Loading...
2004-05-04 City Council minutesPage No. 1 May 4, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 4, 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, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember /Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on April 20, 2004. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6g, Lexington Avenue Trail, 6i, parking restrictions on Emerson Avenue, and 61, List of Claims , to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the April 13, 2004 Joint City Council /Parks and Recreation Commission Workshop Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of the April 13, 2004 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. c. Acknowledgement of the April 27, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes. d. Acknowledgement of the April 2004 Building Activity Report. e. Acknowledgement of a status report from Dakota County Assessor Bill Peterson regarding the 2004 Open Book Meetings. Page No. 2 May 4, 2004 f. Acknowledgement of a letter from Mr. Roy Higgins, withdrawing his application for a conditional use permit for a garage expansion at 1357 Cherry Hill Road (Planning Case 404 -09). g. Approval to continue participation in the Dakota County CDBG Program for fiscal years 2005 -2007. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 04 -25: "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STREET REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE PROPERTIES ON SOMERSET COURT (JOB NO. 200218, IMPROVEMENT NO. 2004, PROJECT NO.3) ". i. Approval of contractor licenses dated May 4, 2004. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LEXINGTON TRAIL Council acknowledged a memo from City Engineer McDermott regarding construction of the Lexington Avenue trail. Engineer McDermott informed Council that Wagon Wheel Trail is designed to a very narrow width between Lexington and I -35E, and staff would like to widen that to MSA standards when the rest of Wagon Wheel Trail is upgraded. Staff recommends constructing the Lexington Avenue portion of the trail now and it will be done by late fall. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would like to see the Lexington Avenue trail done now, because people have been waiting for it. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would want a lot of consideration of the question of whether Wagon Wheel should be widened and to what extent. Councilmember Duggan stated that in consideration of the fishing on Rogers Lake and the challenges with children running across the street, he would want to speed up the upgrading of Wagon Wheel to widen the "s" curve area for safety purposes. Administrator Danielson responded that the trail would only go from Lexington to the I -35E bridge. Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize staff to complete the Lexington Avenue Trail construction plans, eliminating the trail along j Wagon Wheel Trail. Page No. 3 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 EMERSON AVENUE PARKING Council acknowledged a memo and proposed ordinance to restrict parking on Emerson Avenue. Mayor Huber informed the audience that the ordinance would restrict parking on the south side of Emerson along the Somerset Country Club property. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Engineer McDermott stated that Emerson is 28 feet wide now and will be 32 feet wide, curb to curb, when the street is reconstructed. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Ordinance No. 392: "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER3, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE," restricting parking on the south side of Emerson Avenue between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. Cowncilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LIST OF CLAIMS Council acknowledged the List of Claims. Councilmember Duggan noted that the city retained an inspector to review the plans for the Gateway Bank when a staff member was out ill. He asked if the bank can be billed for the city's cost. Finance Director Schabacker responded that part of the building permit fee is for plan review, and the city cannot also bill for the inspector's time. Councilmember Duggan stated that he is also concerned about escalating legal costs. As an example, the Katz/Galligan issue has cost the city almost $9,000 in legal fees. He was concerned that the city does not want to overspend a limited budget. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of List of Claims dated May 4, 2004 and totaling $109,272.58. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SPRING CLEAN UP Administrative Assistant Hollister informed Council that the spring clean up event held on Saturday was very successful. He stated that Page No. 4 May 4, 2004 it was an average year in terms of volume. He expressed appreciation to Mayor Huber, Councilmember Duggan, Jeff Zachman, Donn Anderson, Mike Aschenbrener, Nancy Bauer, James Danielson, Tom Knuth, Guy Kullander, Kristen Schabacker, Linda Shipton and Kathleen Swanson for volunteering their time to help at the event. He also expressed appreciation to the residents who participated and to the commercial entities that were involved in making the event possible. Mayor Huber thanked Paster Enterprises and Mr. Ed Paster for letting the city use their space again for the tenth year. Councilmember Krebsbach commended the city staff members who volunteered part of their Saturday to help the residents at spring clean-up. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Huber acknowledged a letter from a resident about speeding on Victoria and referred the letter to Chief Aschenbrener. He informed the audience that the city recently gained control of Victoria from the county and will look at the speeds. Councilmember Duggan stated that he has received calls from people who are happy with the stop signs at Marie and Victoria. HEARING: DRAINAGE Mayor Huber opened the meeting for the purpose of a EASEMENT VACATION continued public hearing on an application from Mr. & Mrs. Sherwin Seiden for a partial Drainage Easement Vacation at Lot 18, Block 1, Ivy Falls South. Council acknowledged a report from City Engineer McDermott, along with letters of support from Mr. Randall Geller, 1427 Knollwood Lane, and Ms. Michelle Hanson, 1432 Cherry Hill Road. Mr. Seiden and his contractor, Mr. Keith Heaver, were present for the discussion. Mr. Seiden stated that he is just about ready to move into the new home he is building. The forty foot drainage easement does not allow him to build a large enough pool and he is requesting that the city vacate a portion of the easement. Engineer McDermott informed council that Mr. Seiden is requesting that 15 feet of the easement be vacated, and 25 feet of the easement would remain. Mr. Seiden's contractor has submitted additional information, and that has been reviewed by staff. Mayor Huber asked for questions and comments from the audience. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 5 May 4, 2004 There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Vitelli moved to close the hearing and adopt Resolution No. 04 -26, "RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT, LOT 18, BLOCK 1, IVY FALLS SOUTH ADDITION." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Seiden stated that he improved by property by putting up a retaining wall, and that took care of his neighbors' drainage issues. CASE NO. 04 -08, LANDSMAN Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Scott Landsman for a conditional use permit and wetlands permit to install a fence within 20 to 30 feet from the wetlands at 661 Cheyenne Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister informed the audience that Mr. Landsman is unable to attend the meeting and asked that discussion be tabled. After brief discussion, Councilmember Schneeman moved to table discussion to May 18. j Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04 -09, INSERRA Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Robert Inserra for a front yard setback variance and sideyard setback variance for a garage expansion at 2138 Aztec Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the site plan and a rendering of the proposed addition. Mr. Inserra would like to expand his garage and add a second story to part of the home. He stated that Friendly Hills is one of the older subdivisions in the city. The lots are smaller than current R -1 standards, so the city has had a practice of leniency for variances for some types of improvements in this neighborhood. Mr. Inserra had a discussion with the commission about moving his garage further forward, partly to be able to make it wider. The garage is substandard by current ordinances, and the Inserras can barely get two cars into it. Mr. Inserra would like to add to the front of the garage to add more depth and width and also to add a second story of living space to the rear of the house. The commission recommendation was in two separate motions. The first motion was to recommend approval of a one foot sideyard setback variance. The Page No. 6 May 4, 2004 house is currently ten feet from the side lot line, but the ordinance says that a sideyard setback must be ten feet or one half of the height of the house on that side to a maximum of fifteen feet. That means Mr. Inserra would need a 10 foot, eight inch setback. The second story portion of the addition triggers the need for an eight inch variance, and the commission recommends that. The proposed resolution is for a one foot variance. The second question was how far forward the garage expansion would be allowed to go. The applicant asked for an expansion to be fifteen feet from the front lot line. The ordinance requires thirty feet. The commission recommended he be allowed to expand to a point 25 feet from the front lot line. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the Planning Commission minutes note that the plan does not have his garage go any further forward than the adjacent homes. Assistant Hollister responded that is why the commission recommended no closer than 25 feet, in order to maintain the intent of the string rule. If the structure is built as the commission recommended, the setback would be in keeping with the string rule. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if this is a significant departure ; from the kind of additions Council has normally seen for Friendly �.. Hills. Assistant Hollister responded that this is typical of the variances Council has received for Friendly Hills. Most requests for variances are for expansions of garages and often an expansion towards the front. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the plan seems more like a three car garage size. She asked if Council would be moving in a different direction than what has been approved before with approving this larger garage. Assistant Hollister responded that in new subdivisions, three car garages have become the norm. It is probably unrealistic to think it would be possible for most of the people in Friendly Hills to have three car garages. Commissioner Hesse stated at the Planning Commission meeting that there are many people in Friendly Hills who have taken an interest in upgrading and modifying their homes, and it is the residents of the neighborhood who are looking to alter the character of the neighborhood. Page No. 7 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach asked if this is a departure to a little bit bigger garage from the standard the neighborhood has established. Mayor Huber stated that even if the commission had approved what he asked for, it would not have been a three car garage. Councilmember Duggan stated that the Planning Commission said the existing garage is substandard. There are two homes in Friendly Hills that have added second stories. The proposed plan may appear larger because of the second story but really is not in comparison to others in the neighborhood. He walked by the back of the house today, and there are wires in the back yard that may challenge the applicant in expanding to the back. The compromise the commission recommends is very reasonable to him and he supports it. Mr. Inserra stated that the biggest issue is it is really the only way he can get a wider garage for his cars. He can pick up storage space with the commission recommendation but that would not give him the depth, and his two cars would still be in a 19 foot wide garage. He reviewed photos of his yard, with trucks parked in the driveway to depict where the garage door would be if approved as he is requesting. The proposal is for a 26 foot wide garage. Mayor Huber asked how many garage doors are being proposed. Mr. Inserra responded possibly just one double door. Mayor Huber stated that the only way to make the structure a three car garage would be to have three single doors, a double door and a single door, or a triple wide garage door. Mr. Inserra stated that most likely he would just put in a double door, which would be sixteen foot. In order to put in another door, it could only be a six foot wide door, which would not be large enough for a car. It would be a large door to get things in and out of The scale on the drawing was not correct, because the double door was only twelve feet. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the question goes to the scale and to if Council is moving in another direction in Friendly Hills with what would appear to be a three car garage with a double door and another door. As Commissioner Hesse stated, there is a de facto changing of the character by virtue of granting these variances. Page No. 8 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Duggan stated that Council would be granting an eight inch variance as a one foot variance (sideyard setback). If the applicant expands the garage, he would be taking out some trees to the right of the house. He asked if the additional garage being proposed is going to be much wider than the opening shown in the photograph. He asked what the total width is of the garage that the applicant is proposing to build in front of the existing garage. Mr. Inserra responded that it would be 26 feet wide. It is currently nineteen feet wide. Councilmember Duggan asked if the applicant is proposing a larger door for the two cars and a small door to bring in wheelbarrows, etc. Mr. Inserra responded that he will probably only install one double door. The scale for the doors on the sketch is wrong. A twelve foot wide door is not a double garage door so he would just have one sixteen foot wide garage door. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if Council is approving the sketch, it looks like a double and a single. Mr. Inserra showed a photo of a house one house away from his where they came out and went up over the existing house. His proposal is not much further out in terms of the string rule. Councilmember Duggan stated that if the string rule were applied strictly, the addition would be about a foot ahead of it. Mayor Huber stated that what the commission recommended was not Mr. Inserra's plan. They recommended approval to expand the garage to 25 feet from the front lot line. They approved less than what Mr. Inserra is asking for. Councilmember Duggan stated that there is a duct tape stripe across the driveway showing how far forward the garage would be, and that was 25 feet from the street. Mayor Huber stated that the duct tape mark is what the applicant requested, not what the commission recommended. Mr. Inserra stated that the commission recommendation would not help him to get the two cars in the garage. It would give him storage space but he would still have a part of his garage that is nineteen feet wide. Page No. 9 May 4, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that he would not have enough depth between the garage door and the front of the house to get a car in. The width would not help him. He stated that he discussed with Mr. Inserra that he has a problem with the width. He is right at the setback line now, and what he is hearing is concern about pulling the garage so far forward that it would be odd with respect to the rest of the neighborhood. To do what the commission recommended leaves him with a tight garage. When he spoke to the applicant last night, Mr. Inserra wondered last night whether he should ask for a one to two foot sideyard setback on the right of his house, which would give him 21 feet in width. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Inserra if he is in agreement with the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Inserra responded that he is still requesting the full length so that he can get his two vehicles in the garage. Councilmember Schneeman responded that Mr. Inserra is really constrained by the size of the lot. She asked if he would want to go back with an architect to see if he can rework something. Mr. Inserra responded that the only other thing he could do would be to go two feet more to the south. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Inserra would have to come back with another plan. Council could adopt the commission's recommendation, which would put the applicant in the situation where he could go forward, but he would have a garage smaller than he needs. Another option would be for him to see if there is any interest in requesting a sideyard setback variance. He asked what position Mr. Inserra would be in if he had an approved application but it was not palatable and he wanted to come back with a new plan. Attorney Schleck responded that the lot would have a variance that ran with the lot forever to the front yard setback. If Council approves the commission recommendation, whether the applicant chooses to build the garage or not, the variance would always be there and transferable to future owners. He stated that it is his interpretation of the ordinance that if he chose to amend or change his plan, that would have to be treated as a new plan because he would be asking for a completely different variance. There would be the necessity for notifying the neighbors. Council could speed up the process, but that change would have to be treated as a separate application. Mr. Inserra would have to go before the commission Page No. 10 May 4, 2004 again, but Council has the option to waive that requirement and the fee if it chooses. There would be no waiting period for reapplication. Mayor Huber reviewed Council's options: accept the commission recommendation; come up with Council's own resolution; or deny the request. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like the applicant to come back with a clear plan of what is requested. It should be clear as to how many cars can be parked in the proposed garage, etc. She would like the Planning Commission recommendation to stand. Mayor Huber stated that the applicant is asking to bring the garage forward 22 feet if he is asking for his original request. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he came to the meeting with the opinion that the Planning Commission did a good job and he would accept the recommendation, but he would not do that without the applicant saying he is happy with it. He would not vote for a proposal that moves the garage closer to the street than 25 feet from the property line or that moves it any closer to the side lot line. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would love to help the i applicant out because she can see the constraints on the lot. The commission did a very good job in making its recommendation. Mr. Inserra is trying to do something other than what the commission recommended and he is not happy with the recommendation. Mayor Huber stated that he would only adopt the commission's recommendation if the applicant was willing to go forward with it. He would perhaps be willing to think about a small variance going to the right side of the house a foot or two if the neighbor does not object. Councilmember Duggan asked if Mr. Inserra could go to MnDOT to buy a portion of the vacated right -of -way. He again pointed out that the back yard is constrained by wires. He suggested that Mr. Inserra perhaps consider building abasement underneath the garage for storage. Mayor Huber stated that it is not likely he could purchase any right- of-way because it is probably lis pendis. Mayor Huber asked Mr. Inserra if he would like to think about the commission's recommendation. He pointed out that there seems to Page No. 11 May 4, 2004 be a preference not to approve something Mr. Inserra does not want to do and there does not appear to be enough votes to approve what he originally proposed. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he tries to accommodate residents requests as often as possible but he is absolutely against moving a structure forward of the string line. He stated that he is consistent in opposing that. The appearance of the street is key, and there should not be any more encroachment towards the street than the string line rule provides. Councilmember Duggan stated that Mr. Inserra could certainly still consider approval of the variance for the second story. Mr. Inserra responded that his option is to go with the Planning Commission recommendation or nothing. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Mr. Inserra could withdraw his plan and try to come up with something with an architect that is more to his liking. Mr. Inserra responded that he understands that the only way he can get a larger garage is to do what the Planning Commission recommends or go closer to the side lot line. Mayor Huber recommended tabling the discussion to allow the applicant to think about the recommendation for two weeks and come back and let Council know what he wants to do. Mr. Inserra responded that if it is tabled, the only thing he would pursue would be the side yard setback. Mayor Huber informed Mr. Inserra that he would have to talk to his neighbors. Council does not know how they would feel. Council does not know either what the Planning Commission or the five members of Council would say. There appears to be a consensus to approve the commission recommendation. If Mr. Inserra came back looking for a sideyard setback variance and did not get approval and them came back to what the commission recommends, two to three months would be lost. Mr. Inserra stated that if Council supports adopting the commission recommendation, then he would at least know what he has, and then he could pursue the sideyard variance. Page No. 12 May 4, 2004 Mayor Huber responded that if Council approves the recommendation and Mr. Inserra did not build it, the city would be in the same position it is always in when Council approves variances and Mr. Inserra could come back looking for a sideyard setback variance knowing he at least had this approval in hand. Mr. Inserra stated that if the Planning Commission recommendation is all he could get, he would probably pursue the sideyard variance. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would not Support approval until the applicant says that is what he is going to do. He would rather delay the decision for two weeks to allow Mr. Inserra to consider it. Councilmember Duggan asked Mr. Inserra who is advising him. He stated that he would be reluctant to support something that is being planned without knowing Mr. Inserra is working with a professional. He feels that the city needs engineered drawings. Mr. Inserra responded that his understanding was he did not need architectural plans for this process. He did not want to spend the money to plan something that might be turned down. Councilmember Duggan stated that the advice of someone who designs structures for a living might be advantageous to Mr. Inserra and he might get better advise and recommendations for something Council can live with. It makes sense that Mr. Inserra work with at least a builder who knows what he is doing and that the two of them have come up with something that makes sense to Council. Over the next two weeks he could also visit with city staff. Mayor Huber stated that if Mr. Inserra is committed to go forward with the plan the commission recommends, Council appears to be willing to support that. Then he would need to go out and get specific drawings and would not be money at risk. To go out to get bids, he would need blueprints. He was inclined to table the matter to give Mr. Inserra chance to think about it and now and make sure he has his plans lined up. He asked Mr. Inserra if he would go out and have plans drawn if Council approved the Planning Commission recommendation tonight. Mr. Inserra responded that he would. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Inserra knows he has support for adopting the commission's recommendation. If he goes away Page No. 13 May 4, 2004 tonight knowing he will probably have approval, he would have to get plans put together to do the project. He did not see where the resistance would be to getting the plans done. Council could approve the Planning Commission's recommendation tonight and wait for the plans. Mr. Inserra responded that he would definitely be interested in at least what the Planning Commission recommends. Councilmember Duggan stated that the proposed resolution should be amended. The third "whereas" in the resolution says the city is going to grant what was presented to the Planning Commission by the applicant and that is not what Council is doing. That paragraph needs to be replaced with the Planning Commission's recommendation, which is to allow a front yard setback of 25 feet rather than the required 30 feet for an addition to the garage. Attorney Schleck suggested that "as presented to the Planning Commission" be changed to "as recommended by the Planning Commission." He did not think the applicant should interpret that the city is demanding that plans be prepared. Rather, the statement is that the city is uncomfortable with the level of detail and the quality of the drawings that have been submitted thus far. The city is asking for more detail. He also pointed out that he is sure that no on Council is stating that there will be approval in two weeks but rather that Council will consider it again in two weeks if that is what the applicant wishes. The applicant should not rely on that. Mayor Huber stated that the applicant is saying he will build what the Planning Commission recommends. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Inserra did say his drawing is not to scale. Mr. Inserra responded that the drawings are to scale, but the doors are not correct. He had thought that the doors were a different size. What he would be putting in if the proposal is approved is one sixteen foot door. The drawing is to scale but the doors are not correct. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -27: "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE EXPANSION AT 2138 AZTEC LANE," as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Page No. 14 May 4, 2004 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA WATER Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson AGREEMENT regarding a request from the City of Mendota to consider new information it submitted with respect to its request for an extension of the Mendota Heights watermain 400 feet from the Mendota Heights boundary along TH 13 into the City of Mendota. Mendota Mayor Carl Robinette and Deputy Mayor Steve Golias were present for the discussion. Administrator Danielson stated that last meeting Council turned down a request from Mendota to extend the city's watermain 400 feet along T.H. 13 to serve three new homes. After that meeting, he met with Mr. Golias and Mendota City Clerk Joan Olin and Mike Anderson, a representative from the St. Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) to discuss their water problems. He learned in that meeting that the request was more than just an extension to serve three homes in Mendota. The request is to extend a watermain to ultimately loop the Mendota's city water system. Currently Mendota's water system exists on a 6,200 foot long eight inch dead end main and Mendota Heights has a 1600 foot dead end main extending along Lexington Avenue. For that reason, Mendota requested Council to consider that extension. It is very important for water systems, especially systems serving an area as large as Mendota to be looped. The extension will not loop the system but it is an important first step. Mendota has ideas for funding for future extensions to complete the loop. In addition to completing the loop, it also provides water for homes in Mendota along T.H. 13, and that is always important because wells are always at risk for contamination and whenever it is possible to serve them with city water it is important to do that. He stated that he put the request back on the agenda so that Mr. Golias could come and speak to Council. He stated that Mr. William Tschida, from SPWRS, is also present. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she has a question about procedure and asked if it is common to put something on the agenda that was voted done the prior meeting. Administrator Danielson responded that in this case, there was new information that was brought forth. C Page No. 15 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the new information is just the purpose, but nothing new is being presented — it is just being presented differently. Administrator Danielson stated that the new information is that it was not discussed about importance of looping the system. This is a step towards looping the system. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she does not think there is any new information, just a new presentation — it is still the same 400 feet. She questioned that it should be before Council again. Councilmember Duggan stated that in the interest of civility and working well with neighboring cities, he does not think it is inappropriate to work with Mendota, however the method, to continue to build and maintain relationships. He sees it as a requirement to have the utility going through one community from another community. Councilmember Krebsbach's comments are true, there was some discussion about looping at the last meeting, but rather than being churlish, and he supported going forward with it. Mayor Huber asked the City Clerk for her interpretation about procedure with respect to Robert's Rules. City Clerk Swanson responded that she believes that there is sufficient new information to consider this a new request. She stated that she spoke with the City Attorney, and they agreed that because Mendota is bringing new information forward from St. Paul Water and based on the information presented at the meeting between the City Administrator and the representatives from Mendota and St. Paul Water. She stated that she recommended to the City Administrator that the discussion be opened on the basis of new information presented rather than reconsideration of the prior action. Councilmember Vitelli did not think Council is following the right procedure. The way he looks at it, any applicant could bring new information at the next meeting and be heard. He stated that he supported this two weeks ago and because felt Council made a mistake by not approving this two weeks ago, he would be open to hearing about this again and hopefully, perhaps, correct a mistake. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the neighbors have been notified. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach Page No. 16 May 4, 2004 Administrator Danielson responded that staff notified the two homeowners who showed up at the last meeting. Prior to that meeting, staff had notified everyone within 400 feet. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the same concern she had last meeting is that Council not get into the practice of reversal. She felt the residents will begin to doubt that a decision will hold. This is the same 400 feet, and she did not know that was new information. Mayor Huber stated another way to approach this is that Roberts Rules allows Council to reconsider an action taken at the prior meeting, by motion for reconsideration by someone who was in the majority at the last meeting. Mayor Huber moved to reconsider the motion taken at the last meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Mr. Golias stated that he apologizes for not being more prepared two weeks ago. Mendota worked on this forty years ago when there were many fires because of wildfires sparked by trains. Pumpers were only effective in containing them. As Mendota Heights expanded its water system, Mendota was always trying to find a way to tie into the system. To Mendota's great pleasure Mendota Heights came to Mendota with a proposal to bring water into Mendota in exchange for bringing the sewer from the Pilot Knob property and St. Peters Church into town. It was always brought up in the discussions about the importance that the watermain be finished be completed. What Mendota has done in that direction is, coming past St. Peter's Church, Mendota installed a second entrance into Mendota from the Highway 110 /Highway 13 across Highway 110 into Mendota. Mendota Heights at the same time brought water down Lexington to T.H. 13 The intent has always been to tie the two tie the two connections together and tie into the connection in the City of Mendota. The three connections would greatly improve conditions in Mendota and would also greatly improve conditions in two places in Mendota Heights. It would eliminate the dead end on T.H. 13 for some residential properties. Also, right now the watermain starts at a dead end at Acacia Boulevard and Pilot Knob and comes down Pilot Knob through the Pilot Knob property down T.H. 13 past St. Peter's Church. If the Pilot Knob property were to be developed, it would be on a dead end main. St. Peter's Church is on a dead end main now. If the Pilot Knob property develops, it will be extremely important that it become part of a looped system. With that in mind, Page No. 17 May 4, 2004 Mendota talked to the SPRS about the importance of looping the system. He stated that he has submitted a letter from Mendota's City Engineer detailing four reasons why the water should be looped. He also submitted a letter from the Mendota Heights Fire Chief talking enhanced fire protection, and the Mendota Heights City Engineer is in support of eventually completing the loop. This will not complete the loop but is a very big step in that direction. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she wishes Council had the letter from SPWRS at the last meeting. That answered many of the questions that were not answered last time. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan, Mr. Golias stated that SPRS had already approved the extension and has also approved the contract for the watermain extension. Mayor Huber stated that the residential project is absolutely feasible to do wells. The watermains are, in his opinion, the preferred way. Mr. Golias responded that it would be possible but there are two hindrances. The Council would have to revisit the agreement it has with the potential builder. Also, any well is always a question about how deep they would have to go, etc. Based on prior experience, Mendota did not think this would be a problem because it has always been the desire of both cities to complete the loop. Mendota looked at this as an opportunity to help both cities and was remiss by not understanding how large a situation the three homes would have on the consideration of the watermain extension. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Tschida how he sees Mendota ultimately completing the loop. Mr. Tschida stated that he has never known how Mendota would finance watermains. They are separate from SPRS just like Mendota Heights is. There is nothing from an engineering standpoint that makes completing the loop unfeasible. He thought it was a common plan that it be looped, for the benefit of properties in Mendota Heights and Mendota. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the interest is that the loop be completed. As a matter of record, the city does have the capacity to protect communities from fires with tanker trucks in Mendota, as it protects Sunfish Lake. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Krebsbach Page No. 18 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Duggan moved to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Second Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mendota. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the reason he supported approving the request two weeks ago and also tonight is 1) it does improve fire protection and the city's ability to protect the homes in Mendota, as the city is currently paid to do, 2) it moves the city a step closer to completing the loop, 3) the three proposed single family residents can be built anyhow, whether Council approves the watermain extension or not, and 4) he supports this completely in the spirit of cooperation that Councilmember Duggan referenced. Councilmember Duggan stated that in addition, it does not cost Mendota Heights anything. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the letter solidifies for her the water quality problems that can be caused by dead end water mains, and that had not been brought up. Mayor Huber stated that after thinking about it more and looking at the new information, he is concerned that if Council does not approve the extension, it makes completing the loop more challenging because it would be more difficult to finance. Mendota would have to min a watermain past properties that likely could not be assessed. That would put at risk the long term overall plan of completing the loop. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is not interested in voting against the water connection but feels this information is basically what Council had at the last meeting and she will exercise her right to abstain. Mendota Mayor Robinette made a brief statement regarding the ability to install wells for the proposed three homes. LCS BUILDING PERMIT Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to continued discussion on a request from the LCS Company for authorization to substitute exterior materials on a proposed addition to its facility at 1480 Sibley Highway. Council also acknowledged a letter from Ward Sessing, Sessing Architects, Inc., explaining the Page No. 19 May 4, 2004 proposed revisions to the addition. Mr. Garth Ristow, from Langer Construction Company, was present on behalf of LCS. Mr. Ristow stated that in September, 2003, Council approved a building permit for a structure with rock faced block and stucco finish. He is asking Council to approve a precast concrete panel wall as an equivalent to what was approved. Mayor Huber stated that Council got hung up at the last meeting because there was no specificity as to what the plans would look like. Mr. Ristow responded that he has submitted a letter of response to the city's questions raised at the last meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she wants to make sure about the height of the structure, and asked if it is the same height that Council approved in 2003. Mr. Ristow responded that it is his understanding that it is the same. The only change is where the addition abuts the building. The height of the addition was dropped so that there is no additional snow load on the existing building. After brief discussion, Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize the issuance of a building permit with the substitute building materials as described in the letter from Mr. Sessing. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 "I" ZONE INTERPRETATION Council acknowledged a letter from Healthcare Management Resources requesting an interpretation on whether a proposed office location for the Center for Reproductive Medicine is consistent with the uses permitted in the industrial district, at 1250 Northland Drive. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Douglas R. Anderson, Healthcare Management Resources, Inc. was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister stated that Healthcare Management has a client that is looking for a new place to locate and one of the places they are interested in is the Northland Properties building at 1250 Northland Drive. Mr. Anderson met with the city planner and staff to discuss what the clinic or office would do and what it would not do so that staff could make a recommendation as to whether it would Page No. 20 May 4, 2004 fit in the I zone. What has been built in the I zone is mostly high end office uses. The I zone lists as uses businesses and professional offices but does not list medical offices. Mr. Anderson said that about 80% of the activity would be administrative and record keeping functions but there would be some medical procedures, such as blood, and urine sampling and physical exams, and the offices would include exam rooms. Procedures other than the exams would happen at another location. Staff felt that while most of the activity fits under business and professional offices, they did not feel comfortable declaring it would be an office because of the medical procedures. Council has three options: determine the use fits the category of professional offices and instruct the code enforcement staff to allow the use; determine the use does not fit any current category in the I zone but encourage Mr. Anderson to apply for a zoning ordinance amendment; or, determine it does not fit any current category within the I zone and discourage him from applying for a zoning ordinance amendment. Councihnember Krebsbach asked if Council should be looking at making some adjustments in the I zone in terms of what is pennitted, if the district is beginning to become sort of a medical area, and if that is becoming a needed use. Assistant Hollister responded that Council has been approached within the last twelve months with three distinctly different medical proposals. The dialysis clinic was rejected, but a wellness center for diabetics was allowed and the I zone was amended to allow it. Someone who is familiar with the commercial real estate market told him the office market is soft for firms like United Properties, and they are looking beyond their normal tenants. That probably accounts for why Council is getting requests like this. The office market is not very good. Also, it is staff and the city planner's approach that when someone asks to do something that is not specifically listed in a zoning district, the response is that what is not listed is not permitted. If the planner finds that specific item listed in another zoning loose, that fortifies the opinion that the city fathers consciously assigned it to another zone and not to this zone. Perhaps this is a temporary dip in the office market, and maybe the typical uses will be back in a year. It could also be that the city will be approached more often with this type of use. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would lean towards a conditional use but thinks that sometime Council should look at what uses should be permitted. Page No. 21 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Schneeman questioned whether Council wants the industrial park to become a medical alley, and if this is the way all of the commercial office space is going to be going, will Council be submerged with this type of request. This really is a clinic, and Council needs to decide whether this is good for Mendota Heights or whether there should just be a certain area where clinics are allowed. Mr. Anderson stated that he is a medical management consultant who has been working with physicians for years. If a clinic is a place where people go for diagnosis and treatment, this is not a clinic. If a clinic is a place where people go to see a physician, this is a clinic. This is an infertility clinic, where healthy couples come who are trying to conceive. A simple physical exam is done, including blood and urine tests are done to determine if they are candidates for in vitro fertilization. If they are candidates, they go to another facility for that procedure. The doctor would like to move his facility to this location from United Hospital because it is more convenient for parking and access for his patients. The facility would have six rooms — three will be exam rooms and the other three will be for consultations. Lab work is minimal, and mostly what happens is conversation. Councilmember Schneeman asked if the patients would return to the facility for after care. Mr. Anderson responded that they would return for counseling. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about what the clean room is for, Mr. Anderson stated that with an examination, there can be dirty linen. The only purpose for the clean room is to keep clean linens in so they are completely separate from soiled linens. Councilmember Duggan felt that the use fits within the definition of professional office. There are research labs, scientific research, testing and similar uses in the district. He sees this proposal as being very limited to what they do. Whether the use is allowed as a permitted or conditional use, he certainly sees it as the height of professional ethics they would bring to the city. Councilmember Vitelli concurred. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to see it as a conditional use but does not see a problem with it in the industrial Page No. 22 May 4, 2004 zone. Councilmember Schneeman also considered it as a conditional use. Mayor Huber stated that he does not see it in the industrial district. It appears that other Council members support what is being requested but see it as a conditional use. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she thinks Council needs to talk about it more. The question is whether it is good for Mendota Heights, and she asked if it is cheaper for the use to come into an existing building rather than building their own. Mr. Anderson responded that he would think that is part of the reason. Also, more and more of the clinic treatment is being done in offices as opposed to hospitals, so more of it is moving out to where it is more convenient to patients to get to. Hospital campuses range from $25 a foot, whereas office buildings are soft markets now and they are looking at $12 a foot for the space. They also do not have to deal with parking, etc. so it is much less expensive. Mayor Huber stated that if medical offices are already permitted in another zoning district, he believes that if the city's forefathers would have wanted it in other districts, they would have included the use in other districts. ROGER'S LAKE FISHING Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander regarding concerns over parking and safety issues associated with shoreline fishing at Roger's Lake along Wagon Wheel Trail. Administrator Danielson stated that at the last meeting Councilmember Duggan mentioned he had received calls regarding the fishing that was going on at the new culvert between north and south Roger's Lake. One of the calls was that there were approximately 100 people there and there were children in the street. Since then, staff has been observing it, and the fishing fever has died down dramatically. Staff feels it may be at a point where things are safer and the need to act has been diminished. He asked Council for direction. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she had a wonderful day at Roger's Lake on Sunday. There were several Mendota Heights families with little children fishing. She stated that she looked for trash and children in the street and did not see any problems. Then she went over to the skateboard park and was concerned because she Page No. 23 May 4, 2004 saw lots of trash there and she and her family picked it up. She } talked to the young people in the park and told them if that is the way it is going to be handled, the skatepark might not be funded again. She said they were great and went all around the park and picked up all the trash. Then an older youth came in a car and she spoke to him about picking up trash and he was very cordial. There is a sign on the fence saying the skatepark opens at 6:00 a.m. and is open until 10 p.m. She did not think anyone should be in the skatepark after 9:00 because it is a noisy activity, and she suggested changing the hours. Administrator Danielson stated that the area around the culvert was disturbed when the culvert was put in and staff has to try to reestablish some plant life and will possibly have to fence it off at that time to keep people from walking on it. Councilmember Duggan stated that the neighbor who read the report about grading and seeding recalled that shrubs would be put in to replace what was removed. Administrator Danielson responded that he will ensure that. Councilmember Duggan stated that his one concern about the concept plan on parking, from a safety standpoint, is that people would have to back into a curve to get out of the parking lot. It would be a totally wrong place for parking He stated that he walked from the Rogers Lake park parking area over to this area and it is not • very long walk. He asked if it is feasible on an MSA road to put in • temporary barrier to keep children from running across the street. Administrator Danielson responded that Park Project Manager Kullander's concern is that if the city puts in temporary dividers, children could get trapped. Councilmember Duggan stated that he thinks Mr. Paul has said that traffic has slowed down. He thinks that continuous monitoring on the city's part would help and that there should be larger trash containers. He would also change the "fish" sign and put up a sign that tells people to park in the park and he thinks the city should work to build a trail from the park to this area. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what the city would do if someone was hurt — what changes would be made then. Councilmember Duggan suggested that perhaps speed bumps would slow people down. Page No. 24 May 4, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach felt that Council should not wait. If it seems likely that this is dangerous and someone could get hurt, Council should think about what can be done. Councilmember Duggan stated that now that the water is six to eight feet deep, cars speeding there may miss the curve and would not have any protection from going into the water. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she does not think it is that bad. Council should look at all of the lakes in the metro area — people are fishing everyday. In Minnesota, cities cannot protect people from the water. Mr. Richard Paul, 940 Wagon Wheel, stated that he is present to find out Council's intentions. He was not aware it was the city's intent to improve fishing conditions at that location. Councilmember Duggan responded that was the intent of Mr. Timm in donating the money to improve the culvert. Mayor Huber pointed out that there has always been fishing there. Mr. Paul stated that he has no problem with it. He is concerned about safety. There was a car several years ago that came through the curve too fast and missed the curve and rolled over into the water. Another car came into his lagoon this year. People take the "s" curve too fast. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her guess is that if there were an accident there, Council would ban fishing. Administrator Danielson responded that the city can ban fishing by ordinance for safety purposes. Councilmember Duggan stated that Council must work with staff to see what can best be done. Mr. Paul stated that the speed problem has gotten better since the road construction barriers went up. Just the fact that the road isn't paved there and there are flashing lights has slowed people down. Councilmember Vitelli asked Mr. Paul what he thinks the city should do. Does he think the city should do anything other than signs, curbs and flashing lights. Page No. 25 May 4, 2004 Mr. Paul responded that he is concerned about the speed of the traffic and is certainly concerned about upgrading the road for that short section, and that will increase speed and people will be going into the curves at a high speed. He would like to see curb and gutter from Lexington to Dodd, upgrading the road to MSA standards all the way. That may increase the speed, but it would make the road safer. The culvert was designed to improve habitat for fish, but not improve fishing. Councilmember Duggan responded that it would improve the life of the fish, and that would improve fishing in that location. He suggested that flashing lights on both sides of the curve might slow people down. Administrator Danielson responded that MSA would have to approve it. TOWN CENTER OPEN HOUSE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding conducting an open house on the status of the Town Center development. Mayor Huber felt if Council has an open house, it should be at a regular meeting. Councilmember Schneeman asked that the open house be held at the seniors building in Town Center. Councilmember Duggan suggested that the meeting could be held from 6:30 to 7:30 before a Council meeting. People want to know what is going on and are concerned about the area being clean. The also had a question about who will pay for the lighting, etc., and he did not have all the answers people in the area have asked him. With a major project like this without information to the community in over a year, it makes sense to sit down with the area residents and let them know what is going on. He suggested putting the meeting on an agenda and letting the Freeway Road area residents know. Mayor Huber pointed out that there has been an article in the "Heights Highlites" every issue for the last eighteen months. Administrator Danielson informed Council that he has spoken to Mr. Feffercorn about preparing an article for the upcoming issue as well. Page No. 26 May 4, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that he has no problem with giving the residents all the information they want on Town Center, but he would rather that if people have questions they can contact any Council member or staff and they will promptly be given an answer. He did not know what to ask staff to do to prepare for a meeting. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he completely agrees. He did not think the city should stage a large open house. If people have a question and one of the Council members do not know the answer, he recommends that the individuals call staff for the answer. He felt an open house would be a waste of time. He invited residents to contact Council or the city staff with any questions they have about what is going on at Town Center and they will get a response as quickly as possible. Councilmember Duggan stated that he has also suggested that people come to a regular meeting and ask questions. MAC SOUND INSULATION Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson along PROGRAM with a proposed resolution supporting the MSP Noise Oversight Committee's recommendation for noise mitigation in residential areas. Councilmember Vitelli stated that this is the resolution passed by the City of Minneapolis at its Council meeting and they have asked that the other cities who are members of NOC pass a similar resolution. If adopted, a copy of the resolution should be faxed to the MAC Chairperson the first thing in the morning. He stated that the resolution states that Mendota Heights is a member of the NOC, that the city supports the full 5dB noise reduction package for houses within the 60 DNL line. That is the commitment that was made when it was decided that the airport would stay here. The resolution also states that Northwest Airlines does not want to support noise insulation in the 60 -64 DNL areas. It states that a compromise plan was approved that would allow homes in the 60 -64 DNL to have some level of insulation, and it states that the NOC compromise was forwarded to MAC for approval. The resolution is simply that the city fully supports a full 5dB noise reduction for any home within the 60 DNL. He strongly recommended that Council approve the resolution and get it to the MAC chair as soon as possible. Councilmember Duggan was concerned about the wording of the fourth "whereas" not being specific enough. Page No. 27 May 4, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that if the resolution must be submitted to the MAC tomorrow, it must be adopted as is and executed this evening. There is no time to make a change in the language. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -28, "RESOLUTION REGARDING SUPPORT OF THE MSP NOISE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR NOISE MITIGATION IN RESIDENTIAL .AREAS." Ayes: 4 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Nays: 1 Duggan CLOSED SESSION Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson recommending that Council adjourn to closed session. COUNCIL COMMENTS Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about the street light at Veronica and Hunter, Administrator Danielson stated that he has contacted Excel Energy and they are going to get it fixed as quickly as possible. Councilmember Duggan congratulated St. Peter's Church on its groundbreaking and St. Thomas Academy on the Quiz Bowl. He also reminded the Council that Ziggy's annual event will be held on Saturday. Councilmembers Schneeman, Duggan and Krebsbach expressed Council's sympathy on the deaths of three residents. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that Council adjourn to closed session, pursuant to M.S. 13D.05, subd 2(b), for preliminary consideration of allegations of misconduct by an employee Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT:: p.m. thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: John J. Mayor