Loading...
2004-06-01 City Council minutesPage No. 1 June 1, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY ST ATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 1, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Huber called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Mayor Huber, Councilmembers Duggan, Schneeman and Vitelli. Councilmember Krebsbach had notified Council that she would be late and arrived at 7:40 p.m. 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: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6g, no parking on Mendota Heights Road, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Minutes from the May 25, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the May 2004 Building Activity Report. c. Authorization for Fourth of July Fireworks. d. Authorization for execution of Change Order No. 1 to the contract for the Mendota Heights Road Lift Station Rehabilitation. e. Authorization to Recruit and Advertise for a Civil Engineer 11. f. Approval of the renewal of the Drug Task Force Joint Powers Agreement along with authorization for its execution. g. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated June 1, 2004. h. Approval of the List of Claims dated June 1, 2004 and totaling $105,018.25. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes:4 Nays:0 Page No. 2 June 1, 2004 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councihmember Duggan moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on May 18, 2004. ` Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD Council acknowledged a memo and proposed ordinance from PARKING Police Chief Aschenbrener recommending no parking on Mendota Heights Road from Pilot Knob to the west edge" of the Alitech Corporation property. Chief Aschenbrener stated that he spoke to Brown College representatives, and they informed him that they are going to move 1,000 students out of their facility now but are not going to relinquish any of their leased space in hopes of refilling it in the future. The parking restrictions should relieve the current parking complaints, but he believes there will still be parking problems on Northland and in that neighborhood as long as Brown continues to branch out and not manage to acquire parking to go with their satellite facilities. They do not currently lease the entire satellite buildings, and the landlord must maintain parking for other tenants. When Brown fully leases the facilities and has access to all of the parking, the problem should be resolved. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Ordinance No. 393 "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6 CHAPTER 2 SECTION 1(M) OF THE CITY CODE." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Cliff Timm was present to discuss the problems geese create around Rogers Lake. He would like the city to contact Mr. Jay Riggs, from the DNR, regarding efforts being taken at Thompson Park to filter water coming out of the storm sewer. He stated that he will contact St. Thomas Academy's environmental class, Mr. Tony Kinzley, regarding the class findings. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she has purchased the "Lakescaping" book and will take it to Mr. Kinzley soon. That book has information on rain gardens. HEARINGS: LIQUOR Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public C, Page No. 3 June 1, 2004 LICENSE RENEWALS hearing on an application from Mendota Liquor for renewal of its Off -Sale Liquor License. He asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Duggan moved that the hearing be closed Ayes: 5 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the renewal of an Off - Sale Liquor License for Mendota Liquor. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel for renewal of its Limited Service Hotel and Special Sunday On -Sale liquor licenses. He 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. Ayes: 5 ` Nays:0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the renewal of On -Sale Hotel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: ,0 Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Brown College for renewal of its On -Sale Wine License for the Minnesota Room. 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 Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Duggan moved to approve the renewal of an On- Sale Wine License for Brown College for the Minnesota Room. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 4 June 1, 2004 Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing C on applications from Somerset Country Club and Mendakota Country Club for renewal of their Club On -Sale liquor licenses and Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses. He asked for questions and comments from the audience CASE NO. 04 -12, FORSBERG Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dennis Forsberg, for a conditional use permit and variance for an 864 square foot detached garage to replace an existing detached garage at 1111 Dodd Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Forsberg was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Forsberg would like to replace an existing detached garage. There are other structures in the back yard, including a playhouse and a deck and hot tub with a trellis above it. He stated that detached garages require conditional use permits, and Mr. Forsberg needs a variance because he wishes to build a garage larger than the 750 square foot maximum allowed for detached garages. The city planner recommended approval of the conditional use permit but not the variance, and the Planning Commission made the same recommendation. One of the Council members called this morning and noted that the site plan submitted by the applicant may not be entirely accurate. Staff visited the site and agrees that the plan is not accurate. The city provides base maps, from information based on Dakota County GIS data, for planning applicants. The site plan Mr. Forsberg prepared was based on the information that he had been provided. The differences in the site plan are that Mr. Forsberg has added lean-to structures on three sides of the garage. The GIS data also did not reflect an addition that had been made to the deck. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved to approve the renewal of Club On -Sale and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for Somerset Country Club and Mendakota Country Club. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04 -12, FORSBERG Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dennis Forsberg, for a conditional use permit and variance for an 864 square foot detached garage to replace an existing detached garage at 1111 Dodd Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Forsberg was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Forsberg would like to replace an existing detached garage. There are other structures in the back yard, including a playhouse and a deck and hot tub with a trellis above it. He stated that detached garages require conditional use permits, and Mr. Forsberg needs a variance because he wishes to build a garage larger than the 750 square foot maximum allowed for detached garages. The city planner recommended approval of the conditional use permit but not the variance, and the Planning Commission made the same recommendation. One of the Council members called this morning and noted that the site plan submitted by the applicant may not be entirely accurate. Staff visited the site and agrees that the plan is not accurate. The city provides base maps, from information based on Dakota County GIS data, for planning applicants. The site plan Mr. Forsberg prepared was based on the information that he had been provided. The differences in the site plan are that Mr. Forsberg has added lean-to structures on three sides of the garage. The GIS data also did not reflect an addition that had been made to the deck. Page No. 5 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Vitelli asked what the implication of the additional porches or lean -to's is. He also asked if the proposed garage would have a smaller footprint than the existing garage and the lean -to. Assistant Hollister responded that the lean -to's on the existing garage, along with the existing garage, are scheduled for removal, so he does not think Council needs to be concerned with them unless Council wishes to add an additional condition that says that if Mr. Forsberg builds a garage of 750 square feet he will not be able to add attachments to the new garage. He stated that the proposed garage would have a smaller footprint than the existing garage and lean -to. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she visited the property and it is a very interesting and unusual lot. She was taken aback when she read in her material that the volume of equipment to be stored in the proposed garage is beyond that considered for a single family home, yet if he were to attach a 1,200 square feet garage, as the ordinance allows, it would be okay for him to have his cars and his toys. That does not sit well with her. The lot is in an old neighborhood, and she sees no reason he cannot build the garage the size he wants and eliminate all of the out buildings. She stated that Council has approved a three car garage on the property just behind Mr. Forsberg's lot and several others in the neighborhood. Mr. Forsberg stated that he has a garage that has two wings on it and is basically the same size as what he is proposing to build. Councilmember Duggan stated that he visited the property yesterday and Mr. Forsberg has a beautiful lot. He was concerned about that add -ons to the garage. The current garage with the additions is about 1,100 square feet now. He was concerned that Mr. Forsberg would still have less space with the garage he is requesting than the one he would be replacing. If he does not have enough space currently for all of his equipment, he would lose 250 square feet or more of space. Mr. Forsberg responded that the one lean-to is open and not usable space for storage. The new garage at 864 square feet would be much more efficient and cleaner looking. Councilmember Duggan asked Mr. Forsberg if he is reasonably comfortable with the 750 square feet the ordinance allows. Mr. Forsberg responded that he is not. The garage he is proposing would allow him to enclose everything in one area. He would tear Page No. 6 June 1, 2004 down the playhouse and lean -to's and it would allow him better access into his property. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, he stated that all of the concrete under the lean -to's and existing garage will be removed and blacktop will be installed to match the existing driveway so that he can back in. The blacktopped area would be about 12 by 20 feet. Councilmember Duggan stated that he agrees with Mr. Forsberg that in relation to the setting and the area, that building an attached 1,200 square foot garage would be so massive it would not be appropriate. Councilmember Vitelli supported the request for an 864 square foot detached garage for the following reasons. It is absolutely hidden from the neighbors to the north and south, and the neighbor behind Mr. Forsberg's lot has given her written consent. He visited the lot today, and there will be considerable clean up of the yard afterwards. The request is for 15% over what is allowed, which is an eleven foot square piece, or about the size of an office. The lot is 25,740 square feet and there are not setback issues. Also, the city has approved at least two similar requests during his term on Council when there are no other issues involved, and they were in the north end of the city. He fully supported the application. The hardship is that he cannot build an attached garage sensibly. Mayor Huber stated that the resolution would need to be revised to state that the size can be no greater than 864 square feet. There should also be conditions added that the playhouse would have to be removed and that the hard surface under the existing garage would have to be reduced to 12 by 20 feet (back in space).. The hot tub area would remain. Councilmember Krebsbach asked when the lean-to's were added to the garage and whether a permit was issued. Mr. Forsberg stated that he got a building permit for the garage 30 years ago but did not get a permit for the lean-to's when he added them shortly thereafter. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that for a point of information, people in the community are concerned about gazebos, etc., that are not according to the building permit or no permit was issued. Page No. 7 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the conditional use permit and variance and direct staff to prepare a formal resolution for adoption at the June 15 Council meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04 -15, JULIETTE Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Joe Juliette for a Critical Area Permit for a garage addition and porch replacement at 1920 Glenhill Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Juliette was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Juliette currently has a three season porch and walkway that he proposes to remove and replace with a four season porch and tuck under garage. Both the planning consultant and Planning Commission recommended approval. Mr. Juliette stated that one of the beams supporting the walkway is deteriorating, along with the header above that is below one of the garage stalls. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Juliette is her neighbor. She stated that the plan looks like the structure is coming out about two feet. She stated that the plan looks good and it is a beautiful home. Mr. Juliette responded that the structure is actually coming in about two feet. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -31, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR A GARAGE ADDITION AND PORCH REPLACEMENT AT 1920 GLENHIIL ROAD." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04 -16, FINK Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Robert Fink, for approval of a preliminary plat to create one additional lot at 1850 Arvin Drive. Mr. Fink, Mr. Paul McGinley and Mr. Rollin Crawford were present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister stated that this is Mr. Fink's third application for a subdivision in the last two years. He appeared before Council on Page No. 8 June 1, 2004 April 7 to propose a subdivision that included dedication of additional right -of -way along one segment of the bulb of the cul -de- sac. Council decided they were not interested in the additional dedication. The application did not require a variance, but in order to avoid the need for a variance, it relied upon the dedication of the right -of -way. Council denied the application but allowed Mr. Fink to return with a new application and waived any waiting period for reapplication, any additional application fees and the requirement that he appear before the Planning Commission. Mr. Fink has submitted three options. The basic difference between the options has to do with the alignment of the driveway and the placement of the house. There is still a variance required to create a lot of less than 100 feet of frontage. They proposed to make the lot with the new house conform and make the lot with the existing home non- conforming. He reviewed option A, which needs a variance on the front footage for the lot that has the existing house and involves regarding of the steeply sloped area. Option C puts the new house at the foot of the hill and avoids cutting the driveway through the steeply sloped area. The new lot would have 100 feet of frontage and the old lot would have 62.11 feet at the front setback line. Plan B, which is the applicant's preferred plan, puts the house at the top of the hill and uses a shared driveway for the two parcels. The new lot would have 100 feet of frontage and the old lot would have 62.11 �. feet of frontage at the setback line. Councilmember Krebsbach was concerned that Lot 1 would be again subdivided in the future. Mayor Huber stated that Lot 1 could not be subdivided and still meet the lot size requirement. Council could place a condition on the approval that Lot 2 could not be further divided. Mr. Hollister responded that Council could make that a condition of any approval that occurs tonight. Also, any future subdivision would trigger the need for at least one variance which Council would be at liberty to deny. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it appears that the option that brings the house closest to the street is the least intrusive. Assistant Hollister responded that for that reason, he and Administrator Danielson like that option, option c. That option interferes the least with the slope. f�, Page No. 9 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of the things the neighborhood objected to was that the house would sit at the top of the hill. Option C would be least offensive to the neighborhood. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the Council's approval would define the footprint of the house. Assistant Hollister responded that most of the subdivision approvals he has seen at least specify a buildable area because Council wanted assurance that there is buildable area. Technically, under most circumstances, unless Council specifies otherwise, what they area approving is the lot lines. In light of the fact that the applicant not only needs a subdivision, but also needs a variance, he thinks Council is within its rights to impose more specific conditions on the placement of the house or the alignment of the driveway. If Council wishes to specify one of the building pads or driveway alignments it can do so. Attorney Schleck stated, with respect to conditions of approval, that generally speaking Council has under its police powers the power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, which gives Council broad powers to specify conditions upon which things can be done. Council also has some safeguards associated with approval of this property simply because of the nature of the property itself, with the very steep slopes and the approval, if Council chooses, of a shared driveway. With respect to the issue of subdivision in the future, he does not know how anyone could further subdivide the property without a variance. Council has broad powers to set conditions upon how the approval would actually take place, as long as there is a rational basis for doing so. Mayor Huber asked Mr. McGinley if Exhibit B is the preferred plan. Mr. McGinley responded that the letter that came with the plans identified as Exhibit C as the preferred plan. He stated that the exhibits were labeled differently from his letter. Exhibit A in the narrative is Exhibit C of the maps being considered this evening, and places the house at the cul -de -sac. Exhibit C in the narrative is Exhibit B of the maps and is the preferred plan. On April 7, the applicant was requested to come back with a presentation including a variance request, and the City Attorney gave several reasons why a variance is justified for this parcel. They were the size of the parcel, which is the size of six typical city lots, the substandard status of the cul -de -sac, and the unique slopes to the site. Following that, Councilmember Duggan added a fourth justification, which was the Page No. 10 June 1, 2004 existence of the current lot of record on the south side of the property which is a landlocked parcel because of the vacation of Wachtler Avenue. He was also directed to do a more detailed analysis of the slopes on the property. He has taken over 200 topographic shots of the property since then, and based on that, the position of the driveway on the previous presentation and Exhibit A of the maps, puts the driveway at about a 27% slope and on the inside of the curve of the driveway, it approaches a 32% slope (on existing slopes). The driveway would be a 10% slope. In the plan, he shows several retaining walls along the driveway to limit the grading to just the driveway area and limit the disturbance and tree removal on the slope. Under Exhibit A, with the house at the top, over half of the tree removal takes place on the slope in an area where the driveway goes. It would disturb the vegetation on the slope and the house would be less concealed. It would also require a second variance for exceeding the slope limit. Mayor Huber stated asked whether anyone on Council supports having the house at the top of the hill and the removal of all of the trees. It was the consensus that no Council member supported that option. Mr. McGinley, stated that Map C, with the house on the cul -de -sac, shows that the house can be placed at 30 feet from the right -of -way of Arvin Drive, the city's typical setback from the right -of -way in the city. It can be built there without backing into the slope area or disturbing the slope area over 25 %. He has judged that there are some aspects of the plan that are not desirable. First, it is in the open visible area around the cul -de -sac, which is something that he interpreted the neighbors did not want. It would also create a second driveway onto the cul -de -sac and it would have some impact on the drainage around the cul -de -sac, which was a concern of some of the neighbors. That could be done, but grading would have to be done very carefully. Exhibit B, which is the preferred option because the applicant feels it would best satisfy of the concerns and the neighbors the best. It has several advantages to the neighbors and to the site preservation because it is the house location would be the furthest from the cul -de -sac and would be up in the hill, where, in his opinion, it would be most concealed from the neighbors. It would be concealed behind the woods. All of the tree removal would take place at the proposed home site at the top of the hill, in the vicinity of the existing home. All of the vegetation on the slopes would be protected. No trees would be removed on the slope. Another big advantage of the shared drive option is that all of the area around the �- cul-de-sac that is visible to the neighbors around the cul -de -sac Page No. 11 June 1, 2004 would be unchanged. There would be no tree removal in the area of the cul -de -sac or the slope and no alteration of the grading or drainage around the cul -de -sac and the only impact of the shared drive is on the applicant's current home and he is willing to grant the easements necessary for that access. One concern most cities have about shared driveways is access for fire trucks. He has shown in the detail at the bottom of map B an overlay for fire truck turning movement on the driveway configuration that proves that fire trucks can move in and they can turn, access the home, back up and drive out. There will be an expansion of the bituminous for the existing home for a little more back up room for the fire trucks. Mr. McGinley stated that the applicant is still proposing the conservation easement around the perimeter of the property to protect the trees and buffer vegetation around the property. On Map B, it is proposed to plant three coniferous trees in the area of the new house and driveway, that would also be within the conservation easement as well as the two trees that are proposed below the slope. He stated that the applicant is willing to entertain any of the options but that Map B seems to be the one that best addresses the concerns of the neighbors and to preserving the site. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. McGinley stated that all of the plans have a conservation easement. Councilmember Vitelli asked if the applicant is okay with approval that defines the footprint of the home. Mr. McGinley responded that the applicant would be okay with it if necessary but it would be desirable to have it not be the case, primarily if there are two options that Council thinks are equally acceptable. That would leave it open to a buyer to choose which site most suits their interest and the house style they are interested in. The preferred plan is very suitable for a walkout without impacting the slope area behind. He tends to think that most home builders and owners today prefer walkouts. The house on the bottom would have to be a rambler. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what is different in this proposal from the proposals that were presented before. Mr. McGinley stated that he thinks that the proposal with the house at the cul -de -sac is similar to the first proposal made to the Planning Commission. Page No. 12 June 1, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that Attorney Schleck's comments at the last discussion were that the idea of granting some right -of -way on a portion of a cul -de -sac was very poor planning. That is why the last application did not carry. Assistant Hollister commented in his presentation that staff preferred the plan that has the house closer to the cul -de -sac. Administrator Danielson stated that when he and Assistant Hollister first looked at the plan, they felt that the plan was the best option. The setback from the street is similar to other houses in the area. When they reviewed it with the planner later, they thought that the plan showing the house at the top of the hill (with the shared driveway) was an acceptable plan as well. They never liked the one that cut the driveway through the steep slope. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern the first time Mr. Fink came before Council for a subdivision was that Council was having a lot of applications for lot splits and flag lot creation. Since that time, Council has had a meeting since that time and is looking at developing a policy. This is a very large parcel and she would be open to looking at creating a second lot, but not creating a flag lot. It seems to her that the proposed plan makes the existing lot into a flag lot formation. The did not think the city has not had great success with shared driveways, in particular on Foxwood Lane. Administrator Danielson responded that there are several shared driveways in the city and he has not heard of any problems with them. There was a proposal for a shared driveway in the Bader Estates, but none was created. Councilmember Duggan stated that some of the challenges with the proposed driveway in Bader Estates had to do with easements and covenants established in 1992. Administrator Danielson stated that there were also already three houses using a private drive on a public right -of -way, and extending that further for another house was a concern to the three homeowners who did not want to share the driveway with a fourth property owner. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it seems that the lot split that would have the home 30 feet off the cul -de -sac would cause the least problems. There was considerable neighborhood interest and opposition, and if Council approves a subdivision it must take into % account what the greatest opposition was. She would support it �' Page No. 13 June 1, 2004 because it is a large lot and the city has moved forward in its approach to lot splits. Councilmember Duggan stated that the neighborhood opposition in part was that they did not want a second driveway cut into the cul- de -sac and they were concerned about drainage impact because of additional impervious surface in the area. Mr. McGinley reviewed a neighborhood map. He showed where the existing Fink home is and where the new house would be placed. Putting the house on the cul -de -sac brings it closer to the homes on the cul -de -sac. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Council can limit the height of the house (if it is at the top of the hill), since the neighbors were concerned about a large house overlooking theirs. She asked if Council could limit the house to a single story walk -out rambler rather than allowing a towering two story home in the middle of an existing neighborhood. Council did that in the past in the Ivy Falls South development. Mr. McGinley responded that he did the design on that development, and the homes in question there butted up against a typical back yard setting so that the back yards of the new homes and the existing homes were only 70 to 80 feet apart. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Mr. McGinley stated that either Plan B or C is acceptable, but the applicant prefers Plan B. Councilmember Schneeman noted that staff supports Plan C. Councilmember Duggan suggested that proposed Plan B is more in keeping with the neighborhood in terms of placement of the home as opposed to the home nearer to the front. In Plan B, the home sits up on the hill a bit and is concealed with the trees, and would be more in keeping with the other homes when the home is done and the landscaping fills in. It does have a shared driveway proposal, but based on the applicant's considerations for fire truck access that concern has been addressed. If he were considering an area, he would prefer to have the house on top of the hill reasonably rather than on the cul -de -sac. Page No. 14 June 1, 2004 Councilinember Krebsbach stated that she would also support Plan B, but for her support, it would have to be limited to a one story walk -out. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would not want to impose the limitation of a one story walkout. The people who build there will choose what they would find comfortable to live in. Although Council may have placed limitations on the height or size of the house in a few cases where there were marked, measurable concerns, but given the distance between this house and the ones around it he cannot see any negative impact in view lines or sight lines. He is comfortable with Plan B and with whatever house they choose to build on it. Administrator Danielson stated that the house would be measured from the front, so they would only be able to have a one story walk out. Typically houses walk out to the rear, so the city allows them to be three stories from the rear. Because this is an unusual case, where it walks out to the front, it would only be allowed to be a two story (one story with walk out). The house will face the cul -de -sac. Mr. McGinley stated that Administrator Danielson is saying that the side of the house that faces the cul -de -sac has to be interpreted as the front of the house by ordinance, so what is really the back side of the house in terms of entry and would typically be the rear of the house must be considered the front of the house. The height restriction would be applied to that side of the house. Councilmember Duggan moved to grant approval of a preliminary plat and variance based on the finding that the subdivision makes the most reasonable use of the property, the plan does not increase the density of housing in the neighborhood and subject to the following conditions: the home on Lot 1 be located as illustrated on Map B (Option C of the narrative); that a shared driveway be provided as illustrated on Map B and as part of such condition, that a shared access /maintenance agreement between Lots 1 and 2 be established; and, that a covenant be established, or an easement be dedicated, that ensures that the slope and vegetation within Lot , in the area between Arvin Drive and the home not be disturbed by future occupants of the property; that the front of the house, determined to be the driveway side of the house, be one story as required by ordinance; that the proposed removal of trees and replanting of other trees as is indicated on the map be done as soon as possible after completion of construction of the home and that the proposed fire truck turn around (- Page No. 15 June 1, 2004 be built as designed on Map B, and further, that staff be directed to prepare a formal resolution of findings for the June 15 meeting. Mr. McGinley stated that one of the conditions was that no vegetation be disturbed between the cul -de -sac and the house, which covers the entire lot from the cul -de -sac up to the house. He asked if Council would be willing to limit that to the slopes that exceed 25 percent. The condition as stated indicates that the home owner cannot do anything with the vegetation behind the house that is not on the slopes nor the vegetation on the flat area near the cul -de -sac, for instance if they want to put some vegetation in the front. Councilmember Duggan stated that the condition was recommended by the city planner. He stated that the minimal removal of trees and vegetation near the footprint of the house and minimal removal of vegetation on the proposed driveway up to the house is what he is looking for. Those are the two primary areas of impact — creating the extension of the existing driveway for the new driveway, so minimal impact on the slopes and the vegetation in that area, and the minimal impact in the area of the footprint of the house. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councihnember Vitelli commented that his initial concern over division of this lot months ago was the precedent it would set. At that time he asked for the number of lots that were of a size that could be subdivided. He supports the subdivision because Council is dealing with a lot of 91,000 square feet, which is a very unusual sized lot and also because the Wachtler vacation made this a very difficult situation for the owner of the property because there was no access to the south end. For those two key reasons, he does not think Council is setting a precedent because he does not think there are any other 91,000 square foot lots in that area and there is no other situation where the Wachtler vacation or any other vacation caused a problem. Mayor Huber stated that he believes Mr. McGinley asked if the resolution that will come before Council will say that there cannot be any disturbance in the vegetation from the new house all the way down to the cul -de -sac. He was asking whether that could be restricted to the slope area that is shaded on the plan. Councilmember Duggan's response was related to the footprint of the house and the driveway and did not answer Mr. McGinley's question about what about the vegetation that starts to flatten out as it gets down to the cul -de -sac. Page No. 16 June 1, 2004 Mr. McGinley was concerned about that area and the areas around �. the proposed home that are not on the slope so that the people have some yard that is not entirely vegetation or trees that is not touchable or usable. Mayor Huber stated that there should be a middle ground so that the slope cannot be touched along with a certain number of feet immediately away from the slope but not all the way to the cul -de- sac. Council-member Vitelli stated that Mr. McGinley's suggestion on the 25% slope or greater covered that. Mr. McGinley stated that he read the planner's suggested condition in his report, and in talking with him in the staff meeting, to mean that the intent was to protect the vegetation on the 25% slope so the sensitive slope and the vegetation on it are not disturbed by future owners. Counciimember Duggan stated that he is comfortable with that. Mayor Huber pointed out that on Map B there are two or three trees below the bottom of the slope. He asked what Council's intention is about those. Councilmember Duggan stated that the plan indicates planting two trees. The removal of trees is primarily around the house. There are two being proposed for removal in the footprint of the home, three in the footprint of the garage, and seven in the proposed driveway. Mayor Huber stated that the issue is the preservation of trees after the new owner is in if it is Council's intent to protect the trees. Attorney Schleck stated that the applicant should provide a covenant to protect vegetation on the lot that is acceptable to the city after its review. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04-17, FEFFERCORN Council acknowledged a request from Mr. Ross Feffercorn for approval of the final development plan for a Planned Unit Development for Buildings "D ", "E ", and "F" of Town Center. Page No. 17 June 1, 2004 Assistant Hollister stated that the preliminary development plan was approved on October 16, 2002. Since that time, Mr. Feffercorn has been coming in for approval of various components as they are ready. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach regarding the city planner's comment on the encroachment on Outlot E, he stated that an inconsistency between the plat and the plans was identified by a Landform architect some time ago, but no adjustment has been made. One option would be to submit an amended final plat and a minor amendment to the final PUD approval for building F and adjust the lot line. The other way to address it is with the dedication of an encroachment easement to Mr. Feffercorn to allow the parking to expand. That would not require an amendment to the plan. Mr. Feffercorn stated that he is present to discuss nine topics this evening. They are: approvals for Buildings D, E and F; an update on the leasing activity for the commercial development; an update on the use of the grant funds, an update on project signage, landscaping and lighting and the budget; an update on the Gateway Bank; an update on the townhome construction; an update on the association documents and leasing documents; and, an update on the condominium development. He reviewed the site plan showing the corner of Building F and the parking lot in question and the relationship between Oak Street and Market. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if it is possible to have the same landscaping as had been shown in the earlier site plan. Mr. Feffercorn stated that he had the site plan he has been reviewing this evening drawn without landscaping prepared to show the locations of the buildings to show commercial tenants how they park and where the buildings are, especially in relation to T.H. 110. It is a detail drawing for the commercial uses showing buildings D, E and F and the Village Green area and the circulation he worked on with the city's consultant. Landscaping on Outlot E is very important to him because as the development moves to residential he wants that buffer. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he does not have a problem with the triangle issue and suggested that it just be redrawn correctly. Mr. Feffercorn showed a drawing of the bank building, stating the final architecture of the commercial buildings is very similar to the bank. He has selected the brick and the accent bricks and stone material for the base of the building. He is still working on a few Page No. 18 June 1, 2004 design issues, including lighting, with the bank owners. He then showed the elevations of the D and E buildings, the F building. There will be brick on the exterior and the parapets, using two different colors, and there will be metal fabricated awnings and he is using storefront material that will match the bank storefront material. There will be signage bands on the buildings. There will also be decorative blade signs and banners. The height of the building will be consistent with the elevation of the bank. He stated one thing his firm has been exploring for the past several months how the buildings can have pitched roofs in a retail environment, and trying to understand how to control water off of pitched roofs onto a public sidewalk. That creates big difficulties with ice standing and creates some dangerous situations for pedestrians. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if this is the same plan that was reviewed for the neighborhood by Ms. Krall. One of the things Council wanted was that the commercial would have a village look and would fit into a residential neighborhood, and this is much more structured look and it is a departure. Mr. Feffercorn stated it is a bit of a departure but that he found that with the designs that were conceptual he was not able to provide adequate signage for the tenants and was having problems with water control and water management and it was creating shadow lines where stores want to be seen. He could not come up with the right formula to make the original concept work. It is consistent with the bank building and the family of architecture he has created to make the development successful. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she does not think the bank building should drive the whole development that Council has worked on since 1996. She asked if anything can be done to soften the buildings and if it is finished on both sides. Mr. Feffercorn stated that he does not think it does. It was a matter of working back and forth with the bank architecture and the architecture of the commercial buildings and come up with a family of architecture for the site. He stated that there is no front and back to the buildings, they are finished on all sides because it is important that the buildings be pedestrian friendly all the way around. Councilmember Schneeman asked if there is a difference in the roof lines of the buildings and the style at the tops of the buildings.. Page No. 19 June 1, 2004 Mr. Feffercorn stated that he not trying create exact copies from building to building and is trying to create a language and a vocabulary so there is variety in the development. He thinks the development has. the ability to have each building speak its own style and be consistent with other buildings within the development. Each building will be a unique piece of architecture using consistent and compatible materials. Awnings will soften things a lot. He feels that having a cloth awning will be the softening factor rather than having a pitched roof with a soffit nine feet in the air. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is concerned that this is not the architecture that the neighborhood bought into when Ms. Krall held neighborhood meetings. That was a different look. Mr. Feffercom stated that it is very similar except for the shingled pitched roof. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with Councilmember Krebsbach, stating that he is not excited about the design and that it looks like a Walmart store. It looks like a box. Councilmember Duggan was concerned about the placement of the names above the stores. Based on his experience as a small business owner, he is concerned about the names above the store and their placement. People do not look up to see a sign that would be above and awning, and he asked if there is a way to put the name either on the awning it immediately below the awning. He agreed that the design has a boxy feeling. Mr. Feffercorn responded that the signage location placed on the buildings was done by the illustrator working for the architect and does not represent the sign criteria for the development. He will be hiring a design consultant for the project, and some of the considerations for design for the signage will be blade signs and perpendicular pedestrian friendly signage that will be decorative and informative on the building. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that since 1996, Council has spent considerable time and public money to talk about the design, which had a Frank Lloyd Wright style roof. Only recently has the bank come in and that is the architectural driver. She is concerned that it is a departure from what Council talked about and what the community reached a level of comfort with. It had a different look and feel. Mr. Feffercorn and Mrs. Krall were here together all the Page No. 20 June 1, 2004 time and it was understood that all that time was going to what would actually be produced, otherwise it was a waste of time. Mr. Feffercorn showed an earlier sketch from 2001 or 2002 and stated that the D and E building has brick and awnings and somewhat of a flat roof. The F building shows some pitched roof. The ABC building has some flat roof, some pitched roof and a belfry in a tower. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the drawings look different from what he is presenting tonight. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it was never brought up to Council or the community that the roofs were not going to be possible. Mr. Feffercorn stated that where he has had problems with the design is that dripping water and ice will fall on people and will create icy conditions. Flat roofs in a retail or office environment work much better. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Feffercom would have known that when he presented the other sketch. This could not be a C revelation now. Mr. Feffercorn stated that he has had three lawsuits at another location because of people slipping and falling on icy conditions. Councilmember Krebsbach stated there was the representation made on what Town Center would look and feel like. The bank is new and for it to be the architectural driver does not make sense to her. Mr. Feffercorn responded that it is not. It is part of an ongoing discussion with the bank architects and that evolved as his other work was evolving. The bank needed to move forward before he was ready. Mayor Huber asked if Mr. Feffercorn is thinking that Buildings ABC and DEF will all have flat roofs. Looking at some of the drawings, clearly there was some thought about some flat roof. Mr. Feffercorn responded that the ABC building is yet to be designed and all of the buildings can have their own unique character and that would be a great place to add some of those features. i Page No. 21 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there was a brochure that went out showing that the roofed buildings would have more of a St. Anthony Main look and there were some flat but that was not the direction Town Center was going in with the flat roofs, long and linear. It was more the village concept as presented in the drawings from 2001 and 2002. Mayor Huber stated that had been some drawings of D and E that had flat roofs, but not Building F. Councilmember Krebsbach showed a brochure that went out that has a completely different look. There may be a flat roof in it, but one would have to look very hard to find it. Mayor Huber responded that the roof issue clearly was represented in the past as being pitched. There was apparently some suggestion at some point that some of the roofs would be flat and some would be pitched, and what Mr. Feffercorn has brought to Council has them all flat. At some point there was a thought the D and E would be flat, but not F, and tonight even F is flat. Councilmember Duggan pointed out that is the most visible from T.H. 110. Mr. Feffercom stated that the elements create ins and outs on the elevation of the buildings. It will be a very rich environment, and with a pitched roof, it wants to be a straight roof without ins and outs and you do not get the character of the brick and the very rich brick details. The stores are focused on the pedestrians. Also, there is a small amount of signage relevant to the service type tenants. They will be elegant signs. Those tenants don't want retail type signs but they do want visibility so that people know who they are and where they are. That is almost impossible to do with a pitched roof. When one adds an overhanging roof, those tenants are within the shadow line. Those professionals serve the community and will become part of the community and they want some signage on the building. It is his job to keep current with trends and how he is going to successfully lease the development. Councilmember Schneeman asked if he would have to do the same thing with Building A, B and C. Mr. Fefercorn responded that there are some elements of that building that will lend itself to pitched roofs and there is an opportunity to come back with that and create some variety. He did Page No. 22 June 1, 2004 not think all of the pitched roof will design would work because the valleys and overhangs come right over the windows and \ it kills the l opportunity for signage on some of the buildings. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council and Mr. Fefercorn talked a lot about signage when they talked about the pitched roofs. Signage was not neglected and people voted based on the types of signs they wanted and the lighting. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Council wanted subtle signage. Mr. Fefercorn responded that there is no disagreement that the signage should be subtle but retail tenants need to have signage that is reasonable to their businesses. He controls that — he does not want people to put up a plastic box sign with vinyl letters with lighting behind it. The signs will be individually lettered. They will need to be lit, but the lighting can be controlled through studies and using proper balance of lighting. Buildings need to be lit, but they can be lit carefully and using the proper study. In this particular building, he thinks he can use some connecting elements that are pitched roofs, and towers where it will not affect pedestrians and where signage won't be needed. He has studied Building F and when he tried that it created an odd building and did not work well. That is why he is looking at adding the ins and outs to the building. He has shown the building to both the residential and commercial marketing people and it is very well received. It is not that large of a building. He tried to put a pitched roof on one end of the building and it looked like two buildings pushed together. It did not allow for ins and outs — it was just a solid roof and it created a big mass of roof without a lot of articulation. Councihnember Vitelli stated that this is a big surprise. He had not seen the plan until tonight and over his 30 years of experience, one of the rules is do not surprise your bosses. He is very disappointed and surprised, and he does not support the architectural plan at all. It is a box and will be the buildings people see from the road. It does not create the image that Council was sold on. He is surprised and very disappointed. What Mr. Fefercorn is saying is that it is because of the runoff and the ice, but he has taken it to the marketers and basically it is market driven now. It is not driven by what was agreed on. He understands where Mr. Fefercorn is coming from and can guess why some of the changes were made, but as a Council person representing the city, he is surprised and disappointed. One of the beauties of City Hall is that it does not look like a box. It Page No. 23 June 1, 2004 blends in with the surroundings. Most of the people who drive by do not realize it is a City Hall. That is how he expected the Town Center retail buildings to look. He is disappointed and does not support the plan at all. Mr. Fefercorn responded that he did not mean to surprise anyone. From a retail marketing point, for any of the retail tenants to be successful, he cannot tell them they have to blend in and not be seen. They are retailers and they need to do significant business in order to pay the rent and come here. He thinks the building blends in with the housing. He is building the housing and has given the retail a lot of thought and a lot of richness of details. He would have a difficult time calling a Caribou Coffee or Brueggers and telling them that they may not be seen and need to blend in and their signage is not part of the architecture. Councilmember Vitelli stated that his retort to that is that Mr. Fefercom was not a babe in the woods two years ago in marketing and he cannot understand how Mr. Fefercom got to this plan and with all of his experience in retail and commercial development how he allowed that to be portrayed as what Council was going to see. ( ) Mr. Fefercom responded that a couple of years ago he was coming off of the plan Landform drew. There were a couple of years when he was not involved in directing the drawings. He never agreed totally with pitched roofs on the commercial buildings and always new the roofs were going to be a problem. Those were the pictures that the land planner showed Council. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that Mr. Fefercom was at virtually all of the meetings and part of that whole process, whether he had engaged Landform or not, was that he new what the product of her interaction with the community and Council was. There never was a time when he said they were great looking drawings but it was not possible, that the retail space was not going to look that way for the reason he just gave. It always going to be retail, and Mr. Fefercom also commissioned a marketing study that said it was going to be successful. Council worked with all of those pieces for many years and worked with the community, and Council's support was because of the village look and feel. This is a departure from that. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the dilemma Council has is that Mr. Fefercorn is telling Council that he cannot market the property the way Council was told it would look two years ago. Council can Page No. 24 June 1, 2004 push to have the architecture abide by what was agreed to two years, ago, but Mr. Fefercorn says he cannot sell the space. Mayor Huber suggested that the differences are clearly laid out and there is debate on whether they can be resolved tonight, and Counciil should listen to the other points Mr. Fefercorn wishes to discuss. Attorney Schleck stated that the contract for private development states that if, in the final development review stage, Council has concerns over any of the plans to be reviewed they should be submitted to Mr. Fefercom in writing and he should be given a chance to respond. Mr. Fefercorn stated that he would like to discuss a couple of site plan items. He would like to use one address for each building. He thinks that having a number of different addresses versus suites would be confusing for people. There is a corridor that goes through the retail space and the elevator fronts with the parking lot and the easternmost edge of the underground parking. One of the purposes of beginning with the F building is that it is most similar to the D and E building in terms of orientation to T.H. 110. The tenants he has letters of intent from are most interested in that building. It is important to him because it has underground parking and he will be (w able to utilize the Metropolitan Council grant for the structured parking. One of the purposes of moving forward this collection of buildings is that it provides an appropriate amount of vacant retail and office space for him to market and lease at the same time. Whereas the A,B,C building has more retail and office space in one style of building, Buildings D/E and F give more variety and are the best buildings to begin with. It also encloses Market Square and gets him started with the landscaping and village green. Mr. Fefercorn then reviewed the rear elevation of Building F and the parking area. There will be a fully enclosed service and trash room off the parking lot, with its doors away from the residential. For the D/E building, the trash room is enclosed in the E building. Mr. Fefercom then briefly discussed traffic circulation for Caribou Coffee. Councilmember Duggan asked if Mr. Fefercom is aware of the new ownership of Caribou and if he anticipates any problems. He noted that there are several other coffee shops that have expressed interest. Mr. Fefercom stated that he is not anticipating problems. He informed Council that he has approximately 13,000 to 18,000 square feet of letters of intent. They include Caribou Coffee, Brueggers, Cold Stone Creamery, Fantastic Sams, Quiznos, Planet Beach, a Page No. 25 June 1, 2004 dental, and a real estate office. He also received a call from a popular, privately owned delicatessen. Mr. Fefercorn stated that he spoke to Elizabeth Ryan of the Metropolitan Council last week and she made it very clear that she endorses a great deal of flexibility in the funds and that it is entirely up to her for a one year extension on the grant. He did not think that would be necessary. Once approvals of the D, E and F buildings are done, he hopes to be in the ground this fall with the first commercial buildings. He updated Council on landscaping, stating that he is working with Damon Farber on the landscaping plan and is working with Sarah Graphics on the signage and Fleming Design on the design of the signage. He is also working with Emphasis Lighting Group as a lighting consultant who is working on studies for the correct amount of light and what types of land to use. He will come back to Council in July with a full set of design documents for the landscaping, signage and lighting covenant applicable to all of the development. Mayor Huber responded that the landscape plan has been promised for awhile and there was representations that the civic and green space plans were going to be to Council in January. Mr. Fefercorn asked for an extension to March 1 and now he is talking July. Council is relying on him to get these items to them and now he is saying he wants to close on a couple more sales. When Council has an expectation relies on Mr. Fefercorn and the expectation is not met, and he asks the city to spend considerable attorney and staff time to rush a closing, there needs to be some balance. Mr. Fefercorn responded that it is not so much a quick closing as it is that he is trying to respond to the need to get the buildings in place for the Metropolitan Council grant. He wants to let Council know that he is prepared to move forward with the bank financing and to utilize the Metropolitan Council funds. With respect to landscaping, he reviewed an itemization of various landscape designs he has put together for the outlots. He has not been happy enough with the design to come back and say this is the budget and this is what it represents. That will be his huge effort in June. Mayor Huber stated that one of the things that always appealed to him about Mr. Fefercorn is his attention to detail. Council appreciates that. There can, however, come a point where one can get so hung up on detail that nothing happens. When Council starts feeling that way, they feel the city must write him letters to tell him he has to get going. When Council talks to staff and they say they Page No. 26 June 1, 2004 will have something to Council by a certain time, Council relies on that. Council gets many questions from resident about what is going on at Town Center. There is a lot of interest in getting some shops in Town Center that people can patronize. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern is that the conceptual framework by which Town Center was guided is not coming through in the detail. Mr. Fefercorn should take a look at the architectural design for Building F. The original sketch was a blended design. If he can go back to that, then the landscaping should follow. Mayor Huber stated that staff gets uncomfortable when they get a request for closings but there still is no landscaping plan and come to Council. Mr. Fefercorn responded that a closing would probably not occur for 60 to 75 days, and the landscaping plan would occur before that. Councilmember Duggan noted that one of the documents states the entire project is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2004 or early 2005. He stated that it does not appear that will before 2006 but that he hopes it is completed by the end of 2005. Mr. Fefercorn responded that it depends on leasing and sales activity. He has construction financing for the first phase of townhouses and is planning to start the second building. The construction for the D, E and F building starting this fall will take about nine to twelve months. The bank was moved from last, 2005 to 2006, to first. The F building was scheduled for late 2005 and he thinks he can do it in 2004. It depends on sales and marketing and construction scheduling. Everything is in the works. He has submitted applications for building permits for the loft condominium building. The bank is under construction, and both the bank and R.J. Ryan Construction have requested a temporary construction sign. He will bring that to Council. He has entered the townhomes into the Parade of Homes for this fall and he will have a finished model for that. The first resident will be moving in in August. With the Parade of Homes comes completed landscaping for that portion of the townhomes. The landscaping plan will be submitted for approval in July and will be installed in late July or early August. He then gave an update on the association documents, stating he has completed the condominium association CIC documents but they will not be filed until just before the first closing. He has also completed a draft of the commercial and residential declaration. The commercial Page No. 27 June 1, 2004 association takes the responsibility for taking care of Outlot A, Outlot F and Outlot G. The residential association takes care of the rest of the outlots. The residential association contributes about 40% to the cost for taking care of Outlots A and F and G to the commercial association that is given the responsibility for maintaining the outlots. Attorney Schleck informed Council that an incomplete set of documents was provided to him for review. This is a fairly complicated situation where you have commercial operations in conjunction with residential operations, sharing expenses and working in tandem. It is somewhat of an atypical situation, and the documents that were provided to him in December were incomplete and had a number of issues. That is the last conversation he had with any of the attorneys who are working on the documents. He has not seen any new drafts. Mr. Fefercorn stated that the draft he has to give Council and the city attorney tonight was prepared in the last 60 days. Attorney David Eide is preparing the document. Attorney Schleck questioned if it makes sense for the city to spend a lot more effort and time reviewing what is a draft. These things evolve considerably as a project moves on and changes. It is typical not to finalize these documents until he is ready to convey units. Mr. Fefercorn indicated that he would begin to convey units in August, and perhaps what the city wants to do is wait to spend a lot of time and effort on review of a draft given the fact there it will be 60 to 90 days before it will be recorded and they may change before then. Mr. Fefercorn responded that the association documents used for residential are part of the purchase agreement that has been signed. He provided association documents along with disclosure statements to the buyers. The rules under state statutes are that once he enters a purchase agreement with a potential buyer and provide them with the disclosure statement, association documents and a copy of the budget, they have ten days to rescind the purchase agreement. After that, the documents that were given the home owners cannot be changed without their approval. They have an opportunity to cancel their purchase agreement if the documents are changed in a way that is not appropriate. The rules and regulations of the association documents are designed to change. The protective covenants, declaration, bylaws, articles of incorporation, etc., generally do not change at all. He left some fairly broad considerations on how the residential association is obligated to cover some of the expenses of Page No. 28 June 1, 2004 the outlots. That was designed with some flexibility. He hired Cities Management to oversee and create the budget for the homeowners association. The commercial association documents have been reviewed by Gateway Bank because the covenants apply to their land. The documents are both complex and simple at the same time. Mayor Huber stated that all he hears the city attorney say is that when he gets something he wants it to be reasonably final. Attorney Schleck agreed, stating that he wants to make sure he is not reviewing draft after draft, because that does not make sense for the city. Mr. Fefercom stated that he is well beyond the draft of the residential documents and he thinks the commercial documents are very well conceived. He will schedule a meeting with the city attorney and will spend an hour going over the documents with him. Attorney Schleck stated that he would like to look at everything that will be recorded at once in recordable form. Mr. Fefercom informed Council that the Dorn Company is working on half a dozen pre -sales in the smaller condominium building. His goal is to have eight pre -sales before starting construction. The condominium construction drawings are completed and are bid out and have been turned in for building permits. He hopes to start on the 16 unit building in a month. He is also working on its landscape plan, which includes water features at the entry. The association documents are the same as the association documents for the townhomes since there is only one homeowners association. The Dorn Company has requested two additional signs for marketing, one new sign of 12 by 8 feet, would be for townhomes and condominiums. Mr. Dorn stated that the purpose of the signs will be to advertise in bold letters that the townhomes are for sale. Calls have increased quite a bit since the building started. The Parade of Homes will also generate considerable action. As soon as a decent amount of units are sold, the sign can come down. The original sign will be taken down. The sign at T.H. 110 and Dodd will be moved closer to the veterinary clinic. Page No. 29 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Duggan stated that the city planner had concerns about traffic circulation, and he would like Mr. Fefercorn to come back and talk about them at the next meeting. Mr. Fefercorn stated that there are two more signs. The Dorn Company is holding weekend open houses, so there will be two signs that will only be up on the weekend. Mr. Bob Kreuser stated that there were problems with construction starting before 7:OO a.m. and that has gotten better. Also, the subcontractors like to work on Saturdays and Sundays, and the construction noise has been taken care of. They have also been taking care of debris pretty well. He asked if Mr. Fefercorn owns the whole property now. Attorney Schleck responded that only three lots have been conveyed to Mr. Fefercorn. The city owns the rest. Mr. Kreuser asked if the pond area is owned by the city. The water is starting to fill up and he wonders if it is a safety issue. He also asked if Mr. Fefercorn has the financing set up and if the city has seen a financial statement. He is building them as he sells them. He also asked about the park dedication. Administrator Danielson responded that the city owns the property. There is a landing area at the bottom of it, so there will be a steep slope. Mr. Fefercorn will contribute money to the park fund with each al sale in accordance with the developers agreement. Mayor Huber stated that it is typical not to build until a certain number of units are sold. Mr. Kreuser stated that the community was told that the units would start between $300,000 and $500,000 and asked if that is still the case. Mr. Dorn responded that the row townhomes that people will be moving into this fall are in the mid to upper $400,000 range. One would see row townhomes range from about $350,000 to $600,000. The condominiums will run from $330,000 to about $500,000. Council, staff and Mr. Fefercorn responded to questions from Mr. Kreuser regarding the use of TIF, the street configurations and street lighting. Page No. 30 June 1, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that the big point of contention is roof lines. He stated that there is a difference between Council's expectations and what has been presented. He is not endorsing one or the other, but that everyone must think about what is appropriate. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the issue is that what has been presented is not what was planned. She recommended that Mr. Fefercorn give Council a sketch of what he sees the entire development looking like and incorporate back in the elements that were part of the plan Council agreed to two years ago. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Council needs to be reasonable rather than having him come back with something that will not work. She would like to see a little more loft in the roofline. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council is seeing one building. Mr. Fefercorn has pointed out that there was some flat roof, but she would like to have Building F softened and also would like to see what he plans to have this development look like. The worst thing for Council to do would be to agree with something — Council needs to know what Mr. Fefercom sees as doable and deliver on the concept that was agreed to in 2002. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that Mr. Fefercom share with Council the list of drivers for this change in rank order so that Council understands what is behind it. He has mentioned freezing runoff and retailing demands and signage for professionals. He did not mention costs. It is easier and less costly to build a box. He is curious if cost is in the list. Mr. Fefercom responded that it has nothing to do with costs. Flat roofs are not cheaper than pitched roof. This is an expensive building to build. He will provide a list for Council and will also look at the plan again taking Council's comments into account to see how he can soften the building. The Building ABC structure has not been presented tonight. One reason is that he has talked to a slew of retailers, including grocery stores, and if they come to fruition, that will change the design of the building. Since there is enough retail to put on the market for the next 12 to 24 months, he does not want to have the ABC building approved right now when a tenant may come along and want to use it for a grocery store or another type of use. There are opportunities to introduce some pitched roofs in the ABC building. Page No. 31 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Schneeman is most concerned about the F building and would like to see something going on there as soon as possible. There is another huge mixed use development that may go on at the old Economics Lab site and she urged Mr. Fefercorn to get going as quickly as possible and get his tenants in. Responding to questions from Councilmember Vitelli, Mr. Fefercorn stated that he will be working on the landscaping in June and will come back in July to meet with Council and will layer cake that with looking at the design elements for Building F. The first tenants will be in "the row townhomes in August. The condominiums will start in July to August of 2004 and the second set of row townhomes will start in July or August. RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 11:00. The meeting was reconvened at 11:05 p.m. LE CORDON BLEU Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. Dale Glowa of United Properties, requesting site plan review and building permit authorization for a building for the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Institute. Council also acknowledged associated reports from Assistant Hollister and the city planner. Assistant Hollister stated that United Properties and Brown Institute have made a deal for United Properties to build a new home for the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Institute on two vacant lots at the northeast corner of Enterprise Drive and Mendota Heights Road. He then showed the proposed building plan, elevations and associated drawings. The early discussions between city staff and Le Cordon Bleu representatives centered on Le Cordon Bleu's desire to have a U1 liquor license for the facility, which means an upgrade in the types of beverages served. Staff concluded that since restaurants are considered a conditional use permit in the I zone, the best thing to do would be to have Le Cordon Bleu apply for a conditional use permit for a restaurant. Staff was not comfortable with considering them a restaurant for liquor license purposes but not for zoning purposes. They have applied for the conditional use permit and will appear before the Planning Commission at its next meeting. Mr. Glowa emphasized the importance of getting the building underway. He is on a tight timetable for the building and did not want to wait to request the building permit until after the conditional use permit request comes to Council. This evening Council will only be considering the building.permit and site plan review. Page No. 32 June 1, 2004 Mr. Hollister reviewed the planner's questions and concerns about the site plan and Mr. Glowa's responses. The suggestions were: there should be an investigation to determine if the property should be replatted or any existing easements should be vacated; acceptability of the access points; reserving the dead -end parking area for school employees; there should be input from city engineering on drainage and utilities; that the sign setback variance be processed according to ordinance procedures; and, that the trash handling and loading areas be identified on the site plan. He stated that the proposed building stands over two platted parcels and there was a question of whether there are any easements over the lots. Staff found a historical plat of the industrial park that indicates that there were drainage and utility easements and a private railway easement. Mr. Glowa stated that his surveyors have determined that the easements were vacated long ago. He does not think it is necessary to replat but would be willing to do that if Council wishes. He hopes that if Council sees it necessary to replat that he at least be allowed to start with the building while the process is in place. With regard to access, the planner noted that the drives into the property do not line up with the drives of neighboring properties. Mr. Glowa conceded that it would be ideal for drives to line up but that it is not possible. The whole industrial park has been developed with drives that are not aligned in all cases. The planner had recommended dedicating part of the parking for employees, but Mr. Glowa does not think that is the best arrangement. Grading and drainage are always subject to review by the city engineer. Over the last several years, the industrial park has developed with many monument signs being set back 20 feet from the city right -of -way although the ordinance requires a 40 foot setback. There has been a pattern set in the park of granting variances to allow monument signs to be 20 feet back. There would be nothing unusual about that, and Mr. Glowa is hoping that Council would be willing to grant that this evening rather than requiring Planning Commission review as recommended by the planner. There is still time to place a variance application on the June Planning Commission meeting if Council deems that necessary. With regard to the trash handling and loading areas, Mr. Glowa indicated that he is still working on that. Mr. Glowa stated that he will be as cooperative as Council would like and will replat if Council desires although he does not believe that is necessary. The city planner had recommended that employee parking be created in the dead end area parking on the west side of the building. While it is a dead end condition, it is easy to navigate so he can see no advantage to create that restriction on the use. He noted that the ordinance requires 350 parking spaces and there are Page No. 33 June 1, 2004 560 parking spaces proposed. Brown College wants to get the parking off the street. The students come in shifts, and the idea is not only to handle the load of students using the facility. There will be more than enough parking to accommodate the restaurant and also to handle the shift changes for the students. The biggest challenge he has is that the properly drops 40 feet in elevation from east to west, so to get a single story building of this size to lay out flat on the site has been a challenge. Mayor Huber asked where the restaurant will be in the building. Mr. Glowa responded that the restaurant will be right in the middle. It is about 2,500 square feet with seating for 96. It will be just like what they are operating now. Councilmember Krebsbach asked about the liquor license. Mayor Huber responded that Council is not considering the liquor license this evening. Mr. Glowa understands that if a building permit is approved tonight, that will not color the Planning Commission's review of the conditional use permit. Mr. Glowa agreed, stating that his agreement with Brown is not contingent on getting the liquor license. With respect to the replat, Councilmember Duggan stated that if Mr. Glowa wants to replat it, that is fine but it should be up to him. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that the building will be constructed over the property line and the lots could not be further developed in the future. Attorney Schleck stated that to not replat it in the future could be a risk to the property owners if they wish to refinance it. If the owners are willing to assume that risk he has no problem with not replatting. Councilmember Duggan stated that he has no problem with the access as addressed since there is little traffic in that area. With respect to the designated parking issue, he noted that people will park where they want and Brown would have no control over that. He also has no problem with granting a sign setback variance. If the sign were set back 40 feet no one would find Le Cordon Bleu. Mr. Glowa has addressed all of the concerns and he is comfortable with what is proposed. Page No. 34 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach asked what the difference is in the liquor license they current have. Mr. Glowa stated that they are asking for a full liquor license versus the wine license they now have. It is definitely part of their training process. Le Cordon Bleu is a very unique. United Properties has wanted a full service restaurant for years and has little success because there is not enough residential in Mendota Heights. He looks at this as a very nice amenity for the community. Mayor Huber stated that the liquor issue has to be discussed at another time. Responding to a question from Councilmember Vitelli, Mr. Glowa stated that the lease is for fifteen years with options to renew. Brown has made a significant investment in Mendota Heights and this is a very positive sign they are keeping their existing facilities and expanding. Councilmember Vitelli moved to authorize the issuance of the building permit for the Le Cordon Bleu provided the concerns in the staff report are addressed and to approve a 20 foot sign setback variance for the monument sign. C Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 INFILL DEVELOPMENT Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding a proposal from Planner Grittman to complete a study analyzing the impacts of infill development in Mendota Heights. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize Planner Grittman to prepare a study analyzing the impacts of infill development for a cost of $4,000. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA WATERMAIN Council acknowledged a letter from the City of Mendota requesting AGREEMENT that Council authorize an amendment to the Contract for Water Service between the SPRWS, Mendota and Mendota Heights to allow for watermain extensions within Mendota without Mendota Heights approval. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from Administrator Danielson. Mendota Deputy Mayor Golias was present for the discussion. Page No. 35 June 1, 2004 Administrator Danielson informed Council that when Mr. Golias reviewed the watermain agreement he found that Mendota is required to get Mendota Heights approval for watermain extensions not only into of the city, but also within Mendota. He knew that he had a couple of extensions imminent and is requesting that Council amend the agreement to allow Mendota to do internal extensions without Mendota Heights approval. If Council does not want to do that, Mr. Golias is asking Council to approve the two extensions that Mendota is doing now. Mr. Golias stated that the contract is a St. Paul Water contract that was adopted by Mendota and Mendota Heights and St. Paul came up with the proposed amendment. If it would be Council's pleasure to approve it, it is on the St. Paul Water and Mendota City Council agendas for next Tuesday. The proposal is simple — it just removes the approval of Mendota Heights for extensions within the City of Mendota. The key issue is that can only happen if Mendota there is no zoning change. If Mendota makes a zoning change, they have to come to Mendota Heights. Mendota officials have been told by St. Paul Water that the mains that come into the town are adequate to handle the city as zoned and they, as well as Mendota Heights, would want to restudy that if there are zoning changes. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Mr. Golias is anticipating any zoning changes. She also asked if he anticipates that Mendota will remain largely residential with the same main street. Mr. Golias responded that he is not anticipating any zoning changes at this time, however if a small piece of property is acquired there has been some preliminary talk that there may be ten townhome units on it. If that were to occur, Mendota would have to come back to Mendota Heights and St. Paul Water. He stated that he does anticipate that Mendota will remain primarily residential. It has been interesting sitting through the developments. Some very reputable developers came to Mendota five years ago. To get enough cars into a development, there would need to be underground parking, and the bedrock under the city that would make that prohibitively expensive. There has been continued discouragement of multiple family. Councilmember Vitelli asked how Mendota Heights residents water pressure would be affected if Mendota makes a major water extension without Mendota Heights' knowledge. If Mendota Heights residents are not affected he would not have a problem. Page No. 36 June 1, 2004 Administrator Danielson responded that St. Paul Water should respond, but that he believes there is adequate pressure and supply to service Mendota without affecting Mendota Heights. Councilmember Vitelli felt that, to avoid surprises, the rule should remain as it is and the Council should continue to work cooperatively in approving extensions. He did not want to be a part of eliminating it from the agreement and then through some quirky event some surprise happens. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there has been wisdom in how the water issue was negotiated and developed. She is not interested in making a decision about everything Mendota does but she would like to leave the agreement as is based on the fact that when the agreement was developed there had to be good reason for the approval requirement. Mr. Golias responded that the extensions would still have to be approved by St. Paul Water. He further stated that this is the fourth time in two months that he has come to the Council with water issues. It is a concern of the Mendota Council that they are bothering Council with these things and they would like to make it less cumbersome. They have no problem coming to Council with the requests if that is Council's choice. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to approve watermain extensions to serve the Apostolic Church and to residential land on Upper Second Street but not amend the agreement. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan supported the Mendota request and feels it is very reasonable. St. Paul Water will keep an eye on water pressure for all of the communities. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with Councilmember Krebsbach that a lot of wisdom has been put into ordinances and agreements. He could be convinced to approve the amendment, but not with the information he has now. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Duggan PERSONNEL Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding conducting a workshop to conduct his performance review. Page No. 37 June 1, 2004 Councilmember Vitelli suggested that every member complete their evaluation forms and set aside fifteen minutes after a Council meeting to meet with Administrator Danielson. It was the consensus to conduct the workshop immediately following the June 15 meeting. Councilmember Schneeman stated that there are several issues coming up that will require Council workshops, including the budget and the infill development study. She suggested that some of them be put together into one evening workshop if possible. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Schneeman commented that she visited Rogers Lake Park and everything is very clean, including the skateboard park. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he received a call from Ms. Laura Schmidt on Copperfield complaining that there is a house where scaffolding has been in front of the house for almost a year and they have a toilet sitting out in front of the house. It is a reasonable complaint. He does not know what the city can do, but either the exterior of the house should be finished and the scaffolding should be removed. Councilmember Duggan responded that it was one of the issues that was discussed by the Planning Commission during discussion on the maintenance ordinance, along with whether the city should permit the process and how to go about it. It is a large house with a lot of stucco and with mold problems inside. The city could ask the contractor how long it will take. One house down the street with similar problems took eight months to repair and another took fifteen months. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city should have some type of ordinance so that scaffolding only be up for one construction season so that at least it gets taken down. One problem is the renewal of building permits. Part of the frustration with the city is that there are not appropriate limits in place to keep this from happening. Mayor Huber stated that a number of years ago a building permit was good forever. That changed in the mid- 1990's to make permits renewable. If a building permit is good for a year, it should not be extended without many conditions. Page No. 38 June 1, 2004 Administrator Danielson responded that this permit was not renewed. Code Enforcement Officer Gill told him that the process started over a year ago with an investigational demolition where the scaffolding was put up and they tore open the house to investigate the problem. That was done without a permit, and the building inspector placed a red tag on the project and it stopped. The scaffolding stayed in place. After the investigational demolition was done, it went to litigation and was held up. The city stopped it and it was also stopped for litigation and for insurance adjustments. The city demanded that they get a permit, and that permit is not a year old. A week ago, the contractor told the building inspector that completion of the project is imminent. They are doing stucco and cannot do that during the rain. They are planning on finishing it soon. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that staff get a timetable from the contractor, letting him know that the city is getting numerous complaints. He needs to give the city commitments in writing on what he is doing and when he is going to do it. If he is not going to do the stucco for weeks, he should take the scaffolding down. Council directed Administrator Danielson to report back to Ms. Schmidt. Councilmember Duggan reminded Council and the audience that Celebrate Mendota Heights Parks will be held .ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 p.m. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J,,Ku15r6r ' / / v