Loading...
2001-09-04 City Council minutesPage No. 1 September 4, 2001 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 4, 2001 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 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on August 21, 2001. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Dwyer moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for August. c. Acknowledgment of the cancellation of the September Airport Relations Commission meeting. d. Authorization to begin the patrol officer recruitment process. e. Authorization for the issuance of purchase orders to the lowest bidders for installation of bituminous pathways in Rogers Lake Park and Marie Park for a total cost not to exceed $12,000. f. Approval of the appointment of John Tran to regular full-time status as Civil Engineer I at an annual salary of $41,274. Page No. 2 September 4, 2001 g. Approval of a critical area permit and authorization for staff to issue permits for a fence and arbor at 1030 Mayfield Heights Lane (Donald Stein property), along with waiver of the $ 100 critical area permit fee. h. Approval of a critical area permit for Mr. Joe Schaefer to allow two second story additions for his home at 1889 Hunter Lane, along with refund of the critical area permit fee and approval for the issuances of building permits conditioned upon compliance with all applicable codes. i. Approval of a critical area permit to allow a foyer addition and a rail fence at 1910 Glenhill Road, contingent upon compliance with all applicable codes. (Connelly, CAO 01 -31) j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated September 4, 2001. k. Approval of the List of Claims dated September 4, 2001 and totaling $150,685.35. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 AIRPORT RELATIONS Airport Relations Commission Chair Scott Beatty was present COMMISSION REPORT to give Council and the audience an update on commission activities during the year. Mr. Beatty introduced commission members Liz Petschell and Ellsworth Stein. He then discussed the four major issues the commission has worked on during the past year. Those issues were: working with the Rogers Lakeside East airport noise reduction committee; revisions to the Third Parallel Runway contract with MAC; development of an informational brochure for city residents; and, preparation of an airport noise video to educate residents on the realities of the airport and to provide answers to basic questions in a non-technical way. Mr. Beatty expressed appreciation to City Administrator Lindberg and Administrative Assistant Hollister for their staff support. He responded to Council questions, and asked for additional funding for completion of the video. Council expressed appreciation to Chair Beatty and the members of the commission for their efforts. Page No. 3 September 4, 2001 After discussion, Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize an additional $2,500 for production of the video. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01 -27, RUSH Council acknowledged an application from Warren Rush for a wetlands permit to allow construction of a deck 51 feet from a wetlands at 679 Marie Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission discussion and recommendation. He explained that the home is about 67 feet from the edge of the wetland and the new deck would be about 51 feet from the wetland. The Planning Commission recommended approval on the condition that some vegetation be planted around the new deck for stabilization. Mr. Rush informed Council that he has owned the home for fifteen years. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that he was granted a variance in the past so that he could build the house closer to the front property line than the established setback. Councilmember Dwyer stated that from what he can see, the deck will have no impact on the wetland. Mr. Rush responded that that there will not be any impact whatever. The deck will have floating concrete pylons and will be at ground level. City Attorney Schleck stated that the resolution should be revised to state that the deck would be 51 feet from the centerline of the creels rather than 51 feet from the wetlands. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 01- 47, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A DECK FOR WARREN AND PATRICIA RUSH OF 679 MARIE AVENUE," as revised, conditioned upon stabilization of the ground under the deck and the addition of shrubs. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 ( ) Nays:0 Page No. 4 September 4, 2001 CASE NO. 01 -28, PAGNOTTA Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Vincent Pagnotta for front and side yard setback variances to allow a house addition at 650 Brookside Lane. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission discussion and recommendation. He informed Council that Mr. Pagnotta is considering buying the home, but before he purchases it, he wants to make sure that he can expand the house. He stated that the house is 17 feet from the lot line abutting Brookside Lane and 18 feet from the lot line abutting Laura Street. Mr. Pagnotta would like to expand the existing house maintaining the existing setbacks. He would remove the existing detached garage and add an attached two -car garage. In staff's view, he is offering to eliminate three non - conforming uses in exchange for expanding two existing non - conforming uses (the 17 and 18 foot setbacks). The non - conforming uses that would be eliminated are: the house is smaller than required by ordinance; the existing garage is located either on or over the lot line; and, the garage pre -dates the requirement for conditional use permits for detached garages. The Planning Commission recommended denial because they felt the hardship requirement was not met. Responding to a question from Councilmember Dwyer, Mr. Pagnotta stated that the foundation built in 1920 and the house was either built at that time or moved onto the foundation. Councilmember Schneeman stated that someone lives in the house and is taking very nice care of it, but the garage is in terrible condition. If the additions are approved, the house would not be any closer to the street that some of the other older homes that have been expanded in the neighborhood. She did not agree with the Planning Commission that the house should be taken down. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the home is in good shape but it is very small. He asked Mr. Pagnotta if he plans on renting the home out. Mr. Pagnotta responded that he plans to live in the home. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would be more comfortable acting on the request if Council had a better idea of what he plans to do. Page No. 5 September 4, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council grants variances to the property. It is possible that someone else could make a better offer to the owner and buy the property, and Council would have no control over what could be built. Mr. Pagnotta stated that when the remodeling is completed, the home would be appraised for a solid $400,000. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Pagnotta if he could come back to Council with a diagram and blueprints and perhaps photos of a similar home in the neighborhood, and give Council a representation of what he is asking Council to approve. He felt that what is proposed would be an enhancement to the property, but that Council does not want to approve something blind. Mr. Pagnotta responded that he did not want to spend $2,000 on architect fees if he did not know whether he could get approval. The woman who owns the home is moving to Colorado on October 1 and wants to sell the home first. If he does not get an answer tonight, he will probably bow out. Co- uncilmember Schneeman stated that Council would be setting a precedent if it approved the variances without seeing what Mr. Pagnotta is planning to build. Councilmember Krebsbach sated that Council needs to know the dimensions of the house and which way it would face. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial. The sixty day rule is in place, and Council could give Mr. Pagnotta approval to come back within 90 days, without additional planning fee, with plans for what he proposes, because that is what he would have to build. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the best point that was raised was Mayor Mertensotto's comment that Council would be deciding on something for property that the applicant does not own the property. Mayor Mertensotto stated that variances run with the land and Mr. Pagnotta does not have ownership interest. If Mr. Pagnotta changes his mind, the variances would be grandfathered. Mr. Pagnotta responded that he did not know that the variances were tied to the land. He asked if it is possible to tie the variances to the person rather than to the land. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 6 September 4, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council might set some conditions, but Mr. Pagnotta must return with plans within 90 days. Attorney Schleck stated that if Mr. Pagnotta comes back with plans, he should also show hardship. Councilmember Vitelli asked Mr. Pagnotta if he has thought about removing the house. It seems that there will be considerable additional cost for keeping the existing house, given that interior walls will need to be removed, etc. Mr. Pagnotta responded that he is an engineer and -understands what needs to be done. The foundation is very so-und, and while his original thought was to tear the house down, when he saw how nice the interior is he changed his mind. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -48, "A RESOLUTION DENYING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A HOUSE EXPANSION FOR VINCENT PAGNOTTA OF 650 BROOKSIDE LANE," with the provision that the applicant can come back with plans within 90 days without additional variance. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Vitelli asked what would happen if Council approves a variance based on plans and Mr. Pagnotta ends up not buying the home. Attorney Schleck stated that no one has to build it, but it is an option that runs with the land so someone could build it if they want to. If the variances merely grant changes to the setbacks, someone could build a different plan within those setbacks. CASE NO. 00 -21, JESSEN Council acknowledged an application from Mr. David Jessen for a conditional use for a pool house at 869 Bluff Circle. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission discussion and recommendation. Mr. Jessen proposes to construct a pool house, with a basement. He had originally applied last year, but the Planning Commission was concerned that the structure constituted a second garage because it had a concrete Page No. 7 September 4, 2001 floor. The current plan has a wooden floor and would not support a vehicle. Mr. Jessen showed diagrams of where the lot is situated. The lot disappears to the west to Valley Park. There is a buffer between his lot and the Excel Energy tank farm. No one can see the back of his lot. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Excel has a platted lot between the tank farm and the Jessen property, but that lot cannot be developed because it does not have access to a public street. Mr. Jessen stated that when he bought the lot it was his understanding that no one could build to the north or to the west. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he was a member of the Planning Commission when they first considered the application. Mr. Jessen's current plan represents what the Commission asked him to do. Mr. Jessen stated that he has submitted signatures from all of the neighbors who could possibly be affected by the proposal. He talked to all of the neighbors and they approve what he proposes. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -49, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A POOL HOUSE FOR DAVID JESSEN OF 869 BLUFF CIRCLE," in accordance with the plans on file with the city. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01-20, DS OF Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dennis Trooien CENTRE POINTE for front yard setback variances for signs for DS of Centre Pointe (former GNB building). Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister stated that Mr. Trooien is requesting three sign variances to replace three existing signs. He stated that when Council reviewed the request on August 7, Council expressed concern that any new signs be consistent with or at least compatible with the Roseville Properties signs. Mr. Trooien talked to Mr. Cullen and has now submitted a modified sign design that is similar to the Roseville Properties signs and also the SuperAmerica sign. Page No. 8 September 4, 2001 Mr. Trooien has withdrawn his request for the sign on the vacant lot and is examining how to polish up that sign. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mr. Trooien's new plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission. Assistant Hollister responded that the matter would not be sent back to the Planning Commission unless Council decides to send it back.. The application can be approved by Council subject to code enforcement verification of compliance with all codes and ordinances. Mr. Trooien stated that he is withdrawing any request with regard to the vertical T.H. 110 signs. He would like to keep that variance since it is the only sign visible from T.H. 110. The two variances he is applying for are for the entrance signs for the north and south entrances to the building. He does not need variances for the size of the signs. There are actually three signs along Lexington now. The main GNB sign is 105 square feet on both sides, and the entrance signs are 15 and 30 square feet, for a total of 140 square feet of signage. He would be reducing signage to about 70 square feet. The MnDOT sign would come down. The existing vertical sign needs repair, and he would like to put "Mendota Corporate Center" on it. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would not approve the signs unless the vertical sign comes down. Mr. Trooien responded that he would just refurbish the existing signs then. He stated that the building has 100,000 square feet of office space and it is very well built. He is trying not to create any more non-conformities. What he would like is approval to refurbish all three signs without any variances. He stated that he needs Council's help. Councilmember Krebsbach noted that the proposed entrance signs are 17 feet long. She asked how long the SuperAmerica sign is. Administrator Lindberg responded that she did not know but that staff would find out. Mr. Trooien stated that the sign is 100 square feet on each side and is very similar in length to what he is proposing, but his signs would not be as high and would be 70 square feet on each side. He asked to average the setbacks of the two existing signs. One is set back about five feet from Lexington and the other is about 31 feet from Page No. 9 September 4, 2001 Lexington. He divided that in half and asks that each sign be set back 18 feet from his Lexington Avenue property line for uniformity. The size of the sign is not a problem in this zone: the ordinance would allow him to have much bigger signs. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the proposed signs are much better than the existing signs. Councilmember Krebsbach was concerned about bypassing the Planning Commission. Councilmember Schneeman responded that Mr. Trooien has done what Council asked. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council asked him to work with Mr. Cullen to get some uniformity. Mr. Trooien stated that he is asking to reftirbish existing signs that are non-conforming. Mayor Mertensotto recommended denying the application and allowing Mr. Trooien to resubmit his revised plans to the Planning Commission without additional fee. Mr. Trooien responded that he will do whatever Council feels is appropriate. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council should deny the application and give Mr. Trooien the right to resubmit the application under a new case number without additional fee. He informed Mr. Trooien that Council is vitally interested in this comer. He stated that other property owners have the right to be heard and he does not want to bypass the Planning Commission. Mr. Trooien responded that he spoke with Mr. Cullen and he does not have any problems with what is being proposed. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the original application because they did not fmd a hardship. If Council sends Mr. Trooien back to the Planning Commission, they will likely not find hardship. He asked Mr. Trooien if the locations he proposes are different. Mr. Trooien responded that they are by an average about eleven feet each. Page No. 10 September 4, 2001 Councilmember Dwyer stated that if there was no hardship found the first time, there will be none the second time. He felt that what is proposed is a good step towards cleaning up junky looking signs. Mayor Mertensotto, felt that it would be better to send this back to the Planning Commission as a new case. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 01- 50, "A RESOLUTION DENYING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR SIGNS FOR DENNIS TROOIEN OF DS OF CENTRE POINTE (GNB) AT 1101 CENTRE POINTE CURVE," with the condition that Mr. Trooien has the right to re-file without additional fee. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: I Dwyer CASE NO. 01 -25, BERG Council acknowledged an application from Mr. & Mrs. David Berg for a critical area permit to alleviate a slope failure problem at 711 Woodridge Drive. Cotmcil also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. & Mrs. Berg, Mr. Neal Blanchette, their legal counsel, and Mr. Larry Samstad, their consulting engineer, were present for the discussion. Mr. Blanchette reviewed the application and plans. He also showed drawings of the lot and the area of the slope failure. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Public Works Director Danielson stated that staff received a letter from the DNR on Friday and a letter from MnDOT today. Councilmember Dwyer noted that MnDOT has approved the plan subject to submission of a traffic control plan to MnDOT. Mr. Blanchette informed Council that the retaining wall is totally on private property, but TH 13 traffic must be controlled while the construction is being done. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Blanchette that all Council will pass judgment on is aesthetics. That is why Council asked the Bergs to have a professional engineer do the design and get approval from the DNR and MnDOT. Page No. 11 September 4, 2001 Mr. Blanchette responded that both agencies have reviewed and approved the plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Sandy Fecht, from the DNR, reviewed the plan for aesthetics and raised issues. Mr. Blanchette stated that the retaining wall will not be painted, and the best thing to do is put plantings in the holes in the wall and eventually they will totally cover the wall. Mr. Samstad stated that there is a retaining wall on T.H. 110 in the east end of town that is covered with Ivy and /or grapevine, and that is what is being proposed for this wall. Councilmember Dwyer stated that there is another wall on the south side of Mendota Heights Road, and the concrete can hardly be seen. Mr. Samstad stated that only about one - quarter of the 40 feet will be in concrete and he is satisfied that ten feet of concrete will hold the slope back. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there are several items listed in Ms. Fecht's July 30 letter. She asked if they have all been met. Mr. Blanchette responded that he thinks Ms. Fecht was concerned that Council have enough information. Coa ncilmember Krebsbach stated that it is Council's responsibility to make sure that the list is complied with. Coumcilmember Schneeman pointed out that Ms. Fecht waas concerned that the run -off go in a westerly direction. She asked if the Bergs will plant more shrubs and trees. Mr. Blanchette responded that additional plantings are in the design plan and they will also vegetate the tope of the bluff. The Bergs will work with the DNR on a landscaping plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Ms. Fecht is expecting the city to monitor establishment of the slope revegetation. He asked how the city could do that. Mr. Samstad responded that the specifications require the contractor to follow up on maintaining the growth as least through one year. Page No. 12 September 4, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council approves the proposed restoration plan, it must be consistent with and meet the requirements of Ms. Fecht's July 31 letter. He asked if the Bergs would agree to that condition. Mr. Blanchette responded that they will agree to meeting those requirements. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Ms. Fecht enumerated a number of city responsibilities with respect to critical area review. She asked if all of the considerations have been met by the city. Public Works Director Danielson responded that Council will have to grant variances because it would be approving work on the 40% slope and concrete materials would be used and height requirements would be exceeded. Also, in Ms. Fecht's opinion, the natural appearance of the slope would be violated. Those requirements cannot be met because of the slope failure. Ms. Fecht has approved the Berg plan and thinks they have done their best to comply with the ordinance. Because of the slope failure the city will need to grant variances. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the applicants are relying on their professional engineering and so is the city. Mr. Blanchette stated that Ms. Fecht mentioned a buffer requirement of 15 feet but he does not know whether 15 feet is the right amount. She put a specific number on the buffer, but at this time he is not sure what that buffer should be. There is a swale behind the crest of the hill. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Blanchette if the 15 foot buffer cannot be met. Mr. Blanchette responded that the buffer would be right at the patio of the house. He stated that the Bergs would install an appropriate buffer. Councilmember Dwyer responded that the DNR says that a minimum 15 foot buffer is appropriate so that the slope failure does not occur again. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the applicants are asking Council to modify the plan. He asked why Council should waive that requirement. Page No. 13 September 4, 2001 Mr. Blanchette responded that the plan as he presented it does not have a fifteen foot buffer. They will know what the buffer should be when the plant species are selected. Ms. Berg stated that she met with Ms. Fecht last week and Ms. Fecht had the information and told Ms. Berg that she would require a two foot buffer of natural plantings. When Ms. Fecht sent the letter she increased it to 15 feet, and that would leave the Bergs with no back yard — there would be no where to walk because one to one restoration with a fifteen foot buffer would be a forest. Councilmember Dwyer stated that 15 feet is the buffer Ms. Fecht recommended to the city. Perhaps she came upon some additional information since meeting with Ms. Berg. He pointed out that Ms. Fecht's letter stated a minimum, with the word underlined twice, of fifteen feet. Ms. Berg stated that there is a one foot rise from the bluff to the center of the property which will send the water to the west, deep into the property. She stated that water will not go up hill, and she is willing to put in a two foot buffer, but a fifteen foot buffer would come right to her patio. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council does not have the expertise to override Ms. Fecht's recommendation. If the Bergs are asking to be allowed to use their plan (less than a fifteen foot buffer) Council would be overriding Ms. Fecht's recommendation. Councilmember Schneeman stated that Council is trying to help the Bergs so that their house does not slide down the hill. If fifteen feet will protect them in the long run, Council needs to require that buffer. Councilmember Krebsbach agreed, stating that Ms. Fecht was willing to sign her name to a letter that recommends fifteen feet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Ms. Berg can convince Ms. Fecht of something other than fifteen feet and gets her approval in writing, that would be fine. Ms. Fecht approved the plan and the profile but she imposed conditions, including the buffer. Mr. Blanchette stated that the Bergs have had a catastrophic event affect their back yard and do not want the solution to that to render Page No. 14 September 4, 2001 their back yard unusable. At the same time, the Bergs understand there is a need for stability on the slope and wants to do that. Mr. Samstad stated that he feels that Ms. Fecht may be mistaken in where she intended the buffer zone to be. She would not intend it to be in the area where the water is going back into the yard. It would be much better if the buffer were on the slope. What Ms. Fecht is talking about is the buffer on the outside edge where she wants more plantings as well as erosion control. Councilmember Schneeman responded that Ms. Fecht wants to stabilize the whole area at the top. Public Works Director Danielson stated that Ms. Fecht is not here to explain her recommendation, and his suggestion would be to defer action on the buffer until the city can discuss with her what her intent is — whether she recommends two feet, as Ms. Berg stated, or changed her mind. Mr. Blanchette stated that they can do a landscape plan and have it reviewed by the DNR. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would rather go with Ms. Fecht's expertise. The whole purpose is to stabilize the slope, and if Council approves this plan, the Bergs would have something to go on, but approval would be conditioned upon meeting the requirements in Ms. Fecht's letter. The Bergs could discuss their concerns with Ms. Fecht and ask her to send Council a letter approving the deviation from the 15 foot minimum. Mr. Blanchette stated that Ms. Fecht has not visited the site even though she has been invited to. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he can see one side of the logic of approval based on meeting all the requirements, but basically the Bergs are saying they cannot meet the fifteen foot buffer requirement. Mr. Blanchette stated that he would prefer to speak to the DNR and find out what the reason is for requiring the fifteen foot buffer. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council grants approval, the conditions set forth by Ms. Fecht must be met, and the city's code enforcement officers will have to enforce that plan. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 15 September 4, 2001 Ms. Berg stated that they cannot vegetate anything on the surface of the property until next spring. She asked if Council would permit the construction of the repair and she would bring back to Council a correctional letter about the buffer area from the DNR. The repair would be the back fill, the arbors, and slope repair. Her request is that Council approve the repair of the slope and the slope protection. Tabling action for another month (waiting for a response from Ms. Fecht) would risk having the survey and plan be a moot point at the next heavy rain. She stated that Ms. Fecht is talking about fifteen feet of foliage on a bluff line that only has a one foot rise. Ms. Fecht is not a licensed engineer, and the Berg's engineer, who has forty years of experience, is saying that 15 feet of foliage is not needed. Attorney Schleck stated that one of the things staff has discussed is approving the critical area permit as stated with the conditions from Ms. Fecht and then, if the Bergs are able to get clarification between now and the time they actually construct the area of concern, they could come back to Council with a request to modify the approval. Mayor Mertensotto agreed, stating that Ms. Fecht is the DNR's expert. Council can grant approval for the plan subject to MnDOT and DNR approval as set forth in their letters. The plan must comply with their conditions. If the applicants cannot physically comply, they can request Ms. Fecht to give Council a modification in her recommendation. The approach would be similar to an engineering change order for a city project. Councilmember Ki ebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 01- 51, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO THE CRITICAL AREA ORDINANCE AT 711 WOODRIDGE DRIVE," approving the slope area plan and proposal dated August 28, 2001, subject to MnDOT approval and subject to DNR approval as signified in Sandy Fecht's letter dated August 31, 2001. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Attorney Schleck stated that all of Ms. Fecht's recommendations would be included. Ms. Berg stated that she absolutely understands. Mr. Blanchette stated that the Bergs are applying for federal and state funding and ask for city cooperation is supporting the property owners in their attempt to get disaster funds. Page No. 16 September 4, 2001 Ms. Berg stated that the funds have to be applied for by the city. She has applied for all the funding that she could on her own and has had some favorable responses, but there are a couple that only the city can apply for. She stated that all she is asking is that the city fill out the applications and submit them for her. Councilmember Dwyer if the city would be required to contribute anything financially if the city has to be the applicant. Administrator Lindberg stated that one of the grants the Bergs asked for city assistance on would not apply because the property isn't in the floodplain. In the other, there is a 25% match by the city, but that could be contributed in staff time. The application is due by the end of October, and Engineer Mogan is looking into the criteria for the application. Ms. Berg stated that she has already received favorable responses from FEMA and Dakota County. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if there is funding assistance available from outside sources, the city would certainly turn them over to the Bergs, but he does not know what Council would do if matching city funds are required. Ms. Berg stated that the preliminary cost estimate is $57,000, and she hopes that will be entirely paid by FEMA. All she asks is that, should they qualify for some of the funding, that the city help. Administrator Lindberg stated that before staff would send in any grant application, they would come back before Council and ask for authorization to submit the application. Ms. Berg stated that now that she has the opportunity to get the permit and bids, she can see what the cost and funding needs will be. If they get FEMA approval, there will be precedent for funding in the future. LEVY /BUDGET Council acknowledged a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding the proposed tentative tax levy for 2002 and the proposed 2002 budget. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that he is proposing three resolutions. The preliminary levy must be certified by September 18. Information has been very slow coming from the state, so staff really kept the budget tight. Last week, staff received levy information Page No. 17 September 4, 2001 from the state, which gives the city $100,000 more than the proposed budget that was submitted to Council. That is about the amount of money that was cut from the budget proposal before it was submitted to Council. He stated that the city is not required to conduct a truth in taxation hearing, but he recommended that Council conduct a budget hearing on December 4. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must be cognizant of the fact that there have been several changes in the laws including elimination of HACA. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the 6.5% proposed increase will be less than the increase in tax capacity. However, there are many other items, including fiscal disparities, that staff does not know about yet. From what he knows today, his property tax would go down $139 under the proposed levy, but he does not yet know what the county or school district are going to do. He stated that he probably will not know that until early November. He recommended that the levy hearing be advertised in the newspaper for at least two weeks in November. The city would still be conducting a hearing, as in past years, but it will not be called a truth in taxation hearing. Administrator Lindberg suggested that Council conduct a budget workshop on November 13, with the hope that all necessary information from the county and state are available by then. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -52, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET," Resolution No. 01-53, "RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE 2001 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2002," calling for a budget/levy hearing on December 4 at 7:30 p.m., and Resolution No. 01-54, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 2001 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. I COLLETIBLE IN 2002." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 JOINT WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister recommending a joint Council/Planning Commission workshop for October 30. Assistant Hollister stated that Council recently expressed interest in a joint workshop and the Planning Commission is looking forward to meeting with Council. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to schedule a joint Council/Planning Commission workshop at 7:00 p.m. on October 30. Page No. 18 September 4, 2001 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUDGET WORKSHOP Councilmember Krebsbach moved to schedule a budget workshop for 7:00 p.m. on November 13 and to authorize for preparation and publication of two consecutive legal notices that Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed 2002 budget and levy on December 4 at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TOWN CENTER Administrator Lindberg informed Council that Realtor Steve Eriksson has not had a response back from Tom Thumb so he will not be present this evening. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Vitelli stated that it bothers him when presentations go on for a long time on an agenda and many people have to wait until they are done to have their issues considered. He recommended that presentations be placed after other business on Council's agendas so that people do not have to wait so long. Mayor Mertensotto commented that if a presentation is scheduled to last 15 minutes Council should keep things going and should not continue asking questions. He stated that staff should put the allotted time on the agenda so that the presenters know they have that much time. Councilmember Vitelli agreed, stating that presentations should be kept to their allotted time and that Council should let presenters know how much time remains. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Dwyer stated that two weeks ago Council had a discussion about when a meeting should be open and when it should be closed. He asked Attorney Schleck for his comments. Attorney Schleck responded that he has done some additional research with the League of Minnesota Cities and believes they also contacted the Mayor. Based on his review of the cases and information, he feels that as far as the issues that have been contemplated by Council with respect to negotiations with property owners, either in an attempt to avoid litigation or part of the process of litigation, it is his recommendation that Council go into closed session if the issues relate to potential litigation. He stated that his COUNCIL COMMENTS ( ) MEETING REMINDER B 103 LBO-= Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 19 September 4, 2001 opinion has been confirmed by the League and by the attorney the city has retained for Town Center. It is not Council's obligation to interpret statute, which is why the city has legal counsel. His recommendation is that Council should retire to closed session to look at those types of issues. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council is making decisions that affect the public, they must have an open meeting under a recent case before the Supreme Court. Councilmembers are subject to fines, not legal counsel. Attorney Schleck stated that the Prior Lake case the Mayor referred to was heard by the Supreme Court and it is the thought that the court is going to finally give some substantive case law with respect to the open meeting law. He felt that this case will help all cities interpret the open meeting law. Councilmember Schneeman stated that at about 1:00 a.m. one morning last week a state helicopter flew repeatedly over her neighborhood assisting the city's police department in apprehending two individuals who had been stopped by the police and fled into the woods near Dodd and Wentworth. Administrator Lindberg reminded Council and the audience that the next Council meeting has been rescheduled from Tuesday, September 18 to Thursday, September 20. There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Kxebsbach seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:13 p.m. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk