Loading...
2002-10-01 City Council minutesPage No. 1 October 1, 2002 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 1,2002 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. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Dwyer, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on September 17, 2002. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays:0 CONSENT CALENDAR Council member Dwyer requested that item d. "Acknowledgement of Barr Engineering Storm Sewer System Design Review" be removed from the consent calendar. Council member Vitelli requested that item g. "Appointment of Police Sergeant Position" be removed from the consent calendar. Council member Vitelli moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items d, and g to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained a. Acknowledgement of the September 10, 2002 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgement of the September 24, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes c. Acknowledgement of the September 2002 Building Activity Report d. (Removed from consent calendar). e. Authorization for Northland Lift Station Repairs Page No. 2 October 1, 2002 f. Authorization for Installation of ADA Compliant Automatic Door Openers at City Hall. g. (Removed from consent calendar). h. Approval of CAO Permit for a five -foot fence for John Roszak, 1235 Culligan Lane i. Approval of Sign Permit for 2425 Enterprise Drive, Suite #300 j. Adoption of Resolution No. 02 -54: "RESOLUTION CONFIRMING 2002 GENERAL ELECTION JUDGES" k. Approval of List of Contractors 1. Approval of List of Claims Council member Dwyer seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 13�.__� ENGINEERING Council member Dwyer explained that he pulled this item as it requires some Council action. At the last meeting, the City Council asked that the Storm Sewer System Design Review plans be reviewed by Barr Engineering. The have now reviewed those plans and found that Marc Mogan's system is sized very conservatively. They have indicated that they could run a more sophisticated computer model for $4000 -$5000 that may save the City money in the long run if the system could be smaller. Council member Dwyer stated that he thinks it's worth the expenditure of the $4,000 - $5,000 if it could save the City money in the long run. Mayor Mertensotto agreed. Council member Dwyer moved to enter into a contract with Barr Engineering to perform the more sophisticated SVavfM storm water computer modeling of the Town Center Redevelopment project to further refine the proposed storm sewer system network at a cost not to exceed $5,000. Council member Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 POLICE SERGEANT Council member Vitelli stated that he pulled this item only to congratulate John Larrive on his promotion and to express his Page No. 3 October 1, 2002 appreciation for the fair and thorough process that was undertaken by Chief Jeff Piotraschke for this promotion. Council member Vitelli moved approval of the promotion of John Larrive to Sergeant. Council member Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Fire Chief John Maczko reported to the City Council about Fire Prevention Week, the Halloween bonfire and the 54th Annual Firefighters dance. PRESENTATION Mayor. Mertensotto called Jill Smith to the podium. He thanked her JILL SMITH for her work on the Blue Ribbon Panel and presented her with a plaque that read: "This Certificate is presented to Jill Smith in recognition and appreciation for your service as the Mendota Heights Representative on the Blue Ribbon Panel in Assisting the Metropolitan Airports Commission in Establishing a Minneapolis -St. Paul Noise Oversight Committee, presented this I't day of October 2002." Jill Smith thanked the Council for the recognition. Mayor Mertensotto noticed that MAC Executive Director Jeff Hamiel was in the audience and asked him to approach the Council. He stated that the City received a letter from Mr. Hamiel asking for an appointment to the new MSP Noise Oversight Committee. Mayor Mertensotto asked if it would be a problem for Mr. Hamiel if the City waited until November to make an appointment in order to solicit interested applicants. Mr. Hamiel stated that they hope to have the first meeting in November, but that it would not be problematic to wait for the appointment until that time. Council member Vitelli stated that the City Council voted at the last Council meeting to make that decision at this meeting and not wait until November. Council member Dwyer pointed out that this item is out of order and will be discussed at length in item 8k. FIRE SERVICE AWARDS Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Fire Safety Awards Program recognizes those firms, which consistently and conscientiously emphasize the importance of fire safety in the work place. A number of firms are to receive an adhesive backed emblem for the year 2002 to affix to their previously received plaque —they are: A.R.R.T., Ecolab, General Pump, LCS Metal Stamping, Mendakota Country Club, Minnesota Knitting Mills, Patterson Dental Supply, Somerset Page No. 4 October 1, 2002 Country Club, Specialty Equipment, and Tempco Manufacturing. Mayor Mertensotto added that there are also two new plaques to be presented to two firms to acknowledge their work in creating a fire safe atmosphere: Brown College and TAJ Technology. Mayor Mertensotto stated that none of the firms are present this evening and directed the Fire Chief or Fire Marshall to deliver the plaques to the businesses personally. ZONING BOARD ISSUE MAC Attorney Walter Rockenstein was present to discuss proposed changes to the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rockenstein stated that the Joint Airport Zoning Board is looking at amendments to an ordinance originally adopted in 1984 under state rules adopted in 1974 and 1977. The Board is looking at two areas, height zoning and land use zoning. He showed maps relating to height - the 1984 map and the proposed new map. The two properties Council asked him to focus on were the Garron properly and the property to the west of it. With respect to height, those two properties in 1984 were placed under the horizontal surface, which leaves between 70 and 90 feet of buildable vertical space on those properties and would allow a seven to nine story building. There is no change proposed in the new ordinance. (" Mayor Mertensotto stated that according to the zoning map that is part of the proposed ordinance, and particularly plate 7, it appears that a small part of the Garron site and the Acacia property is part of the land use limitation under the ordinance. If that is the case he recommends that Council not recommend adoption of the ordinance to MAC because the city does not want to get into a contest with MAC as to land use. The city lost considerable tax capacity when 55 homes were taken off the tax base because of the airport. The city made significant contribution to making it possible for the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor to come into existence. The city does not want to place itself into a position with the MAC in regards to land use on the Garron and Acacia sites. Councilmember Dwyer stated that since 1984 there have been height restrictions in place on those two sites. Mr. Rockenstein stated that the land use picture is very different — where the height restrictions clearly extend over both of the properties, the land use restrictions do not. The land use boundary just barely nicks the Garron property — everything else is outside of the jurisdiction of the Joint Zoning Board for land use. All but a tiny Page No. 5 October 1, 2002 corner of the Garron property is outside of Safety Zone C. That tiny part of the parcel cannot interfere electronically or visually with aircraft. There is no change since 1984. The language for Safety Zone C is exactly the same as it was in 1984. Mayor Mertensotto asked if there is any way to remove that portion of the property from Safety Zone C. Regardless of how much land the owner has, the city would have to deal with the MAC on development of that site. Mr. Rockenstein responded that what the ordinance says is that the zoning official for the city acts to do the initial review of any application and if that official is satisfied that there is no violation of the height and that the use with respect to that small portion of the property does not present a visual or electronic problem, that's it. The only time the city would have to go to the MAC to get a variance would be if the developer wanted to build a structure taller than what is allowed. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Rockenstein if that is his interpretation or the interpretation of the Commission and if he is authorized to bind the commission. Mr. Rockenstein stated that he is not authorized to bind the commission but served on the 1984 Board that put the ordinance together and he understands the ordinance. Until two weeks ago there has never been an application from anyone for variance to the standards. Mr. Mertensotto stated that the MAC should publicly make the statement. It is Mr. Rockenstein's interpretation, not the official position of the commission, and he wanted to make sure the city will not get into a hassle with MAC with regard to the use of the two properties because they are vital to the tax capacity for the city. He understands that there have been developers who have come to the city with respect to a planned unit development for multi - family residential and the city has to know if this is going to be a problem area. Mr. Rockenstein stated that this ordinance is concerned with height, and, on a tiny corner of the Garron site, with visual and electronic interference. That is separate from the issue of what is the property development for those sites. This ordinance does not say that the sites cannot be developed with residential or that they cannot be developed commercial. The sites are outside the one mile boundary Page No. 6 October 1, 2002 where the commission can do anything with regard to use. The Joint Zoning Board has no authority to tell the city what use can be there. He understands that the city is having a separate discussion with MAC with respect to what is an appropriate use on those sites. The statute says that you cannot zone for use more than one mile from the boundary of the airport. There are three different jurisdictional limits in the statute. One is the approach area — the limit there is two miles from the airport boundary for both height and land use. For height, between the wedged shape areas on the map, it is one and one half miles, but for land use, it is one mile from the airport boundary. The two properties are outside the land use jurisdiction of the Joint Zoning Board. Mayor Mertensotto asked if that can be officially stated in writing from MAC. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the alternative would be for the city to get an opinion from the city attorney. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Rockenstein is being paid by the MAC to represent the commission. The city attorney is not part of the MAC. Mr. Rockenstein is making representations on behalf of MAC and that is the only interpretation that counts. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would also like to have it in writing and to make sure that it goes to Mr. Hamiel. Council also knows that there is an open comment period until October 4 and she would like to have the written statement back from MAC by then. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council can pass a motion stating that if these parcels are included in the land use restrictions under the amended ordinance provision, then Council objects to adoption of the amendment. If Mr. Rockenstein can give Council something in writing that they are not included as far as land use restrictions provisions are concerned, Council can turn around and approve it. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he and Councilmember Krebsbach are members of the Zoning Board, and Mendota Heights needs to take a position before October 4. So that Council can give them direction, he would like Mr. Rockenstein to explain what Zone B is and how it will affect Mendota Heights. Mr. Rockenstein stated that in 1984 there were two other safety zones established off the end of each runway. The A zone is 4667 feet long off each runway and new development there is basically Page No. 7 October 1, 2002 limited to automobile parking and agriculture. In Safety Zone B which is the next 2333 feet off the end of the runway, there are limitations in development — parcels must be a minimum of three acres, no use can bring more than 15 people per acre to the site, and a limited building plot within the three acres and everything that is a structure must be within that plot. Those zones do touch the edge of Mendota Heights. What is being proposed is to relax those restrictions. The restrictions in Zone B would be eliminated except for a list of prohibited uses (which he listed). All of the restrictions on lot size, number of people, building plot, and suggesting those be eliminated. That would mean that an area of development in Mendota Heights off the end of the runway would have more flexibility than it does today. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the parcels included are already developed and they are not a concern because the uses are grandfathered. Mr. Rockenstein responded that from the city testimony at the Joint Zoning Board meeting, there are three undeveloped lots that could be developed at a greater density and the developed lots in Zone B where expansion is now limited would not be limited. About 400 jobs and $50,000 a year in property taxes could be gained through the relaxation of the standards. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Council needs to make a decision soon on what direction they want to give to him and Councilmember Krebsbach. He asked what the rationale is underlying the thought process leading to the suggestion that the restrictions be relaxed. Mr. Rockenstein responded that the question is one of safety versus community impact. The statute and the rules indicate that the purpose of the zones is to enhance safety but if the impact on a community is severe, you can step away from the strict application of the standards. What MAC did in preparing for the meetings of the Zoning Board was to have its consultant look at the accident data related to large air carrier airports and specifically look at the accident data at MSP. They took the data from 1982 through 2000 and calculated accident rates, plotted where accidents occurred and compared that to the FAA safety standards. When they looked at Safety Zone A, they determined that at this airport using national data, the accidents on these runways would be 60% below the federal safety standard and if the MSP data were used it would be 75% below the safety standard. The board feeling has been that since MSP is so far below the safety threshold and there are some pretty Page No. 8 October 1, 2002 severe community impacts, it made sense to change the land use restrictions in the zones around this airport. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Councilmembers Dwyer and Krebsbach were appointed to represent the city on the Joint Zoning Board not at their will but at the will of the Council, so they can only go based on what the will of the Council is and on what the Council says its position will be. He had recommended that the window be kept open because there is a deadline of October 4 and Council will not meet again for two weeks, so therefore Council can say that it objects to the ordinance. If MAC comes back with a written letter regarding the land use issue, the city can alter its position. His main concern is the tax capacity — so the city does not lose any tax capacity from the two parcels because the city is giving MAC authority over them. There must be an official written position from MAC with respect to that issue. Councilmember Schneeman asked what will happen to the city if the city does not agree to the amendment. Mr. Rockenstein responded that this is early in the process. It is just a hearing draft and the Board must determine based on comments received, whether it wishes to stick with the ordinance or make changes. It will then go to the Commissioner of Transportation who can approve the proposed ordinance or disapprove it. If he approves it, it comes back to the Board and another public hearing will be held and the Board will vote on it. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that the Commissioner of Transportation is done with his job on Friday, so there will be a new commissioner after the election. She asked if that will delay things. Mr. Rockenstein responded that the board must make a decision on whether to submit it to the acting commissioner or wait until a new commissioner is appointed. Councilmember Dwyer stated that as one of the people who must ultimately cast a vote recommending the ordinance to the Transportation Commissioner, he needs some idea as to whether the Council agrees with the idea of relaxing Zone B due to the analysis done by MAC that safety is such that those rigid restrictions are no longer needed. He stated that he feels ultimately Council will get the assurance that what Mr. Rockenstein represented tonight is true — that since 1984 there have been restrictions of height and use on Page No. 9 October 1, 2002 certain portions of Mendota Heights and that the amendment does not change those restrictions but in fact lessens them. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there are two issues. One is the prior discussion about how the ordinance changes would impact the Garron site. The other is Safety Zone B. Bloomington made a presentation that they wanted to batch their density and business inside Safety Zone B. Mendota Heights took the position that it should be treated the same as the other cities around the airport. Part of the basis for that was what the negative impact would be on the city by not having the more relaxed standards. It was determined that there could be about 400 new jobs and about $50,000 in property tax if the standards are relaxed. The clarification the Mayor wants is related to the Garron site. The city is on record as having asked to be treated the same as the other cities with respect to Safety Zone B. If she and Councilmember Dwyer are directed by Council to reverse their position, that is a different issue. Tonight Council must focus on what Mr. Rockenstein came for and that is the implications of the ordinance on the Garron site. It has been determined that Mr. Rockenstein will submit a letter regarding Council's two concerns. Councilmember Dwyer asked what is the city going to say as a public comment. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if he gives a letter verifying what he said, she would assume there would not be an issue, because this will not impact the city's ability to put structures on the property in terms of the height or interference with aviation. That is all that is on the table. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the city representatives are going to say the city agrees with the proposed amendments, are they going to be silent or are they going to oppose it. Mr. Hamiel stated that Mr. Rockenstein will prepare the letter and give it to him tomorrow. Mr. Hamiel will take the letter to the MAC Board Chairman and discuss it with him and explain the issues. The Chairman has the authority to sign the letter or to authorize Mr. Hamiel to sign it, but he will make sure the Chairman is aware of the issue and is in concurrence. He is very comfortable and confident that what Mr. Rockenstein represented today is exactly correct. The MAC only wants to protect the height limitation and interference with the operation of the airport. Page No. 10 October 1, 2002 Councilmember Dwyer asked, on the assumption that happens, what if any comments does the city want to make before October 4. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no issue with regard to Zone B changes. The whole issue is tax capacity based on the use of the Garron and Acacia sites. That is what is stopping Council from approving the ordinance as it is. If Council passes a motion tonight instructing its representatives that the only issue it has is Zone C, that controls land use on the Garron and Acacia sites, and if Council gets the official letter of exception from MAC, Council will reverse its position and approve the ordinance as presented. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that Council adopt a motion that the public hearing comments be that city has no objection to the ordinance as presented except to Section C as it would affect the ability of the city to make a determination in regards to the land use of the Garron and Acacia sites, and if a letter is received from MAC stating that Zone C does not deplete the city's authority to exclusively determine the land use on the two sites, Council can change its position accordingly. Councilmember Dwyer disagreed to use of the word exclusively. The city does not have the exclusive right because since 1984 there is an ordinance that does limit uses of pieces of Mendota Heights. MAC will not write a letter to the city stating that the city has the exclusive right to dictate what happens at the Garron site. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the representation that has been made as to the Garron and Acacia sites is that if the zoning authority makes the decision that there is no interference from height or electronically with the airport operation, the MAC will not interfere with the city's decision as to land use for those two parcels. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that, due to the fact that the public comment period for the zoning amendment closes as of October 4, and the city wants to respond to the public comment provision, a motion be made that if there is any restriction on use of the Garron or Acacia sites other than height or electronic interference, Council would object: if the amendment imposes a land use restriction, Council would object to adoption of the ordinance in total. And if the letter is received from MAC, Council can reverse its position. Mr. Rockenstein suggested the following by way of a motion, that provided the city receives a letter signed by either MAC Chair Nichols or Executive Director Hamiel with the Chair's authority that Page No. 11 October 1, 2002 states that there has been no change in the zoning with respect to those properties since 1984 and further that the only zoning that affects them is height and with respect to a small portion of the Garron property, Safety Zone C, which is electronics and visual. If Council receives that letter, it will support the amendments to the ordinance. If Council does not receive that letter, it opposes the amendments to the ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the City of Mendota Heights upon receipt of a letter signed by Mr. Nichols, or signed by Mr. Hamiel and noting approval by Mr. Nichols and copied to him, that clarifies that the amended ordinance as presented for public hearing in terms of affecting the Garron site has no appreciable changes from the 1984 ordinance and further confirms that the two areas affected would be height, which would be at 190 feet above sea level, which would allow construction of a four story building (which is the city's zoning ordinance), and there is a small section of the Garron site that is affected by Safety Zone C as applies to electronic devices and any type of business that might provide visual interference such as smoke, etc., and if that letter is received that confirms that, the city will authorize Councilmembers Dwyer and Krebsbach to approve the ordinance as it stands, but if there would be further amendments, that would be a separate issue. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. City Attorney Schleck recommended that given some of the other issues Council is dealing with in terms of indemnification of members of the board, the motion should say everything as stated in it except that it should not say authorize approval but rather that the city will not oppose the amended ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach accepted the recommendation as a friendly amendment to the motion. Councilmember Dwyer agreed. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she appreciates the City Attorney's input because she wants both herself and Councilmember Dwyer and the Council to have discretion to further judge the ordinance should there be other amendments. Councilmember Dwyer stated that if there are other changes proposed in the fixture, they will be brought back to Council for discussion. Councilmember Dwyer asked attorney Schleck, based on his recommended adjustment, if the motion passes, when the question is Page No. 12 October 1, 2002 raised at the joint airport zoning board all those in favor of a motion to recommend the amended ordinance to the Transportation Commissioner, he is not authorized to say aye. If Councilmember Krebsbach's motion passes he cannot say that he supports the motion. Attorney Schleck stated that it could be interpreted that way but it could also be interpreted that he is not authorized not to say aye also. It could be interpreted that he does have authority to approve it if in his discretion he deems it appropriate. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks this relates to logging a comment before October 4. In the motion is the point that Council wants the letter so that it can determine whether it wants to log objection to the ordinance by October 4 during the comment period. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. BONINE WETLANDS Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister addressed the Council. PERMIT He stated that Mr. Robert Bovine of 688 Third Avenue appeared before the Planning'Commission at their regular meeting on September 24, 2002 to discuss his application for a Wetlands Permit for Filling near a Wetland. Apart from the applicant, there was no- one present to speak at the public hearing. At the September 24, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the Wetlands Permit for Filling near a Wetland as presented by Mr. Bonne on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide an appropriate strip of prairie grasses or other natural plantings between the filled area and the wetland for filtering. 2. The applicant shall show a plan detailing #1 above to the Council for their review and approval. 3. Engineering Staff at the City of Mendota Heights shall review and approve the drainage plan. (Engineering Staff has since determined that approximately 1.5% slope on the street will carry the drainage past Mr. Bonine's property to the west into the larger wetland.) Page No. 13 October 1, 2002 4. The applicant shall submit a timeline to the City of all steps in the project for the Council's review and approval. 5. The applicant shall provide verification from the appropriate authorities that filling this area will not interfere with any culverts. (Engineering Staff has since determined that there are no culverts to be interfered with.) 6. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan to the Council for their review and approval. Chair Lorberbaum seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7 -0 vote. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Bonne if he is familiar with the recommended conditions. Mr. Bovine responded that he is aware of the conditions and can comply with them. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 02- 55, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A FILLING NEAR A WETLAND AT 688 THIRD AVENUE." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FRANK CUP Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister addressed the Council. He stated that Mr. Daniel Frank of 999 Chippewa Avenue appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on September 24, 2002 to discuss his application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage. During the public hearing on this application, Mr. Rick Salmen identified himself as the attorney representing Ms. Phyllis Carlson of 995 Chippewa Avenue, Mr. Frank's next -door neighbor. Mr. Salmen said that his client had three concerns: 1. Mr. Salmen said that the first concern was whether or not the proposed detached garage conformed to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Salmen said that this concern had now been addressed and that he and his client were satisfied that the detached garage would conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Page No. 14 October 1, 2002 2. Mr. Salmen said that any approval of the garage should be conditioned on the reconstruction of applicant's driveway that currently runs right along the property line shared with Ms. Carlson. Mr. Salmen asked that the City require as a condition of the new garage that the driveway be reconstructed to conform to the required five -foot distance from the property line to the extent possible. 3. Mr. Salmen requested that any reconstruction of the driveway be done in a manner that did not create drainage problems for his client. In particular, Mr. Salmen requested that the existing concrete curb running along the edge of the driveway be preserved. 4. The Planning Commission discussed Mr. Saimen's concerns with Mr. Frank, but ultimately concluded that the driveway is a legal non - conforming driveway, and that it is a separate issue from the garage. At the September 24, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage as presented by Mr. Frank as proposed. Commissioner B. McManus seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7 -0 vote. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Frank that the only concern is that there is an existing driveway and the neighbor stated that as a condition of approval, the city should require reconstruction of the driveway in order not to create drainage problems. Mr. Frank stated that there is a concrete curb along our driveway but it doesn't do much to stop water from running onto the neighbor's property because her property is higher than his driveway. He stated that a lot of the water drains into his basement. When he builds the garage he will improve the driveway because it's in bad condition. He will move it off the property line as much as possible to conform to the city requirements. Mayor Mertensotto noted that the driveway is grandfathered and Mr. Frank can improve it as long as he doesn't move it any closer to the property line. Drainage problems are always a concern, so Mr. Frank should make every effort to solve the drainage problem, both for his benefit and for his neighbor's benefit. Page No. 15 October 1, 2002 Ms. Carlson stated that she wants the curb to remain and also wants the driveway to be 10 feet from her property line. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the both of those conditions are being met. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the resolution does not say that the curbing will be retained. Councilmember Schneeman responded that the application is for the garage. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Frank doesn't need a permit because he's not moving the driveway closer to the lot line. He wants to divert water away from running into his basement. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the driveway is badly deteriorated and he wants to replace it for visual reasons. Mr. Frank stated that whatever he does to his driveway will not run water to his neighbor's property. If anything, he will ditch the driveway so the water runs out to the center of the street. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council should address the garage and rely on the good faith of Mr. Frank and approve the garage. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the concrete curb will be retained when the drive is improved. Mr. Frank responded that if he leaves the driveway as it is, the curb will stay there. If he decides he can move the driveway back from the property line a few feet, there will be an area where he can plant grass or something else and he'll decide about the curb then. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the curb isn't part of the final solution, Mr. Frank should do whatever he can to keep the water out of his basement and to keep water from running on Ms. Carlson's property. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of resolution No. 02 -56, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 999 CHIl'PEWA AVENUE." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 j Nays:0 Page No. 16 October 1, 2002 CHAPMAN VARIANCE Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister addressed the Council. He stated that Mr. David Chapman of 2506 Haverton Circle appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on September 24, 2002 to discuss his application for a Setback Variance for a Covered Porch. Mr. Chapman said that his house is suffering severe water damage and that he needed the porch to protect the house from the elements. During the public hearing on this application, Mr. Ultan Duggan of 2331 Copperfield Drive said that he had similar water problems with his house in the past and that he had the following suggestions for Mr. Chapman: 1. Install drain tile. 2. Add gutters. 3. Have a professional consultant apply a water hose to the windows to determine where exactly the leak is. The Planning Commission discussed Mr. Chapman's water problems, and whether or not they constituted a sufficient hardship to justify the setback variance for the porch. At the September 24, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner M. McManus moved to recommend that the Council deny the Setback Variance for a Covered Porch as presented by Mr. Chapman. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 4 -3 vote with Commissioners Hesse, Dolan, and B. McManus voting in the negative. (The three dissenting commissioners felt that Mr. Chapman's water problems constituted sufficient hardship to justify the variance.) Council acknowledged a proposed revision to Mr. Chapman's plan, which he scaled back in light of the Planning Commission discussion. Mayor Mertensotto noted that the length of the porch has been cut back. Mr. Chapman responded that the problem with the original plan was that a corner of the porch on the southwest corner of the house would have cut into the setback 12 feet. The porch now intrudes 2.5 feet into the setback. Councilmember Vitelli asked for a definition of the problem Mr. Chapman is trying to solve. Page No. 17 October 1, 2002 Mr. Chapman stated that the house is a salt box colonial that faces south southwest and takes a beating from the elements. He has had a significant problem with water coming in and rotting the floor joists. His plan to eliminate the problem was to build a porch. He is about to pull off the siding so he will have a better idea of what the damage is. Water is coming into places into his house that he cannot stop. Some of the water is coming because the house doesn't have gutters but some is just because there is no covering on the front of the house. Mayor Mertensotto stated that since a recommendation came that there should be drain tile, the assumption was that the problem is water coming from the roof. He asked if any of the neighbors have a problem with the setback. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the proposed improvement would not be out of place in the neighborhood. Councilmember Vitelli noted that the home is in a cul de sac. He stated that he supports the request because the home is in a cul de sac and the 2.5 foot variance will not become a problem because of that. He advised Mr. Chapman to also look windows and everything else. Councilmember Dwyer moved to approve the application based on the amended plan, granting a 2.5 foot front yard setback variance. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 WILD WETLANDS PERMIT Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister addressed the Council. He stated that Dr. Paul Wild of 813 Hazel Court appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on September 24, 2002 to discuss his application for a Wetlands Permit for a Deck. Dr. Wild said that he is merely replacing the original deck, which was poorly constructed. Apart from the applicant, there was no -one present to speak at the public hearing. At the September 24, 2002 meeting of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend that the Council approve the Wetlands Permit for a Deck as presented by Dr. Wild, subject to maintenance of the existing natural landscape edge along the wetland. Commissioner Friel seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7 -0 vote. Dr. Wild stated that he had a timber retaining wall that was falling down and a brick patio that was falling apart. He did not realize he needed a wetlands permit and a building permit to replace the Page No. 18 October 1, 2002 retaining wall. He did not say that he had a poorly constructed deck. All that was outside his back door when he bought the house was a very small deck. He started construction and when he came home there was a stop order. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the new deck is very large and she does not remember the house having such a large deck before. Dr. Wild responded that the deck is much larger. The only reason the project started is because his property slopes toward his house and the retaining wall collapsed during rains in April and May. He did not know if the cement slab will maintain the slope but he thought he might as well put a deck over it. Every deck owner he talked to said if they were going to build a deck over again they would build it bigger. Mr. Ultan Duggan, prior owner of the house, stated that the house was built in 1975 and the patio was built in 1976 on sand. He never had a water problem with the house when he lived there. Over years sand can wash away. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Dr. Wild needs a wetlands permit because he is building within 100 feet of the wetlands. The deck will be within 100 feet of the high water mark of the wetlands and Council wants to make sure that it will not have a negative impact on the environment. Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 02 -58, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A DECK AT 813 HAZEL COURT." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PLEASURE ANIMALS Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson with regard to a request from Ms. Lynn Burrow, 1219 Victoria Curve, for an amendment to the "animals, pleasure" definition in the zoning ordinance to allow pygmy goats. Council also acknowledged a letter from Code Enforcement Officer Berg to Ms. Burrow, a letter from Ms. Burrow, and a letter from Mr. Alan Olstein and Ms. Phyllis Karasov, 1954 Glenhill Road, objecting to the inclusion of goats in the definition. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Ms. Burrow was told by someone at City Hall that she could have pygmy goats consistent with the Page No. 19 October 1, 2002 ordinance and a few years later she bought some goats. This summer her neighbors called City Hall and someone looked deeper into the ordinance and said pygmy goats are not allowed. Ms. Karasov stated that the goats are very noisy. She asked Council to imaging what is like to hear them bleating all the time even when they are in the house with the windows closed. Ms. Burrows stated that she had three goats and one of them died. The remaining two are four months old. If another dies, she will have to get rid of the remaining one, because they bleat when they are alone. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, she stated that the goats are about 150 feet from the neighbors house. She stated that they were noisy when she first got them, on June 16, they were just taken away from their mother. After she got a complaint that they were keeping the neighbors up at night, she began putting the goats in her basement at night. She stated that she doesn't hear them at night and they are in their house. Ms. Karasov stated that she hears the goats until about 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she lives about two blocks away and when walking past the Burrows home a few nights ago, at about 9 p.m., she could hear them. The bleating reminds one of someone in distress. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the point is that the ordinance identifies what kind of animals a person can have. Pygmy goats are not defined, therefore they are not allowed. The concept of the ordinance is to deal with animals that would be outside. Ms. Burrows stated that she would not have bought the goats if she had not called City Hall first. She would like to keep the goats because she had grown attached to them. She asked if there have been other complaints. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is not a question of how many neighbors have complained, but rather that a complaint has been received. Ms. Burrows asked if she can keep the goats if she de- bleats them. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he agrees with Councilmember Dwyer about the ordinance. He did not think Council should begin opening the door because the next requests will be for pigs and Page No. 20 October 1, 2002 sheep. He stated that if Ms. Burrows has a written okay from the city, that was probably a mistake and the city should reimburse her the $300 she paid for the goats. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if Council is going to allow hoofed animals there would have to be a certain amount of acreage. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not feel the ordinance should be amended. He appreciates Ms. Burrows concern because there was a mistake made in interpreting the ordinance. De- bleating them would be a solution to the problem. Because of the mistake made at City Hall, Council could give her a special permit to keep the two animals if they are de- bleated and if one of them dies, she will have to give up the other one, and they cannot be replaced. Ms. Karasov stated that Ms. Burrows did not get anything in writing from the city — she got a copy of a portion of the ordinance. She did not get anything in writing from a staff person saying she could have a goat. Also, Ms. Karasov complained to the city in early August and was told that the goats were going to be removed. The Code Enforcement Officer told her he delivered a letter to Ms. Burrows on August 15. Ms. Burrows keeps saying to the city that she is going to get rid of the goats. Now she is requesting an indefinite period of time. The city should not be making exceptions to the ordinance. She does not think the neighborhood wants goats. In her area there is a restrictive covenant that specifically states there are not supposed to be any animals. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Code Enforcement Officer cannot make any exceptions. Now the issue has come to Council for a decision. Whether it was in writing or oral, Ms. Burrows relied on being told she could have goats so spent money on the animals and became attached to them. Council is concerned about extraneous noises that are not normal for the environment. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if someone wants to have hoofed animals they should have to have a certain amount of acreage, but that's not in the ordinance. Councilmember Dwyer's concern over the Mayor's suggested course of action is that it ignores the language of the ordinance and it gives legal effect to something that should not have any legal effect. Minnesota law is clear that if a staff member gives erroneous information and someone relies on it to their detriment, she cannot legally hold the city to that. If Council is to give her some kind of Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Schneeman Page No. 21 October 1, 2002 concession, it would be establishing a significant precedent. He would be very cautious about doing that. Mayor Mertensotto stated if the noise is a problem, there is a solution. In this particular situation, would the neighbors still have standing to object if the goats are de- bleated. Councilmember Vitelli agreed with Councilmember Dwyer. The city has an ordinance, and while it is a difficult situation, the city should ask Ms. Burrows to get rid of the animals in a reasonable amount of time. Councilmember Krebsbach supported the comments from Councilmember Vitelli, stating that behind this there could also be some health issues. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would like to have Ms. Burrows have the goats de- bleated and grandfather them. If anyone else comes to Council, they would be told they are not allowed. Mayor Mertensotto again suggested that Council could issue a special use permit and if the goats are not de- bleated in 30 days she will have to get rid of them. Also if something happens to one of them, she will have to get rid of the other, and they cannot be replaced. Ms. Burrows stated that the issue will come up again. Pygmy goats are pets, they are harmless creatures and are ecologically beneficial. They are far less harmful then large dogs. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that knowing that the neighborhood is near the river, to have animals that could be prey without the ability to make any sound would also come into question. Councilmember Vitelli moved that Council abide by the ordinance and direct Ms. Burrows to get rid of the animals within 30 days. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Ms. Burrows must get rid of the goats, without reimbursement from the city, within 30 days or she will be in violation of the ordinance and the Code Enforcement Officer will Page No. 22 October 1, 2002 issue a citation. Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 (Schneeman) CDA DEVELOPER'S Dan Schleck stated that he and City staff have been in negotiations AGREEMENT with Deputy Director Kari Gill of the Dakota County CDA regarding the sixty unit Senior Housing facility planned for Town Center. The attached developer's agreement is the product of those negotiations and has been submitted for your review and approval. He stated that the City approved two previous agreements with the CDA in preparation for this agreement (see attached). In August of last year, the City Council approved and the Mayor signed the cooperation agreement for the project. In January of this year, the City Council approved, and the Mayor signed an abbreviated Developer's Agreement whereby the City agreed to convey the property for the facility to the CDA for a price to be negotiated on the basis of the fair market value of the land, and the availability of the CDBG funds ($93,343.62). The City agreed to provide the project with streets, utilities and all public improvements. The City also agreed to waive the Park Dedication contribution in exchange for City use of the community room in the new building. Once this agreement is signed and the final plans approved, the CDA will go out for bids with the intention of breaking ground on the facility in November. Dan Schleck stated that there is only one item remaining to be worked out and that is on the creation of the declaration and the maintenance of the property. He stated that the parties are meeting on Wednesday to work out the last details. Mayor Mertensotto asked the Council if they had any other comments or concerns on the agreement. As there were none, he indicated that once the last few details are worked out, the agreement could be placed on the next agenda for approval. CDA Executive Director Mark Ulfers expressed his thanks to the City Council and stated that he hopes that the agreement will be approved at the next meeting if they still hope to break ground on the building this year. FINAL PUD CDA SENIOR Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director FACILITY Danielson regarding final PUD approval for the CDA senior housing building. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 I 1 Page No. 23 October 1, 2002 Mr. Jay Nelson, architect for the CDA project, reviewed the site plan and renditions of the proposed building. He also described the building's features and amenities. Mayor Mertensotto asked if a legal description for the parcel has been agreed to so the property can be conveyed. Attorney Schleck stated that the plat will be likely approved in a few weeks so there will be new legals based on the plat, but there is a metes and bounds description now so the property can be conveyed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the title can be conveyed after the plat so the legal can be conformed to whatever the legal is for the plat. That.would be simpler than metes and bounds. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 02- 59, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PUD AND BUILDING PLANS FOR THE DAKOTA COUNTY CDA SENIOR FACILITY IN TOWN CENTER." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Mr. Ulfers asked Council to help the CDA get to construction this fall. There is some work to be done before the developers agreement can be executed, but to the degree that can be approved at the next meeting and hopefully a closing can be arranged as soon as possible after that time would be helpful. The plan is to be out for bid at the latter part of the month and then award bids in November. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council is satisfied with the designs, and the plans are in but not yet approved by Code Enforcement, Council can authorize a foundation permit and they can proceed.. Administrator Lindberg stated that there should be no problem getting the developers agreement on the next Council agenda. Mr. Paul McGinley, from Loucks McLagan was present to request approval of the final plat for Hidden Creek Estates. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it was reported to him that as part of the site grading, the bed of the creek has been dammed up or Page No. 24 October 1, 2002 destroyed such that the flow in the creek has been drastically changed. Mr. McGinley stated that he was not aware of that. Mr. Chris Muller, 1730 Dodd, stated that there are two creeks, Marie Creek and Pine Creek. He drives past where Pine Creek drains out of his property towards Hidden Creek Estates and its all dammed up and there is standing water. Mayor Mertensotto asked what the city an do to monitor the situation and avoid any further damage see that the creek is returned to its original state. Public Works Director Danielson that the agreement with the developer is that the developer would do the mass grading supervision and construction and the city will do the supervision of the public utilities. City Inspector Knuth has been looking at the project frequently. There have been many problems because there has been so much rain. Staff is trying to work with the developers to resolve the problems. Mr. Muller stated that where they have currently blocked the creek along his easement access is obviously temporary while grading is being done to set the basis for Hidden Creek Trail, and what they have currently done should be short lived. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. McGinley to review the matter with respect to obstruction of flow in the creek and what has been to get the creek back into its natural condition, and to report back to Council. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there are any changes on the final plat from what was represented to Council before with respect to the NURP plans. Mr. McGinley responded that there have been no changes in the plat from what has been presented to Council. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 02- 60, `RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES," subject to city engineering reviewing and approving the final drainage plans for the development. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 25 October 1, 2002 Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the street name must be corrected so that it is consistent throughout the plat before the fmal plat is executed. FREEWAY ROAD Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director WATERMAIN Danielson regarding the Freeway Road watermain breaks. Mayor Mertensotto asked for explanation as to the frequency of breaks in the Freeway Road area and the rest of the city. Public Works Director Danielson responded that cast iron pipes have a problem with breaks wherever the pipes are located in the city. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that the city only replaced about 900 feet of pipe on Decorah as part of the Friendly Hills project. Whenever the city does a street project, staff always reviews the breaks with the water department and discusses whether the main should be replaced. Mayor Mertensotto stated that unless the breaks are extremely high on Freeway Road, exceeding other areas of the city, he did not think there is warrant enough to justify replacing the main. There also is no guarantee that if ductile iron were put in there would not be any breaks. He felt that it would be better to replace the street if there are a number of breaks. Councilmember Vitelli felt that Council should reconsider the joints powers agreement with St. Paul Water. If at this point the city entered into the agreement, St. Paul Water would replace the watermain when the city did the street. Mendota Heights is the only city in the area that has not embraced the joint powers agreement, which is why Council is confronted with a discussion of $250,000 to replace the watermain. If the city belonged to the agreement, the watermain would likely be replaced at the time a road is done and the city would continue to have improved watermain as roads are rebuilt and would eliminate a considerable amount of digging up roads to repair watermain. He also understands that if the city joined the agreement, over a period of six to eight years, the existing 20% surcharge that all residents pay on their water bill would eventually be reduced so that the residents would be on par with St. Paul residents. In addition to the joint powers paying for keeping the city watermains current plus the fact that the residents would see a 20% Page No. 26 October 1, 2002 reduction in water costs, he fails to see the reason why the city is not part of the group. Mayor Mertensotto stated that St. Paul Regional Water System has individual agreements with each of the cities. West St. Paul chose to buy into the provision where they turned over all of their water infrastructure to the City of St. Paul. In exchange, St. Paul Water took over full responsibility. That doesn't mean they will come in when the city does street reconstruction and automatically replace watermain — that is at St. Paul Water's discretion. St. Paul Water would like the city to join in the agreement, but the city deliberately did not join because the city would have to turn over millions of dollars of infrastructure that the residents paid for the sake of getting a 20% reduction in the water bill. The city's water costs are average compared to the state and the city gets good water from the City of St. Paul. There are shut off valves at the boundary line and any time the city feels the costs for water are increased to the point where they are exorbitant, the city can tell St. Paul water that within a certain period of time it is going to go to its own water system. The only cities that have turned over their infrastructure are West St. Paul and Maplewood. Roseville has a separate contract whereby they buy water from St. Paul and wholesale it to other cities. He feels that the city's independence has served it well. The City of St. Paul has discussed selling the water system to an outside vendor and if that were to happen, the city would be at their mercy. The city receives good service from St. Paul Water, and he does not think Council should ever entertain turning over the infrastructure. Councilmember Vitelli responded that the Mayor has considerable experience on the issue and he would like to have staff continue to work on this and help him and the other Council members understand why Mayor Mertensotto may be right. He would like to keep the issue open until it goes to the point where everyone agrees. The city is going to end up digging up Freeway Road at some point, and Council should try to seek out some better solution. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he agrees that the city should continue looking into the issue of the joint powers agreement. He asked Public Works Director Danielson what Council is being asked to do tonight relative to the Freeway Road breaks. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the memo is in response to Council's request. He has contacted Dave Wagner from the St. Paul Water Department and was told that the history of breakage is close to the point where St. Paul would replace the main Page No. 27 October 1, 2002 if it owned it and if the city entered into the agreement, the watermain would be replaced. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that Council should have two options, one being to join the joint powers agreement and the other is what would be the plan for replacement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is only a single agreement, not a joint powers agreement. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council needs to know what the plan would be for financing if at some point there needs to be replacement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the question is whether the city wants to continue to own its own infrastructure. Councilmember Schneeman stated that someone should figure out what it would cost for the city to levy for replacement of watermain. All of the breaks have been in the older parts of the city and it could become very costly. Maplewood, West St. Paul and several other cities have wholesale contracts with St. Paul and if they have this problem, they get their watermains replaced. Councilmember Vitelli stated that Council should ask staff to do a strategic analysis on the pros and cons of going down the path that was agreed to in 1998 versus the pros and cons of turning the infrastructure over to St. Paul. This is not going to get any better. Staff should let Council understand what replacement of mains will cost the city over the next ten years. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the issue is more than economics. Council must look at what it can do to maintain independence and yet contract for a water system. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council needs to look ten to fifteen years out if at some point the city has to replace a line. Public Works Director Danielson stated that whenever the city does a street project, breakage history is analyzed with St. Paul Water to determine whether or not it meets the break frequency. If it does, St. Paul asks the city to replace the main. In the case of Freeway Road, it did not meet the break frequency and the cost for replacement is $250,000, so St. Paul did not require it. Page No. 28 October 1, 2002 Councilmember Vitelli stated that the Freeway Road decision can wait until staff provides Council with enough material so that Council has more information with respect to the pros and cons. Councilmembers Vitelli and Schneeman volunteered to meet with St. Paul Water representatives with city staff. MSP NOC Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg REPRESENTATIVE regarding appointment of a representative to the MSP Noise Oversight Committee. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Hamiel stated that it would not bother the committee any if an appointment is not made until November. There is no imperative reason for making an appointment tonight. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the majority of the Council decided two weeks ago that Council would make it known that the city was looking for applicants and that a decision would be made this evening. He stated that in the last four or five days he has developed a high level of interest in tackling the airport noise issue and would very much like the support of Council in being named as the city's representative to the NOC. He has a very high level of interest, he is qualified, and it is in the city's best interest for the city to have a Councilmember serve as its representative. Air noise is probably the key issue for the residents. It affects more residents than any other issue. All the city has seen in the last ten years is continuous increase in the noise level. Everyone in the city would probably agree that anything the city has been doing has been ineffective. Mendota Heights must have and deserves much better and more effective representation on the subject of airport noise. The other thing he thought a lot about was the excellent presentation by the citizens who make Rogers Lakeside East noise reduction committee at the last meeting. Citizens on their own initiative put together a very compelling argument. The noise is terrible in the Rogers Lake area, and MAC should be paying for noise attenuation retrofits for many homes in that area, and Council should make sure something is done for those residents. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he feels that someone from Council should represent the city, because a Councilmember, as an elected official, will likely gain higher stature and more respect on the committee than they might have as a commissioner. Even though all of the members of the ARC are very good, he believes it is important for an elected official to be appointed. With respect to Page No. 29 October 1, 2002 other qualifications, he stated that he is not a pilot but when he was in the Air Force, he learned a lot about aerodynamics because he was a member of a team of eight officers who developed and flight tested very successfully the X24 Aircraft. He developed a very good understanding of aircraft aerodynamics. What he is very proud of is the fact that not only did the team lay the groundwork for the Columbia space shuttle, but the X38 replacement for the Columbia is the exact X24 that his team developed 24 years ago. In his undergraduate work at St. Thomas his major was in physics and mathematics and he had some very good course work in mechanics, heat and sound. While he was in Europe, he managed a key contract with the Munich airport, which is one of the most technically advanced airports in the world. From 1988 through 1990 he was managing a major part of that development. His experience and knowledge is important, because the city's representative must understand the technical information that will be digested by the committee. He quoted from the first paragraph of the charter of the committee, which states what is expected of the committee. He stated that he believes his experience will help him develop good relationships with the other members on the committee, who include pilots, business aviation representatives, airport representatives, etc. In summary, he stated that he has developed an extremely high interest in representing the city on NOC, he believes he is the best qualified since he is an elected official and has aerodynamic, airport related scientific experience and knowledge, and since he is retired he has the time to go over to the MAC and dig a lot and spend time with the other members to build relationships and find solutions to the problems. Mayor Mertensotto asked why it is important that the appointee be an elected official. Councilmember Vitelli stated that it is more obvious that he representing the city. Mayor Mertensotto questioned the statement that the city has not had effective representation for ten years. He stated that there has been no community involvement for over two years, since MASAC was dissolved. He stated that Guy Heide (Rogers Lake East noise committee) has gone through the documentation and singled out all of the inconsistencies and that is why he has been effective. There has never been such a good analysis done on noise contours. He stated that the planes flying north of T.H. 110 are commuter aircraft. There is a northern boundary that is supposed to be recognized, but Page No. 30 October 1, 2002 aircraft cant to the north because of the 15 degree separation. A new NOC will need to make a very impressive start. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is also interested in serving in the NOC and asked if Council would like her to speak of her interest tonight. Councilmember Dwyer stated that two weeks ago Council agreed to make a decision tonight, and Council should make a decision. The people from the Rogers Lake noise committee were present for that announcement and no one is present. He felt that Councilmember Krebsbach should make her presentation and someone should be appointed tonight. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she concurs that the appointee should be an elected person. She is in her third term on the Council and people are well aware of how she makes decision. She has been an advocate for Mendota Heights in terms of the city being able to develop its property with housing. She lives on Culligan Lane and is well aware of the impact of airport noise to be an advocate for completion of development of the city. She has been a member of the Joint Airport Zoning Board for year so she has a more detailed understanding of the zoning requirements and airport language. She has a PhD in Educational Policy and Development and embedded within that, one of the top requirements is the ability to develop policy and the connection between policy development and implementation of the policy. She has worked with engineering programs and information technology programs in terms of being able to read more technical documents. She did not feel she would have any problems relating to the members who are not suburban representatives. She has the interest and the commitment and has been tested three times in terms of the election process. She feels the community trusts her decision making ability and her ability to analyze material that is presented Mayor Mertensotto stated that just because there was a motion last meeting that a decision would be made today, does not mean that Council must be inflexible and cannot delay the appointment. The committee will not meet until that latter part of November. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would like a decision tonight. She stated that she has spoken to some of the members of the ARC and other people and she is prepared to make a decision tonight. Ayes: 3 Nays:2 Mertensotto Krebsbach Page No. 31 October 1, 2002 Councilmember Dwyer moved to appointment Councilmember Vitelli as the representative to the NOC and to appoint Councilmember Krebsbach as the alternate representative. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she believes Councilmember Vitelli will be a bull dog on the committee and will take the time necessary to work on it. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he will oppose the motion because he feels it is being done in haste. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the meetings are all open to the public. It is important that members of the ARC attend the NOC meetings to keep informed. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Schneeman congratulated the Mendota Heights residents who ran in the Twin Cities Marathon. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Council member Dwyer moved that the meeting be adjourned. Council member Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 KAI= M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor