It is the electronics that bother her. Mr. Fretschel. stated that it is bizarre to him that Council cares about the lights in the community and says the signs would go everywhere. This sign would not flash. Mayor Huber stated that there was a concern from the beginning about whether the sign could be limited to Sibley. The only reason Council is dealing with this today is because Council was at least willing to consider it because it was Sibley. He would like to support Sibley; and the city has done a lot of things to support the school district. There was a feeling on his part that there were a number of parents trying to draw the community into the school. Getting parent and community involvement is important and part of the reason he tried to support this. The flip side from the start was whether the city could control the logistics. Council has concerns about controlling it matched up with concerns from the residents that they do not want to start seeing these signs everywhere. It is a laudable thing to do but Council is not willing to expose the city's residents to something they are not willing to go to. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city has an opinion from the attorney and she is not prepared to craft an ordinance tonight. She also did not want to give any kind of i l Page 33 of 34 June 7, 2005 false impression at some point forward there will be an ordinance that will work. She has questions about proliferation and cannot vote for it tonight. Councilmember Vitelli moved to deny the zoning ordinance amendment and direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the conditional use permit for consideration at the next meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HiPP RECOGNITION Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending that the city authorize an expenditure of up to $200 to assist in funding a HiPP recognition event to be held on June 30. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize an expenditure of $200 to assist in funding the HiPP recognition event. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Duggan stated that Council's packet included registration information for a National Aviation Noise Lobby Conference at Eagan from July 20 to 22 and he would like to attend the conference. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she might also like to attend. Councilmember Krebsbach expressed appreciation to Assistant Hollister for his contributions to the city and that she did not mean anything negative in her earlier comments but felt that the OPUS proposal should have been brought to Council at the development level. Councilmember Schneeman expressed condolences to the Curley family on the death of Mary Adele Curley. Councilmember Duggan stated that he was going to make a motion to reconsider the action Council took with respect to commission term limits and that he would like to bring the matter up at a workshop. His concern was particularly over two commissioners on the ARC. Councilmember Schneeman responded that Mayor Huber and Councilmember Krebsbach worked on it and that she thought the term limit action was a very good decision. Page 34 of 34 June 7, 2005 j ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk -1-0-W John J. Mayor