Loading...
2004-02-03 City Council minutesPage No. 1 February 3, 2004 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 3, 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 Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. Councilmember Duggan had notified Council that he would be absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Council, the audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on January 20, 2004 as amended. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6, , to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of January 27, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity report for January. c. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated February 3, 2004. d. Approval of the List of Claims dated February 3, 2004 and -� totaling $294,266.07. Page No. 2 February 3, 2004 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach informed Council and the audience that the Joint Airport Zoning Board has opened a public comment period on proposed amendments to the airport zoning ordinance until February 25. A hearing on the proposed amendments will be held on February 18, at 7:00 p.m. at the MAC office building. The amendments apply to the rezoning to create the north/south runway and also add restrictions that would affect the Garron site and other properties. Mayor Huber informed the audience that Mendota Heights will turn 50 years old in 2006 and Mr. Bill Wolston is putting together a document to celebrate the milestone. He needs help with the project, and anyone interested in helping to put together a commemorative book should contact Administrator Danielson. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she has received several phone calls from people in the north end of the city about people leaving their trash bins out or putting their bins in front of their garages rather than to the side of their houses where they are not so visible. She asked residents to be sure to keep their trash bins out of sight. LIFT STATION BID AWARD Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer Mogan regarding bids received for the Mendota Heights Road lift station rehabilitation/ reconstruction. Engineer Mogan stated that the city requested bids a year ago to replace the lift station, and those bids came in higher than expected. This time, he sent out a revised set of plans that included a rehabilitation option and took bids on both options. He was hoping that replacement would come in at about the same cost as rehabilitation, but rehabilitation is still cheaper and staff is recommending that option. Rehabilitation will accomplish essentially the same thing but will cost considerably less. There would be some easement issues with the replacement option and there would be some restoration that is not an issue under the rehabilitation option. Councilmember Schneeman asked what guarantee there is in the replacement option. Page No. 3 February 3, 2004 Engineer Mogan responded that there is a guarantee on the pumps and the controls and there is also a warranty period on the contract itself. Labor and installation is guaranteed for one year. He stated that he is not sure what the pump warranty is, but it should last for ten to twenty years, and there would be no extra longevity with the replacement option. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -11, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD LIFT STATION RECONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION PROJECT (JOB NO. 200224)," awarding the contract for rehabilitation to Magney Construction, Inc., for its low bid of $225,700. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04 -01, TROOIEN Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dennis Trooien, of DS of Centre Pointe for a variance for a third monument sign for the former GNB building. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Trooien owns the former GNB building and the parcel immediately north of it. There is a monument sign up against Centre Pointe Curve that is deteriorating and Mr. Trooien would like to improve the look of the sign by replacing or repairing it. Mr. Trooien applied for a variance to replace it. The sign is non - conforming in many regards. The sign rests on a separate parcel from the building to which it refers. It is also closer to Centre Pointe. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about the sign size, he stated that Mr. Trooien is proposing 200 square feet per side, which is the same size as the existing sign, but it will be wider and shorter. Councilmember Vitelli stated that one of the recommendations of the Planning Commission is that the lot be subdivided and the narrow neck of the parcel with the sign on it be added to the lot that the building is located on. He asked what the cost to the applicant would be. Assistant Hollister responded that it would be very expensive because the lots are in two different plats and Mr. Trooien would have to file for a replat, which could cost a couple of thousand dollars. Page No. 4 February 3, 2004 Mayor Huber asked why the commission recommended forcing the applicant to do that. C Assistant Hollister responded that Planner Grittman made the recommendation because it would bring the sign more into conformance with the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Mr. Trooien owns both properties and would have to come back to Council if he wanted to do something with the property. Assistant Hollister stated that he feels that if Mr. Trooien came back for development of the property, it would make sense and be reasonable to ask him to do something about the replatting at that time. Mr. Trooien stated that the existing sign is starting to deterioriate and he asked the sign company to see how they could put anew "skin" on it. To refinish it would cost about $12,000. To replace it with a new sign that is much more readable would cost about $25,000, and he believes that his the right thing to do. The Planning Commission found there was a hardship, because when the GNB building was built, GNB owned all of the land to T.H. 110. After that time, the city bought part of the property for right -of -way and did not do anything about the sign at that time. Mayor Huber stated that if Council approves the variance, the situation could come back when the other parcel develops. He asked if there is an issue about how many signs can be placed on a parcel this size, and whether it would be a problem if someone wants to put two signs on the site in the future. Administrator Danielson responded that Mr. Trooien would be moving the sign off the easement but not off the north parcel. There can only be one free - standing sign on any parcel. Mayor Huber stated that if Mr. Trooien or a future owner wants to put another sign on the lot, it will need a variance and would have to come back to Council. There may be a feeling on Council to go along with this for the reasons stated, but there also may be some rationale to indicate that if Council approves the variance, that does not mean a future Council might not have some reservations about it if another sign is requested in the future. Council would not want to say that Mr. Trooien has the right to a second sign. Page No. 5 February 3, 2004 Mr. Trooien reviewed the conditions in the proposed approving resolultion. He stated that if Council would like something in the resolution that at the time that Lot 4, Block 2 is developed, that at that point there must be a subdivision to put the sign onto the GNB main parcel. That would put both him and any fixture owner on notice. Assistant Hollister stated that another interesting twist is that the north parcel and the parcel with the building on it are in two different zones as well. The zoning ordinance specifies a sign size limitation for B -1 but none for B -lA. If Council does not require a combination of the parcels at this time, it might be granting a variance to the size limitations for B -1 but not a variance for a second sign. Council would be a granting a variance for the sign on a separate parcel. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -12, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VR[ANCE FOR A THIRD MONUMENT SIGN FOR DENNIS TROOIEN OF DS OF CENTRE POINTE (GNB) AT 1101 CENTRE POINTE CURVE," eliminating the condition that the sign be no greater than 100 square feet in are per side and revising the fifth condition to read that If and when Lot 4, Block 2 Yorkton Centre Pointe is developed with a principal structure, the lot shall be subdivided and the narrow "neck" of the parcel with this sign shall be added to the parcel to the south with the existing "GNB" building to eliminate the off -site sign condition. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04-02, PATTERSON Council acknowledged an application from Patterson Dental for DENTAL a conditional use permit for PUD amendment and wetlands permit to allow construction of an addition to its building at 1031 Mendota Heights Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that the Patterson Dental building was constructed under a PUD and they would like to expand the building, adding on to the front of the structure and adding a significant amount of parking. Staff advised them to apply for the PUD amendment and wetlands permit. When they talked about the request with staff, there was no formal distance determined from Rogers Lake. The plan call for parking at 100 feet from the wetland. Between the proposed parking lot and Rogers Lake there is a sedimentation pond that was constructed in 1986. Patterson's map Page No. 6 February 3, 2004 indicates an area of cattails, woods and brush, and the Planning Commission had a question about that. Staff researched the history of the PUD after the commission meeting. The area between the parking lot and Rogers Lake is actually an artificial NURP pond and a wetlands permit was acquired for it in 1996. Therefore, none is needed now. Mr. Tim McIlwain, the project architect, stated that Patterson Dental agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendations. One of the recommendation is no additional signage and he has not looked at signage yet. Another condition is in regard to lighting, and he will match the existing lighting. There will be a two story addition on the south part of the building, with a total square footage of about 15,000. The exterior of the addition will match the building. The addition will be for general office space. Patterson has about 240 to 250 staff now and the addition will allow them to add about another 180 people. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 04 -13, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CUP FOR A PUD AMENDMENT FOR PATTERSON DENTAL, 1031 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD." Councihnember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 �. Nays: 0 CASE NO. 04-04, SCHNEIDER Council acknowledged a memo from Mr. Terry Schneider CONCEPT PLAN regarding concept plan discussion on a proposed planned unit development at 2311 Highway 55. Council also acknowledged an associated report from the city planner and drawings submitted by Mr. Schneider. Assistant Hollister stated that there are some parcels at the intersection of TH 13 and TH 55 that have been vacant for quite some time and many developers have come to discuss development proposals with staff. Mr. Schneider has appeared before the Planning Commission Council with a concept plan for a town - office development. He revised the plan and appeared before the Planning Commission at its January meeting. The input he was looking for from the commission was whether they liked option one or two. The commission liked option one, phase 2. The other main feedback from the first discussions that he tried to incorporate in the revised final concept was that it was a nice concept but may look too residential for the industrial district, and perhaps upgrading the Page No. 7 February 3, 2004 exterior would be appropriate. Mr. Schneider revised the exterior of the building to make it look more like a commercial building. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to discuss the proposed uses. Assistant Hollister responded that they are all office buildings, intended for small offices like tax preparers, attorneys, etc. It would be similar to the office development on the east side of Lexington near Mendota Heights Road. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is concerned about it being an office /manufacturing/warehouse project. Mr. Schneider responded that everyone liked the concept of the townhouse office style, but there was a question about what this property would develop like — a traditional office, industrial or three story office building. He stated that he prepared a potential drawing for that, showing all that could fit the site without a PUD. He is proposing option one, phase one and option one, phase two as concepts. He submitted the other drawings just to show what could potentially go on the site. He stated that he is asking Council for a recommendation on whether it prefers option one or option two. Phase 2 cannot happen until he acquires the Mn/DOT right -of -way. Mayor Huber stated that for phase two to happen, Waters Drive would have to be truncated and the cul -de -sac would need to be pulled back to allow for the second phase as an add -on to option one, phase one. What the Planning Commission was saying on phase two is that is what they would ultimately like to see happen. They like option one, phase one because of option one, phase two. Attorney Schleck clarified that Council is looking at the various plans that Mr. Schneider is considering and discussing what is consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Nothing that Council says should be construed as to what they like or do not like. Nothing should be construed as an approval of one or another of the plans. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he leans toward option one, phase two because it maximizes the use of the land and reduces the plowing and maintenance the city has to do. He asked about the development cost of option one, phase two. Page No. 8 February 3, 2004 Mr. Schneider responded that the units sell for about $120 a square foot, and the building is about 60,000 square feet. Mayor Huber asked if Mr. Schneider has a similar project anywhere and what the target market is. Mr. Schneider responded that Klingelhutz Development Company has built four or five of these projects and there are many similar projects under construction. The tenants are predominately professionals, like attorneys, manufacturers representatives, etc. Future building twenty might be a little different — that could be either one large tenant or could be purchased by one individual and subdivided into smaller offices. This will be the first development in the cities with this mix. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it will be up to Mn/DOT if they are going to expand the intersection. She asked Mr. Schneider to look at a similar development in Chanhassen for style. Mr. Schneider stated that the building will have a metal roof (pitched) to make it more commercial in character. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he does not feel strongly about making it look commercial and would leave it to an architect or designer to decide what would look good on the site. He stated that he would like Mr. Schneider to look at the roofing again, because sometimes metal roofs look very commercial. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the last concept was more cottage looking and Council did not want it to look like a building that was left when the industrial park was built around it. She stated that she thinks the metal roof gives the building a more distinct look. MEETING DATE CHANGE Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk informing Council that because precinct caucuses are being held on March 2, Council must either reschedule or cancel its March 2 meeting. Councilmember Vitelli recommended that the meeting be cancelled if there is no pressing reason to hold one. Mayor Huber stated that it is the first meeting after the Planning Commission meeting, although there is only one planning case on the commission's next agenda. C Page No. 9 February 3, 2004 Attorney Schleck felt that it is important to hold a meeting that week because of some of the legal issues before Council. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to reschedule the March 2 meeting to Monday, March 1. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 JOINT MEETING Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Danielson regarding conducting a joint workshop with the Parks and Recreation Commission from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on March 9. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it would be helpful if the commission had some ideas about hypotheticals with respect to the questions they suggested for discussion. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to conduct a joint workshop with the Parks and Recreation Commission from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on March 9. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach asked about the status of discussions with the state regarding the concern over the timing of the signal light at T.H. 110 and T.H. 13. Police Chief Aschenbrener responded that he does not have a response from MnDOT yet and will keep working on it. He stated that he and Administrator Danielson have discussed having someone from MnDOT come to a Council meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she also has a concern about the intersection of Annapolis at T.H. 13. Lots of people take a right turn there, and often a car will turn out assuming the other car is going to make a right. She asked if there is any signage that could be installed. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he shares Councilmember Krebsbach's concerns, stating that the timing of the light is not natural and that there is something wrong with the sequencing of the light as well as the long delay. Chief Aschenbrener responded that he will look into it. Page No. 10 February 3, 2004 Mayor Huber stated that the April 6 meeting may need to be rescheduled since that is the first day of Passover. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she attended the Energy and Technology policy briefing for state and local elected officials and learned about the growing energy technology. The briefing was conducted by the University of Minnesota and others, and she was very happy to have been able to attend. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for discussion of the Par 3 litigation and a personnel issue. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:38 p.m. KatKleen M. Swanson City Clerk