Loading...
2001-06-05 City Council minutesPage No. I June 5, 2001 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 5, 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, Krebsbach, Schneeman and Vitelli. Councilmember Dwyer had notified Council that he would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Cotincilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Vitelli moved approval of the amended minutes of the regular meeting held on May 15, 2001. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 5a, Planning Commission minutes, 5c, Hohenstein Purchase Agreement, 5e, proposed ordinance on storm water pollution control, and 5f, ProTec contract, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the building activity report for May.. b. Adoption of Resolution No. 01-26, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO TURNERS GYMNASTICS CENTER FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN." Approval of the issuance of a tobacco license to Tempco Manufacturing. d. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated June 5, 2001. e. Approval of the List of Claims dated June 5, 2001 and totaling $119,270.35. Page No. 2 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PLANNING MINUTES Councilmember Schneeman commented that the May 22 Planning Commission minutes were very difficult to follow. Mayor Mertensotto agreed, stating that the City Planner should give an introduction for each case or at least review the planning report so that the commission can concentrate on matters that are important. If the commission deviates from the planner's recommendation, they can document that in the minutes. Councilmember Schneeman moved to acknowledge the receipt of the May 22, 2001 Planning Commission minutes. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. HOHENSTEIN AGREEMENT Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding purchase of the Lorraine Hohenstein property. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Administrator Lindberg stated that the city has not yet received a written appraisal but has been given an estimate. Mayor Mertensotto recommended that Council authorize him to enter into a purchase agreement if the written appraisal is consistent with the purchase agreement. He stated that he will not execute the agreement until a written appraisal is on file. If there is a substantial difference between the city appraisal and the purchase agreement, he will bring the matter back to Council. Administrator Lindberg stated that Mrs. Hohenstein has an appraisal that was done by her appraiser and the city has an old appraisal on file. Councilmember Vitelli moved to authorize the Mayor to execute a purchase agreement with Lorraine Hohenstein for the purchase of her property located at 1898 Dodd Road when the written appraisal is received by the city and if it is consistent with the purchase agreement offer. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 3 June 5, 2001 STORM WATER POLLUTION Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer Mogan along with a proposed resolution to commit to adopting an urban storm water pollution ordinance. Councilmember Vitelli asked whether there is any cost involved in the process. Public Works Director Danielson responded that there is no cost associated with the ordinance. The city addresses storm water and pollution control now in developers agreements but does not have formalized standards now. Mayor Mertensotto, stated that Section 4.1 OB states that water courses used solely for drainage are exempt from the vegetation buffer provisions, and it should be changed to stated that they may be exempt. Also, Section 6.0 should be amended to state that the city engineer may require additional reports and data as deemed necessary and after written recommendation by the city engineer, the City Council can approve the modification of the plan. The existing language would place the on-us on the judgment of the city engineer. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that adoption of the proposed resolution will expedite approval of the city's comprehensive plan. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -27, "RESOLUTION TO COMMIT TO THE ADOPTION OF URBAN STORM WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PRO TEC PROPOSAL Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding proposals from ProTec Environmental for Phase 11 environmental work for the Hohenstein and city owned parcels in the Town Center Project. Ms. Leslie Strohm, owner of ProTec, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must be sure that there is no misunderstanding over the scope of services and that the proposals are strictly for work ProTec will do, which does not include testing of samples. Page No. 4 June 5, 2001 Ms. Strohm responded that the analysis will be included in the cost. Lab fees will be included within the work. ProTec does. Mayor Mertensotto noted that the proposal also states that if ProTec exceeds the amounts stated in the proposals they will notify the city and seek approval. Councilmember Vitelli asked when Ms. Strohm expects to complete the projects. He also pointed out that there is a sixty day period in the Hohenstein agreement. Ms. Strohm responded that she hopes to get started next week. Any information that is needed in writing from the MPCA could take longer. ProTec's work will take two to four weeks. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the agreement with Mrs. Hohenstein states that if the deed is not filed by a certain date, the city must pay the second half taxes. He did not want to ProTec to rush through its work just because of that deadline. He did not want to set a sixty deadline for ProTec and risk rushing them and not getting complete information. Ms. Strohm stated that ProTec should have no problem completing its work within sixty days. Councilmember Vitelli moved to approve the proposals from ProTec for the Phase 11 environmental review for the Hohenstein and city owned parcels and to authorize Mayor Mertensotto to execute the professional services contracts. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARINGS: LIQUOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public LICENSE RENEWALS on an application from Mendota Liquor for renewal of its Off-Sale Liquor License. He asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember moved to approve the renewal of an Off-Sale Liquor License for Mendota Liquor. Page No. 5 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on applications from Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their Club On-Sale liquor licenses and Sunday On-Sale Liquor Licenses. He asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved to approve the renewal of an On- Sale Wine License for Brown Institute for the Minnesota Room. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel for renewal of its Limited Service Hotel and Special Sunday On-Sale liquor licenses. He asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved to approve the renewal of Club On-Sale and Special Sunday On-Sale Liquor Licenses for Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Brown Institute for renewal of its On- Sale Wine License for the Minnesota Room. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved to approve the renewal of an On- Sale Wine License for Brown Institute for the Minnesota Room. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel for renewal of its Limited Service Hotel and Special Sunday On-Sale liquor licenses. He asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be closed. Page No. 6 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Schneeman moved to approve the renewal of On- Sale Hotel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 81 -08, NELSON Council acknowledged an application from Mr. & Mrs. Daryl Nelson for a fence height variance at 2053 Theresa Street. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. & Mrs. Nelson were present for the discussion. Administrative Assistant Hollister reviewed the application and the Planning Commission discussion and recommendation for Council. The applicants constructed their six foot tall fence in June, 2000 along their side lot line. In December it was brought to staff's attention via a complaint from a neighbor that the fence may deviate from city ordinance, so staff checked into the matter. The fence is six feet tall, but the ground is not flat. There are places where the fence is higher than six feet because of the terrain, but as far as staff can tell, the greatest deviation in height is two inches. The city planner recommended denial of the variance based on lack of strictly defined hardship, but suggested that perhaps the fence ordinance should be amended to take terrain deviations into account. Commissioner Friel felt that fence height should be measured by the height of the posts. Councilmember Schneeman stated that the fence really looks straight and if it sinks an inch or two as it settles, there will be no problem. Mayor Mertensotto noted that in their letter to the city, the Nelsons stated that Midwest Fence told them they had installed a number of similar fences in the city under the same conditions. Either the fence is in compliance or it is not. He stated that it would bother him to grant a variance because a variance goes with the land. He felt that the fence is onerous and is a very formidable barrier. He stated that there are probably many six foot fences in the city because it once was the standard to require six foot fences around swimming pools, but he did not remember ever approving solid fences. If there are similar fences in the city, he felt that the fence ordinance should be amended rather than granting variances because variances go with the land. He informed the Nelsons that Council does not relish Page No. 7 June 5, 2001 getting involved in a dispute between neighbors, and if he had a preference the fence would be an earth tone color. He suggested that Council continue the matter and direct staff to check with Midwest Fence to see where they have installed this type of fence. If there are a number of similar fences in the city, he would recommend that staff be directed to propose an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Nelson stated that the average deviation in the fence line is only a little over an inch. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that it is still a deviation. In this case, the deviation may only be an inch or two but in other cases it could be more. Mrs. Nelson stated that she does not think there is a fence around that does not have deviations. She felt it complied in good faith. Midwest Fence did not feel there would be any problems and told her that they have built several similar fences in the city. Mayor Mertensotto stated that ordinance requirements do not depend on good faith compliance, and for Midwest Fence to say there is no problem is wrong. Council can not give the Nelsons special treatment when other have not had it. The city planner recommends modifying the ordinance where there are deviations in the land. Mrs. Nelson stated that the neighbor who complained about the fence has moved and all of her other neighbors like the fence. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is in complete support of approving the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval and there is only an occasional one inch deviation from the six foot height. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Mayor Mertensotto is suggesting that the matter be continued to allow for an amendment to the ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the planner's recommendation is to amend the ordinance so that deviations are treated uniformly. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the complaint was filed with the city because the fence is a barrier to visibility and breeze because of the impervious surface of the fence. She suggested that when Council considers amending the ordinance, consideration be to allow ( j five foot rather than six foot fences if they are solid vinyl. Page No. 8 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Schneeman responded that Council must look at what is being manufactured today. She did not think that breeze is a serious concern. She stated that she believes the fence installer put it up in good faith and did not feel that anyone is to blame. She stated that there are several white vinyl in the Mendakota Park neighborhood and there will be more of these fences installed in the city. Mayor Mertensotto, stated that in order to set standards so that the Nelsons are not treated differently from others who come after them, existing six foot fences could be grandfathered and all other boundary line fences must be five feet, which is consistent with the swimming pool ordinance. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that privacy fences are six foot tall. Public Works Director Danielson stated that six foot fences are allowed in the rear yard and the side yard. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he has not heard any other complaints about six foot fences. He did not see a reason to change the ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there have been other problems with six foot fences and she would prefer to reduce the allowed height to five feet. Councilmember Schneeman did not think that Council can dictate a five foot fence height when six foot is the standard. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is willing to discuss an ordinance amendment in the future but approve the Nelson application this evening. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -28, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A FENCE AT 2053 THERESA STREET." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach suggested an alternative to hold the matter over while staff works on amending language. Page No. 9 June 5, 2001 City Attorney Schleck stated that it would likely take at least six weeks for an amendment to be adopted because of hearing and i notice requirements. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is looking for is the proper procedure for handling a fence of this type so that all applicants are treated equally. The Nelson fence would be grandfathered. Mrs. Nelson stated that she and her husband and city staff have spent a lot of time on this matter. She felt that a lot of time has been wasted for a one inch deviation and asked for Council action tonight so that she does not need to come back. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would be inclined to grant the variance and look at the fence height requirements in the ordinance. She stated that she would like the fence height limitation to be reduced, and would like fiu-ther discussion on a maximum height of five feet. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would like to form a committee and suggested that Councilmember Krebsbach be a member of the committee. She stated that Council will be faced with many of these types of fences in the future and thought that it would be good to study the issues. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Mertensotto CASE NO. 01 -09, KLUZNIK Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Michael Kluznik for a conditional use permit and 16 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a detached garage at 1 057 Chippewa Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Assistant Hollister informed Council that the Kluzniks currently have a 27 1/2 by 24 foot two -car detached garage and wish to replace it with a detached 22 by 34 foot three car garage with dormers for work space above the garage. A variance is needed because the garage would be closer to the street than the house is and because the garage would be fourteen feet from the front property line. The planner recommended denial for lack of hardship and because a larger garage would increase the degree of non - conformity over the existing non - conforming garage. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6 -1 vote. They were of the opinion that any garage expansion would require at least one variance and the Page No. 10 June 5, 2001 existing garage predates John Street. They also felt the city should encourage investments in older homes. Responding to a Council question, Mr. Kluznik stated that the purpose of the space above the garage is to provide a work area. He does wood working and Mrs. Kluznik does seasonal crafts. They do not have a business and none of the work is done for revenues. Councilmember Schneeman asked Mr. Kluznik if he plans to remove the existing garage and fence and two storage sheds. Mr. Kluznik responded that the structures existed when he bought the house. The Planning Commission said it is not necessary to tear down the sheds. The existing garage will be removed. When he bought his home in 1975, there was not street behind the house and he was told planned but probably would not be constructed. The house and garage were built in 1950 on the pie- shaped lot, and just about any kind of improvement that is done would require a variance. To add a garage on the southeast side would not be aesthetically pleasing and would involve working with steep grades. This is a difficult lot to deal with. He has looked at all the options and the one he proposes is the best option to meet his needs. The setback reflects the way houses were built in the 1950's. There is a big front yard setback because a septic system was needed when the home was built. He informed Council that his neighbors approve of his proposal and no one attended the Planning Commission hearing. Mayor Mertensotto stated that all of the arguments are good but Mr. Kluznik is asking for a three car garage with vertical height to allow a second story. He stated that he would have no problem with the proposal if it were consistent with existing development. Although the house is two - story, Mr. Kluznik is not adding to the house. The garage is an accessory building. He stated that he does not know of any detached accessory structure that has been approved by Council with a second story. He stated that Council wants to keep the city's residential districts uniform. There is one garage with a second story that has not yet been resolved. He stated that Mr. Kluznik knew that John Street was a possibility when he bought his lot. He did not have a problem with expanding the garage but not the second deck.. He stated that the Kluzniks will not always own the home and someone who purchases it in the future could put the garage to a use that is not allowed. The vertical height of the structure and the dormers make it possible to use the second deck. If it were attached to the house it be fine because the house is a two -story structure. Page No. 11 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Schneeman asked if the garage could be attached to the house. She felt that it would look better. Mr. Kluznik responded that it could be done. The problem is that it would require constructing a sidewalk into the back yard. He stated that he could put a breezeway between the house and garage to attach it. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he is bothered by the second story on a detached building. He asked whether Mr. Kluznik could just build a three car garage without the second story. He stated that he would support that variance but not a variance for the proposed structure. Mr. Kluznik stated that there is a 750 square foot maximum detached garage size by ordinance. His original plan was over 750 square feet, so he scaled it down to 748 square feet but that eliminates any work space in the back. In order to get a three car garage and work space he added the second floor. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that he could build the garage off the back of the house but that would require more variances. Mayor Mertensotto stated granting the variances is not a real 1 problem because of the shape of the lot, but adding the second deck creates a real problem. The objection he has is vertical height of the detached structure. Councilmember Vitelli stated that the option for Mr. Kluznik is to come back with a two story garage attached to the house or a detached garage without the second deck. Mr. Kluznik responded that he would have to put a breezeway between the house and the garage. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the garage would still be detached because a breezeway is not part of the principal structure. Councilmember Schneeman stated that a laundry room or something similar could be added to the house and the garage could then be attached. Councilmember Krebsbach asked whether Council feels the existing accessory structures should be removed. The planner's report stated that Mr. Kluznik would need a four acre lot under current ordinance requirements to accommodate the existing accessory structures. She Page No. 12 June 5, 2001 stated that it appears that Mr. Kluznik has support for a three car garage but not for the second story. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she thinks it would greatly enhance the neighborhood if the garage were attached. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not know of any approvals Council has ever granted for a second story on a detached garage. He stated that it appears there is sufficient support to deny the application, but if Mr. Kluznik wishes to, he can come directly back to Council with just a single level garage structure. He felt that, because of the 60 day rule (and 60 day extension), Council should deny the application and give Mr. Kluznik the ability to come back within 90 days without additional planning application fee. Mr. Kluznik asked if it would be appropriate to come back with the same structure but attached to the home. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if it is attached to the house, it must be attached so that it is an integral part of the home. Councilmember Vitelli suggested that Mr. Kluznik work with city staff and them for initial guidelines on what he proposes. Mr. Kluznik asked if he would still need a conditional use permit if he attaches the garage. Mayor Mertensotto responded that in cases like Mr. Kluznik's, a conditional use permit is preferred because a conditional use permit does not run with the land, but attaching the garage would not require a conditional use permit. Councilmember Schneernan moved to deny the application with the condition that the applicant may return to directly to Council with a revised application, without additional fee, within 90 days. Councilmember Kxebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01 -10, CATHOLIC Council acknowledged an application from Catholic Cemeteries for CEMETERIES a conditional use permit to allow construction of an office building on the Resurrection Cemetery grounds. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. John Cherek was present on behalf of Catholic Cemeteries. Page No. 13 June 5, 2001 Assistant Hollister informed Council that the city planner recommends approval of the application with several conditions. During the Planning Commission discussion, the representative of Catholic Cemeteries explained that the reason they had not submitted a lighting plan or signage plan was because they did not plan any lighting or signage. The commission recommended approval with the planner's recommended conditions and also with a condition that the building be limited to cemetery use. Mayor Mertensotto asked how close the building will be to the entrance. He noted that the maintenance building appears to be about 250 feet back from the entrance. Mr. Cherek responded that it will probably be thirty to forty feet to the right of the entrance. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the services are in Lexington Avenue. Mr. Cherek informed Council that Catholic Cemeteries plans to eliminate the existing office building that was built as a temporary structure in 1945. Regarding lighting, he stated that there is no lighting now during evening hours. Councilmember Schneeman asked what concerns there are about lighting. Mayor Mertensotto responded that safety is a concern. He felt that the police officers should be able to look into the premises and see the parking lot is vacant. Also, there will be computer equipment in the building, and those are things that people break into buildings for. The cemetery is not secure, and if there were soffit lights on the building, the police could see someone going around the building at night. Lighting would benefit both Catholic Cemeteries and the city. Mr. Cherek stated that he would have no problem adding lighting. Lighting was left out because Catholic Cemeteries did not want to bother the people across the street. Catholic Cemeteries has done research and found that there is lighting available that would not affect the neighbors, and they have no problem with adding lighting and actually like the idea. It would make the area safer for their people coming and going out of the building in the winter when it gets dark early. Page No. 14 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the purpose of the building is for families to come and talk about arrangements. She asked if Mr. Cherek anticipates selling anything from the site. Mr. Cherek responded that they already sell markers and monuments. They have not talked about how that will be done in the future. They will possibly use a picture book or may have a display monument. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Cherek that the city does not permit outside storage. Mr. Cherek responded that there will not be any storage outside the building. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he has no problem with including all of the Planning Commission recommendations plus lighting for the building and parking lot. He asked Mr. Cherek if he plans proof of parking or constructing the spaces. Mr. Cherek responded that he does not anticipate any parking problems except Memorial Day when many people visit. Otherwise, they only need parking for staff and two or three visitors at a time and would do proof of parking. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -30, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 2101 LEXINGTON AVENUE," modifying the sixth condition to require lighting adequate for safety and security around the building and parking lot, adding a condition that there be no outside storage, and authorizing proof of parking, and further authorizing issuance of a building permit. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01 -11, Council acknowledged an application from the Tharaldson THARALDSON Enterprises for a 20 foot height variance for a pylon sign for the Fairfield Inn & Suites at 1330 Northland Drive (formerly Heritage Inn). Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Stacy Anderson was present on behalf of Tharaldson. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application for Council. The Heritage Inn is being converted to a Fairfield Inn & Suites facility j and as a result, Tharaldson has submitted an application for a height Page No. 15 June 5, 2001 variance for a pole sign. They are also asking for permits for two building signs and a monument sign. The sign height variance would allow a pole sign with a maximum height of 45 feet. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Assistant Hollister stated that the sign height is the same as the Marriott pole sign. The city planner recommended denial of the variance for the pole sign for lack of hardship. The Planning Commission recommended approval on the condition that the hotel eliminate the two building signs and that any signs be internally illuminated. Mayor Mertensotto asked where the sign would be located and if it would be directly in line with the Marriott sign. He stated that it appears that the Marriott sign is towards the west end of their property. The problem Tharaldson has at the present time is the fill area United Properties is using, but that is only temporary. The city is very concerned about the height of signs along I -494, but since Council granted Marriott a pole sign of 45 feet it should do the same for Tharaldson. He was concerned about how bright the lighting will be. He stated that the Marriott sign is a very nice sign and that is a big factor. The Fairfield Inn sign must be consistent with the quality of the hotel. He would like to see the base of the sign painted the same as the Marriott sign. Ms. Anderson stated that from the freeway, people see evergreen trees, and the Marriott sign just tops those trees. The Fairfield sign will do the same. The sign will be forty feet off of the back property line and twenty feet from the side property line, which is code. The Marriott sign is in almost the same configuration, in the southwest corner of their property. Councilmember Krebsbach asked how the sign will compare to the Marriott sign. She also noted that the signs will be very close together. She stated that "low key" is important to Council and that Council does not want I -494 to look like the Bloomington strip. Ms. Anderson responded that the Courtyard logo is a clouded bubble shape and the sign is 45'3" tall. The Fairfield sign will be slightly smaller at 45 ". People driving by will not notice that the sign is appreciably smaller. Tharaldson developed a sign comparable to the Marriott Courtyard so that the Fairfield Inn can compete. She stated that she does not know the intensity of the lighting but the sign will be backlit and will be the same as other Fairfield signs. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the intensity standard must be the same as the Courtyard sign or less. Page No. 16 June 5, 2001 Ms. Anderson informed Council that the monument sign will be similar to the existing Heritage Inn monument sign. The base will remain but the sign itself will be changed. Tharaldson had proposed a building sign on the front and one on the back in addition to the pole sign, but the Planning Commission said they would not recommend building signs. Tharaldson agreed with the recommendation and is not requesting the building signs. She noted that the Marriott does not have building signs either. Mayor Mertensotto asked about the entrance sign lighting. Ms. Anderson responded that it will be back lit also. The sign will just be to help people get to the driveway, like the Marriott sign does. It is not really an advertising sign as much as a sign to show people where the driveway is. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -31, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 20 -FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A PYLON SIGN AT 1330 NORTHLAND DRIVE," with the conditions that the overall sign height not exceed 45 feet and that it must be internally lit with an intensity no greater than the Marriott pole sign, that the sign can be no larger than represented this evening that the monument sign will be the same as the existing sign except that the sign face will be changed, and that there will be no building signs. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01 -12, KORMAN Council acknowledged an application from Mr. & Mrs. John Korman for a conditional use permit for a detached garage at 2251 Dodd Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. & Mrs. Korman were present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application, stating that the Kormans are requesting the conditional use permit in order to replace an existing three car detached garage that has suffered damage from the elements. The new garage would be in the same location and would be the same size (34 feet by 22 feet). The city planner recommended approval on the condition that the new garage match the trim of the house, like the existing garage does. (The house is brick with white trim.) The Kormans agreed to the recommendation and the Planning Commission recommended approval. Page No. 17 June 5, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto noted that the proposed approving resolution states that the new garage must match the house in color. The resolution should be more explicit in requiring the garage to match the house trim color. Councilmember Vitelli moved adoption of Resolution No. 01 -32, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 2251 DODD ROAD," revised to require that the garage color match the color of the house trim. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 01 -13, SANTORI Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Marko Santori for a conditional use permit for a detached garage at 1051 Delaware Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Santori was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister reviewed the application, stating that Mr. Santori proposes to replace an existing detached single car garage with a new three car detached garage. The existing structure is in disrepair and violates setback requirements. The new garage, 24 by 30 feet, will conform to the setback requirements. The planner recommended approval with the condition that the applicant submit a scaled site plan and match the garage with the house in both materials and color. Mr. Santori agreed to match both the house material and color. He stated that the site plan submitted is as good or better than most that are submitted. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the plan should show the location of the building on the property and the dimensions from the boundary lines. Mr. Santori responded that he prepared a new site plan that shows the measurements the city requested. It shows the distance of the new building from the home, the distance between the house and the present garage and the width and depth of the lot. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 01- 33, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AT 1051 DELAWARE." Councilmember Vitelli seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 18 June 5, 2001 MU-PUD LANGUAGE Mayor Mertensotto noted that discussion on the draft MU-PUD language had been removed from the agenda. He stated that Planner Grittman can explain to the Planning Commission why the MU-PUD designation is important to the Town Center development. It can also be used for the Mendota Plaza. The language will be a clarification of Section 13. STOP SIGN REQUEST Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson relative to a resident request for a stop sign on Ivy Lane. Mayor Mertensotto asked if this is the intersection where there was concern over saving a spruce tree during development of the plat. Public Works Director Danielson responded that it is and that the tree still exists. Public utility construction went around the tree in order to save it. Mayor Mertensotto, stated that he feels it would be better to trim the tree if it impairs visibility. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the tree would have to be trimmed in order to see a stop sign. Councilmember Schneeman stated that there is a disabled child living in the neighborhood and there may be a concern. Also children play in the street there. She felt it is a good place for a stop sign, but everyone wants stop signs. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the problem is that people do not know who has the right of way. She suggested installing a yield sign rather that a stop sign. She also felt that the tree must be trimmed if it is a matter of safety. Councilmember Vitelli agreed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that an ordinance must be adopted in order to install a yield sign. He also stated that he would like to avoid getting into a situation like Council had with Decorah. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it should be very clear that people on Ivy should yield. That would be a way to make the intersection safer without installing a stop sign. Page No. 19 June 5, 2001 Councilmember Vitelli moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to provide for a yield sign and to authorize staff to trim the evergreen tree to the point where a yield sign can be seen. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 JULY MEETINGS Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg regarding rescheduling the July Council meetings. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that Council normally meets on the first and third Tuesday of each month. Since the Fourth of July is the day after a regular Council meeting, he would like to move the July meetings to the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. Councilmember Vitelli moved to reschedule the Council meetings in the month of July to July 10 and July 24. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. TOWN CENTER WORKSHOP Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lindberg recommending that Council schedule a Town Center workshop for June 12 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss design guidelines with Carolyn Krall and Ross Feffercorn. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach moved to schedule a Town Center workshop for June 12 at 7:00 pm. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto informed Council that he would be out of town and unable to attend the workshop. Councilmember Schneeman informed Council about two phone calls she had received. The first caller told her there was a hole on the Lexington Avenue trail and staff looked into the matter. The second caller suggested that the city install benches every half mile along the city trails so that older people can stop and rest. The caller suggested having families buy a bench or finding people to donate them. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would like to pursue the idea. ADJOURN Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Page No. 20 June 5, 2001 Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are advertising agencies that will place benches in the city if Council allows advertising on them. Otherwise the city would have to buy the benches. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would not want advertising on the benches and felt that people would be interested in donating benches. Councilmember Vitelli informed Council that he attended a house fire on Diane Road over the weekend. The house was fully engulfed when the fire department arrived, but he was very impressed with the fire and police response and also with the assistance from the Inver Grove Heights and Eagan Fire Departments. He was extremely impressed with the fire department and with the infra red camera. Councilmember Vitelli stated that he would endorse and support preparing a history of Mendota Heights, noting that the city has three former mayors for resource people. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she Attended the DARE graduations and commended the students and their parents. There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Vitelli moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for labor negotiation discussion. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk