Loading...
2003-05-06 City Council minutesPage No. 1 May 6, 2003 II Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 6, 2003 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 The City Council, audience and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting, further revised to move item l Ok to 10a. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on April 15, 2003. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 6e, Donation to Police Department, and 6h, Transfer of Review Board Duties, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the April 9, 2003 Airport Relations Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the April 22, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for April. Page No. 2 May 6, 2003 d. Acknowledgment of a memo regarding completion of renovation of the Qwest building in North Kensington Park. e. Approval of a salary increase for Engineering Aide Brent Larson to $16 per hour. f. Approval of the Wetlands Health Program Agreement. g. Adoption of Ordinance No. 379, "AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING O THE NORTH SIDE OF CENTRE POINTE DRIVE." h. Adoption of Resolution No. 03 -22, "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT TH 13 AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD." i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated May 6, 2003. j. Approval of the List of Claims dated May 6, 2003 and totaling $ 138,487.97. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DONATION Council acknowledged a memo regarding an anonymous donation of $5,000 for Police Department purposes. Acting Chief Anderson informed Council that the donation will be used to purchase new weapons. Councilmember Vitelli moved to accept the donation and authorize its use for the purchase of police equipment. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 REVIEW BOARD Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution from the City Clerk with regard to the transfer of Review Board duties from the city to Dakota County. Responding to questions from Councilmember Duggan, Clerk Swanson stated that none of the open book meetings will be held at Page No. 3 May 6, 2003 City Hall but that the county will notify all property owners of the dates, times and locations of the meetings. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03- 23, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW." Councihnember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Huber expressed the appreciation of Council, the police department, city staff and the community to Acting Police Chief Donn Anderson for his service as Acting Chief for the past four months. Mayor Huber acknowledged and expressed appreciation to all of the volunteers who assisted in the spring clean -up, and especially to Administrative Assistant Hollister for planning the event. He also expressed appreciation to the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, Dakota County Environmental Management, Nitti Sanitation/Lightning Disposal, Greenman Technologies and Scrapbusters, Inc. Assistant Hollister informed Council on the number of vehicles that brought items to the clean-up. He expressed appreciation to the residents for their participation in the event and stated that there were very few instances of illegal dumping. He also recognized Nancy Bauer who has participated in and done the accounting for the annual spring clean-up for the past nine years. Councilmember Duggan asked that letters of commendation be sent to all who volunteered their time for the event. Councilmember Schneeman stated that two long -time residents of the community, Bert Sandberg and Burt Ross, passed away recently. She also stated that two more families have purchased park benches. RECOGNITION Mayor Huber presented a plaque of appreciation to Mr. Bernard Friel for his twelve years of service on the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chair Lorberbaum presented Mr. Friel with his Planning Commission nameplate and expressed appreciation to him on behalf of the commission. Mr. Friel expressed his appreciation for the plaque and the nameplate. He stated that having served on the commission for a Page No. 4 May 6, 2003 number of years, he knows the amount of time it takes to prepare for a monthly commission meeting. Council has two regular meetings a month with much longer agendas, and several other meetings each month. The amount of time they spend in public service is tremendous, and he thanked all of the Council members for the time they spend on community affairs. LIFT STATION BIDS Council acknowledged a memo from Acting Administrator Danielson regarding the Mendota Heights Road lift station bid process. A single bid was received, and it was 40% over the engineer's estimate. Councilmember Schneeman moved to reject the Lametti and Sons bid of $473,232 and direct Acting Administrator Danielson to work with Barr Engineering to determine the city's options. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FREEWAY ROAD WATER Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer Marc Mogan regarding Freeway Road watermain replacement. Council also acknowledged a hand -out memo from Councilmember Duggan regarding transfer of the water system to St. Paul Water. C,. Mayor Huber stated that the memo from Engineer Mogan recommends that the city authorize the watermain replacement to proceed and bill St. Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) for reimbursement of city payments to the contractor. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Attorney Schleck stated that the MOU contains a provision with respect to the replacement of the watermain. Mayor Huber stated that he recollects the provision and that it was understood during the discussion of the MOU that the reason the surcharge elimination is being phased in was in part because of its funding for the Freeway Road project. If Council chooses not to do the project, the decrease in surcharge rates would happen sooner. Acting Administrator Danielson stated that there are two costs. SPRWS will be buying the pipe and putting it in place. The city's contractor will be digging the hole, lowering the pipe and back filling. SPRWS will reimburse the city for those costs. Should the city and SPRWS not come to an agreement by the end of the year, the city will have to pay all of the costs. Page No. 5 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Duggan stated that he was uncomfortable with the result of the discussion on the MOU and on the water system transfer. His concern was that Council did not have information on the operating numbers for the next seven years. The total of surcharges that SPRWS will collect over the seven year phase out of the surcharge will be about $904,000. That information was not provided to Council. Under the MOU, the city will also lose 50% of the revenue from the water tower over those seven years, $234,500, for a total of $1,138, 500 over the seven year period. SPRWS will replace the Freeway Road watermain and six other overdue mains at a total cost of about $341,250, so the city will be paying to SPRWS an excess of $797,280 over the next seven years. He felt that the decision to go forward was not wise. He would like to see a citizens advisory committee to review the information and report their findings to Council. No one knows the life of a watermain. St. Paul uses 70 years and the city staff uses 100 years. The water system is 40 years old. His proposal is that Council renegotiate the existing agreement so that the city keeps the surcharge, sets it aside to build a reserve for replacement, and continues to pay St. Paul the base water rate. Under the current agreement, the city water users are paying the surcharge and the city pays for replacement of mains — St. Paul does not. Mayor Huber responded that Councilmember Duggan's analysis is correct in saying that the city will pay a surcharge of $226,000 in 2004 and a reduced surcharge each year until the surcharge is eliminated in seven years. If the city does not enter into the agreement, residents and businesses would continue to pay 20% a year in surcharges. As the rate structure is phased in, SPRWS will be paying things they are not paying for now, like the Freeway Road watermain, half of the painting of the water tank next time and the full cost of water tower painting thereafter, and water users will see a reduction in their water rates because of elimination of the surcharge. If the city does not enter into the agreement, the city would have to pay for the cost of all watermain replacements that occur and the full cost of water tower painting and maintenance. Everyone understands they are paying a surcharge that will be reduced and eliminated over the next seven years if the city enters into the agreement. In every financial analysis he has run, it is clearly in the financial interest of the city's residents to enter into the agreement. Councilmember Duggan stated that the city could renegotiate the existing agreement and can negotiate not paying the surcharge and put that money into reserve for replacement of mains. Half of the Page No. 6 May 6, 2003 water tower annual income and the $226,000 surcharge would pay for the Freeway Road main replacement. Mayor Huber responded that it is a good discussion, but as far as the citizen's committee, this has been on the Council agenda three times and a public hearing has been held that seven or eight people attended. There was one letter to the editor urging people to contact Council, and he has received two emails since that time. He answered both emails, and one person responded that he completely agrees with the transfer. The other did not respond. There has been ample time for people to comment. The matter before Council this evening is whether to proceed with the Freeway Road project. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Councilmember Duggan's analysis is seriously flawed. It assumes Council is going to just tell St. Paul that the city is not going to pay the surcharge. Council cannot assume that. That would be like someone going to the county or school district and saying they are not going to pay all their taxes. He cannot just tell them he is not going to pay the tax. Councilmember Duggan is making the assumption city water users are no longer going to pay the surcharge. He reviewed an overhead he prepared on benefits of the transfer of the system. Mendota Heights residents will annually save the full $260,000 in surcharges each year from 2009 and thereafter forever. If the city enters into the agreement two years from now, residents will save that amount from 2011 forever. The city's residents will reap benefits of the agreement in five years. The city needs to repaint the water tower, so it must accrue $40,000 pear year for that purpose. Because of the agreement, residents will save $40,000 per year on water tower maintenance. Over a fifty year period on average, watermains will need to be replaced in the city. to replace watermains. That is what St. Paul uses as a number. The city should accrue $174,000 a year for watermain replacement. If the city makes the water system transfer, residents will save $474,000 per year. Entering into the agreement with SPRWS is cost avoidance —the average savings per household will be $119 per year starting in 2009. He stated that he is a mathematician and the decision is simple to him Responding to a question, Finance Director Schabacker stated that in addition to its surcharge, St. Paul Water collects a 10% surcharge for Mendota Heights, and that is used for water tower maintenance and debt service reduction. Councilmember Duggan stated that no one can tell him what the 20% surcharge is used for. Page No. 7 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Vitelli responded that Councilmember Duggan would have to ask the Council that negotiated the current agreement. Mayor Huber stated that St. Paul keeps the surcharge, and that it was part of the contract agreement. The first community to negotiate a different agreement was Maplewood, because they did not want to pay the 20% surcharge. St. Paul agreed to remove the surcharge but Maplewood had to turn its water system over to St. Paul. Maplewood agreed on the condition that it could get its system back for $1. St. Paul agreed, and that agreement became the base agreement for all of the other cities. Most of the communities that were part of the original agreement with St. Paul watched the experience of Maplewood over seven years and the concerns those cities had have not materialized. Many communities have now entered into the same agreement as Maplewood and they are all very happy with the arrangement. All parties are very happy with essentially the same agreement that Council is looking at. Councilmember Vitelli moved to proceed with the watermain replacement in the Freeway Road neighborhood in accordance with the MOU that states that SPRWS will replace Mendota Heights for payments made to the contractor to cover the cost of providing equipment and operators according to the prices quoted by RKI and accepted by SPRWS. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Duggan stated that the work is in progress and Council is not going to stop it. He is proposing Council have a review process with a citizen advisory committee at the same time as this goes forward. Mendota Heights is a unique city and does not have to enter into the agreement. He will agree to the motion but would like a committee. Councilmember Duggan moved to amend the motion to create a citizen advisory committee. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would will not agree with the amendment. The buck stops at the Council. Council did its homework before approving the memo of understanding and does not need a citizen advisory committee to tell Council what to do. The motion failed for lack of a second. Page No. 8 May 6, 2003 VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach CASE NO. 02-1 l,TOWN Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding CENTER a request from Mr. Ross Feffercorn for review and approval of the final development plan for the East and West Neighborhoods of Town Center. Mr. Feffercorn was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister gave a brief introduction and stated that Council approved the preliminary development for all of Town Center last year and also approved the final plat for the CDA building, which is under construction. Mr. Feffercorn stated that the East and West Village consist of 39 row townhomes, 20 in the East Village and 19 in the West. He is working with ESG Architects, who are also working with the CDA, and Damon Farber Associates prepared the landscaping design. Several focus group meetings have been held and reservations have been taken from several people who are interested in living in the Village. The prices will be from the high $300,OOOs to the low $600,000 range. He has decided to build the hoffices component of the project last. There will be one homeowners' association for both the townhomes and the condominiums. The townhomes will be from 1,800 to 2,600 square feet in size. He reviewed the site plan, access to underground parking and the landscaping plan. Mr. Feffercorn showed elevations of the townhome buildings and samples of the materials that will be used on the exteriors. The color of the brick, stone and stucco will be alternated and the roof lines are also varied. He hopes to apply for building permits in late July and anticipates a six month building process with a two year build out. The loft condominiums will be under construction a few months after the first townhome building is built and they will also have a two year build out. He has received many calls and has about six soft commitments for both the townhomes and the condominiums. Many more people are interested and are waiting for prices and for construction to start. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -24, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE EAST AND WEST NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." Page No. 9 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 03 -09, TILSEN Council acknowledged an application from Tilsen Homes, Inc., for a preliminary plat and wetlands permit for seven lots at 1875 Victoria Road ( Burow Farm). Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation. The property has 711 feet of frontage along Victoria Road and Mr. Tilsen is proposing to divide it into seven lots with 100 feet of frontage. He has applied for a wetlands permit because there is a pond on the property. The development anticipates a redrawing of the city drainage easement line. There were a couple of residents at the public haring who expressed concerns, but the Planning Commission recommended approval. The Parks and Recreation Commission discussed the development and recommends that Council ask for a $20,000 park contribution in order to build some type of structure in Marie Park in honor of Tom Burow. Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach regarding an alternate plan, Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Tilsen did show an alternate plan showing a single condominium building with a surface parking lot which would leave about half of the property undeveloped. Mr. Tilsen stated that he is proposing a seven lot development, which is what the Planning Commission recommended for approval. He is also asking the city to ask for a variance from the county for seven entrances onto Victoria. The county plat commission denied seven accesses and say Victoria does not meet county highway standards. It is his understanding that Victoria Road is basically under the county jurisdiction but should be a city street. He informed Council that he was asked if he could do an alternate plan to preserve open space and did a plan that would require a PUD. That plan is not on the table, but he could discuss it. He does not feel there is a good reason not to approve the plan that is before Council. He stated that he is trying to encourage a prairie like look around the pond rather than trees, and keep the historical view of it similar to what is there today. The alternative proposal has a footprint of about three stories tall, with 24 units, plus an underground garage. He feels that would be a reasonable PUD for the property. Page No. 10 May 6, 2003 Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Tilsen stated that all of the homes will be walls -outs, and if they are two story homes, they will be three stories from the rear. He is looking at custom home designs by the lot purchasers. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like Council to look at the condominium proposal because that retains the most green space. Mr. Tilsen stated that he tried to do something to save the barn but that is not either economically feasible or advisable. The footprint of the condominium would be about 150 by 100 feet and it would be three stories plus underground parking, so it would be four stories from the rear. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that under the condominium proposal, if you walk along Victoria or come around from the south, the view of the pond would be the same as it is now. There could be exterior architecture that would blend in with the neighborhood. She asked that Council at least entertain looking at the alternate before making a decision because that would keep things like they are in term of the view of the pond. Mr. Tilsen asked Council to move forward with the single family proposal. If the neighborhood community really thinks the condominium alternative is a good idea he will look at it much more diligently before pursuing a final plat. Right now it appears the opinion is two to one in favor of the condominium according to what he has been told. There was a neighborhood survey of 50 home owner, and there were 13 positive responses, six or seven negatives and no other responses. Mayor Huber stated that his recollection of discussions over past development proposals for the site was that the neighborhood was concerned about multi- family. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that was a proposal for a senior facility. If everything can be clustered where the house and orchard are, it would be a good use of the property. In the single family plan, she would like to see more of a sight line of the pond. Mr. Tilsen responded there is a 20 foot area reserved between Lots 5 and 6 for maintenance and access and for the storm sewer that is existing. There will be about 20 feet between the homes and there should be ample views between the homes to look back at the pond. Page No. 11 May 6, 2003 There does not need to be a massive opening to have a good sight line. Mayor Huber stated that he does not recall the Planning Commission discussing the condominium plan very much. Councilmember Duggan stated that the plan before Council may be negated by Dakota County if they do not allow seven accesses. The alternate single family plan (with a single access point at Victoria) puts the houses closer to the pond. If the county does not approve the seven accesses, Council would be back to the condominium idea. He cannot see Lilydale agreeing to a turn back of Victoria, and Mr. Tilsen would have a hardship if he cannot get seven driveways. Mr. Kevin Milberry, 1000 Oxford Court, stated that he met with Mr. Tilsen. The initial plan for seven homes was well received by his neighborhood. At the commission meeting, the residents heard there could be two story homes with walk outs and the question he asked was if there was an alternate plan Mr. Tilsen could develop. He asked Mr. Tilsen if it would be acceptable if he polled the neighborhood. There were 49 neighbors shown in the Planning Commission information who are affected, and he sent a letter of survey to them. He received 20 responses, 13 in favor of the single unit PUD versus the seven home sites. He thinks the overall acceptance of the larger unit was because it gave people the ability to see a lot of what they now see. As the landscaping for the seven homes fills in, there will be less of a view of the pond for the people in Eagle Ridge and the people using the city trail. The assisted living proposal that was made several years ago was for 66 units and had development all around the pond. Mayor Huber asked where the people live who submitted the responses. He stated that if he lived there, he would rather look at single family homes. His concern is that he does not recall much discussion over the condominium proposal at the Planning Commission hearing. He stated that he would like to have a sense of what the people around the pond feel and who made the responses to the survey. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she is amazed that people are interested in a condominium because she remembers all of the calls she received against multi - family when it was discussed before. Page No. 12 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she feels the view of the pond is very important in that community and what is pivotal is what the condominium unit would look like. Mr. Milberry responded that the owners of the homes that are adjacent to the property along Victoria are in favor of the bigger unit. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it is great that the developer and neighborhood are cooperating well and working together. His thoughts are that there were 13 positive responses out of 49 and he is concerned about getting Mr. Tilsen off on a tangent to examine a PUD proposal and spend considerable money only for 13 of 48 peoople who said to go ahead. The people across the street would likely complain about their view being blocked. Mr. Tilsen stated that he would like approval for the plan in front of Council. His statement that he is willing to look at the other plan is that if he is directed to he would have to talk a hard look at it. As someone who was on the Planning Commission for many years and works in the field, he thinks that Mendota Heights needs 24 condominiums more than it needs seven houses. That would keep more open space, but he would really like to Council to consider the plan in front of Council and then seek the driveway variances. He is anxious to go to the county for the variances. It is an important statement to make that they cannot use current highway standards on a road where nothing else meets the standard. He felt he would have a good chance on getting the variances and is willing to consider coming back with a PUD and have the public involvement and see what the strengths and weaknesses of a PUD are. Council approval of the current plan does not mean that he cannot come back with a PUD proposal. The other plan is not in front of Council. The current plan meets all codes, and he is asking Council to support his request for the variances from the county. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she will vote against approval of the preliminary plat because she would like to have the other proposal before Council for consideration. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -25, "A RESOLUTION APROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR SEVEN LOTS AT 1875 VICTORIA ROAD," with the condition that a developers agreement be prepared. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach Page No. 13 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No.03 -26, "A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM DAKOTA COUNTY TO ALLOW SEVEN DRIVEWAYS ONTO COUNTY ROAD 45 (SOUTH VICTORIA ROAD) WITH 50 FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR THE PROPOSED BUROW POND SUBDIVISION." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Mayor Huber stated that he will support the resolution but does not want the city taking over Victoria road. If the city has to take the road over as a condition of the variance, the matter should come back to Council. Councilmember Vitelli agreed. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 9:41. The meeting was reconvened at 9:46. CASE NO. 03 -13, BADER Council acknowledged an application from Bader Properties for preliminary plat and variance for three lots at 1673 Delaware Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports, a letter from Mr. Michael Bader asking that discussion on the matter be tabled, and letters from Mark Johnson, 2584 Delaware Avenue and Gary Fuchs (on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Tom Garret, 540 W. Wentworth). Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation for Council and the audience. Mr. Bader stated that he has lived at 1663 Delaware since 1998. He is requesting continuance because he found out on Friday that the county was denying access to Delaware. He had an alternative plan that showed a loop from Wentworth up to Delaware but could not reassemble everything so soon after receiving the letter from the county. Mayor Huber stated that the letter from Mr. Bader talks about sending the matter back to the Planning Commission, but that commission has already considered the case and it is before the Council. Council would have to take action on it before sending it back to the commission if the 60 day rule is waived. He asked Mr. Bader if he wants the matter to stay before Council or if he wants it to go back to the Planning Commission. Page No. 14 May 6, 2003 Mr. Bader stated that his request is to continue the matter, and his letter said either the Planning Commission or the Council. He felt the commission was too concerned about covenants and he needs to research that. Also, since that time it was made clear that the county would not give access to Delaware. The loop street is not his preference because more trees would have to be removed and the cul de sac would be longer. He stated that since he cannot have access from Delaware, he has prepared two new concepts (which he presented to Council). Responding to a question, he stated that he discussed with his legal counsel, who encouraged him to go to the county to request a variance. He will come in from Delaware with one access if that is what is required and set up lots differently, but that does not make his neighbors happy. The property slopes north to south and is steep on the north side. It is more than a 6:1 slope and would require much digging and 60 trees would have to be removed from the top of the land if he puts the driveway on the north side of the property. He would have to dig such a deep trench it would cave in his neighbor's (Chadema's) retaining wall. Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Bader has asked for a continuance and there are only three things that can happen. Council can continue the matter, approve it or deny it. He asked Attorney Schleck if Council denies the application tonight knowing that Mr. Bader has been advised by his counsel that they would like to continue it, does that give the applicant the opportunity to challenge Council since a continuance has been requested. Attorney Schleck responded that with respect to Dakota County and any conversations that might have been had between Mr. Bader and the county, the city is not making any representation as to whether this is appealable to Dakota County. Secondly, with respect to continuance or sending it back to the county, the job of the planning commission in Mendota Heights is that it is an advisory body to Council, and the ultimate decision lies with the Council. Short of some additional facts the applicant could take to the commission, he did not know why Council should send it back to them. The decision is whether to continue, approve or deny the application. Mayor Huber agreed, stating that unless Mr. Bader is talking about things that are hugely different from what is before Council, the matter should stay before Council. Attorney Schleck stated that if additional facts come up in the future and they are presented to Council and Council decides they are significantly different, Council can send it back to the commission. Page No. 15 May 6, 2003 The letter from Mr. Bader's attorney indicates his client would waive that Council must take action during the 60 day period or within the 120 days. Mr. Bader stated that he is in no rush and has already waived the 60 day requirement. Attorney Schleck stated that Assistant Hollister has informed him that a notice has been sent to Mr. Bader extending it to 120 days already. Council is very concerned with the 60 day rule, and the decision on whether to continue, approve or deny rests with Council. This is a request from the applicant to continue it, and the city can either approve or deny that request. Councilmember Duggan moved to continue discussion to May 20 with direction that it be placed as early as possible on the agenda. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Council received brief comments from Mr. Tim Oney, 2246 Delaware, and Mr. Gary Fuchs, with respect to continuance. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Huber stated that Mr. Bader has been put on notice that this will go to 120 days, and if Council considers going past 120 days they can deal with that later. CASE NO. 03 -18, FEIGE Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Don Feige for a conditional use permit for a detached garage at 1930 Coventry Court. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -27, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1930 COVENTRY COURT." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 03 -16, Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Craig Wagenknecht WAGENKNECHT for a preliminary plat and variance for three lots at 1062 Wagon Wheel Trail. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and informed Council that the Planning Commission recommended denial for lack Page No. 16 May 6, 2003 of demonstrated hardship. Since the commission discussion, Mr. Wagenknecht has also presented a second plan that shows four lots with a little different drive configuration. Mr. Wagenknecht stated that the reason for the second plan was that during the discussion with the Planning Commission he had it as another concept. Each of the four lots would face west and have a nice view. There would be one driveway for all four lots. He actually proposed the three lots and did not know he had to demonstrate hardship to the commission. The hardship is that the property has an irregular shape because I -35E runs past it and also the lot is two acres, which is enough for five lots. It was his understanding the neighbors are concerned about high density. Most of the lots on Wagon Wheel are larger lots. The property is abutted by apartments, so there is a lot of green space around it. He felt the three lot concept is more what the property owners in the area would prefer. He felt it would be a nice fit in the neighborhood and three lots on two acres is very lot density. The lot has many negatives with the freeway next to it and the apartments next to it. Responding to Council questions, he stated that the driveway is over 500 feet long and that the apartment building parking and green space around it would provide access for the fire department. Acting Administrator Danielson stated that staff just received his application for a change tonight and the fire chief has not looked at it yet. Councilmember Duggan stated that there are many questions to be answered about the new plan and it should be referred to the planning commission. Mr. Wagenknecht responded that his purchase agreement would expire before the next commission meeting. The problem the commission had was that he was not prepared to show a hardship, and the hardship is the irregular shape of the land because of the freeway and also the hardship of having apartments behind it. His preference would be for the three lots Councilmember Krebsbach stated that at some point in the commission meeting there was discussion that the city needs to define where flag lots will be allowed and where they will not. That is where the discussion of a four lot proposal came up. Mayor Huber pointed out that three of the four lots would not meet the requirement for frontage on a public street. Page No. 17 May 6, 2003 There was consensus that Council would deny the application for the three lot subdivision. Mayor Huber stated that because it appears that the commission did not have an opportunity for much discussion on the four lot alternative, Council does not want to consider the four lot concept. Attorney Schleck stated that the city will need to ask for an additional 60 days if the new proposal is to be considered. Mayor Huber stated that Council should just send the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the four lots and make no commitment. Councilmember Duggan stated that he would like to see a plan showing trees and many other details, including how many trees can be salvaged. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would also like a ruling on the safety of the driveway. Councilmember Duggan moved to refer the application back to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 03-15, HAGGERTY Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Paul Haggerty for a critical area pen-nit for a landscape plan and rear deck and critical area permit and variance for a front porch at 645 Sibley Memorial Highway. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and letters from Mr. William Huestis, 649 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mr. Marco Scibora, 647 Sibley Memorial Highway, Mr. & Mrs. David Mommsen, 635 Sibley Memorial Highway, statement of approval of the requests signed by several residents on London Road, Sibley Memorial Highway and Downey Street and Brompton Place. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance and critical area permit for the front porch and continued the critical area permit for the deck and landscaping to the next meeting. The only thing before Council is a recommendation of denial for the front yard setback variance. He explained that even though the home is 55 feet back from the property line, it encroaches on the established front yard setback for the neighborhood, therefore a variance is required. Page No. 18 May 6, 2003 Responding to a question, he stated that the stated that one corner of the existing garage is actually closer to the property line than the porch addition. Mr. Haggerty stated that one of the principal reasons for his buying the home was the gallery area. He has many art pieces that hung there that he has had to take down because of the sunlight coming into the gallery and the ultraviolet rays. That is the hardship. The roof of the porch would act as a permanent awning. A couple of his neighbors suggested he should talk to people in the neighborhood and ask if they are in favor of the porch, and he canvassed everyone and they were all in favor of it. About twenty people signed the statement. He has only owned the house for two years and he may have gotten overzealous in clearing trees. He has done some replanting. His neighbor, Burt Anderson, has complained that he has taken trees that belong to him, and if that is true, he has every intention of planting trees to replace them as long that he has assurance that some of them were in Mr. Anderson's yard. Not all of the trees were in good health and many had been taken down before. He also took twenty trees down in front of his house to do stabilization. The proposed porch will not project any further forward than the existing building towards the street. He asked for favorable consideration of the variance and would also like to deal r' with the rear deck this evening. Councilmember Vitelli asked why Council is discussing a variance if the house already protrudes towards Highway 13. Acting Administrator Danielson explained that someone cannot further expand an existing non - conforming use without getting a variance. It does not meet the established setback line. The houses on either side of this house are set back further than this home. Responding to a question, Attorney Schleck stated that it does not matter which house was built first under the rule. The rule is that a structure cannot encroach further into the setback with new construction. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that restoration of the bluff is an issue. The Planning Commission denied the variance for the porch. She asked about the discussion with respect to the bluff. Mr. Haggerty stated that his understanding was that he needs to get busy and show that he is interested and willing to do some planting based on the information the DNR supplied and the city supplied. Page No. 19 May 6, 2003 They would look at the critical area permit in 60 days, and tied its consideration to the restoration. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to support a decision that Mr. Haggerty restore the bluff and then come back for the critical area permit. Mr. Burt Anderson, 643 Sibley Memorial Highway, stated that the reason he opposes adding onto the porch that already exists is that it would be adding onto something that juts out beyond the house on each side. The house juts out in front of Mr. Anderson's house 20 to 25 feet already. He stated that for the variance to be considered, Mr. Haggerty must show hardship. Mr. Anderson stated that he has been on both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The gallery was a walkway from the living room to the garage. There are no windows into the gallery and all the curtains were removed from the house. Mr. Haggerty has cut down 21 trees in his front yard and all the bushes and shrubs and at least 17 trees on Mr. Anderson's property. Mr. Haggerty's problem with needing shade in his front yard is like a child complaining about being an orphan when he has killed his parents. He stated that Mr. Haggerty said to the Planning Commission that he did not remove any trees from his (Mr. Anderson's) property and gave the commission a plan for replacing twelve trees. He stated that the back yard is littered with tree trunks. He stated that the porch is a non - conforming use, and while he knows he is outvoted by his neighbors, none of them live next door to the property and none have had their trees cut down. Granting the variance and critical area permit would affect his property. Councilmember Duggan asked if a plan on what Mr. Haggerty proposes must be submitted to the DNR. Acting Administrator Danielson responded that staff submitted the plan to the DNR and have a response to it. The plan was for reforestation of the bluff to the lot. Mr. Anderson stated that the Planning Commission asked Mr. Haggerty what he proposed for Mr. Anderson's property and Mr. Haggerty said he did not cut down any trees on the property. The commission said Mr. Haggerty's future plan would have to deal with the Anderson property as well. The property has been clear cut. He would think to approve the rectification of what has occurred would include treating his property as well. The DNR letter is clear that what Mr. Haggerty proposes is inadequate, and who would agree to his planting two or three trees to replace the 17 trees Mr. Haggerty removed from the Anderson property. Page No. 20 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Schneeman stated that she feels the porch is fine and the addition does not bother her. She stated that she drove up and down T.H. 13 and was appalled by the Haggerty back yard. There is no way he will ever prevent erosion, the situation is so severe, and she did not know how it cold ever be restored. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she was on the Planning Commission when Mr. Heustis was doing something with his property and he had to get a retaining wall before he could do something. The retaining wall was part of the condition for the permit. Mr. Anderson stated that he was on the Planning Commission when Mr. Heustis came before the commission and he did do some clear cutting and he had to do some rectification. Mr. Anderson stated that he has a retaining wall on his property and Mr. Haggerty cut down the trees that were most vital to Mr. Anderson's property. He clear cut a broad area and it is so littered with tree trunks that trees cannot be planted there. Mr. Anderson got an estimate for someone to come in and take out the trunks and replace trees, and it would cost him $36,000. He has lived in his home 25 years and does not want to see the property destroyed. C Councilmember Vitelli stated that there has been a lot of discussion about the clear cutting. His question is that there is one item before Council, and that is a variance to add a porch, and it seems to him that discussing the other issues at this time is inappropriate. He did not think Council should tie all of the items together. Attorney Schleck agreed, stating that the only issue before Council tonight is the variance for the front porch. Councilmember Duggan stated that he does not know what was there before in relation to the trees that would have provided shade, hence the need for a porch. He is conflicted when confronted with the porch because the side of the garage is at least equally distant from T.H. 13. If a property owner creates something that creates the need for a variance, there is no hardship. If the trees were diseased and needed to be removed, he could consider it. Mayor Huber stated that his recollection of the property was that there was vigorous growth before the clear cutting. When the growth was there, one could hardly see the house. He stated that he drives by the property every day. Page No. 21 May 6, 2003 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 03- 28, "A RESOLUTION DENYING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR A FRONT PORCH AT 645 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY." Mayor Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Schneeman, Vitelli CASE NO. 03 -17, MUSSELL Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Tim Mussell for a critical area permit and variance for a home addition at 1735 Lexington Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and Planning Commission action. He stated that the commission recommended approval for the critical area permit to allow construction of a wall to enclose an open verandah and addition to the front of the house, but to deny a variance to allow an addition to the back of the house. Since the meeting, Mr. Mussell has met with staff and has submitted a revised plan. Mr. Mussell stated that he was pleased with the recommendation to allow him to enclose the area that would allow him to expand his kitchen and would like to revisit adding a stall onto his garage and add a recreation room on that side of the house. At the meeting, one of the neighbors below the bluff expressed concern about drainage. His wife some time ago had Southview Design do a plan for a pool that included landscaping. Also since the commission meeting, he came up with an alternate plan. He went to all of his neighbors and asked them which plan they would prefer looking at. All the neighbors in the Lexington Court townhouses and his next door neighbors prefer the original design because it only comes out 30 feet along the house. With the new plan, one wall would be 57 feet long and the front would be 45 feet long and 30 feet wide. The people in Lexington Court prefer the original plan and the neighbors down the bloc prefer the original plan. The Corbetts, who live below the bluff, are concerned about runoff. His home was built in 1956 and he has not had any issues about his land eroding. There are twelve townhouse units built right on top of the bluff and they have not caused any damage down below the bluff and there is no sign of the bluff eroding. He would like Council to consider the original plan and if Council does not like it, then consider the alternative plan. Page No. 22 May 6, 2003 Acting Administrator Danielson stated that the revised plan shows the new additions to be outside of the 40 foot setback from the bluff, so Mr. Mussell would need a critical area permit but would not need any variances. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she supports the revised plan. Councilmember Duggan stated that the original plan is more aesthetically pleasing. The additional space on the other side does require the critical area variance but it is contiguous with the side of the house. He would prefer approving the original plan. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Corbett noted that there is mud coming down onto his property and that is probably why Mr. Mussell's patio sunk. Mr. Mussell responded that Mr. Corbett stated that the step that sunk is 33 feet from the bluff line. He stated that there is a large area of concrete that sunk and inch and a half. He did not think the people who put it in put in a foundation of frost footings under the step. He stated that the area is 33 feet from the bluff and there is no soil from there going down the hill. He stated that there would be a way he could put gutters on the back of his roof to drain the water out to the front. Councilmember Vitelli moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the critical area permit and variance as requested, with the condition that gutters be installed on the back of the roof to direct water to the front. Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Krebsbach CASE NO. 03-19, CONROY Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Pat Conroy for a conditional use permit for a storage shed at 952 Stratford Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and a letter from Gregory Hudalia, current owner of the property.. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Conroy acquired a permit and built the shed to the requirements of the permit as he understood them and was under the misapprehension he built it correctly. In the process of selling the house, a final inspection was made on the shed and it turned out that he built it larger than the permit allowed and needed a conditional use permit to make it legal. The shed is 15 by 12 feet. Page No. 23 May 6, 2003 Mr. Conroy stated that he built the shed and applied for a permit and inadvertently miscalculated the size. He discovered the error when he sold the property. As a condition of the sale of the house, the buyer asked for an escrow for the shed. Councilmember Duggan stated that to him it seems to be a case of buyer beware and the buyer does not want the shed. He stated that he is not sure Council should make a ruling on it being non- conforming. The buyer asked for the money in escrow because he does not want the shed. Mr. Conroy stated that he assumed Mr. Hudalla wanted the shed because when the purchase agreement was signed he new the shed was not in compliance. He asked Mr. Hudalla before the Planning Commission meeting if he wanted him to paint the shed and Mr. Hudalla said that it was a nice cedar shed and he did not want it painted. The first question Mr. Conroy's realtor asked was whether Mr. Hudalla wanted the shed. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SHED AT 1930 COVENTRY COURT." Councihnember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes:2 Nays: 2 Huber, Duggan Abstain: 1 Krebsbach City Attorney Schleck stated that in his opinion, since the motion to approve failed, the application is effectively denied and no further motion is needed. CASE NO. 03 -20, PLANTE Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Julie Plante, American Tower Corporation, on behalf of AT &T Wireless Services, for a cellular tower at Henry Sibley High School. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister briefly reviewed the application and Planning Commission recommendation. After brief discussion, Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 03 -29, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TOWER AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL, 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE." Councilmember Duggan seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 24 May 6, 2003 RECESS Mayor Huber called a recess at 11:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:35 p.m. CASE NO. 03 -21, LYMAN Council acknowledged a request from Lyman Properties for consideration of a concept plan for planned unit development for the Par 3 Golf Course property. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and letters from: Mr. & Mrs. Tom Grojean, 1660 Gryc Court; Mr. Harvey Arbit, 1782 Trail Road; Mr. & Mrs. Robin Ehrlich, 1656 Gryc Court; Mr. & Mrs. Sanford Bemel, 774 Evergreen Knoll; and, Mr. & Mrs. James Blake, 1651 Gryc Court. Mr. Jim Johnston was present on behalf of Lyman Properties. Assistant Hollister stated that the comprehensive plan has guided the property as Golf Course since 1979. Since this is only a concept plan, there was no public hearing at the Planning Commission and no formal action is required this evening. The commission made no formal motion because it is a concept plan, but talked about what they think about changing the comprehensive plan designation and what they think about the specifics of the proposal. The commission had mixed feelings on both issues. Generally, they were saddened by the prospect the golf course would be sold for residential purposes. They also felt that the plan was too dense. Mr. Johnston stated that Lyman has the property under purchase agreement. Their goal was to develop a concept plan that fit the R -1 district with some elements of a planned unit development. What they developed is a site plan with thirty home sites with an average lot size of 18,600. The minimum size in R -1 is 15,000 square feet. The city planner suggested some tweaks and Lyman is open to discuss them. The issue is to amend the comprehensive plan to change the guide from golf course to R -1. The owners, after owning the property for eight years, have chosen to put it on the market. He stated that Lyman appreciates that it has been a quasi pubic facility since the 1960's and appreciates that the neighborhood has grown up around it. Based on comments he heard at the commission meeting about the loss of open space, he would submit that it is not the property owner's responsibility in perpetuity to provide the public open space. They have chosen not to continue to operate a golf course on a non - performing basis on this site. Because it is guided golf course, it has no other option. It is a one use guiding. It is not like commercial where if one business fails another business can come in. He would commit to work closely with the city to develop a plan to mitigate neighborhood concerns and understands there are issues of density and views, but if Council tells him tonight that they C Page No. 25 May 6, 2003 are not going to consider regaiding the property, he would like to know that. Councilmember Viteili asked if the property was marketed at all as a golf course. Mr. Mike Spaulding, owner of the property, stated that he and his partner own four par three golf courses throughout the metro area and all have been under used for years. They sold two of the properties to potential developers and had some inquiries on this property and based on their market knowledge and not being able to sell their properties as golf courses, they entered into an agreement with Lyman. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would not be interested in changing the comprehensive plan, but if the rest of Council wishes to work with the plan she has comments. There are ten lots at 15,000 square feet, and that is a throw back design. The city has moved beyond that with very high end developments. She stated that she would not entertain the proposed plan. Councilmember Duggan stated that when one looks at the homes in Evergreen Knolls, the homes are larger. The homes on the Bachelor side of the site are slightly smaller. If he were to consider this plan, he would say it should be in character with the neighborhood, which is larger lots overall then is being proposed. He would say that 3/4 of the lots should be larger and that 20 to 22 homes may not be unreasonable. The 30 home proposal would add 300 trips to Dodd Road per day and that would be a challenge. Fewer homes would maximize the wetlands and be more in keeping with the neighborhood. As the land drops from east to west there area drainage issues. Since all of the rest of the area is older homes, the landscaping is nicely filled in, so appropriate landscaping would be significant to the neighbors. If the neighbors do not want to buy the property to keep it as a golf course, they would have to accept the fact that there will be development. Responding to a question from Councilmember Duggan regarding what the vote requirement is for comprehensive plan amendments, Assistant Hollister stated that changing the designation from commercial to residential only requires a simple majority, but it would also need Metropolitan Council approval. Councilmember Duggan stated that there is too much traffic on Dodd Road and the number of lots should be reduced. There are large Page No. 26 May 6, 2003 homes in Evergreen Knolls, so 20 to 22 lot would be more reasonable. He stated that the could support the change in designation on that basis if no one comes forward to keep the use as a golf course. Mayor Huber stated that he has received a number of emails and calls on this issue and that even though this is not a public hearing he would entertain comments. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she wants to be very clear with the property owners that the city does not want the connection between Wachtler and Trail Road. Council received comment from Ms. Joan Evans, 716 Evergreen Knoll, Mr. John Chasman, 733 Evergreen Knoll, Mr. Bill Buell, 7 Dorset Road, Mr. Robin Ehrlich, 1656 Gryc Court; Ms. Janice Chasman, 723 Evergreen Knoll, and Mr. George Battis, 758 Bachelor. Mayor Huber stated that Council owes Mr. Johnston an indication as to whether they would be of a mind to undertake a change in the comprehensive plan. He stated that he would not be supportive of changing the plan. The comprehensive plan was just reaffirmed a few years ago, and he would prefer it to stay that way. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would not want to change the comprehensive plan. Councihnember Duggan stated that he would like to keep the property as open space as long as possible. He encouraged the people present to get people together to support a referendum to keep the property in use as a golf course. Councihnember Schneeman stated that she would not support changing the comprehensive plan. The golf course is a jewel and is very important to the residents. It has not been marketed as a golf course and should be. She would consider a referendum at some point but thinks there should be a real effort on the owners' part to sell it as a golf course. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would not support a change in the comprehensive plan. He drove by Par 3 on his way to the meeting and the parking lot was completely full. He stated that he does not blame the owners for marketing the land as residential C Page No. 27 May 6, 2003 because they would make a lot more money. Council's message to them should be that they should market it as a golf course. COUNCILCOMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she has had conversations with a park commissioner and a developer and feels the city's park contribution requirement should be increased to $10,000 per lot. She stated that land values in the city are such that amount would be consistent with 10% of the value of the land. Councilmember Duggan stated that he has been contacted by an individual who is concerned about when the Lexington Avenue trail will be constructed and another individual who expressed that the city may need to consider paving the parking area at Rogers Lake Park if the skate park is well used. 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: 12:14 a.m. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk