Loading...
2005-03-15 City Council minutesPage 1 of 28 March 15, 2005 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, March 15, 2005 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Councilmembers Duggan, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RITOWIFIRTIVEIVIT9321M Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 1, 2005 as amended. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: Duggan CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the consent for the meeting, revised to remove item 6f, ATT /Cingular lease agreement amendment, from the agenda and to move items 6i, outlot purchase, 6j, ordinance amendment, and 6k, conditional use permit approval, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Minutes from the February 9, 2005 Airports Relations Commission Meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the February 2005 Treasurers Report. c. Acknowledgement of the February 2005 Monthly Fire Department Report. d. Authorization for Drug Task Force JPA Renewal. Page 2 of 28 March 15, 2005 e. Authorization for issuance of a purchase order for 2005 Street Sweeping. f. Approval of the official appointment of Sue McDermott to the position of regular, full -time City Engineer effective March 8, 2005. g. Approval to hire Sam Kuchinka as a temporary engineering intern at the rate of $12.00 per hour. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 05 -16, "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SAFE & SOBER CAMPAIGN 2005 — 2006 AS A PARTNER WITH THE DAKOTA COUNTY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE." i. Approval of list of contractor licenses dated March 15, 2005. j.Approval of the list of claims dated March 15, 2005 and totaling $54,776.84. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 OUTLOT SALE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding the October 19, 2004 Council approval of a request from Michael Sethna and Ruth Lynfield, 1242 Culligan Lane, to purchase Outlot B, Valley View Oak from the city. Council had directed staff to determine a purchase price and draft a purchase agreement, however staff recommends that the outlot be retained by the city in order to avoid storm water management issues. Councilmember Duggan moved to direct staff to take no further action to sell Outlot B, Valley View Oak. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: Krebsbach ORDINANCE AMENDMENT/ Council acknowledged a memo and proposed zoning CUP FOR MASSAGE THERAPY ordinance amendment to allow massage therapy programs as BROWN COLLEGE a conditional use under certain conditions. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the massage therapy program must be an accredited program and that would limit any other kind of massage operation. This is for instruction and therapeutic reasons. Page 3 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Ordinance No. 399, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 -1G -2 OF THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY CODE, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY PROVIDING FOR MASSAGE THERAPY SERVICES AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO TRADE SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES, BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT," and Resolution No. 05 -17, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MASSAGE THERAPY AT 1440 NORTHLAND DRIVE." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: Huber PRESENTATIONS Mayor Huber introduced Dakota County Commissioner Tom Egan to the audience. Commissioner Egan stated that he was privileged to make his first presentation to Council as a County Commissioner and was happy to represent the city on the Metropolitan Council. For two years after graduating from law school, he lived in Mendota Heights and feels at home here. His two and a half months as a county commissioner have been very busy. He is present this evening to briefly discuss the project at Delaware Avenue and T.H. 110. The county is in the process of completing right -of -way acquisition. There is a settlement with the church on one of the corners of the intersection and there is a condemnation with an apartment complex at another corner. Hopefully a contract will be awarded in June, with construction beginning in July and completion in the fall. The estimated cost is $530,000. MnDOT is contributing $250,000 to the project. The rest of the cost will be shared by the county and the cities of West St. Paul and Mendota Heights. The county will pick up the Sunfish Lake portion of the cost because it is a city of less than 5,000. Mendota Heights will be responsible for two quarters of the city portion and West St. Paul will be responsible for one quarter. The Mendota Heights portion will be an estimated $66,125. Mayor Huber stated that the signal project and upgrading of the intersection is a project Council has been looking forward to. Councilmember Duggan stated that it will be a delight for everyone and it will be money well spent on the city's part to avoid any more major accidents. Page 4 of 28 March 15, 2005 Commissioner Egan stated that he has been contacted by the developer of the Economics Laboratory redevelopment project located on Wachtler Avenue (a county road), and he would like Council to let him know of any concerns they may have. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the major concerns -is storm water runoff that would affect the county road, and she thinks Council should touch base on that with the county. There will probably be other concerns as well. Councilmember Schneeman felt that it is upsetting and unrealistic that Sunfish Lake should not have to pay anything for the Delaware upgrade. Commissioner Egan responded that since they have a population of less than 5,000, the county is required under state law or county policy that they do not have to participate equally. Commissioner Egan stated that he has spoken with the county administrator about dispatching at the request of Councilmember Vitelli. The administrator is looking forward to an engaged process. The most appropriate county staff contact person is Captain Dave Bellows. The county board has had a workshop where they discussed overall county communications and he will stay very close to the process. CJIN Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending approval of city financial participation in the Criminal Justice Information Integration Network (CHIN). Mayor Huber introduced Ms. Mary Cerkvenik, Dakota County CJIN Coordinator to Council and the audience. Ms. Cerkvenik informed Council that CHIN is a project that began in 1999 as a cooperative venture between the Dakota County cities and the county to focus on integration of criminal justice systems. Dakota County is one of only a few counties that has received federal funding to implement CHIN. She reviewed the components of CHIN and the activities and accomplishments that have occurred over the past five years and will occur in the future to make information systems more useful for everyone. Page 5 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Vitelli asked.if Ms. Cerkvenik if she feels the city is taking adequate advantage of the CJIIN resources that are available and whether the officers have adequate access to it. Ms. Cerkvenik responded that most cities are using the information on warrants and the prisoners regularly. The Mendota Heights police department will launch the ebriefing module next week. She is not sure of the access from the squad cars. The cities that have the best results from this system have good mobile connections in the squad cars and good laptop access, but the systems are also very stable in the offices over high speed internet. Police Chief Aschenbrener stated that the department is using the arrest record module and will be using the ebriefing system but the department does not have access to automatic arrest cards in the squads. The officers come back and do it in the office. The system is not compatible with the city's current records management software, but the department is moving that way. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the department needs more resources and if taking advantage of this is linked to the task force on communications that he and Mayor Huber are participating in. Chief Aschenbrener responded that is a big part of the linkage. The department has some of the hardware and is waiting to put it on line. Also, the task force is looking at some of the other components. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Ms. Cerkvenik stated that Eagan, Burnsville, Lakeville and Inver Grove Heights are using an amazing amount of information and are adapting to the use of the system. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he thinks Council should take a good look at this at budget time so that the city does not lag behind in taking advantage of what is available. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize an expenditure of $6,585.96 for the Mendota Heights share of CriMNet. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 6 of 28 March 15, 2005 PLAYGROUND Council acknowledged a memo from Operations and Project EQUIPMENT Coordinator Guy Kullander relative to a request from the { Somerset School PTA for a city contribution of $15,000 to assist in the cost of play equipment at Somerset School. Ms. Mary Bowman, Principal of Somerset School, was present along with Ms. Debi McConnell, President of the PTA members of the playground committee and students and parents. Mr. Kullander stated that the PTA and Somerset principal approached the Parks and Recreation Commission last week on what their plans are to upgrade the play equipment at the school. They have three play areas now. One is 30 plus years old and another was constructed in 1990. They intend to remove those play structures and relocate them to a flatter area. School district staff will do all the removals and install the turf, surfacing and timbers, put in basketball hard courts and extend the existing pathway from Dodd Road westerly to connect with the city's trail. They asked that the city cover one third of the $45,000 cost of the play equipment. The commission voted six to zero to recommend the use of $10,000 of Special Park Fund money. Ms. Bowman stated that Somerset has older playgrounds and they are at the end of their lives. The school district has two certified playground inspectors on staff. The district has had concerns about the playgrounds. Playground inspections raised issues about the equipment being too high, and the distance between the swings is an issue as is the surface. The playgrounds are also on two different grades. The bigger issue is the fall material that is there to protect the students and the neighborhood children. The play protection continues to erode because of the difference in the grades. She showed photographs of the playground areas and reviewed the proposed improvements. She stated that she is coming to the city because she believes this is a benefit to the city. The playgrounds are used all the time as a community park, and the new playground will enhance the play activities for the entire communities. She reviewed the funding for the project and stated that the extensive land work is only possible because of the referendum. Work would begin right after the end of school and will be completed before September. Mayor Huber stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission looks very closely at its funds and has to be Page 7 of 28 March 15, 2005 very much convinced this is a good project given the 6/0 vote. It is convincing to him at the $10,000 level, sop he supports that amount. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the citizens just approved a $56 million referendum whose intent was for facilities improvements in District 197. He asked why Somerset has to seek funds elsewhere. Ms. Bowman responded that the district is putting a huge amount into the project. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the city could be run the city for 20 years on $56 million. He asked if the school district is unwilling to pay for this. Ms. Bowman responded that playgrounds have really been the responsibility of PTAs. The district is doing what it can for this project, and all the other schools raised money for their playgrounds. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he opposes the request for several reasons. First, the citizens just approved a $56 million referendum to improve school district facilities and this is a school facility. This is a request for an additional $15,000 from the same people who approved the referendum. The district should fund the project. Second is the argument that the playground is used by the community. The parks the city fund are also used by the community and the city does not go to the school district to seek funds because the classes use rinks and fields. Third, the city has approved assistance at Mendota School and the Friendly Hills middle school. The city was just informed that it lost $177,000 from the state, and with that kind of fiscal picture he finds it difficult to support something that requests additional money from taxpayers who just approved $56 million for district facilities. This is clearly a district facility. Councilmember Duggan stated he went to the site today and the playground really does need improvements. Somerset School is one of the hallmarks of the city and he thinks of the many parents, grandparents and children who have come through Somerset. It is an integral part of the community and it is used a lot by the community. Council had done this in the past, and the facility is used a lot. He supports a $10,000 contribution to the project. Page 8 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize an expenditure of $10,000 from the special park fund as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the commission has resources that it can recommend to Council, and the city has contributed to other schools. Councilmember Vitelli's comments are important. The school district passed a large referendum and will be held accountable on how it spends the referendum money. Councilmember Schneeman stated that tonight the audience heard that the city will be paying $66,000 for the interchange at Delaware, plus the city will be losing $177,000 in market value homestead credit. The city also LGA in 2003. Residents received their tax bills today and their bills went up 20 to 25 %. Many people attended the truth -in- taxation hearing this year in tears because they cannot afford to stay in their homes because their taxes went up so much. The city has to be frugal. There have been some very important issues coming before Council that will cost a lot of money, and her thought is that because of the bond issue she would suggest a $5,000 contribution rather than $10,000. Council must listen to the tax payers and be frugal. She felt that Somerset could do something a little different to save some money and encouraged them to try to save some money. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Vitelli CASE NO. 05 -11, ALVAREZ Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding an application from Mr. Robert Alvarez for a rear yard setback variance for a new home at 1167 Dodd Road. Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Paul McGinley were present for the discussion. City Engineer McDermott stated that Mr. Alvarez appeared before Council on December 21 to request a variance and that was denied. The city planner's report discusses a rear yard setback resulting in a 25 foot separation between the existing home to the north and this home, which would require a fifteen foot variance. The December application requested a 20 foot variance. Page 9 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that the proposed home has been moved further southwest to get the extra five feet of separation from the plan that was submitted in December. Engineer McDermott responded that the planner recommends that Council deny the variance because of the fact that the applicant previously showed a smaller home could be built on this lot. Mr. McGinley stated that Mr. Alvarez has been before Council a couple of times in the past because of his interest in building a new home on the property. One plan was for subdivision of the property. At the last meeting, Council made several suggestions on the plan and he has tried to take those recommendations into account in revising the plan. Councilmembers Duggan and Vitelli had suggested that Mr. Alvarez consider placing the home towards the rear of the property, and he has drawn a plan showing what that would look like and what the implications would be. The layout would require reconfiguration of the lot line, which would require subdivision of the properties to rearrange the lot lines. It was clear from the beginning that Council wanted to steer away from subdividing the properties because of Council discussions that were had in the past. The plan places a large portion of the new house in the rear yard behind the existing Alvarez home. The future owners of that home would be looking down from their deck onto the new house as would the parties behind the property. It is his opinion that it is never a good idea to place homes behind or in the rear yard of existing homes and it causes some very difficult sight lines. Thirdly, the proposed home in that configuration would be five to ten feet lower than the existing home because of the grades and would cause drainage difficulties. All the drainage would be directed towards the new home and driveway. Fourth, the layout would also require a fairly long driveway. The plan would not require a variance. In his opinion, those features make the plan undesirable. Councilmember Schneeman suggested turning the house slightly to avoid the need for a variance. Mr. McGinley responded that the lot lends itself very well to a walkout in the configuration of Mr. Alvarez' plan. If it were moved, he would have to change the contours and Page 10 of 28 March 15, 2005 would have to build a one or two story house without a walkout. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Mr. Alvarez will have to put in a retaining wall or something anyway, once the existing fence is taken down along the garage. Also, if the huge trees are taken out, that will destabilize it. Responding to a request from Councilmember Vitelli, Mr. McGinley stated that the key issues about putting the house farther to the rear are the need for a subdivision, that the home would be in the rear yard of the existing house, that the grade drops between five and ten feet between the houses, and fourthly, the driveway length. Mr. McGinley stated that the plan he has devised taking into account everyone's recommendations at the last meeting are as follow. He has narrowed the building four feet and moved it back further, which allowed him to swing the new home to get 25 feet of separation and eliminate the crowded feeling. That creates a lot more open space between the two homes. The plan also allows Mr. Alvarez to do some significant vegetation on the property. Mr. Alvarez proposes to put in ten six -foot pine trees, three between the two homes and five of them around the proposed driveway turnaround to screen it from Dodd, and two six foot pines on each side of the driveway to screen the townhouses from the parking area and turnaround area. Also, the driveway can be brought an additional 25 feet back from Dodd Road. He pointed out that in this configuration; one house corner is ten feet from the property line. If it is looked at as a rear yard, it would require a 20 foot rear yard setback variance. He suggested that this application could also be looked at as a front yard width variance, which would only be an eight foot front yard width variance rather than needing a rear yard setback variance. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the big trees that exist now would have to be taken out. Mr. Alvarez responded that there are five big trees to the north, and four of them are dead. Towards the back yard there is a silver maple that he would like to move. The black walnut in the front is also dead and must be taken down. Two other trees are also dead or dying and need to be removed. Page 11 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that it appears that the deck on the existing home is about two feet from the lot line. He asked whether a deck is part of a home for setback purposes. Mr. McGinley responded he had the same question and it is an unanswered question. The city's building inspector told Mr. Alvarez that he could leave the deck. If that does not prove to be true, Mr. Alvarez will remove the deck so that he is also ten feet from the property line there. Councilmember Duggan stated that since Mr. Alvarez already had to move part of the house, it seems to him that Mr. Alvarez would also have to remove the deck. He stated that he would like to see a design showing the trees. Going down to the driveway, the tree to the left may have to be moved or it will block the driveway as it grows. He stated that trying to use the lot as best possible, accepting the fact that the challenges in the alternate plan are financially dramatic, he does agree with the sight lines. He would not want to have someone build a house behind his house, so he could not support the alternate plan. He did not have that configuration in mind in December, but rather that the house would be placed such that the existing deck would be looking at the garage of the new home. He would like to get an answer from staff about the deck. Mr. McGinley stated that when Mr. Alvarez is finished with the reconstruction of his home remodeling he will have a door at the southwest corner and would like to have a small deck there to provide access to the existing deck. Councilmember Duggan stated that it is a buildable lot. The previous plan did not work. Mr. Alvarez has taken into account in the new plans Council's suggestions about landscaping and the garage. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is more in favor of Lot 1 and Lot 2. She felt Mr. Alvarez could get a house 40 feet across on Lot 2 if it is positioned differently (the alternate plan). If the back yard of Lot 1 were squared off, the house could be positioned to fit in without variances. She did not think it is a hardship not to be able to build a walkout. Mr. McGinley responded that a walkout is pretty much a standard in homes today. Page 12 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks it would l make two reasonable lots and enhance Lot 1. Mr. Alvarez could still get a very nice home on Lot 2 if he makes the rear line of Lot 1 straight. Mayor Huber asked Mr. McGinley to sketch in a building pad on the plan he proposes, showing how a house would fit without a variance. The garage would come off on Ivy Hill Drive in that configuration. Mr. McGinley showed the earlier drawing. Mayor Huber noted that with the orientation of the house in that drawing, the garage would come off Ivy Hill Drive. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she likes the alternate plan but would like to see the house moved a bit more and turned and the lot line squared off. That would provide for a beautiful home and a beautiful yard. If the houses were ever sold, in the plan Mr. Alvarez wants the variance for, the houses would be too close together. She asked if the area of the garage and the house is the same in both of the plans. Mr. McGinley responded that the garage on the plan that is requested has the same footprint as the plan from the last meeting but is four feet narrower. On the alternate plan, it is also a three car garage. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the one thing he has to keep looking at is the planner's statement of March 8, that because the applicant can show that he has a buildable lot without a variance, it would appear that a variance to allow a significant setback encroachment would not meet the intent of the ordinance. What he is saying is that the applicant can build a home on that lot without a variance. He asked why Council is struggling with the need for a variance. Secondly, he prefers the alternate plan, as does Councilmember Krebsbach — the subdivision approach. He would not oppose a subdivision because he thinks that would make this much more desirable to the city and neighborhood. With respect to looking out over the rear yard in the subdivision approach, he felt that Mr. Alvarez' proposal is much worse than that. He also did not think a five to ten percent grade change is a big issue. He also does not have a problem with the Page 13 of 28 March 15, 2005 driveway and fully supports the subdivision approach. He would not support the plan Mr. Alvarez is proposing. Mr. Brad Clarey, a neighbor across Ivy Hill Drive from Mr. Alvarez, stated that if he were Mr. Alvarez, he would never build a house down the hill (the subdivision plan) because of the water issues in the area. Also, he understands there was some kind of a commitment that there could be no further subdivision of the property in exchange for the vacation of Partition Road. He felt what Mr. Alvarez is proposing is a practical solution. Mayor Huber stated that Council has come to the conclusion that Mr. Alvarez has a buildable lot, which was critical to his going forward with the redesign on his existing home. Councilmember Duggan stated that with respect to the decision made in the 1980's, the indication of the Council in granting the vacation was that there could not be a subdivision, but that was not included in the approving resolution. Mr. Alvarez stated that in the alternate plan, from the house to the back yard there is about a ten foot grade. He does not care about the deck and will cut it off. He was told it has to be two feet off the property line. His proposed plan is the way to go because he can build a garage on the side. To build the house he could build without a variance there would be 27 feet on one side and 22 feet on the other, and it would be narrow and the garage would have to face the townhouses. Putting the house in the back yard (alternate plan) is a bad idea given the grade. Mayor Huber stated that he would lean towards the plan that Mr. Alvarez is requesting but he would like to see the existing deck removed or reduced. If Council keeps saying no, because if he does not want to put his house in the rear, his only alternative is to build his house within the envelope close to what he could do without any variance. Mr. Alvarez' proposal is a much more close approximation of what he can build without any variances. He further stated that from the beginning, his problem is that he lives in a house that is almost the exact dimensions of the house he could build without any variances. He completely concurs with the comments about not putting the house in the back yard of the existing house. Page 14 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Schneeman stated that Mr. Alvarez needs a variance for what he is proposing. He does not need a variance to build a home on the lot. Councilmember Duggan moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the variance, with findings, for the plan proposed by Mr. Alvarez and to direct staff to determine exactly what the variance would be. Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan suggested that the draft resolution in the agenda be revised to delete items four and six. The quality of the home in comparison to others being built in the city could not be quantified. He stated that the home would impact all of the homes around it, not just the home to the north. Mayor Huber stated that he would also add that the property cannot be further subdivided. 01033 Welam[9 =935 Ayes: 2 Huber, Duggan Nays: 3 Krebsbach, Schneeman, Vitelli Mr. McGinley asked if it would be acceptable to Council if Mr. Alvarez is willing to narrow the house another three feet. That would give a further spread between the homes and have a thirteen foot setback. Mayor Huber stated that he likes the suggestion and would support it if he removes part of the deck. Mr. McGinley stated that a plan without a variance at all would be undesirable for Mr. Alvarez and his neighbors because all the cars would face the neighbors and he would not be able to build a three car garage and get his cars off the street. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he cannot get over discussing granting a variance when they can build without a variance. Mr. McGinley responded that it was originally determined that the 70% grandfather rule does not apply to this lot. He feels that is shaky legal grounds. The vacated street was �, Page 15 of 28 March 15, 2005 always in the fee title for Lot 9. The city removed an easement from the fee title to the lot. Mr. Alvarez decided not to pursue that. He stated that he feels very strongly the 70% rule would apply to this lot and Mr. Alvarez would not be here, but he chose to take a different approach. Mayor Huber moved to table further discussion to the next meeting. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Mayor Huber asked Council to think about the proposal for the next three weeks and encouraged Council to talk to Mr. McGinley about their concerns and see if something can be worked on. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she does not know why Mr. McGinley brought the alternate plan before Council if he did not think it is feasible. She likes the plan and thinks it fits the neighborhood well. Ayes: 2 Huber, Duggan Nays: 3 Krebsbach, Schneeman, Vitelli Councilmember Schneeman moved to deny the variance request and direct staff to prepare a resolution with findings for adoption at the next meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Huber, Duggan SIBLEY HIGH SIGN Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding a request from Mr. Rick Fretschel for preliminary discussion on a proposed electronic sign at the Henry Sibley High School. Mr. Fretschel stated that he met with the Engineer McDermott, Assistant Hollister and the city planner on February 28. He appeared before Council on June 15, 2004 to discuss the concept for an electronic moving sign. He is present tonight to present another plan that he thinks would be more acceptable and desirable. He is present to ask Council to give him some direction and is asking Council to help him through the process because he thinks it is important to the community and the school district. He showed drawings of a proposed monument sign 27 feet wide by 11 feet tall with a 9 foot high message board consisting of two lines with amber lights. It would be placed between the Page 16 of 28 March 15, 2005 two driveways and the existing sign would be removed. He feels very strongly about having a sign like this for the dynamics of the school. The initial sign did not have ground lighting but this one does. Mayor Huber asked Mr. Fretschel if he feels he has a budget that would be able to successfully build what Mr. Fretschel has depicted. Council does not want to get into the position where they are debating about the electronics of the sign and then have Mr. Fretschel come back and say he was a little aggressive about the monument structure and cannot afford it. He asked if Mr. Fretschel's group Mr. Fretschel stated that currently there are no funds. The plan is to move forward with some type of signage if there is Council approval. The intent was to provide funding privately, without asking the school district for help. He feels the sign would dovetail in with the improvements that will be made at the high school. If some of what is proposed has to be curtailed because of funding, they will have to do that. Mayor Huber stated that he thinks the design is likable. What he would be concerned about is that Mr. Fretschel �. came back and said they had to go to some of the examples used at other schools. The style of what Mr. Fretschel showed is attractive. Councilmember Vitelli asked why the school district won't pay for the sign out of its $56 million referendum. He also asked who will own it and maintain it and take care of vandalism. Mr. Fretschel responded that the school district will own and maintain it. He has a letter from the school district saying they will support it. Councilmember Vitelli stated that what is being discussed is whether to allow digital, animated signs in the city. Council has made applicants go through hoops and has told them they cannot have backlighted signs, etc. Council spent hours discussing the signage at Town Center before signage was approved. This Council would never approve a digital animated sign at Town Center. He stated that he thinks the monument sign looks good, but Council has to address whether it should open the door to digital signs in the city or Page 17 of 28 March 15, 2005 not. Council has been very stringent on the control of signage. Council had considerable discussion over the location of the signage for the St. Thomas Academy Arena with regard to I -494. He supposes that city attorney could write the ordinance amendment so that it is for Sibley High School, but does it then does Council allow it for Visitation and for St. Thomas and for Beth Jacob, etc. He cannot support the request because he opposes digital animated signs in general in the City of Mendota Heights. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she loves the sign design that Mr. Fretschel presented this evening but does not agree with digital. She noted that Le Cordon Bleu would likely want a digital sign and perhaps Brown College as well. The last time this came before Council she was not at the meeting and a number of people who live near Mr. Fretschel called her and were very much against the digital. Mr. Fretschel responded that he understands the issues with the lights and that is a concern in Mendota Heights but thinks this goes beyond lights. There will not be any advertising for profits or anything other than what is toning on at the school and in the school district. He understands that others will want them as well but Council has the authority to create an amendment to make it a conditional use for any high school in the R -1 District. The signs could go on at 6:00 in the morning and off at 9:00 at night. The rest of the sign lighting is consistent in terms of the size and lights as other schools in the city. One of the issues was that this would light up the neighborhood. The digital sign can be turned on and off and there will likely be a message appearing for thirty seconds and then drops off for another message. Ms. Mary McGrory- Usset, school board member and a member of the Community Education Advisory Council, stated that there are over 1,000 community events that take place at the high school and surrounding city and park areas. There are over 275 taking place through the high school itself. There are probably three to four events a day, and there is currently no effective way to communicate some of those events. That area has more traffic or events than any other building area in Mendota Heights. She stated that there were close to 600 signatures for the sign last summer and there are many people present to support it. There is a significant need. Page 18 of 28 March 15, 2005 Ms. Jackie Shiffman, Student Council President at Henry Sibley, stated that there really is a need for the sign. The students want the community to know about the events that are going on. Henry Sibley is the public high school in Mendota Heights and for that reason it serves the entire community through events and it stands out from other schools and businesses. Ms. Beth Borgan, Principal at Henry Sibley High School, stated that as an administrator at Sibley, she fully supports the sign. The bond issue has been mentioned, and the community being on the move had been mentioned. Sibley is also on the move. All of the teachers got new computers this year. One of the school's major goals is communication. Here is a group of volunteers who have come to her and said they want to be a part of this communication and would like to work with the school and the city. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is on record in June for what she would approve, and this sign looks like that. What she would add is that she would not want a rotating band. Council could also set the criteria for illumination. She would want a conditional use permit that would be particular to high schools and not necessarily for businesses. Councilmember Duggan asked if the city attorney could come up with iron clad language that would preclude any more of these signs in Mendota Heights for businesses, churches and schools. Attorney Schleck responded that he thinks language can be crafted to limit the use of the signs to uses Council feels are consistent with protecting the nature of the community. The question is what the limits need to be. Councilmember Duggan stated that the city has a limit to sign size in residential areas of 12 square feet. The proposed sign is greats looking but it is larger than the city would normally approve. It is about 168 square feet larger than what is normal. He would ask the group to work on getting 60% of the fmancing from the school district from the bond issue, similar to the provision they are making to the playground equipment at Somerset. He stated that he made a statement at the last discussion on the matter that many events that are happening at the school and sometimes the Page 19 of 28 March 15, 2005 impression was that there would be better attendance if there were a digital sign. He had asked at that time if anyone had any indicators from other schools that attendance improved after they installed electronic signs. Those who live in Mendota Heights like what they have here and what the city fathers over the past 70 years crafted and created. He would not want his children to see 15 or 18 illuminated signs in the city in twenty years time. He could support one sign if he is sure there would only be one. He wondered what the sign would look like if some of the massiveness were taken away. He stated that he is not against the argument that it would foster more attendance but would like to hear if they could just have a sign like this but that is just lighted saying Henry Sibley High School that is not a scrolling sign. He asked if it would be possible for someone to bring in a computer demonstration showing what the sign would look like and what the change in image might be. Then Council would know what they might be buying into. The St. Peter's Church sign is within the limits of the ordinance. The stone in the proposed Sibley sign is impressive, and that is what makes the sign impressive, but he wondered what the sign would look like if one were to start reducing the sign down to 80 or 90 square feet. He did not want to give the sign supporters a lot of hope. If they just came in with a sign and none of the nice rock, he would not support it. The electronic part of the sign is 50% larger than what is permitted for a sign size in the R -1 district. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would recommend that Mr. Fretschel look at the message board being the sign size Councilmember Duggan wants and still have the monument sign around it. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Fretschel stated that they would not build the sign without the electronic portion. The electronic sign is the key to information and the key to this whole project. Councilmember Duggan can say how beautiful the proposed sign is, but the bricks and block are not important. He showed a photo of the sign at St. Thomas, which he felt is probably larger or similar in size to what he is proposing. Mayor Huber stated that one message he is hearing is that Council wants to make sure that what Mr. Fretschel is proposing is what he will have financing to build. When St. Thomas came before Council, he is sure they had the money Page 20 of 28 March 15, 2005 to build it. Mr. Fretschel's group needs to think about their fund raising efforts get an estimate of what it would cost to build what they are proposing. Council would be very discouraged if he came back and said it would cost more than they have and that he has to cut a lot of the brick and block. If that happened, Mr. Fretschel would probably lose a lot of the support of the Council. Council and Mr. Fretschel and his group need to be sure that what they are proposing is buildable. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she wants it to be clear that she support the sign that is being presented, with the brick and stone. She also recommended that the message board be in compliance with the sign size limit. Councilmember Duggan stated that the sign is actually measured by the actual sign portion. In this case it would be the central part of the sign rather than the brick and stone. He likes the sign design and would support it if it had a lit sign that said Henry Sibley High School in the center, but would not support the digital aspect. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he has a problem with trying to craft an ordinance that allows one set of people to do something and ruling out the rest. He stated that as he heard the arguments from Mr. Fretschel and Sibley's principal gave for the need for the sign he thought to himself that he could think of ten people who could argue that exact position in the city, whether they be schools or churches or retailers. He would have trouble crafting language that is good for one group of people and ruling out everyone else and he does not know that would be legal. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council's predecessors gave us the city we have today with no electronic signs and no street lights in many cases, and everyone is proud of the city. When Council starts making changes those changes grow and grow. Council does not want streets that have electronic signs. He would be willing to see what smaller design Mr. Fretschel could come up with and he would also like to see what on a screen what the coloring would look like. He would also like to see what the school district will contribute 60 %. Mr. Fretschel asked Councilmember Duggan if he is saying that he would not vote for the sign if the school district does Page 21 of 28 March 15, 2005 not contribute even that if someone came in and said that he full funding for the sign. Councilmember Duggan responded that he was equating to the discussion on the previous school application and the fact that they 60% funding support. His reasoning is why shouldn't the school do it here as well. Attorney Schleck stated that it would be extremely challenging if not impossible to have the ordinance restrict to a single sign and a single location in the city. Once he has a better understanding of what uses Council would like to restrict it to he could craft something. It would be impossible to restrict it to a single use. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she thinks the city has to decide where it is going and there has to be a discussion among Council members. If Council is going to change the ordinance, it must be fair. Mayor Huber encouraged Mr. Fretschel to consider Council's feedback. There may be some scenarios where this may work, but there is no guarantee and it.is not DTITMITFUNIM Mr. Fretschel responded that the issue is not the brick or the superstructure — it is the changing lighted sign. That is not going to change. His request is where does he sit with respect to the electronic sign. He cannot guarantee that he is going to come back with a superstructure that does not contain 11 by 27 inches of lighted moving sign. He understands that the digital part of the sign is the issue. Mayor Huber asked Councilmember Duggan if he would like to talk to Mr. Fretschel about what he feels he needs in the sign to get what he wants. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she is concerned about setting a precedent on allowing scrolling signs in the city. Mr. Fretschel responded that Council has an issue with the scrolling feature and not with the lights or the size. He is not going to come back with that part of the sign missing. Page 22 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that 24 to 25 square feet is double what the city permits. He asked if there is anything available that is smaller. Mr. Fretschel responded that there are other sizes, but one has to take into consideration the size of the area the sign would be going into. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would like to spend some time over the next month or so looking at electronic signs. This type of sign may be more palatable than the signs of several years ago. He needs to know what it is that he is being asked to tolerate. Attorney Schleck stated that there is no formal request before Council tonight and that is why there will not be a vote. People can send letters to the city if they feel strongly on the issue. RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 10:05. The meeting reconvened at 10:10. STREET LIGHT REQUEST Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer McDermott regarding a request from Mr. Fred Kueppers, 1096 Avanti Drive, that the city install a street light on Lexington Avenue at the intersection of Avanti Drive. Council also acknowledged a petition from nearby neighbors. Mr. Kueppers stated that it is safety factor. It is a very busy intersection and Lexington is a very rolling street, so the intersection does not show up well. He feels a hanging street light would be appropriate and a safety measure for the city. The neighbors will pay for the cost of putting a pole at the appropriate place, and would like the light on the west side of Lexington and right at the intersection. There is a neighbor on Lexington, Brenda Mikkens, and she said they would look seriously at having a light in their front yard, but they would like the back of it shielded. He told her that he would not ask the city to allow it to be placed where they would not want lt. He is asking that Council say a street light would be good and let staff and the neighbors work out the details. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would support a light at a major intersection like this, or Dodd Road or Delaware, Page 23 of 28 March 15, 2005 because it is dangerous. His only question is what the \is means to the city financially. Engineer McDermott responded that the monthly cost would be $10.24. If the line is installed on an existing pole, there is no charge to the city. If the pole is to be moved, Mr. Kueppers and his neighbors have indicated they would pay the cost. Mr. Kueppers stated that he is just talking about putting an extra pole in and putting a line on it, so he hopes the cost would be modest. Councilmember Duggan asked Mr. Kueppers if he has done any research on a low light rather than an overhead light. He asked why the light would be better on Lexington. Mr. Kueppers stated that it may be somewhat better on Avanti, but his group feels if the pole is centered on the west side of Lexington and has an overhanging light extending five feet over the street, that would put the light down over the intersection. On Avanti, you would be putting a pole where there are none now. Councilmember Duggan stated that there are three poles on the east side of Lexington between Avanti and Highway 13, and as he looks at it, putting the light right at the intersection would make the intersection more visible. By putting it in front of the Mikkens home, some light would be lost. He asked if there are other ways of getting light at the intersection to make it better and brighter in the evening. It would be shining into the Gavin or Kueppers houses if it is shielded. He thought they might want to consider low lights instead and ask Xcel if there are other solutions. Inevitably someone will come back and complain that it is shining in their windows. Councilmember Schneeman suggested that Council should let the neighbors work it out with staff. Councilmember Vitelli moved to support the request and let the neighborhood and staff work out the issues. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Duggan Page 24 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Duggan stated that he voted against the motion because there will be many people coming in to request lights. Mr. Kueppers complimented Engineer McDermott for her competence and courtesy. PASTER ENTERPRISES Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson relative to a request from Paster Enterprises to acquire vacated MnDOT right -of -way adjacent to and east of the Mendota Mall. Administrator Danielson informed Council that Paster is finalizing its agreement with MnDOT to get the easement. It is a 90 by 100 foot piece of property that is totally owned by MnDOT. They cannot transfer the property to Paster without going through the city. The city did the same thing for the Klinglehutz development last year. The city acquires the right -of -way, and the owner reimburses the city for what it pays for the right -of -way plus whatever expenses the city incurs. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to hold off on this until Council has a goal setting session to determine if the city has any interest in retaining the parcel. Councilmember Duggan responded that he cannot see that the city would use 9,000 square feet sitting in the middle of the other property. It does not meet any of the city standards for buildability. Administrator Danielson stated that it does not have any access on T.H. 110, and it is totally surrounded by Paster's other property. Councilmember Duggan stated that Paster had a concept before Council a couple of years ago and they need this parcel. Mr. Ken Henk, from Paster Enterprises, stated that they did a concept plan a few years ago for the land adjacent to the shopping center. They had once thought that the outlot was not available and worked the plan around that area. MnDOT pointed out to them that the property is available. Paster can develop the property without the 90 by 100 foot outlot but if it is available they would use it. Paster is requesting that the Page 25 of 28 March 15, 2005 city purchase it and then, in turn, sell it to Paster Enterprises with no expenses on the city's part. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the city attorney to prepare the appropriate vacant land purchase agreement for execution by the Mayor, with the condition that the city bear no expenses. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to have a chance to take a look at what Paster Enterprises is planning for the Plaza in a goal setting session. As long as Council has the ability to decide on this, she would rather wait until they have a chance to talk to Paster about what they are planning for the future of the Plaza. Mr. Henk responded that Paster Enterprises has been working on planning since 2000 and are at the point where they can acquire the property. Paster does not need this parcel and would work around that small area if they had to. Paster is close with MnDOT and wants to get into the planning process. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council had several discussions with Klingelhutz before making a decision. Council does not need to act tonight and it does not hurt for the city to have the leverage of that property. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Krebsbach, Schneeman IT COORDINATOR Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending the creation of an IT Coordinator position and appointment of a candidate. Administrator Danielson stated that the city's first line of defense against computer problems is the City Clerk and Police Chief. Quite often, they do not have the time or expertise, so for the past six years the city has used The Networks Company for support, and in particular, Stacy Kaiser. She has recently learned the company is going to be downsized and she has expressed an interest in working part time for the city. He reviewed IT consulting costs for the past two years and stated that staff feels this is a great opportunity to hire Stacy. Council has approved an upgrade to the network and budgeted $25,000 for a consultant to implement the upgrades. Stacy could complete those Page 26 of 28 March 15, 2005 upgrades. When all of the budgeted IT consultation and computer repair items are added together plus the $25,000 for network setup, staff feels the cost for the position can be supported for the remainder of the year. Councilmember Krebsbach asked how she would stay current in the field. She felt it would be more advantageous to use a consultant because the city would not have the cost of keeping her current. She did not want to create a new position Administrator Danielson responded that the HIPP group has an IT aspect to it and that would be a great way to keep her current. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Administrator Danielson stated that the city has been paying $110 per hour for The NetWorks. Councilmember Vitelli asked if she would work as a contractor for $50 per hour versus $29.50 per hour (plus the cost of benefits) to avoid bringing her on as an employee. Administrator Danielson responded that it is her preference to be an employee. Councilmember Duggan asked if something could be done on a provisional basis for the rest of the year. He also stated that he believes the city should create a communications and IT commission to advise the city free of charge. Councilmember Schneeman suggested that Council support the recommendation. Staff has given several reasons why they want to hire her as a part -time employee. Clerk Swanson stated that Stacy is excellent to work with and is very knowledgeable. She knows the city's network and staff. Also, to her $29.50 versus $110 per hour makes good sense. Stacy does not want to work for the city as an independent contractor. Councilmember Duggan moved to approve creation of a part-time IT Coordinator position and the associated position description and pay structure and authorize the appointment of Stacy Kaiser as the part-time IT Coordinator. Page 27 of 28 March 15, 2005 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli announced the birth of his new grandchild, Lucy Elizabeth. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the second meeting of the emergency communications system task force was held. He reviewed the objectives, which include upgrading the police and fire department radios by 2007, add LOGIS software for police records management by 2006, use LOGIS as the fire and police computer aided dispatching system software by 2006, and to acquire and purchase those things at the lowest level. The committee will also seek out input from the Cities of West St. Paul and Eagan and Dakota County to determine whether they can meet those objectives and at what cost. After knowing the commitments and costs, a decision will be made by June about where to go with the dispatching system and a financing plan will be worked out. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she received a call from a resident about transit reductions, and she would like a presentation on the implications of reducing bus transit at the next meeting. Councilmember Duggan congratulated West St. Paul on their major recent media coverage and the many upgrades they are putting in place. He also felt that a commemorative and historical commission should be discussed at the goal setting session and that each Council member should nominate someone to serve on the commission so that the city has an appropriate fiftieth anniversary next year. He also felt that an IT and communications commission should be appointed in the future. Mayor Huber asked Administrator Danielson to look at possible dates for a goal setting session. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved to adjourn the meeting to closed session to address threatened litigation with the city regarding its storm water management system. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page 28 of 28 March 15, 2005 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:44 p.m. Ka Teen M. Swanson City Clerk AT / J J er or