Loading...
2000-04-04 City Council minutesPage No. I April 4, 2000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 4, 2000 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. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Dwyer, Huber, Krebsbach and Schneeman. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember H-Liber.'seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmembe.r Schneeman moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 21, 2000 as amended. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Dwyer moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move items 8d, revised contract for third parallel runway, 81, Augusta Shore improvements, and 8q, Commission appointments to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the March 28 Planning Commission meeting. b. Authorization for the issuance of a purchase order for $1,664 to Dell Computer Corporation for a computer system for the Police Department. c. Acknowledgment of a memo regarding the ordinance recodification process and direction to staff to proceed as proposed. Page No. 2 April 4, 2000 d. Acknowledgment of receipt of the Uniform Settlement Agreement form and approval of the 200 Labor Contract Settlement between the City of Mendota Heights and Law Enforcement Labor Services along with authorization for execution of the contract by the Mayor and City Clerk. e. Approval of the successful completion of the probationary period for Linda Shipton, Senior Secretary, and authorization for appointment to regular status at Grade XI, Level E of the 2000 pay matrix. f. Approval of the permanent appointment of Amy Griffin as Administrative Secretary, effective April 7, 2000, at Step E, Level IX of the city's 2000 pay matrix. g. Adoption of Ordinance No. 339, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1301," to require the leashing of dogs. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-22, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES." i. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-23, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO TURNERS GYMNASTICS FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN." j. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-24, "A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR AUGUSTA SHORES." k. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-26, "A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR ALICE LANE SUBDIVISION TWO." 1. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated April 4, 2000. m. Approval of the List of Claims dated April 4, 2000 and totaling $73,925.55. n. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-27, "RESOLUTION APPROVING MHAA ONE-DAY OFF-SITE GAMBLING APPLICATION." Page No. 3 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 THIRD PARALLEL RUNWAY Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder regarding proposed revisions to the Mendota Heights/MAC contract prohibiting a third parallel runway at MSP Airport. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if it would be advantageous for the city to have the agreement opened. Mayor Mertensotto responded that this will not open the contract but gives the city the opportunity to revisit the contract based on MAC negotiations with the City of Minneapolis. The city would be asking for a revision to the contract so that it is consistent with the contract between MAC and the City of Minneapolis. Administrator Batchelder stated that the city would be sending MAC a revised contract and asking MAC to execute it and return a signed copy. The revised contract incorporates those items from the Minneapolis contract that are beneficial to Mendota Heights. The main revisions are a longer term of the contract and equitable use of the runway. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city has a solid contract and the revisions will only make it better. He stated that the fifty year term of the agreement is the key point. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to direct the City Administrator to forward the revised Contract Prohibiting a Third Parallel Runway to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for its consideration, as proposed by the Airport Relations Commission, and to direct the City Attorney to format the proposed contract so that it may be recorded against all affected properties. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 AUGUSTA SHORES Council acknowledged the feasibility study for proposed Augusta Shores public improvements. Responding to Council questions, Public Works Director Danielson stated that it is typical to allow a developer to hire a contractor to do mass grading (including street grading), and the estimated per lot assessment of $13,500 is typical for residential lots. Page No. 4 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 25, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT; ORDERING OF IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, AND STREET CONSTRUCTION; AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE AREA REFERRED TO AS AUGUSTA SHORES (JOB NO. 9904, IMPROVEMENT NO. 2000, PROJECT NO. 4)." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMMISSION Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder APPOINTMENTS regarding the appointment of individuals to serve on the Planning and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the city advertised for applicants interested in appointment to the city's advisory commissions. The members of the Airport Relations Commission whose terms were expiring were all reappointed on March 21, and Council conducted interviews with nine candidates for appointment to the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commissions on April 1. He stated that Council would like individuals to continue on the commissions, but some Councilmembers feel that after a commission member serves two or three terms someone else should be given an opportunity to serve on a commission. He recommended that Planning Commissioner Bernard Friel be reappointed to a three year term on the Planning Commission and that Ms. Marina McManus and Mr. Jack Vitelli be appointed to three year terms on the Planning Commission. He further recommended that Mr. Raymond Morris be appointed to a three year term on the Parks and Recreation Commission and that Mr. Stan Linnell and Mr. Larry Craighead be reappointed to three year terms on the commission. Councilmember Huber moved to reappoint Bernard Friel to a three year term on the Planning Commission, to appoint Ms. Marina McManus and Mr. Jack Vitelli to three year terms on the Planning Commission, to appoint Mr. Raymond Morris be to a three year term on the Parks and Recreation Commission and to reappoint Mr. Stan Linnell and Mr. Larry Craighead to three year terms on the Parks and Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 5 April 4, 2000 Recreation Commission. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. On behalf of the Council, Councilmember Dwyer acknowledged and complimented Daniel Tilsen, Steven Kleinglass and Carol Damberg for their service on city advisory commissions. HEARING — MISSISSIPPI Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public AVENUE STREET VACATION hearing on an application from Hoffinan Homes for the vacation of the east half of the Mississippi Avenue right-of-way. Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution from Public Works Director Danielson. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the right-of-way is located in the Augusta Shores plat and must be vacated so that prospective home owners can gain clear title. Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that the street was platted in 1887, that in 1932 Resurrection Cemetery vacated part of the plat and replatted it as cemetery in 1933. He stated that Mississippi Avenue has never really existed, and there is question as to whether the east half of the right-of-way was properly vacated. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Dwyer moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution No. 00-28, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF THE EAST HALF OF MISSISSIPPI AVENUE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY." Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00-02, KIPP Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding continued discussion on an application from Mr. Ira Kipp for the subdivision of 990 Wagon Wheel Trail. Council also acknowledged a letter and revised plan from Mr. Neal Blanchett on behalf of Mr. Kipp, and a letter from Mr. Timothy Page No. 6 April 4, 2000 Pabst on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Pabst. Mr. Blanchett was present for the discussion. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Administrative Assistant Hollister stated that the 120 day review period ends on April 13. Mr. Blanchett, representing Mr. Kipp, stated that the subdivision application was originally filed on November 15, 1999 and has been modified a number of times in response to city staff and Planning Commission and Council comments. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval on February 22 with the conditions that the 40 foot right -of -way be a dedicated public street and that the northern most lot access that public street. The subdivision was considered by Council on March 6 and tabled to consider some alternatives and design concerns. At a neighborhood meeting hosted by the city on March 15, the city and neighbors' concerns were presented. Since that meeting, the applicant has looked at a lot of alternatives but was not able to make the changes the neighbors would like. One of the city concerns was the width of the street, which is 40 feet. He stated that he has submitted a set of drawings to the city showing a 60 foot dedication. If Council requires the 60 foot right -of -way as a condition of approval, the preliminary plat can be so revised. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Blanchett to delineate the right -of -way and where it balloons into a cul -de -sac. He asked what kind of petition the city will get from the developer for public improvements and where they will be installed. Mr. Blanchett responded that the public improvements would be installed in the right -of -way under the street. The street would be improved to the seven ton standard to meet city standards. He stated that he discussed a 20 foot paved width with the Fire Marshal, which would accommodate emergency vehicles. The existing sewer and water that are currently private lines would be upgraded to public eight inch lines under the roadway. Mayor Mertensoto asked how the parcel to the east would be served if it were subdivided in the future. The parcel Mr. Kipp owns was originally part of that larger parcel. If the Kipp subdivision is approved and the utilities are put in, how would the city serve that future lot. Page No. 7 April 4, 2000 Mr. Blanchett responded that the parcel immediately to the east is actually a flag portion of the Pabst parcel. The city could require any new lots to the east to hook into the utilities that would be under the street. Mr. Blanchett stated out that the city does not have control over that property and its future developer would have to meet city standards just as Mr. Kipp must. It is possible that the property could not be subdivided. Mayor Mertensotto asked if this subdivision would prevent the future subdivision of the lot to the east. He stated that when Council reviews a subdivision, it is charged with determining how adjoining property can properly be served with streets and utilities. The question is not whether the land to the east can be subdivided but rather how Council can be accommodate the property owner to the east in the future if this plat is approved. He pointed out that the land to the east is as large as the Kipp property. Mr. Blanchett responded that the street Mr. Kipp is providing is built to seven ton standards to accommodate emergency vehicles. He stated that he does not believe Mr. Kipp is opposed to allowing access to the street provided that Mr. Pabst is willing to grant access across his property. Mayor Mertensotto asked how others can be prevented from accessing the public street if a public street is platted. Mr. Blanchett responded that Mr. Kipp would be agreeable to them accessing the public street at some future time. If the utilities are provided through a public improvement project, they are there to access at the city's discretion and through the assessment and hearing process, the city could provide them to the other properties. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Blanchett if he is saying the city should put the utilities in and carry the assessment through the tax roils (deferment). Mr. Blanchett responded that the city could do that. He stated that his client is willing to pay for the utilities to the extent that his property is benefited. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Blanchett is saying that the developer does not want to pay the utility cost other than to the extent that they benefit the property. He asked what would happen if Page No. 8 April 4, 2000 the utilities cost more than the benefit. He stated that if the other properties never connect to the utilities and assessments are deferred, the residents of the city would be paying part of the development cost for this subdivision. Mr. Blanchett responded that Mr. Kipp is not averse to allowing them to hook in. He stated that he would not proposing throwing the cost onto the tax payers of the city. Mayor Mertensotto stated that someone would have to pay any amount that is deferred. The city has to gamble — if the costs are more than Mr. Blanchett feels is the benefit to the property, the tax payers would have to carry the balance. Mr. Blanchett stated that he would not propose to throw any of the balance on the tax payers of the city. He informed Council that the applicant could work out details with city staff. One recommendation would be to defer the assessments. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the applicant has been working with city staff for a long time without any resolution. If there were any deferments, the tax payers would bear the cost. Someone would have to pay the cost. He asked Mr. Blanchett what would happen if Council did not want to carry deferments on this subdivision. Mr. Blanchett responded that the city must make that policy decision. He stated that the proposal meets city standards and his client is not opposed to neighboring properties to access the street or utilities and would be willing to work with the city to apportion costs fairly. Mayor Mertensotto stated that from a planning standpoint it is incumbent upon the city, if there is open undeveloped land adjoining a proposed development, to determine how that property can be served. Councilmember Dwyer noted that the property to the east is under a covenant that would restrict further development to just one lot. Councilmember Krebsbach was concerned over whether the covenant would hold up, noting that there was a similar circumstance when an individual applied to develop a Holiday Station on property across from Visitation that was also bound by a covenant. Page No. 9 April 4, 2000 Mr. Blanchett responded that he has not seen the covenant or the title work on the property to the east and does not know the strength of the covenant. Mr. Boyd Ratchye stated that he is present this evening as the owner of the parcel to the east of the Pabst property line and that he has an easement for use of the remaining private driveway. There is a vernal pond on his property, and his (flag lot) property fronts entirely on Wagon Wheel. He stated that it would be his intention to build sooner or later and he is very concerned about that part of his lot being cut off. He informed Council that he is not concerned about three new lots being created on the Kipp property. He stated that he will present alternate site design that has been prepared based on a suggestion first made by Tim Pabst, and he believes it solves everyone's problems. Instead of having a private loop that has been in place since 1975 that would be split half public and half private, it would be made public with a minimum loss of trees on the property. That would permit him to have 100 feet of frontage on the new loop and he could develop his property. His property is landlocked now because his 100 feet of frontage is all off of Wagon Wheel now. He stated that when he bought his home, he expected to live there without a cul de sac. It is one thing to move in and have a cul de sac and another to have one built right in front of his home, with removal of the trees and headlights shining into his home. Also, there is a fifteen foot break between his property and the proposed cul de sac and there will be snow cast on his property, creating a concern. If the loop can be placed with a minimum loss of trees through the grassy area and takes some of his property and some of the Pabst property and swings back on the loop. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if Mr. Ratchye is talking about the loop coming through the cluster of trees in the common area as being acceptable. She also asked if it is a public street. Mr. Ratchye responded that the alternate street design he proposes is a public street on both sides. He stated that his other concern is that accessing as the applicant proposes would result in the loss of maple trees. Councilmember Dwyer noted that Council has not yet seen the applicant's plan and is looking at a plan from the adjoining owner. Mr. Blanchett stated that Mr. Ratchye's plan is a new plan and Mr. Kipp has not had time to review it in detail, so he neither endorses or opposes it. A proposed two sided street would increase the total cost Page No. 10 April 4, 2000 to all properties, and he assumed everyone is willing to support special assessments for it since it is put forth by everyone in the neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Kipp is proposing a 20 foot roadway. Upgrading the other side would be an issue as well. The second issue raised at the neighborhood meeting was the headlights shining into the Ratchye home. He stated that his proposed plan is for a two way street so future home owners can pull out without having to go onto the cul de sac, which is the action that would cause headlights shining into the Ratchye home. He again stated that Mr. Ratchye's plan is a new proposal and Mr. Kipp knows little about it. It would require Mr. Pabst to dedicate the driveway. Mr. Blanchett understood that the Pabsts are reluctant to dedicate the driveway. He stated that Mr. Kipp has put together a proposal that does not require any action or dedications from any other property owner. He is not proposing to cut off the Ratchye property, and it an be served through access. He did not know how the plan would be a barrier, and stated that the applicant is proposing to allow access. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the problem is that the other property owners do not want to be a part of this development, and that is the problem because Mr. Blanchett wants limit Mr. Kipp's cost of improvement. Mr. Blanchett responded that he wants to limit the cost and does not want the taxpayers to bear any of the costs. He stated that he will work with the city to apportion the costs and does not propose to either throw it on the tax payers or take all the costs on themselves. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the applicant is willing to pay for a normal urban (wider) street. Mr. Blanchett responded that the 20 foot wide street has been approved by the fire marshal. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the fire marshal's opinion is not binding on Council. Mr. Blanchett stated that one of the neighborhood concerns is that the area is well treed. It is a small neighorhood with many natural amenities, and Mr. Kipp is trying to have as little intrusive payment at. Mr. Kipp has been trying to limit the amount of pavement and save as many trees as possible. There is clearly sentiment for limiting pavement in the area. Page No. 11 April 4, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must look at the application from a municipal planning standpoint — what is in the best interest of the city. There is adjoining property that must be served. Mr. Blanchett responded that the applicant could certainly allow them to both hook in and have street access. He stated that the applicant does not control the driveway or any other property. There may be a better plan for subdivision if all of the property was being subdivided. The applicant has designed the proposed plat to meet city codes and cannot vouch for what the applicant can do for someone else's property. Mayor Mertensotto asked City Attorney Hart if the city is entitled to know what utilities will be coming into this subdivision and who will bear the costs before approving it. City Attorney Hart stated responded that with respect to this subdivision, certainly Council should know. Part of the analysis is whether this is consistent within public health and welfare. If there were significant portions of the public improvements that are being paid for by the citizens at large in the city, that would be a relevant consideration. The city, generally, should not be obligated or expected to pick tip the costs of public improvements to allow subdivision of private property. If public improvements do not benefit adjoining lands and the city is ultimately going to be stuck with the cost of those public improvements, that is a relevant consideration. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the applicant is saying that whoever puts in the storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water, the applicant will pay for it. The Mayor's question is that the property adjacent to it is subject to development, and when and if they want to hook up to the utilities, who will pay for that. Attorney Hart stated that Council must determine whether there is a reasonable and feasible method, from an engineering standpoint, for that property to be served with utilities without the necessity of condemnation of lands to traverse any part of the property that is covered by this subdivision to tap into those lines. If they are proposing barriers to development of the property to the east, or if their proposal does create a barrier, then there is a problem. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he understood that the Ratchye alternate plan is inconsistent with the Pabst stance that they do not Page No. 12 April 4, 2000 want the private driveway that services their home to be turned into a public street. Mr. Tim Pabst stated that the letter that he sent first opposes the subdivision but further states that if the Pabsts have to live with a subdivision, they would rather have a public street that comes up his parents' driveway , join with the bottom half of the cu de sac and then out the applicants' driveway. It would require a taking of part of his parents' driveway but would avoid the city taking part of their front yard. That would be a more acceptable alternate, but the Pabsts would still oppose the subdivision. Councilmember Huber asked if the alternative is the same as Mr. Ratchye's. Mr. Ratchye informed Council that the alternate is not the same as the alternate he is proposing. The one Mr. Ratchye proposes still intrudes on the Pabst property. It takes a part of the Pabst property and cuts off a comer of the Kipp property. The Pabst drawing swings the line just after it reaches Mr. Ratchye's property. He stated that his preference is the plan he proposes because it takes fewer trees. Mr. Tim Pabst's hand drawing takes more trees and the land in the Pabst property is grassy. He stated that he likes either of the drawings better than the cul de sac as the applicant proposes. Responding to a question from Councilmember Huber about Mr. Blanchett's comment that he believes it is more likely that people coming out of the driveways from the new houses are more likely to exit the area on their side of the boulevard as opposed to coming around the loop towards the Pabst and Ratchyes' homes. Mr. Ratchye stated that he does not know and there is no way for him to know what the habit would be, but when they swing around and show their headlights in his home, he will see it but no one else Will. Responding to a question from Councilmember Huber about whether one of the proposals is clearly different from a snow plowing perspective, Public Works Director Danielson stated that the u- shaped street is better because it can be plowed in one operation rather than two (for a cul de sac). Responding to a question from Council, Mr. Pabst stated that his parents are in an uncomfortable position. This is not their development. The Mayor asked him personally at the neighborhood Page No. 13 April 4, 2000 meeting to consider his proposal, so Mr. Pabst came up with one (an exhibit to his letter). The Mayor's proposal would have taken 5,000 feet from his parents front yard. If he could negotiate so that there was some benefit that would come to his parents, they might be willing to give some property, but no one has asked them. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is protecting tax payers of the city because there is no way he wants them to pick up anyone's development costs, especially given the value of land in the city. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she sees the question about costs in terms of to whom the costs accrue. She also sees a question about taking of land from the Pabsts, which is not clear and she also sees a question of how the adjoining properties could develop in the future. Mr. Blanchett stated that he wants it to be clear that the applicant is very willing to accept costs as apportioned as the result of a feasibility study. The applicant is willing to work with the city on that and to accept his fair share of the costs. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the city's ordinances require an applicant to do anything other than pay his fair share. Attorney Hart responded that the ordinances do not require costs of public improvements to the extent that other properties are benefited by them. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the applicant is willing to work things out, Council could deny the project and allow the applicant to come back (the review period ends on April 13). The applicant could work with all of the elements, submit a feasibility study deposit, and work with the neighbors. The Pabsts have stated in their letter that they vigorously oppose any taking of their property. Many things must be worked out before this subdivision can fit into this pristine area. The Pabsts and Ratchyes do have sewer and water now and do not need the utilities. Unless they area part of the project, there would need to be a 4/5 vote of council to approve an improvement project and assess the other properties. He asked what proposals this project includes to serve the property to the east. He pointed out that Mr.. Ratchye has the right to reasonable use of his property. Mr. Blanchett responded that the utility upgrade will be capable of serving the properties to the east. There are 8 inch lines proposed, Page No. 14 April 4, 2000 and that will have enough capacity to serve the properties. They will also have access to the public road. He stated that the proposal the applicant submitted tonight does not involve the city taking any of the Ratchye or Pabst property. He also stated that the proposal is 40 feet of right -of -way but an upgrade it to 60 feet. The 60 foot right of way would take more trees, which is why the applicant prefers the 40 foot right -of -way. He stated that no variances are needed. Administrator Batchelder stated that staff reviewed subdivision requirements today and distributed a copy of research. Subdivision Ordinance Section 5.3(2) states that cul de sacs shall normally not be longer than 500 feet including a terminal turn around which shall be provided at the closed end with an outside curb radius of at least 49 feet and a right of way radius of not less than 60 feet. The plat dated March 29 has a radius of 45 feet, which does not meet the standards established for cul de sacs. In addition, Mr. Blanchett has stated that the Fire Marshal has signed off on a 20 foot wide street. The city's standard for a local street is not 20 feet, it is a 33 foot wide face to face street with a seven ton design and B -6/18 curb and gutter. In addition, the data required for submission of a subdivision does require that all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent properties. Mr. Blanchett responded that the design standards do include the word normally. He did not read that as an absolute requirement. There were two reports from the city planner and one from Assistant Hollister prior to Council's first consideration March 6 and none pointed out there variances for cul de sac. It did point out there originally was the need for variances for frontage not on a city street, and the original proposal was for a private street. The city planning reports have not indicated need for a variance. He stated that he checked with the Fire Marshal and prepared the design mindful of the neighborhood desires for less pavement and retaining the trees. The February 16 planner's report does indicate the proposal meets all R -1 design standards. He also had the Fire Marshal review the plan. The need for a variance has not outlined in prior planning reports and is not supported by strict interpretation of the code. Mayor Mertensotto stated that interpretation of the ordinance is made by the City Council and not a staff person. He stated that the proposal does involve variances to the strict compliance with the subdivision regulations. The applicant is trying to get the proposal approved without really working with the neighbors to the east. The neighbors are willing to talk about design that makes sense for future service for the properties, including street and utilities. The Page No. 15 April 4, 2000 applicant still has not agreed to pay the cost and apparently does not care who pays the rest of it. Mr. Blanchett responded that the applicant has done everything he can to incorporate the concerns of the neighbors into the design. With respect to costs, the applicant is willing to participate in the city's process and bear his fair share as the result of a feasibility study. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it would be prudent for Council to deny the project so that the 120 day review process does not run out, and give the applicant a waiver to come back within six months. This would allow time to address both the concern of the neighbors and work out what is in the best interest of the entire area of which this parcel is a part. Mr. Blanchett responded that if the cul de sac measurement is four feet off of the city standard, the proposal can most likely be redesigned to meet the standard. That may take more trees and impact the concerns of the neighbors. Councilmember Schneeman agreed with the Mayor that Council must address everyone's needs. She also pointed out that Mr. Kipp was apparently unaware of the need for variances before this evening, and Council must be fair. She felt that more time is needed to get to a plan that is more acceptable. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are many issues that need to be worked out. The adjoining property owners have indicated that they will contest any condemnation of their properties. Also, they have stated that they are not part of an improvement project and do not want to pay for it. He felt that it would be best to deny the application and allow the applicant to come back without a new application and fee. Councilmember Huber stated that the neighbors have to come together to agree on the way to design a road. He stated that he prefers a loop road rather than a cul de sac. He also felt that Mr. Ratchye must work with Mr. Pabst, because Mr. Ratchye cannot get to the road without an easement from Mr. Pabst or any successor property owners. He felt it is in everyone's best interest to look at the loop road so that in the future Mr. Ratchye's property fronts on the street. Page No. 16 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer asked what evidence Council has to lead it to believe that the impasse that currently exists is going to change. Statute says something must be done within 120 days, and the application has been before the city for nearly 120 days. Mayor Mertensotto and Councilmember Huber also spent their personal time meeting with the applicant and neighbors and Mr. Pabst has not indicated any willingness to do anything. He felt that the plan meets city requirements other than cul de sac radius and length, and he did not see what would be gained by taking the action proposed. Councilmember Huber responded that Mr. Pabst has said he does not like the proposal before Council and if something is going ahead he would prefer Public Works Director Danielson's street proposal. First, Council must agree on a plan that is acceptable and then how to divide the costs. Councilmember Dwyer stated that it is not Council's job to restructure this. Although it is prudent for Council to bring all factions together, that has been tried and has not worked. It will not cost the city tax payers a great deal of money to hook into the parcel of land that the Ratchyes' may ultimately develop. If Mr. Ratchye decides to develop his land and can work out an arrangement with Mr. Pabst to cross his property to get access to the new street, they are going to pay for it and it will not cost the city anything. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the consensus he sees is that a loop street is better for snow plowing, service and gives more leeway to design an acceptable width. He felt that all of those problems can be addressed. Councilmember Huber stated that his concern is that down the road when the Mr. Ratchye or a successor wishes to develop his property, a future Council may be faced with wrestling with how that property can appropriately develop. That Council may feel they need have to grant something to that applicant because this Council did not have the foresight to look at something down the road. He felt there can be an agreement on the plan, but not necessarily the cost. Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, City Attorney Hart stated that an alternative would be to extend the 120 day period by agreement with the applicant rather than denial tonight. The applicant states that he intends to meet all of the city's standards, but there has been conflicting information presented by the City Administrator. There is a level of subjectivity to be applied by the City Council in reviewing these applications. Council must Ayes: 4 Nays: I Dwyer Page No. 17 April 4, 2000 consider things such as the public health, safety and welfare, and if Council finds this to be inconsistent they must make findings to that affect. The administrator related that the subdivision ordinance requires that in any event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well to existing or potential adjacent subdivisions. That is by definition, subjective, and if Council finds that it does not relate well to existing or potential developments, Council must state why. Councilmember Huber moved to deny the application and grant a waiver to allow the applicant to come back before Council within six months without additional fee. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial, expressing the findings, for adoption of April 18. The neighbor at 987 Wagon Wheel Trail stated that he has seen the Pabsts' attitude change significantly and he has much hope for a better proposal. CASE NO. 99-11, NSP Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to continued discussion on an application from Northern States Power for conditional use permit, wetlands permit and critical area permit for transmission line and substation upgrades. Council also acknowledged a proposed resolution relating to the creation of a steering committee, a proposed resolution of denial, and a letter from Michael Black of the Power Line Task Force. Ms. Laura McCartin, NSP Director of Community services, was present for the discussion. Mr. Black was also present. Ms. McCartin expressed appreciation to Council for getting the three cities together. She asked that item 5 of the proposed steering committee resolution with respect to the July 15 decision deadline. She asked for a shorter deadline, perhaps four or five months, and stated that if more time is needed NSP would grant an extension. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in item 6, NSP would agree to extend the 120 day review period for six months. The 120 day review period ends on April 9. He pointed out that while Council can adopt that resolution NSP must do the work, including preparation of the RFP. Council can adopt the committee resolution and also adopt the denial resolution but can say it will not become effective in the event NSP submits a letter extending the 120 day review period. Page No. 18 April 4, 2000 Ms. McCartin suggested a five month extension rather than a six month extension. She stated that she understands that the city will require a letter from NSP giving an extension of five months, beginning on April 7. She stated that she is comfortable with that requirement and that she understands that the denial resolution would only be effective if NSP does not grant the extension. Mr. Black stated that the task force is aware of what is being discussed and proposed and appreciates Council's efforts. He also understood that a similar resolution is under consideration by Sunfish Lake this evening. He felt that the most important parts of the process is that there be public input, that the committee take advantage of the work the state is going to be doing, and avoid arbitrary time limits. Mayor Mertensotto responded that both his and Mayor Tiffany's intent is that Mr. Black's task force be given every opportunity to have input to the steering committee. Mr. Black stated that it was recently learned that the Commerce/Health/Public Service Commission departments are going to do an EMF white paper and the results should be available in January. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he spoke today with the supervisor of the electric division of the commerce department, which works closely with the public service commission, and she said that she did not want anyone mislead that they would come up with something that would be of particular value to the city because they are looking at issues state wide. Ms. McCartin stated that she understands that Sunfish Lake made two changes to the proposed resolution - a change to ask NSP not to be on the steering committee and to add specific language to consider the economics of the alternatives. McMcCartin stated that NSP understands that the logistics of working with three cities presents a challenge, and that NSP is willing to work with the parameters that are the most restrictive of the resolutions that are adopted. Mayor Mertensotto stated that each of the cities can adopt a resolution and then amend them so that all of the resolutions are the same. Page No. 19 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there are three issues and only one, the voltage, was addressed in the first "whereas" of the resolution. She stated that she would like to incorporate that the additional 115 kV line has required an upgrade in the height and weight bearing ability of the towers. She also wanted it to be provided that there cannot be increased voltage for the life of the tower. She felt that the city is in an advocacy statement for NSP and that the first whereas in the resolution should be revised to state that WHEREAS, NSP has proposed Administrative Batchelder suggested that the second paragraph be revised to add (after replacing the existing transmission line) "as presented in Case File 99-11 on file with the city." Responding to a question from Councilmember Schneeman, Ms. McCartin stated that NSP has several consultants it can propose to the steering committee. Councilmember Dwyer stated that many times consultants are coming out of the industry. It would be important that NSP provide resumes for the consultants that is proposes to send RFP's to. After farther discussion, Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 00-29 "A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CREATION OF A STEERING COMMITTEE AND APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO REVIEW THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NSP'S PROPOSED DOUBLE CIRCUIT 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE," revised as to the first two paragraphs as discussed and to revise the fifth condition to extend the 120 day review period for a period five months from April 9. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 30, "A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A WETLANDS PERMIT AND A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR NSP SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION LINE CHANGES WITHIN MENDOTA HEIGHTS," conditioned that if NSP submits a letter formally extending the review period for a period of five months from April 9, the denial resolution will be held in abeyance. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 20 April 4, 2000 RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:50. The meeting was reconvened at 9:59. CASE NO. 00- 14, U.S. WEST Council acknowledged an application from U.S. West Wireless, WIRELESS LLC, for a conditional use permit for a PCS Tower. Council also acknowledged staff and planning reports, and an opinion letter from the city attorney's office. Mr. David Fischer and Mr. David Mitchell were present on behalf of the applicant. Assistant Hollister explained that US West Wireless has applied for a conditional use permit to erect a wireless communication antenna on the southeast corner of Lexington Avenue and Dakota Drive. They met with the Planning Commission and discussed the site at length. There was input from nearby neighbors and the commission recommended denial making the finding that it does not constitute co- location and they wanted to encourage U.S. West to explore other locations. After the commission recommended denial, U.S. West met with Public Works Director Danielson, Police Chief Johnson and Assistant Hollister and looked at different sites around the intersection. As it turns out, the communication hole that U.S. West is trying to fill happens to coincide with the siren vacuum that Chief Johnson is trying to feel, so it was suggested that the U.S. West antenna and the city's warning siren co- locate on Mn/DOT property on the northeast side of the intersection. The application before Council is the original location, and the alternate location is a secondary consideration at this time. Mr. Fischer stated that U.S. West is trying to appease the community, and last Thursday the new location was discussed. NSP would propose the new location and provide drawings from Mn/DOT as well if Council would consider that location. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto about whether one location can be substituted for another without a new application, City Attorney Hart stated that the conservative approach would be to send it back to the Planning Commission. The Council, however, has the discretion to determine on the facts and circumstances whether this is a new application or whether the same planning considerations would apply to this location as would apply to the previous location. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are some utility poles in the northeast quadrant, where Victoria curves to the north before it meets Lexington. The area is an eyesore from the standpoint that no one takes care of it, and it also presents a fire hazard. He felt that it Page No. 21 April 4, 2000 may be in the city's best interest to locate a pole there that could be used for the siren as well as U.S. West, but Council would want something to be done aesthetically to screen the utility structure with landscaping. Mr. Fischer stated that U.S. West would be happy to do whatever screening the city recommends. He showed photographs of what the utility structure would look like. He informed Council that he spoke with Mn/DOT this morning, and the conversation was favorable with respect to Mn/DOT issuing a permit. He stated that the pole would be 50 feet tall and would be painted either dark brown or whatever color Council wishes. The antenna would be painted the same color as the pole, and if the city wishes, U.S. West would paint the siren the same color. Mr. Mitchell stated that the antenna lines must be five feet above tree top clutter. Mr. Fischer stated that the existing 35 foot utility pole would be replaced with a 50 foot pole. He stated that U.S. West would be willing to do whatever landscaping the city desires. Councilmember Dwyer stated that before any action is taken, all of the property owners within 350 feet of the proposed new site would need to be mailed a public notice so that they can be heard on the issue. Mr. Tim Curley, 2049 Patricia, stated that the antenna as proposed originally would have been right in the corner of his property. The pole is 52 feet in total height and is much larger in diameter than the pole that would be removed. My objection was that it was going to be put in a residential area. In the new location, the pole will still be 18 inches in diameter and 50 feet tall, and there will be two utility units that are five feet high. He felt it should be placed west of City Hall on city property where it would be out of view of everyone. Mr. Fischer stated that landscaping and shrubbery of whatever height the city would like will be installed by U.S. West to screen the utility structures. the objective is to try to use an existing pole rather than proliferating poles. U.S. West has looked at every location on this corridor and looked at all of the existing poles. There are no structures available in the area of the ball park. He stated that U.S. West could propose installing a monopole, but he did not think that would be in the interest of the community. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 22 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer stated that the church and day care may not want to look at the pole. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is clear that the City Council and Planning Commission do not want the antenna in the location proposed in the U.S. West application. He asked if NSP would agree to extend the 120 day review period to return the application to the Planning Commission and to allow time to notify property owners of the proposed new location. Mr. Fischer stated that U.S. West Wireless LLC is willing to extend the 120 day review period for ninety days and is more than happy to submit a new application to the Planning Commission with new drawings, landscaping, etc. Councilmember Schneeman moved to extend the U.S. West Wireless LLC application for a location for a communications pole for a period of ninety days. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Staff was directed to notify all property owners within a 350 foot radius proposed new location and 350 feet of the City Hall property. CASE NO. 00 -15 MENDOTA Council acknowledged an application from Mendota Bike for partial BIKE rezoning of its property at 1040 Dakota Drive from R-1 to B-2. Council also acknowledged associated staff and planning reports. Mr. Mark Hayes was present on behalf of Mendota Bike. Assistant Hollister stated that the Planning Commission meeting recommended approval of the request from the new owners of the bike shop to make the entire parcel B-2. The new owners had originally applied for B-3 zoning for the entire site, but changed their application as the result of discussions with the city planner. Currently, part of the property is B-2 and part is R-1. There are neighbors who expressed concerns, and those concerns are noted in the Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Mike Wolf, real estate broker for the buyers and the current owner (Mark Hayes) of the property, stated that the back portion of the property is zoned R-1, which makes it a landlocked portion, unusable to the owner. It is an odd encumbrance on the property. The new owner does not intend to change anything at all at this time except to add snow boards and wake boards to the inventory. His interest is just to have the lot without the encumbrance. They feel Page No. 23 April 4, 2000 that it hurt the value of the property to have part of it zoned R-1, and if they did decide to do something with it in the future, such as to expand parking, they would have to comply with R -1 setbacks. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is troubling because the property is totally surrounded by R-I on all sides. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that there is no access to the property to build a home. Mr. Wolf agreed, stating that portion of the property has no value as R-1. Mr. Tim Curley stated that he owns the lot behind his store. He had no access for semis to get to the back of his store (Curley Furniture), but he had to buy that lot from the bank to use it for access. The bicycle shop parcel was never owned by his family, and he does not know why it was split the way it is. A variance would be needed to build a house, which could only be built on the high part of the property because much of the property is wet after rains. Mr. Hayes has always maintained the property, but in order to build a home on the R-1 part, he would need access and there is none. The nearest residential property would be to the west of the lot he owns. Councilmember Huber stated that a house could not be built on the property because there is no access. Mr. Wolf stated that there is a high fence at the back of the property. He stated that Mr. Hayes has maintained the property very well since he owned it. The R-1 portion of the property is 98 feet deep and 116 feet wide with no access. Councilmember Huber stated that he has been in the bike shop many times. His concern is that there is a fair amount of parking now and there does not seem to be a need to extend parking onto the green space, and he could not figure out what the owners would build on it. He was also concerned that the residential structures in the area preceded the store, and the owners of those properties knew the zoning of the subject parcel. Now the zoning stops at a certain line. If this Council approves a change, a new Council in the future may think Council changed the zoning to allow future development. He stated that he is confounded about why the zoning is split and also that he wishes he knew more specifically what the new owners want to do. Page No. 24 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to leave the zoning the way it is. She assumed that was one of the conditions of rezoning the commercial piece near the residential properties. Mr. Hayes stated that the property was bought by the previous owners as one parcel of commercial property, and he bought it as one parcel of commercial property and that is the way he would like it. He stated that he was totally unaware of the split zoning until last February. Mr. Wolf stated that it does not seem fair to the owner, who pays taxes on the entire property but has use of only a portion of it. He noted that Dakota Bank and SuperAmerica are similar uses that abut residential properties and all that was required was that they install a berm. He stated that he believes the neighbors have always assumed it was B-2 zoning on the whole parcel and so did the existing owner. The zoning of the property affects its value, and the property zoned R-1 has absolutely no value because of its zoning. The buyers have stated that the purchase is contingent on the rezoning, and future prospective purchases will likely have the same response. Mayor Mertensotto, stated that the area seems to be a water storage area now. He asked if Council changed the zoning with a covenant that it cannot be built on. Mr. Ernie Thomas, one of the prospective buyers, stated that the new owners have no plans to put anything on the back of the lot and plan to operate the business as is. The manager of the business and one of the buyers has worked for Mr. Hayes for years. The problem that came up in the title check is that the property is zoned R -1 and if the new owners ever want to increase the building size or expand parking, they would have to comply with the R -1 setbacks from where the zoning splits. He stated that the owners would comply with any conditions and setbacks Council sets forth if the zoning is changed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that a covenant in exchange for the zoning that the owners would not improve the southerly 50 feet of the property would probably be acceptable. He was concerned about the rear portion of the property becoming a storage area. Councilmember Huber stated that his concern would be that the owners would want to push active business use of that space. Page No. 25 April 4, 2000 Mr. Wolf stated that the other businesses back up to other residential property, whereas Mr. Hayes' zoning backs up to R -1 zoning on his own property. Mr. Curley stated that he was not concerned about the storage of anything, because that would be detrimental to the business. Mr. Hayes has done an excellent job of keeping the property clean and maintained. He stated that he talked to one of the neighboring property owners who had mentioned that his only complaint was about noise from a grinder. When Mr. Hayes heard the complaint, he stated that he did not know it was a problem and discontinued it. Mr. Brad Elkin, owner of the property immediately south of the site, stated that his main concern with his family is noise. He stated that he believes in the good faith of the present and new ownership and does not see it in his best interest to encumber them. He was not sure what else can be done to reassure him about noise. The original proposal included an accessory building and there might be noise coming from that. If that building is prevented, he would have no concern. Also, the new and present owners both have told him that they would not open the back door any more and that will minimize noise. Mr. Wolf stated that Mr. Curley, who owns the property to the west approves of a compromise and Mr. Elkin, who owns the property to the east also agrees to it. He suggested a covenant that would provide a forty foot setback from the existing R-I line. That is agreeable also to both the buyer and seller. Mayor Mertensotto asked about a setback from the properties to the east and west. Mr. Wolf responded that Mr. Elkin is the owner to the east and he is agreeable to the compromise. The primary part that abuts his property is B-2 now. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would like to keep any building away from inhabited residential property. Mr. Thomas asked if the businesses to the north of the undeveloped residential lots west of the bike shop would also have to establish setback covenants. They have no additional setbacks now. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the bike shop would be setting a precedent, and also those properties are backing up against a PUD Page No. 26 April 4, 2000 and there will be screening between the businesses and the residential lots. Berming already exists. Mr. Wolf asked if there could be a proposal that if they were ever to build within so many feet of the back line that they must also put in a berm and screen to match what SuperAmerica installs. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city would verify the setbacks. He stated that a covenant to establish a forty foot setback to the south would be acceptable to him. He further stated that there should be a 30 foot sideyard setback to protect the R -1 property owners. Mr. Wolf stated that the sideyard setbacks are 15 feet for B -1. Councilmember Dwyer stated he is willing to support a covenant that provides a 40 foot rear setback and 15 foot sideyard setbacks. He felt that Council's concerns are being met by the 40 foot setback and as long as there is an existing building that has a 15 foot setback, he did not see that the city needed additional protection on the side. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks Council would be creating space where there could be another structure. Councilmember Schneeman disagreed, stating that the owner would have to knock the existing building down to do that. Mr. Wolf stated that it would be unfair to require impose 30 foot sideyards on the applicant where they have not imposed that condition on other properties in the area. Councilmember Dwyer moved to conceptually approve a rezoning from R -1 to B -2 conditioned that the owner (existing or new) of the property provide a covenant running with the land that provides that the rezoned property will have 15 foot side yard setbacks and a forty foot setback from the rear. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Huber was concerned about a building going in back. He stated that he would not be concerned if it were used for expanded parking. He was further concerned that there is no proposal in front of Council to react to. Ayes: 2 Nays: 3 Mertensotto, Krebsbach, Huber Page No. 27 April 4, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that the motion failed for lack of majority and therefore is effectively denied. CASE NO. 00- , BUELL Council acknowledged an application from Buell Consulting for Metricom, Inc., for a conditional use permit for wireless communications radios. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and a model agreement. Mr. Bill Buell was present for the discussion. Assistant Hollister informed Council that the application is for a conditional use permit to place wireless communications radios on various light poles throughout the city. The locations of the radios are conceptual at this time. Mr. Buell asked for conceptual approval subject to execution of a right -of -way agreement between the city and himself which would specify where the radios would go. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to four conditions, the main condition being execution of a right -of -way agreement that would specify the location of the radios. Mr. Buell stated that his company represents Metricom throughout the Twin Cities area. He described Metricom and its wireless internet service. He informed Council that Metricom has its wireless internet service running in San Francisco, Seattle and Washington D.C. Metricom has targeted ten metropolitan areas in the United States this year for the technology. It has targeted seventy -five cities in Minnesota for this year, and one of those cities is Mendota Heights. The technology allows someone to connect a computer to the internet without telephone wires, via an external modem. Shoebox style radios attache to light poles and are very unobtrusive. Power for the radios comes from the photo cell in the street lights. NSP's poles are used but Metricom needs to use the city's right -of- way for fifteen minutes to attach each of the radios. That is why a right -of -way agreement is needed. He stated that this is a service that both residents and businesses want, because it provides high speed internet access. Mayor Mertensotto stated that his concern is procedural. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit. There is a 120 day review period, and the applicant is asking the city to grant a conditional use permit subject to a maintenance permit. A conditional use permit gives the city legislative authority to impose conditions. It has never been the pattern of the city to grant a conditional use permit without knowing what it is for — who is going to construct what under the conditional use permit. He stated that Mr. Buell has indicated to him that a decision could be delayed until Page No. 28 April 4, 2000 the end of April. During that time Council could look at what parts of the city would not be served and how they could be served. Mr. Buell stated that it is not economically feasible to make individual lease agreements with property owners, which is why Metricom will not put up poles. It may be possible that parts of the city will not be covered. Councilmember Dwyer stated that his concern is that if the technology is put in place and everyone in the city has access to it except for some individual neighborhoods, pressure will be placed on the city to install poles to allow the technology. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not like the approach of approving a conditional use permit and then executing a right -of -way agreement. The agreement should be developed first. Attorney Hart stated there are three levels of law to deal, city, state and federal, and they don't always jibe with one another, so the city must determine whether this falls under a particular statute or another. Responding to a question from Coi ncilmember Huber, Mr. Buell stated that the technology is not intended to be in competition with cable and he did not think it can be because of the description of services. Metricom is a Minnesota telecommunications right -of -way user under statute. A city cannot franchise a telecommunications right -of -way user and cannot tell the user to give in kind services. All a city can do is recover its costs. Metricom's use of the right -of- way is therefore very limited. There is no trenching, there are no wires, and Metricom does not put up any poles, so that city has very little cost. Metricom is offering many times more than the city is allowed to charge for the use of right -of -way. The firm worked with the League of Minnesota Cities and Suburban Rate Authority for over two months to develop the model agreement. Services are defined in the agreement as the mobile digital communications services provided through Richocet by Metricom which services consist principally of wireless internet, email and local area network access and may include sound and digital images provided that the services shall not be construed as providing real time services except as may be considered standard internet content. None of the other cities that have been approached has required a conditional use permit and 38 agreements have already been signed in the metropolitan area. West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake have signed the agreement. Page No. 29 April 4, 2000 Councilmember Huber stated that he wants to make sure that Council is not inadvertently granting a franchise to a cable provider. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Council would like to think about the proposal. He had concerns about signing an agreement with an initial term of nine years with five year renewals. He did not feel that locking into that time period given the changing technologies of today is prudent. He asked if putting the Metricom boxes on a pole would restrict some one else from putting an even faster technology on a pole. Mr. Buell responded that the agreement is non-exclusive. Also, the city has approval of what poles the units go on. There are no other competitors at this time but this would not preclude any other competitors from coming into Mendota Heights. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he did not see any provision for a bond that would protect the city should Metricom not succeed and the city is stuck with radios hanging on the light poles. Mr. Buell responded that Metricom would still apply for the right-of- way permit, and bonding is normally handled in the right-of-way permit process. Mayor Mertensotto asked what service Metricom has available to determine so council could reasonably survey the city to determine where the boxes would be and what percentage of the city could be served. Mr. Buell responded that the work, personnel and the process for Metricom to locate those poles is the next phase. After the agreement is signed, he would get data from NSP on where the poles are and map them and submit the map to the city for approval before any work is done. Councilmember Krebsbach suggested that the matter be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. Buell stated that he is not asking for approval of the agreement tonight, but is only asking for the conditional use permit. Attorney Hart stated that it would be his preference that Council know exactly what it would be granting a permit for versus the applicant spending the time and effort to determine where the Page No. 30 April 4, 2000 locations would be. An alternative would be a letter from a duly authorized officer of Metricom acknowledging that any granting of a conditional use permit is subject to entering into a right of way agreement identifying the locations and confirming that the city can either execute such a right of way agreement or refuse to execute such an agreement in its sole, absolute and unlimited discretion. Mayor Mertensotto agreed, stating that Council would then retain all of its discretionary authority to establish conditions. Mr. Buell stated that he would have no problem with that procedure and suggested that the city attorney prepare a letter and he would have it executed by an officer of Metricom. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city would have to receive a sworn affidavit as to the authority of the individual signing the letter. Councilmember Krebsbach asked how secure communications would be through the radios. Mr. Buell explained that every 400 milliseconds the radio changes a channel, and in addition to the frequency hopping, the data is also (- encrypted, so it would be impossible for someone to intercept and decode any data it intercepted. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to continue discussion to April 18. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY Council acknowledged a request from United Properties for a minor CENTER amendment to the conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development for the Mendota Technology Center. Mr. Dale Glowa and Mr. Tony Kuechle were present on behalf of United Properties. Mr. Glowa informed Council that the building was approved just over a year ago and the market slowed down. A tenant, Paychecks, wants to lease half of the building, 30,000 square feet and wants to be in this fall. The building is a one story, 60,000 square foot structure that will match the existing Technology Center buildings in exterior design. Mendota Technology Center is a PUD with shared parking, etc., so the whole environment will be integrated. The city owns the adjoining parcel, on which a cell phone tower is located. At the time the development was platted, it was the agreement that Page No. 31 April 4, 2000 the city would landscape its property with TIF and United Properties would maintain it. TIF is no longer available, and United Properties is willing to provide the landscaping and maintenance on the city's property. He stated that the amendments he proposes are to move the lot line for the Phase III parcel 30 feet to the west to accommodate additional parking for the Phase III building. He also asked for a zero lot line setback on the east side of Phase III to allow parking spaces against the east lot line. There is a right -of -way area between the city property and Highway 55. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would like a landscaping bond from United Properties that the landscaping will be done on the adjacent between the United Properties lot line and Highway 55 in exchange for the zero lot line approval. Mr. Glowa stated that landscaping is anticipated to cost $20,000. He further stated that would either submit a bond or a check. Both the city property and the Mn/DOT property will be landscaped, but Mn /DOT must approve landscaping proposed to be done on its property. He would like to create a perimeter buffer of landscaping to Highway 55. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Glowa to submit a check $25,000 to insure the landscaping. He stated that the city will hold that check and that the landscaping should be done by the end of the year. Mr. Glowa also asked for approval of the preliminary plat and authorization for a building permit. Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 00 -31, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER PHASE III," approval of the preliminary plat and authorization for issuance of the building permit with the condition that the exterior of the building is consistent with the approved PUD, and with the further condition that the applicant submit a check for $25,000 to guarantee that the landscaping will be completed by the end of the year. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 WFI Council acknowledged a request from WFI, on behalf of Metricom, for preliminary discussion on wireless internet antennae installation Page No. 32 April 4, 2000 on the city's water tower. Council also acknowledged an associated report from Assistant Hollister. Mayor Mertensotto expressed concern that the city has spent a considerable amount of money constructing the water tower only to find out that the ribs on the top portion of the tank add a considerable cost for repainting and sand blasting. He stated that the antennas are not painted with the same paint as the tower and the paint on the antennas is not holding up as well as the paint on the tower. He felt that the maximum limit of antennas has been reached on the tower. He noted that each set of antennas also requires additional service units on the ground. Mr. Steve Carlson, representing Metricom, stated that Metricom has two different parallel processes going. This is a wireless access point. Basically, the installation would be very similar to what exists on the tower, except that the antennas are smaller (about 3 feet tall and six inches wide). They can be painted, but because they are a different material that the tower, the color may end up being different. Metricom feels it is better to locate on an existing tower than to build a tower. The service box can either go outside or it can go inside the water tank. It has about a 3 by 3 foot footprint and is connected to the antenna by 3/8 inch cable. Typically the biggest load bearing on this type of installation is the cable, but this system adds very little loading to the water tower structure because of the cable being used. He stated that he is present to request the right to enter into a formal application for conditional use permit, to discuss the lease and to work out any other issues Council has regarding landscaping, etc. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is very enticing to cities to allow antennas on their water towers because of the revenues cities can derive from them. He stated that he feels that whether the interest is from Metricom or anyone else, there are more than enough antennas on the water tower right now. Mr. Carlson stated that he understands the concern, but he would like Council to understand that this proposal goes hand in hand with the shoebox proposal presented on behalf of Metricom earlier this evening. One cannot proceed without the other. He stated that he looks at the water tower as the perfect location because it would serve ten to twelve square miles, whereas right -of -ways serve a half mile. A computer transmits data to the shoeboxes, from there it goes to the antenna site, and from there to a network interface in Page No. 33 April 4, 2000 Minneapolis. The refrigerator box at the water tower would transmit the data through the phone system to the network interface. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the cell tower on the city's property next to United Properties would work. Mr. Carlson responded that the tower is only about 90 feet, which is not tall enough to serve the area. There are no other alternatives to the water tower. Metricom is purely a co- locater and does not install towers. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she does not feel Council could approve this request until it makes a decision on the Metricom shoebox (radio) request. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that Mr. Carlson look at locating on the NSP transmission poles and see what other options may be available. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to continue the matter to April 18. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Nays:0 ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES Council acknowledged a request from Roseville Properties for site plan review and building permit authorization for Centre Pointe Business Park V. Mr. Hugh Cullen was present on behalf of Roseville Properties. Mr. Cullen stated that the building is exactly the same design and size as Centre Pointe IV. He noted that there is a difference between the civil drawings and the architectural drawings. The civil drawing shows one curb cut and the other shows two curb cuts. The civil drawing is the drawing Roseville Properties intends to use. He stated that he will submit a revised architectural drawing to city staff. Councilmember Schneeman moved to authorize the Code Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit with the identical conditions to those imposed on the other buildings in the Centre Pointe Office Park, subject to code compliance review by the Code Enforcement Officer and review of grading and drainage by city engineering. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 34 April 4, 2000 MENDAKOTA ENTRANCE Council acknowledged a request from Mendakota Country Club SIGN for a change in it license agreement with the city with respect to installation of a sign at Mendakota Drive and Dodd Road. Administrator Batchelder informed Council that the applicant has requested that discussion be tabled to April 18. Councilmember Huber moved to table the matter to April 18. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDAKOTA PARK Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager STORAGE Guy Kullander relative to a Parks and Recreation Commission concern for the need for a storage facility at Mendakota Park. Mr. Kullander informed Council that the city's engineering staff suggested that rather than a building, a covered utility trailer could be used to transport equipment, supplies and the Cushman utility cart to Mendakota Park. It is planned that seasonal employees work at the weekend tournaments at the park, and they do not have access to the public works garage to get the equipment and supplies they would need. The trailer would only be brought to the park for special events. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council wants to be very careful about any temporary facilities at Mendakota Park because the park is so open. Also, if storage sheds, etc., were allowed to be placed in the park, it would take away from the aesthetics of the park. He felt there must be another way to handle the storage problem. Councilmember Huber stated that storage is a problem that has been identified but should not be a problem. Councilmember Dwyer stated that vandalism to the rest rooms in the park is a much larger problem. He suggested that a reward be established for information leading to arrest and conviction of the people doing the vandalism. PARK PROJECTS Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander regarding Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations for projects to be completed in 2000. Mr. Kullander informed Council that the commission has discussed most of the projects for several years and that the Wentworth Park Page No. 35 April 4, 2000 warming house is a high priority. He stated that he does not want to spent much time on the projects until he sees if Council has interest in them. Mayor Mertensotto asked if money has been budgeted for the proposed projects. Mr. Kullander responded that $73,000 was budgeted for capital outlay in the 2000 Special Park budget but there was no delineation on how it should be used. Councilmember Huber stated that the Wentworth Park warming house should be replaced. The matter had been discussed in the past, but it became confused over a multi- purpose structure versus a warming house. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she had asked that the commission develop a list of priorities and that she appreciates the report. Councilmember Schneeman agreed that the warming house is in very bad condition and should be replaced. Councilmember Krebsbach and Huber agreed to be a subcommittee to work on the warming house issue. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Huber moved that the meeting be adjourned. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Nays: 0 F.-Voyoft Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12:29 a.m. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk