Loading...
2000-02-01 City Council minutesPage No. 1 February 1, 2000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 1, 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 Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on January 18, 2000 as amended. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Schneeman moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item 5d, critical are permit, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the January 25, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the unapproved minutes of the January 5, 2000 NDC 4 Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for January. d. Adoption of Resolution No. 00 -04, "RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY OF ST. PAUL I' • • • Page No. 2 February 1, 2000 e. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated February 1, 2000. f. Approval of the List of Claims dated February 1, 2000 and totaling $341,942.26. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 99 -39, SKD Council acknowledged a memo and proposed resolution to approve a critical area permit for Mr. & Mrs. Steve Baldinger at 1147 Orchard Circle. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the condition regarding submission of a landscape plan should be expanded. The condition should require submission of an overall landscaping plan for the lot, and the plan should also illustrate the trees that will replace three existing basswood trees that may be lost during construction. Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 00 -05, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT A NEW HOME AT 1147 ORCHARD CIRCLE," amended as recommended by Mayor Mertensotto. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00-03, DOYLE Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Chris Doyle for subdivision of Lot 1, Clapp Thomssen Ivy Hill Addition (642 Maple Park Drive). Council also acknowledged reports from the City Planner and Administrative Assistant and a memo from Guy Kullander regarding utility connection charges and the required park contribution. Also acknowledged were letters from Mr. Gregory Holly, legal counsel for Mary Doyle, letters of objection from Mr. Frank Mullaney, 1200 Sylvandale Road and Mr. Victor Sherbanenko, 1205 Sylvandale Road, a letter of support from Mr. R. Michael Curran, 622 Maple Park Drive, and soils and wetlands reports provided by the applicant. Mr. Doyle was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the survey shows that the original lot is about two- thirds of an acre. The lot that would contain the existing home is proposed to be about 15,000 square feet and the Page No. 3 February 1, 2000 new lot would be 19,744 square feet. The survey also shows a forty foot wide easement. He asked Mr. Doyle how the easement was created. Mr. Doyle responded that it was originally a city drainage easement when he bought the lot and that he is not asking the city to vacate the easement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it appears that the house pad on the new lot is at the lowest part of the lot and the soil borings were at the center of the lot and to the north and east. In the area where the soil borings were taken, the elevations were at 888.2, 892.8 and 887.7. From the street, there appears to be a very deep swale on the lot, a drop of at least six to seven feet. He stated that he does not understand the contours on the survey and asked Mr. Doyle if he is trying to indicate that there is no more than a two foot drop. Even with the snow cover, one can see that there is a deep hole right in the area where the house pad would be. Mr. Doyle responded that he retained a professional firm, Advance Engineering, to do the topographic survey at the recommendation of the city planner and city staff and the elevations shown on the survey are the elevations his consultant determined. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Doyle if he is saying that there is no more than a two foot deviation on the property. Mr. Doyle responded that the 888 contour is the level area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the 888 contour is to the road side of the easement and it is not large enough to build on. The useable part of the lot is possibly the southwesterly 40 %. Unless the lot is very deceptive, there is a deep depression on it. Mr. Doyle responded that Advance Engineering came out and did the survey. Between elevations 888 and 886 there is about a 40 foot wide area where the drop is only about two feet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no question where the drainage easement is when you park on Maple Park Drive and view the lot. There is no question when one looks to the south, where the building pad would be, that there is a deep hole. The physical view of the property is altogether different from the survey. Page No. 4 February 1, 2000 Mr. Doyle informed Council that he has owned and worked the land for years and knows there is not a hole and that the survey is an accurate depiction. There is a slope on the lot that would buffer the new home. Because of that slope it may appear to be deeper than it really is. Off of Maple Park Drive, the lot drops from 894 to 886 and then flattens out. It is actually very level for a home. He reviewed the soil test report for Council, stating that he did not take any borings in the area where the trees are because he did not want to remove any more trees than is absolutely necessary. Councilmember Dwyer asked how much room there will be for a house when all of the factors, including tree preservation, are considered. Mr. Doyle responded that there is an area of 4,000 square feet for a building pad and if the trees are saved, there would be space in the building pad for a structure with 2,000 to 2,500 square feet on one floor. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she is not comfortable taking any action tonight until she sees a signature from Mary Doyle that she is willing to have the lot subdivided. She noted that the planning application, which was signed by Ms. Doyle, was dated November 2 but that the city received a letter from her attorney dated November 5 saying that she did not want the lot subdivided. Mr. Doyle responded that the issue has been resolved, as he wrote in his letter to the city. He showed Council a district court document, dated January 2, 2000, which referenced the subdivision of the lot. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she was satisfied after seeing the document that Ms. Doyle has legally represented that she is willing to subdivide. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is concerned that Mr. Doyle is asking the city to subdivide the lot and someone else will purchase it and think that the city put its approval on it. The city could run into many problems if the subdivision is approved. He pointed out comments made in the soil survey regarding installation of a drain tile system. He stated that some innocent individual could get caught buying the lot and begin the excavation and then find that he has added costs for a drain tile system and submersible pump. Mr. Doyle can show a building pad and suggest a type of home that could be built on the lot, but the soils report is very cautionary. He was also concerned that he still thinks there is a low area where the Page No. 5 February 1, 2000 house would be built and there is a potential situation where a new owner could be caught in a trap. Even though the lot would be over 19,000 square feet, most of it is in the easement area or to the west of the easement where a structure could not be built. He stated that it would be a very constrained lot with respect to where a home could be located. Also, once excavation starts, the trees could be gone. He stated that if Mr. Doyle were building on the lot it would be a different matter, but someone else will be building and building on it and Council has to deal with that person. Councilmember Dwyer stated that his concern is that with the constraints on the lot if it is subdivided Council could end up in a situation where a person who paid dearly for the land would put a large house on the small building pad and it would appear to be disproportionate to the lot or such a small home on it that it would be disproportionate with homes in the area, or the person might request variances and complicate things further. He pointed out that Council has received letters of objection. Mr. Doyle stated that the water table fluctuates and it is not unusual to find water when soil borings are done. Three borings were done, twenty feet down, and water was found at 13, 14 and 16 feet in those 1 locations. It is not likely that the foundation would be any where near the water table. The reason for the disclaimer is because they always use the disclaimer because of the fluctuations in the water table. It states in the report that the soil conditions are very satisfactory and would support a house. As far as losing the trees, he stated that he is a landscape architect and it is only natural for him to try to protect the trees so Council can be assured he will take care of the land. He stated that he does not know who will build on the land and that he might build on it himself. Responding to questions from Councilmember Schneeman, Mr. Doyle stated that he paid more for the lot because it is a larger lot and he felt that subdivision was an option. Councilmember Schneeman stated that her problem with the request is that the next door neighbor wrote in his letter that he was told by someone when he bought his property that the vacant part of the Doyle lot was wetlands and could not be built on. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the wetlands condition was before the city constructed the creek restoration and drainage improvement, but the easement area is the natural drainage way. If Mr. Doyle were going to build on the lot, Council could give him Page No. 6 February 1, 2000 plat approval at the same time, but in this instance dividing the lot could set someone else up for problems. Councilmember Krebsbach supported the Planning Commission concerns, stating that at one point the lot was part of the city's drainage system and was identified as a wetlands and unbuildable. She pointed out that Mr. Doyle bought a larger lot but it was not subdivided. She supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. Mr. Doyle responded that he had a certified wetlands scientist visit the site and the scientist submitted a report that said that the area does not meet the wetland definition. He stated that he has worked the land and knows it is not a wetland. The state and federal government do not recognize it as a wetlands and there is no peat moss on the property. He stated that all he knows is that at one time there was a spring fed creek on the lot and it is now in a pipe. The wetlands designation on his lot is based on the city designation made in 1976 and that just has a broad area which includes many houses and townhouses all the way to Dodd Road. Councilmember Huber asked Public Works Director Danielson's j judgment with regard to the soil survey. He also asked Mr. Danielson if he would categorize Advance Engineering's cautions and limitations as standard. Public Works Director Danielson responded that he is familiar with Advance Engineering, that they are qualified soil survey engineers and they stated that it is a buildable lot. In response to the cautions and limitations, he stated that he has seen sites that concern him more than the subject property, that the report looks relative clean and clearly states that it can support a house. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the report just says that the lot is buildable but it does not say without extraordinary means. Public Works Director Danielson responded that soil surveyors are always cautious because they are just taking a small sample. Councilmember Huber stated that he is concerned that the Planning Commission recommended denial. His reading of the denial was because there were a number of pieces of information they did not have, like the soil borings, that have been gathered since the meeting, and Mr. Doyle asked the commission to vote the request up or down. He stated that if the issues had been cleared up since the Page No. 7 February 1, 2000 Planning Commission action, he would put less weight on the vote, but when Council deals with water conditions that are unknown, they must be cautious. Mr. Charlie Noll, 1265 Sylvandale, stated that the intent is not just to subdivide. The intent is to sell and then to build. The soil test is preliminary and says that there is no guarantee. He stated that Mr. Doyle is asking the Council to rely on a very limited report, but Council must also look at the characteristics of the Ivy Falls neighborhood. His home would not fit on the lot because of the size of the easement and he did not think most of the homes in the neighborhood could be put on the lot. He questioned what kind of house could be built on the lot given the constraints, and stated that the house would not be in character with the neighborhood. He stated that there must be certain setbacks from the neighboring homes and that he opposes any variances for the lot. He informed Council that he talked to Mary Doyle today and she told him that she does oppose the subdivision. He stated that approving the subdivision would leave her with the smallest lot that could legally be built on in the city. He informed Council that when the Doyles bought the property, the person who sold it to them told them they could not legally build on the vacant portion of the lot. Mr. Mullaney's letter says that when he bought his lot, he was told by someone from the city that the lot next to his (the Doyle lot) had a creek on it and was not buildable, and if he thought it was buildable he would not have bought his lot. He stated that Mr. Mullaney objects to the subdivision and that he objects, and Ms. Angela Thornberg, who owns the house across the street, opposes the subdivision. He stated that the only support was from someone who lives several blocks away. The Planning Commission recommended denial because of the wetlands delineation and there was a question about storm water runoff. He stated that common sense tells him that if a home is built on the lot there will be less area for drainage and that will have a severe impact on Angela Thomberg's property. He stated that there is a hole on the lot and asked where the water will run when fill is brought in. He stated that the water will run to his property or the Thornberg lot. He stated that a lot of fill will be needed, which will cause drainage problems for other properties. Mr. Noll stated that he opposes the subdivision because any house built on the lot will not be in keeping with homes in the area and it will impact drainage. Councilmember Schneeman asked if any of the neighbors have thought about buying the lot for open space. Page No. 8 February 1, 2000 Mr. Noll responded that he does not believe so. He stated that when the Doyles bought the property they were told it was not a buildable lot. Councilmember Dwyer stated that Council wants to do what is fair and appropriate. He further stated that he does believe that whatever house were put on the lot would be significantly different from others in the neighborhood. City Attorney Hart sated that the ordinances should govern. The question is whether the proposed subdivision complies with the ordinances of the city. The wetlands issues are very legitimate issues before Council because they go to the essence of whether the lot is buildable. He did not believe the city could turn down the application on the basis that what is built on it would be acceptable to the neighbors, but the question is whether the lot is buildable. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there are many large lots in the city and as lots become less available there will be pressure to develop those lots. 15,000 square feet is the requirement, but does a 15,000 square foot lot give Mr. Doyle the right to subdivide. He stated that some future buyer who becomes a potential resident of the city relies on the city to grant variances. He further stated that any lot can be made buildable if the owner does not care how much it costs. He stated that there are many large lots in Ivy Falls. In this case, the lot was platted for a reason — there was an open storm water system going through the lot. The city put a pipe in as part of the Ivy Falls drainage improvement, but the residents in the area had every right to believe that once the project was completed it did not change the lots. He was concerned about building on lots that once were part of the watershed. There is an easement of at least 6,400 square feet on the lot that must remain open and cannot be built on. The new lot would be 19,477 square feet, but taking 6,400 feet away, Mr. Doyle is dealing with an irregular lot of 13,000 square feet with trees that should be retained. He stated that he would be very concerned about subdividing the lot and then having someone come in and buy it and expect variances. He further stated that he would not support variance. Attorney Hart stated, as a follow -up to his earlier comments, that Council cannot oppose the subdivision simply because of fears of what might be built on the lot. The wetlands issue and the drainage issue are very relevant. Council also cannot rely on the expectation that a future owner would be willing to put in extraordinary measures. If the lot is not buildable in itself without taking Page No. 9 February 1, 2000 extraordinary measures or drainage would enter neighboring lots, that would be a basis to deny the subdivision. Ms. Angela Thornberg, 1205 Sylvandale, stated that the prior owner, Mr. Brassard told her about that the drainage and water problems and about he creek project when she purchased her home. She stated that her property still has drainage and water problems. When it rains, the water crosses Sylvandale and floods her lot. Two years ago, five to six inches of her property was lost and in every storm they lose some land at the back of their yard. On the Noll property during the storm last year, one of the retaining walls that the city installed burst because it could not hold the water. She stated that the drainage system is taxed and she is concerned that if another home is built, the water will come towards their property and only exacerbate existing problems. The water is barely contained now and she was very concerned that adding another home will make the situation worse. She further stated that she cannot imagine removing the wetland designation without notifying the neighbors. Also, Mary Doyle's property would not be characteristic of the neighborhood because it would be too small. Mr. Chuck Reisenberg, Mr. Doyle's planner, stated that he has been a city planner for 25 years and what he would like to get across to Council is that Council needs to be objective. Mr. Doyle has provided a survey, soil survey and topographic survey. He agreed with Mayor Mertensotto that if there is a dip on the property, Mr. Doyle should get another engineer to do further surveying. He stated that there is a 4,000 square foot building pad, and people should all be treated the same. Other people in the area were given the opportunity to develop their properties and Mr. Doyle should have the same opportunity. There are no variances required, as the building pad meets setback requirements. He stated that Council needs to look at the city's ordinances and be objective. If some further study needs to be done, he felt that Council should delay action and request Mr. Doyle to go back and get answers. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to deny the application based on the lot being part of the storm water run off system, that the subdivision would create two parcels that would be smaller than the average lot size in the neighborhood, and that extraordinary measures would be needed to construct a home on the new parcel based on the submitted report. Mayor Mertensotto seconded the motion. Page No. 10 February 1, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that a considerable amount of fill would need to be placed on the lot and development of the lot would create more impervious surface. He stated that he understands Mrs. Thomberg's concerns being right across the street. Under extraordinary rain conditions, there could be a significant problem. There is a drainage system running through the proposed lot that is part of the overall drainage system and the lot has many problems. Councilmember Schneeman stated that making a decision on the matter is difficult because Mr. Doyle has gone to a lot of expense to provide the reports requested by the Planning Commission, but she can also understand the neighbors' concerns. Public Works Director Danielson stated that water run off in this area is a concern, which is why the drainage project was done several years ago. There is a large amount of water that comes from the park, through this lot and the Thomberg and Noll lots. There is an open channel that remains west of the Doyle lot and any time water drains in an open ditch there is erosion. Any hard surface added up stream will bring more water towards the Thomberg lot. Councilmember Schneeman stated that if the application is denied tonight and the entire lot is sold, there is little doubt that someone will come in to subdivide it in the future. She further stated that Council must be consistent. Councilmember Dwyer stated that if Mr. Doyle were to sell the lot tomorrow and if someone came before Council for a subdivision it would be turned down. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the drainage project in no way meant that the city would alter the use of the easement for drainage. She also wanted it to be very clear that she does not know the Doyles and would honor the letter from Ms. Doyle's legal counsel until she saw the document Mr. Doyle presented this evening. Councilmember Huber stated that Council must understand the wishes and concerns of the adjoining neighbors but at the same time Council has an obligation to the rest of the city's residents to make sure Council acts appropriately. He stated that Mr. Reisenberg stated that if Council felt it could not act on the application because it did not have enough information, then Council should request more information. He stated that if the application was not just for subdivision but for house construction as well, so Council would know exactly what the applicant was going to do in terms of water Page No. 11 February 1, 2000 control and erosion control and protection for the neighbors from runoff, Council could act on it. Council can only assume what a future owner will do with construction, and if someone were building on the lot Council could ask the city's professional staff it the right things had been done. The biggest issue is the water issue, and it is difficult because Council does not know what a future owner might do. He was also concerned about denying the application if it meets all ordinance requirements. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he is persuaded that subdivision of the lot could have a negative impact downstream, and based on what is before Council tonight he would deny the application. Mr. Doyle stated that he would be willing to but together a building plan with the condition that he is the builder on the property. Mayor Mertensotto stated that that is going beyond the application and is not what is before Council this evening. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Huber Staff was directed to prepare a formal resolution for adoption on February 15. CASE NO. 00 -05, MANSUR Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Gregory Mansur for a one foot height variance to allow a four foot cedar fence 13 feet from the rear property line at 985 Delaware Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Mansur informed Council that his lot runs from Chippewa Avenue in the back to Delaware Avenue in the front. He showed Council pictures of his lot and house and stated that he has submitted signatures of consent from all of his neighbors. He stated that he will just be replacing a fence that was damaged in a windstorm and that his neighbor received a similar variance two years ago. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance to allow a four foot fence to be within 13 feet of the rear property line. Councilmember Schneeman pointed out that the fence is consistent with the fence line of the other neighbors. Page No. 12 February 1, 2000 Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 06, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE -FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE TO BE WITHIN 13 FEET OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 985 DELAWARE AVENUE." Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00- 06, LINDER' S Council acknowledged applications from Linder's Greenhouses for GREENHOUSES an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary seasonal garden center in the Mendota Plaza and for a conditional use permit to allow Linder's Greenhouses to operate a garden center in the Mendota Plaza from mid -April to July of 2000. Mr. Peter Linder was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council should discuss conditions this evening, including the starting and ending dates. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the proposed approving resolution stipulated eleven conditions, including hours of operation. His only comment was regarding the last condition. He felt that the report back to the city by Linder's and the owners of the Mendota Plaza is a legitimate condition. Council will know, from the reports, whether the operation was successful and if there were any safety or security problems. He stated, however, that the last condition should be more appropriately stated. Mr. Linder stated that he will submit a report to city staff for referral to the Council. He further stated that the only thing he requests is a favorable recommendation to continue in the future if he does a good job this year. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council is concerned about itinerant sales up and down T.H. 110, which is the reason for the zoning ordinance amendment. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to note that Council does not know how the temporary greenhouse will look from T.H. 110 and may want the operation moved in the future. Mayor Mertensotto stated that one other issue is signage. He stated that If Mr. Linder cannot comply with the city's sign ordnance he will have to return to Council to make a special request. Page No. 13 February 1, 2000 Mr. Linder responded that he has been in discussions with the city planner and staff and understands that the city has sign regulations and he will need to apply for signage. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Ordinance No. 336, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401." Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Dwyer moved adoption of Resolution No. 00 -07, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LINDER' S GREENHOUSES TO OPERATE A TEMPORARY SEASONAL GARDEN CENTER IN THE PARKING LOT OF MENDOTA PLAZA UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS," with revision to the eleventh condition. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00 -07, PATTERSON Council acknowledged an application from Patterson Dental for a DENTAL wetlands permit to allow construction of a building addition at 1031 Mendota Heights Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Tim McIlwain was present o behalf of Patterson Dental. Mr. McIlwain, the project architect, gave Council and the audience an overview of the proposed project, stating that Paterson Dental wants to fill in the northwest corner of the site and will have to bring the site down about four feet. Some of the drainage will need to be caught and brought to the north. There will be an engineered retaining wall system where the cut is made into the slope. A 3 V2 foot black chain link fence will be installed on top of the retaining wall, so that no one falls over it and to protect pedestrians on the nearby trail. Mayor Mertensotto asked if a 3 %Z foot fence is safe enough. He stated that children of all ages use the trail, and it might be better to have a taller fence because there will be a substantial drop behind the wall. He suggested that a five foot fence be installed in the area of the cut. Mr. McIlwain responded that he will present because none of the work that is being done occurs within the legal wetlands area but will occur within 100 feet of the wetlands. He reviewed the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, stating that one of the conditions is that drainage be routed to an existing Page No. 14 February 1, 2000 detention pond rather than to Roger's Lake or that a peat filter be installed in the catch basin. He stated that Patterson Dental is open to either option and would like to discuss them with city engineering staff. Mayor Mertensotto felt that the peat system is appropriate because the water will be filtered before it goes into the lake. Mr. McIlwain stated that Patterson would like to retain the existing vegetation as much as possible, and a filtering system would disrupt the vegetation. The building addition comes no closer to the wetlands than the existing building, the parking is being squared off and it is exactly twenty feet closer to the lake. Nine parking spaces will be lost, but there are still more than adequate spaces under city requirements. Responding to a question from Councilmember Dwyer, Public Works Director Danielson stated that a mining permit is required when 400 cubic yards of fill is removed from a site, but the ordinance was amended to allow commercial building construction to occur without a mining permit if fill removal is done in connection with construction. Mayor Mertensotto asked where the fill will go and if removal of the fill will alter the drainage pattern. Public Works Director Danielson responded that in order to take the fill to another site in Mendota Heights, Patterson Dental would need a fill permit, so the fill is going to be taken out of Mendota Heights. He informed Council that Patterson Dental has submitted a drainage plan. Responding to a question from Councilmember Dwyer, he stated that Patterson has submitted an erosion and siltation plan. Councilmember Huber stated that the city should require Patterson to cleans the roads after the fill is taken out. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that a significant number of truckloads will be removed from the site and that Patterson must be sensitive to the Roger's Lake area and the nearby schools. She informed Mr. McIlwain that Council has asked other firms in the area to route truck traffic away from Mendota Heights Road and towards T.H. 55. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BROWN INSTITUTE WINE LICENSE Ayes: 5 Nays:0 Page No. 15 February 1, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto agreed, stating that Council does not want the trucks going past the schools and that Patterson will be required to submit a route to the city. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 08, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT FOR A BUILDING EXPANSION FOR PATTERSON DENTAL AT 1031 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD." Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a letter from Brown Institute indicating their desire to request a wine license to allow the serving of wine in conjunction with the Le Cordon Bleu program. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from the City Clerk. Councilmember Dwyer moved to conduct a public hearing at 7:45 p.m. on February 15 to consider the issuance of a wine license to Brown Institute. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. U.S. WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director ACCESS Danielson recommending Council authorization for the City Attorney to prepare an opinion on whether the Telecommunication Act overrules the city's antenna ordinance, with respect to the installation of communication antennas on utility poles within public right -of -way. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not think there can be a federal telecommunications act that ever takes away local control over right -of -way. Councilmember Dwyer stated that it is clear in the memo from U.S. West to the city attorney that the law prohibits discrimination by local governments but that he does not see that the city needs to bend over backwards to accommodate U.S. West in the city's right -of- way. He felt Council should request an opinion from City Attorney Hart. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Danielson j stated that the city does not have an ordinance regulating the use of right -of -way but the League of Minnesota Cities has prepared a Page No. 16 February 1, 2000 template and the City of Eagan is currently revising that template and has asked the Dakota County cities to work with them to design an ordinance that would be compatible throughout the county. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the city has adopted other uniform ordinances and he could see no reason the city should not work in the direction of a county -wide uniform ordinance with Eagan. He further stated that the ordinance would be stronger if the cities work under the same guidelines, if there is a basis that all the cities can agree on as a way to control the right -of -way in the cities. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the city stopped U.S. West from installing a communication antenna in the Lexington Avenue right - of -way at Dakota Drive on the basis that the city's ordinance requires a conditional use permit for antennas. Mayor Mertensotto stated that U.S. West is not challenging the city on that issue. The problem is that even if they make application under the antenna ordinance, they anticipate 80 antennas on extensions to power poles and must get conditional use permits. Attorney Hart stated that the position of U.S. West's legal counsel is j that they should not have to get conditional use permits. The question is if the city disagrees with U.S. West's counsel, there will be a legal contest. If Council agrees, the city may want to look at amending the antenna ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the ordinance is sufficient to address whether the city wants up to 80 antenna units on extensions to the utility poles. Councilmember Dwyer stated that he thinks Council should find out what the city attorney thinks about the strength of the city's ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he thinks that Council should first address whether the city has sufficient control under existing ordinances. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council should also address abandonment issues when technology changes. Council directed City Attorney Hart to prepare an opinion on the sufficiency of the city's ordinances in addressing right -of -way issues. Page No. 17 February 1, 2000 FIRE TRAINING Council acknowledged a memo from Fire Chief Maczko recommending the formation of a committee to study firefighter training options. Chief Maczko was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto informed Chief Maczko that Treasurer Shaughnessy had faxed him an article from the League of Cities Magazine regarding a League committee report on public safety training facilities. Chief Maczko stated that the fire service has been working with the legislature for the past three years for state wide training facilities. The fire service is trying to get a bill through the legislature on fire fighter training. Last session, a report was produced on training facilities. There was a state wide facility in Staples that did not meet expectations. A facility is currently under construction, using state funds, in Marshall for police and fire training. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Fridley have a training facility and Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley and Lakeville constructed a joint training facility. Mayor Mertensotto stated that clearly not every city needs training facilities because they are cost prohibitive, and certain levels of j training are dictated by what a department is trying to protect. Chief Maczko responded that training standards are set by OSHA and the State of Minnesota and NFPA. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what he is looking at is what is the justification for a city the size of Mendota Heights to have a training facility. Training should be done on a regional basis where a number of communities are involved. He pointed out that maintaining a facility is very costly. Chief Maczko responded that firefighter training is an issue for the department and he is suggesting that a feasibility study be prepared on firefighter training options. Mayor Mertensotto responded that doing a study would be putting the cart before the horse. The city must first address needs. Chief Maczko responded to Council questions about availability of training and what other cities are doing. Councilmember Huber stated that he agrees with Mayor Mertensotto. He did not see Mendota Heights as being big enough Page No. 18 February 1, 2000 to build its own training facility. He stated that he would like to see if the firefighters could arrange for training through the Burnsville group. Councilmember Dwyer felt that both a needs assessment and a feasibility study would be a good idea. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that before Council sits on a committee it should decide whether Council could support a facility or not. She asked if the city's trainers would have to be certified to train firefighters. Chief Maczko stated that there is a voluntary certification program. According to OSHA standards, the only thing that is required is that they prove they are trained to a higher level than the people they are training. Chief Maczko stated that the steps he is thinking about are needs, options and costs. If Council just wants to do the needs assessment and then decide how to proceed, that is fine. He stated that he would like to educate the Council as to what the firefighters actually do and how they train, and what the options are. Councilmember Huber stated that he would be interested in seeing what the city cost would be to utilize the Burnsville facility. He further stated that he would like to visit the Burnsville facility. Councilmember Schneeman stated that she would be willing to be a member of the committee. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that what she wants to be clear on is interest in training versus interest in a training facility. She stated that she would like to be involved with the committee depending on her schedule. Chief Maczko was directed to put together a meeting schedule. BUILDING CODE Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director COMPLIANCE Danielson regarding building code compliance questions. Council also acknowledged a letter from Mr. Michael Godfrey, from the state Building Codes and Standards Division, regarding state preemption of local building code regulations versus Section 4.17(3)j of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Page No. 19 February 1, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city has been challenged with regard to the requirement for Type III construction in the B and I Zoning Districts. He stated that the ordinance amendment was adopted at the recommendation of the Fire Marshall. Because of the Type III requirement, the city lost an addition to the Heritage Inn. He stated that he would rather see a fire suppression system in and working that have Type III construction. He further stated that he feels Section 4.17(3)j could be rescinded. Chief Maczko agreed that fire suppression is more important that construction type, but stated that he would like to talk to the fire marshal to see why he supported the section so strongly. Mayor Mertensotto stated that once the UBC was adopted, it prevails. He stated that he would not want to battle a challenge from Ferris Industries and would rather rescind the ordinance section. He asked Chief Maczko to talk to Fire Marshal Kaiser and report back to Council. Chief Maczko responded that when it comes to interpretation, there has been an ongoing fight between the Department of Administration and the Department of Public Safety. Administration has the responsibility for building codes and Public Safety is responsible for safety codes. Chief Maczko stated that there has been some posturing before the legislature, and he would like to research the matter further to see what the state fire marshal thinks and whether it is in the best interest of the city to retain the existing language. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Council wants to get into the position where they would have to fight in court. Chief Maczko stated that Council has received what the state building official wrote but has not heard what Fire Marshal Kaiser or the state fire marshal have to say. He stated that he would like to put all the information in front of Council before a decision is made. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto about whether Ferris Industries will wait, Administrator Batchelder stated that Ferris Industries calls him every day to see when its building permit will be released. City Attorney Hart stated that the city has adopted the uniform building code and the question is whether that prevails in the event of a conflict. He stated that there appears to be an interpretation dispute. If Council determines that the ordinance is inconsistent Page No. 20 February 1, 2000 with the UBC, Council could proceed to grant the permit and amend the ordinance but Council is not in a position to make that decision tonight. Councilmember Huber stated that Ferris will have to wait to proceed until the existing ordinance requirements are changed. He stated that he is not saying that changing the ordinance is the right thing to do but that Council must go through the right process. Staff was directed to call for a public hearing for the Planning Commission for consideration of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to rescind Section 4.17(3)j. CABLE ORDINANCE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder regarding the NDC4 amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement and Cable Television Agreement. Councilmember Huber updated the Council on the status of the proposed agreement. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Council acknowledged a letter from the Metropolitan Council regarding the city's comprehensive plan. Administrator Batchelder 1 stated that Council must consider whether it wishes to retain Steve Grittman and extend his contract for the comprehensive plan so that he can prepare the changes to the plan that have been requested by the Metropolitan Council. Councilmember Schneeman moved to schedule a workshop meeting with Mr. Grittman for 6:30 p.m. on February 15. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Stan Linell asked Council to pursue a provision in the cable franchise ordinance to allow a portion of the franchise fees to be used to purchase equipment for the school district so that School Board meetings can be televised. Councilmember Huber responded that an item in the agreement, called INET, involves the school district in a big way because it would provide a link between all public buildings in Dakota County. School boards can have their meetings televised now, and NDC 4 would be more than happy to have the school board meetings on cable. Page No. 21 February 1, 2000 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Huber stated that he attended a luncheon on the status of Senator Kelly's cable bill recently and will try to prepare a synopsis of the discussion for Council. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Huber moved that the meeting be adjourned to the comprehensive plan workshop scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on February 15. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m. Ka een M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor