Loading...
1998-09-01 Council minutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 1, 1998 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 Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Huber moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL. OF MINUTES Councilmember Huber moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 18, 1998 as submitted. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the Budget Workshop meeting held on August 26, 1998, as submitted. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Dwyer moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, with the exception of Item "k" along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained herein. a. Acknowledgement of the August 11 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes Page No. 2 September 1, 1998 b. Acknowledgement of the August 25 Planning Commission Minutes C. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for August d. Acknowledge Receipt of the NDC4 Unapproved Minutes from the July 1 Full Commission and August 5th Executive Committee Meetings e. Acknowledge Receipt and Authorization to Revise the Timetable for Grant Requirement Completion and Request a Six Month Extension for the MNRRA Grant f. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 98 -56, "A RESOLUTION SEEKING FUNDING FROM DAKOTA COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF THE COMMUNITY LANDFILL ABATEMENT PROGRAM" g. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 98 -57, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO TURNERS GYMNASTICS CENTER FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN" h. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 98 -58, "A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL TO SERVE THE AREA REFERRED TO AS BUNKER HILLS INCLUDING PROPERTIES IN RIDGEWOOD PARK, SPRING CREEK ACRES, SOMMERSET HILLS, SOMMERSET PLACE, SOMMERSET HILLS NO. 2 AND VALLEY CURVE ESTATES" (JOB NO. 9514, IMP.NO. 96, PRO.NO.3) i. Approval to Purchase and Install Outdoor Warning Sirens j. Approval of Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy for 1998: Page No. 3 September 1, 1998 a. Proposed Budget - RESOLUTION NO. 98-59 b. Tentative 1998 Levy Collectible in 1999 - RESOLUTION NO. 98-60 C. Final 1998 Tax Levy for Special Taxing District No. 1 Collectible in 1999 - RESOLUTION NO. 98-61 k. THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT -AGENDA. Authorization to Issue Building Permit for Remodeling at Brown Institute - Culinary School Remodeling 1. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 98-62, "A RESOLUTION REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL STATE AID RULES REGARDING CONTRACT AWARD PRIOR TO STATE AID APPROVAL" m. Approval to Reschedule the Starting Time of the September 15 Regular City Council Meeting to 8:00 p.m. n. Approval of the List of Contractors 0. Approval of the List of Claims P. Acknowledge Receipt of Information Regarding 1998 Fire Calls q- Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 98-63, "A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON MOTELS AND HOTELS AS CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT" r. Approval to Conduct Appraisals on Properties located within the Garron/Acacia Cemetery Development Area Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Page No. 4 September 1, 1998 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUILDING PERMIT FOR Councilmember Krebsbach requested the removal of this REMODELING AT item from the Consent Agenda for discussion. She BROWN INSTITUTE - informed the Council she visited the site and noted there is CULINARY SCHOOL considerable size and number of fans to be added to the roof REMODELING of the building. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she will support the issuance of a building permit with the added provision the fans will remain on the building only so long as there is a culinary school in operation. If that function were to cease to exist, the additional heating and ventilating equipment would have to be removed. Mr. Tom Lander, MA Mortenson Construction, was in attendance and stated this provision is acceptable. He acknowledged if the building is not being used as intended by this remodeling, the additional equipment will be removed. Mayor Mertensotto suggested staff prepare a Developer's Memorandum to provide that the additional equipment will be removed if the building is not being utilized for culinary purposes. Mayor Mertensotto inquired relative to the height of the equipment. Mr. Lander explained the equipment varies from seven to eight feet in height. He further explained the equipment is distributed across the roof, however, the equipment closest to the parapet will be setback 12 feet. Mr. Lander stated the intent is to paint the equipment a sand buff color similar to the fascia panels of the building. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out the trees which now screen the building are deciduous and she asked whether the equipment will be visible in the winter. Mr. Lander explained given the grading and the depth, there is approximately 100 feet of vegetation between the building and Highway 494 and it is not anticipated the building will Page No. 5 September 1, 1998 be visible. Councilmember Smith moved authorization to issue a Building Permit for remodeling at Brown Institute for culinary school remodeling with the understanding Staff will prepare a Memorandum of Agreement between the Applicant and City reflecting the conditions of the agreement. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMIVVIEENTS Councilmember Smith announced she has made the difficult decision not to seek re- election to the City Council given the increased demands on her time which have made it increasingly difficult to give the Council the dedication she feels it requires. Councilmember Smith stated it has been a privilege and an honor to represent the City of Mendota Heights on the Council for the past eight years and expressed her gratitude for the support she has received. Councilmember Smith noted applications are now being taken and the deadline for filing for a Council seat is September 8, 1998, at 4:30 p.m. She encouraged anyone interested in serving on the City Council to apply. Mayor Mertensotto stated Councilmember Smith has been a very dedicated member of the Council for the past eight years and thanked her for her service. Councilmember Krebsbach commended Councilmember Smith on the grace and intelligence with which she served as well as her great sense of fairness. Councilmember Huber concurred with the comments of Mayor Mertensotto and Councilmember Krebsbach and commended Councilmember Smith for the time and effort she put into her service on the Council. CASE NO. 98 -26: WOLF - FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 6 September 1, 1998 Mayor Mertensotto requested Councilmember Smith continue her service on the MASAC Committee and she agreed to do so. Council acknowledged the memo of Administrative Assistance Patrick Hollister relative to the request of Daniel Wolff, 600 Spring Street, for an eight foot front yard setback variance for a covered stoop. This matter was considered by the Council on August 4, 1998, and Mr. Wolff now returns to the Council with complete elevations and an improved site plan of the home addition which he proposes. Mayor Mertensotto noted the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the request. Councilmember Dwyer moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -64, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE" Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. CASE NO. 96 -27: Council acknowledged the memo of Administrative WOOLSEY - WETLANDS Assistance Patrick Hollister relative to a request by Chris PERMIT MODIFICATION Woolsey, 2316 Lake Lemay Road, for a wetlands permit modification. Mr. Woolsey was in attendance to discuss his request with the Council. Public Works Director Danielson explained Mr. Woolsey had previously received a wetlands permit for an addition to his home conditioned in part upon his acquisition of some adjoining property from his neighbor. Mr. Woolsey has been unable to agree with his neighbor on the terms of transfer of the property. Mr. Danielson further explained the condition that Mr. Woolsey acquire the additional property needs to be removed in order for him to construct the addition. Mr. Woolsey pointed out he has scaled back the proposed addition since he was unable to acquire the additional Page No. 7 September 1, 1998 property. Councilmember Dwyer noted Mr. Woolsey no longer encroaches on the easement and the wetland will not be affected by the proposed structure. He felt it would be appropriate to amend the prior agreement to delete the requirement that Mr. Woolsey purchase additional property. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 98 -65, "A RESOLUTION MODIFYING A WETLANDS PERMIT ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ADDITION TO WITHIN 66.7 FEET OF LAKE LEMAY, " amending the conditions placed on the original Wetlands Permit to delete the requirement for the purchase of the easement area, and conditioned upon the submission of the revised building plans. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -22: Council acknowledged the memo of Administrative Assistant JOHNSON - Patrick Hollister relative to the request of Dale Johnson for PRELIMINARY PLAT preliminary plat and variances for a five lot subdivision on AND VARIANCES Alice Lane. Mr. Johnson was in attendance to speak with the Council. Mr. Johnson explained the five lots range in size from 16,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet. The variance he is requesting would be for three of the lots to have less than 100 feet of frontage at the 30 -foot setback line. Mr. Johnson stated the houses would be set back approximately 70 to 80 feet. Mr. Johnson displayed two options depicting the five lots. One option included a longer cul -de -sac and the second option depicts a shorter cul -de -sac. Although the longer cul- de -sac would conform to the City's Zoning Ordinance in all respects, Mr. Johnson stated he would prefer to receive a variance for three of the lots which would allow the cul -de- sac to be shorter which would result in saving more trees and would also allow the houses to be farther from the cul- de -sac. Page No. 8 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Huber commented he would not want a situation in which the Council agrees to Mr. Johnson's plan, but then have the people who are actually building the homes come in requesting to move the homes forward to allow for a larger backyard. Councilmember Krebsbach questioned why the plan is not operative with five lots. Mr. Johnson stated there would be a greater loss of trees and it would not be economically feasible. Mr. Johnson stated the Planning Commission requested a tree survey be completed and submitted and this has been done. He commented he will save the black walnut trees. Councilmember Smith noted one of the concerns of the Planning Commission to be street and driveway grades and inquired which plan would provide the gentler grade. Mr. Johnson stated the plan with the deeper cul -de -sac provides the gentler grade. He pointed out the existing grade on Alice Lane is 10 percent. In addition, Mr. Johnson stated he would be willing to cut the grade on the plans back to 7 percent, possibly 6 percent. He noted this will increase the driveway slightly. Councilmember Smith felt there to be a large rise and Mr. Johnson explained this will not rise three feet up from the cul -de -sac. He intends to cut into the existing rise for the driveway. Mr. Danielson explained there will be steep grades coming from the cul -de -sac and up the driveway. Mr. Johnson noted he will be designing and building all of the homes. Councilmember Dwyer noted if everything were to be pushed back, Mr. Johnson would not require any variances. He inquired whether it was Mr. Johnson's opinion as a builder that pushing the project back and utilizing the extended cul -de -sac would be undesirable. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to enhance the value of the property by Page No. 9 September 1, 1998 maintaining the existing trees. Mayor Mertensotto remarked that often times the trees are removed in any event. Councilmember Smith was not opposed to the long driveways, however, she expressed concern relative to the steepness of the driveways and the longevity of the trees. Mr. Johnson stated most of the trees are spaced and separated by 15 to 20 feet. He also felt the plan involving the shorter cul -de -sac to be the better scenario since moving the homes back would result in significant tree loss. Councilmember Smith inquired whether the survey will include a survey line depicting the setback line. Mr. Johnson stated prior to construction he will survey each lot to determine the most appropriate access point. Councilmember Smith was concerned this plan could actually be accomplished and still have a reasonable grade on the drive. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out Mr. Johnson is able to put in five lots adhering to all of the City standards without the need for a variance. Councilmember Dwyer expressed concern there would be a significant loss of trees. Mayor Mertensotto stated in his experience once the sites are prepared, the trees are removed in order to develop the sites. He felt it would be better for Mr. Johnson to utilize the plan which meets all of the City requirements without the need for a variance. Councilmember Dwyer stated the Council has historically made efforts to save trees. He pointed out the applicant's plan makes an effort to save the trees and a variance is required to accomplish this. Councilmember Krebsbach noted the driveways to be 12 feet wide. Mr. Johnson verified this and stated he intends to keep them to the minimum width possible. Page No. 10 September 1, 1998 Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Johnson the Fire Chief will require a width of 20 feet. Councilmember Smith noted 16 and 17 feet widths have been utilized in the past depending on various conditions which existed. Councilmember Smith commented the setbacks would be in approximately the same place whether the cul -de -sac is in a close location or set back farther and will not make a significant difference in the placement of the homes. Mr. Johnson stated he is attempting to save as many trees as possible. Councilmember Smith stating while she is in favor of saving trees, safety is a first priority and if possible, she would support using the preferred plan reflecting the short cul -de- sac with the longer driveway. Councilmember Smith stated she would prefer to lose some trees rather than compromise safety. She also commented if there is a choice between a reasonable grade on the driveway and sacrificing a minimal number of trees, she would prefer safety first. Jeff Lauritty was present to address the Council and explained his property is located behind Lot 2. He pointed out erosion and drainage plans have not been submitted. Mr. Lauritty pointed out Mr. Johnson provided minimal soil core samples. He reported there is an underground river which runs through Lot 2 and into Mr. Lauritty's property. Mr. Lauritty stated an adequate drainage plan has not been presented and he expressed concern how the drainage will impact his property. Mr. Lauritty noted his agreement with Mayor Mertensotto the trees will probably be removed despite Mr. Johnson's statement. He stated since the root structure of the trees is very shallow, grading for the driveways will most likely destroy the trees. Peter Eagan, 2224 Alice Lane, commented if the Council is going to allow a variance for something other than the setback requirements in consideration of the trees, additional information should be submitted relative to the trees. He Page No. 11 September 1, 1998 explained there is a substantial mount of vegetation which is not depicted on the plan. Jack Hood, 2230 Alice Lane, stated he would like to see four lots in this development, however, if there are to be five, he would like them situated appropriately. Mr. Hood noted his agreement with Mr. Eagan a more accurate tree survey needs to be completed. Mr. Hood also expressed concern one corner of the property is 10 feet higher than the cul -de -sac and he questioned whether this will be handled with the use of a retaining wall. He stated he is uncomfortable with the preparedness of Mr. Johnson and felt there remain a number of issues to be resolved. Steve Lansberger, 2236 Alice Lane, agreed with Mayor Mertensotto relative to the trees which will ultimately be removed. He expressed concern homeowners will find it difficult to maneuver in the proposed driveways with boats, trailers and things of this nature. He requested the Council take more time to consider this matter. Mr. Lansberger expressed concern relative to the trees which will be impacted by this development. Mayor Mertensotto stated in his experience when there is uneven terrain and a number of changes in elevation in the site plan, in the process of grading and preparing the building pads, the unstable soil must be removed and fill is brought in to establish a building pad. This cannot be accomplished utilizing a 12 -foot driveway and the large equipment generally damages the trees. Administrative Assistant Hollister explained the 60 -day period for reviewing his application would expire in approximately 10 days, however, the Council may, under State law, extend this for an additional 60 days. Mr. Lansberger expressed concern relative to increased parking with the addition of five homes. Mayor Mertensotto explained if there is sufficient land and the development meets the requirements of the City, the project cannot be Page No. 12 September 1, 1998 denied. Brent Bryant, 2229 Alice Lane, noted his agreement with Mayor Mertensotto's comments and stated he would not be in agreement with a variance. Mayor Mertensotto expressed concern relative to the issue raised by Mr. Lauritty relative to the grading plan and potential drainage problems. Mr. Lauritty explained there is a spring farther up in the hill flowing down into his lot and the lot to the north. Mr. Johnson did not agree with this and explained there was an underground river which was buried when he dealt with the property. He noted prior to being platted, the entire area was a swamp area. Mr. Lauritty noted one of the lots has not been able to be sold given the fact it is unbuildable due to the swampy conditions. Mayor Mertensotto inquired how the water currently drains off of those lots. Mr. Johnson responded at this time there is excessive undergrowth, and therefore no drainage. Council-member Krebsbach recommended holding this matter over for two weeks for further consideration. Mr. Johnson stated his proposal has been reviewed in great detail by the Planning Commission and they have recommended approval. He noted the Planning Commission found that the preliminary plat meets all of the requirements relative to drainage and erosion control. Mayor Mertensotto commented there is a sufficient amount of land to meet all of the requirements. He also pointed out Mr. Johnson is able to build the maximum number of lots possible with the plan he is using and he did not feel the City would want to become involved in this situation. Councilmember Dwyer felt there to be a problem which requires close City attention whether or not the variance is granted. Page No. 13 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Smith expressed concern if the cul -de -sac is approved where it is situated, the Council is essentially approving the grading plan and there will not be appropriate grading to accomplish some of the things which have been discussed. Councilmember Dwyer pointed out at this time a final grading plan has not been presented for approval. He suggested there are significant grading issues which need to be resolved whether a long or short cul -de -sac is utilized. Mr. Danielson stated there are significant issues relative to grading which need to be resolved. He also pointed out the grading plan submitted reflects mass grading of the site and it is Mr. Johnson's intention to custom grade. Mr. Danielson stated the site plan submitted by Mr. Johnson is not what he is proposing to do. Councilmember Krebsbach stated this to be a complex property and she needs to be clear on what is being approved. She noted she would not be comfortable approving Mr. Johnson's request at this time. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Johnson to allow a minimum of two additional weeks to review this matter. Councilmember Krebsbach felt one option would be to remove a lot, utilizing the short cul -de -sac. Mr. Johnson stated he will not remove a lot with either plan. Councilmember Krebsbach stated the options are then a short versus long cul -de -sac. Councilmember Dwyer commented input will also need to be obtain from the Fire Chief as well. Mayor Mertensotto inquired whether Mr. Johnson would be agreeable to extending this matter an additional two weeks. City Administrator Batchelder explained the Council may extend the 60 -day deadline. He further explained State law does allow 120 days for review and it would be within the Council's prerogative to extend that deadline. Mayor Mertensotto suggested setting goals to be accomplished during this two week extension. Page No. 14 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Krebsbach stated it should be determined whether trees can be saved. The grading plan must be reviewed and input obtained from the Fire Chief as well. Mr. Johnson agreed to a two week extension. Mayor Mertensotto directed the Engineering Department to provide input relative to the grading plan involved with the short cul- de -sac and with the long cul -de -sac. Councilmember Krebsbach moved continuing consideration of Case No. 98 -22: Johnson - Preliminary Plat and Variances for two weeks with the consent of the applicant. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Councilmember Smith questioned whether the trees have been tagged so they are easily identified. Mr. Johnson stated the trees will be obvious to anyone viewing the site. Mr. Lauritty questioned what his recourse would be in the event he continues to have issues relative to drainage. Mayor Mertensotto explained a determination will be made relative to whether the lots can be served by public utilities. If so, this will be done by public improvement project. He stated Mr. Lauritty can put the City on notice he wishes notification of any further hearings on this matter. Councilmember Dwyer stated Mr. Johnson has the right to develop his property in a reasonable manner and the City cannot prevent him from doing so. However, if this development where to have a negative impact on Mr. Lauritty's property, this would have to be addressed. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -27: WINTER Council acknowledged the memo of Administrative Assistant - SUBDIVISION AND Patrick Hollister relative to the request of Dr. Winter to VARIANCE create a flag lot as part of the Winterhaven Subdivision. Dr. Winter was in attendance to discuss his request with the Council. Councilmember Smith noted there was discussion relative to Page No. 15 September 1, 1998 sharing a driveway and she commented Dr. Winter will want to reserve an easement prior to deeding the property for the flag lot. Councilmember Smith stated her agreement with the sentiments of the Planning Commission relative to ultimate planning, however, she did not feel this to be an appropriate case in which to pursue this given the existing home which would preclude anything else from going through. Councilmember Smith inquired as to the minimum pole of the flag which has ever been granted noting this is a 45 -foot access. Dr. West stated there was a typographic error and this should be reflected to be 48 feet. Mr. Danielson explained 43 feet is ample, however, there have been accesses of 30 feet. Councilmember Smith inquired whether there is sufficient width to create another access for the lot to the rear and Mr. Danielson indicated there is sufficient width. Councilmember Krebsbach questioned the exact amount to be specified for frontage road access. Mayor Mertensotto stated this would be based on the survey and would represent the actual dimensions to be utilized. He pointed out if the subdivision plan is approved, this automatically grants the necessary variance. Councilmember Dwyer moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -66, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND A FRONT FOOTAGE VARIANCE FOR 1648 DODD ROAD" Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -28: ST. Council acknowledged the memo of Administrative Assistant PETER'S CHURCH - Patrick Hollister relative to the request of Saint Peter's j SETBACK VARIANCE Church for a one foot setback variance and a three foot AND HEIGHT VARIANCE height variance for a sign. Mr. Neil Black was in FOR A SIGN attendance on behalf of St. Peter's Church. Page No. 16 September 1, 1998 Mr. Black explained the Church's hardship derives from the fact that when Highway 13 was reconstructed, the Church lost part of its parking lot. He further explained the cross at the top of the sign is 3 feet high and that if it is considered a part of the sign, the sign would need a three foot height variance. Mr. Black indicated the sign is triangular so that it can be seen from all directions. Mayor Mertensotto inquired whether the sign will be lighted. Mr. Black provided a diagram of the sign and explained it is internally lit and will illuminate through the letters of the sign. Councihnember Huber asked that Mr. Black compare the illumination of the sign with the City Hall sign. Mayor Mertensotto explained the sign approval is conditioned on the lighting intensity not exceeding that of the existing City Hall sign. Councilmember Huber moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -67, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE AND A THREE FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A SIGN AT SAINT PETER'S CHURCH" Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -29: Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative GHASSEMLOUEI - SIDE Assistant Patrick Hollister relative to the request of YARD SETBACK Gholamreza Ghassemlouei for a six foot side yard setback VARIANCE variance for a porch at the back of his home. Mr. Ghassemlouei was in attendance to address the Council. He explained his hardship derives from the fact that the house is on a narrow lot. He also noted it is impossible to move the porch 10 feet from the garage. Mr. Ghassemlouei also noted all of his neighbors are in agreement with his request. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -30: MENDOTA HEIGHTS GATEWAY COMMONS FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Page No. 17 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -68, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIX FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PORCH AT 999 DELAWARE AVENUE" Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged the memo from Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister regarding the application of Sign Source for a 40 -foot front yard setback variance for a sign for Mendota Heights Gateway Commons. Amy Malchior appeared on behalf of Sign Source to discuss this application with the Council. Ms. Malchior requested permission to locate the sign on the property line. Councilmember Smith inquired relative to the distance from the actual constructed road. Ms. Malchior stated the property line is 34 feet back from the curb. Councilmember Huber inquired relative to lighting of the sign. Ms. Malchior stated the sign will not be lit. Councilmember Smith pointed out the Council is approving the location and not the sign itself. Councilmember Huber asked whether there is any lighting in the area of the sign. Ms. Malchior explained there is a parking lot with a significant amount of lighting. Mayor Mertensotto inquired whether the sign meets the ordinance requirements relative to an industrial area. Mr. Hollister stated it meets all of the specifications with the exception of its location. Mayor Mertensotto questioned how far back the sign is to be located in an industrial area. Mr. Danielson noted the sign is to be set back 40 feet, however, Councilmember Dwyer pointed out there will be 37 feet of land in front of the sign. He clarified there will be a road, curb and 32 feet of land in Page No. 18 September 1, 1998 front of the sign. Councilmember Smith pointed out if the curb is changed for any reason, the street could come very close to the property line, therefore, it would need to be a specified number of feet from the property line or the curb. In addition, if the curb changes, the applicant would need to return to the Council. Ms. Malchior inquired whether it would be acceptable if the sign were not lit. Mayor Mertensotto noted this would be acceptable. Councilmember Smith noted the resolution will need to be amended to reference if the distance from the curb were to change, the applicant would need to come back before the Council. Councilmember Smith pointed out the same language was used in the approval granted the Par Three Golf Course. Administrator Batchelder pointed out similar language was utilized in a prior approval which included a similar sign setback. Mayor Mertensotto directed staff to incorporate the language which was used in a previous resolution of this type. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -69, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SIGN FOR MENDOTA HEIGHTS GATEWAY COMMONS" subject to the sign being located at a distance of 34 feet to the curb. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 98 -31: ST. Council acknowledged the memo from Administrative JOHN - SIDE YARD Assistant Patrick Hollister relative to the request of Gary St. SETBACK VARIANCE John for a four foot side yard setback variance for a driveway and garage with second floor living space. Tamara and Gary St. John were in attendance to discuss their request with the Council. Page No. 19 September 1, 1998 Mr. St. John pointed out he is actually requesting a four foot side yard setback for the garage and a five foot variance for the driveway. Councilmember Smith inquired how close the edge of the garage will be to the property line. Mr. St. John stated the distance is six feet as opposed to the four feet which was indicated in the letter. Councilmember Smith questioned whether the garage will be attached to the main house and Mr. St. John explained it will be attached. He further explained there is currently a stairway from the driveway to the main level. This will be removed and replaced with a garage on the other side of it. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether the existing driveway will be relocated since the survey shows the driveway on the neighbors' property. Mr. Johns explained he currently has a gravel drive which will be moved and improved. A five foot variance will place the driveway on the property line. Councilmember Smith inquired relative to the width of the proposed driveway. Mr. St. John explained he is unsure of the exact width of the driveway, however, he assumes it will be 16 feet wide. He explained the main reason for moving the driveway closer to the property line is the position of the house. Councilmember Smith questioned whether the driveway needs to be the full width all the way down the property line, noting many property owners chose to contour the drive.: Mayor Mertensotto noted this to be a long driveway. Mr. St. John explained the driveway turns approximately 8 feet from the garage which allows him to back out of the garage and turn. Councilmember Smith expressed concern with the driveway being on the property line since it does not allow any room to work. She cautioned if there is a need for a sub base or anything of this nature, she would not want it encroaching on the neighbors driveway. Page No. 20 September 1, 1998 Don and Helen Smith, 611 Ivy Falls Avenue, were in attendance. Mr. Smith stated he is not opposed to the variance, however, he pointed out Mr. St. John operates a construction company from his home. He expressed concern relative to a commercial vehicle which was parked in the driveway for in excess of one year. Mr. Smith expressed concern the business will grow and expand which will result in more vehicles coming and going. Mr. St. John explained he was given verbal permission from the City to park the truck in the driveway. He noted it was parked there for approximately three years and the situation has now been rectified. Councilmember Dwyer inquired whether the problem will be escalated. Mr. St. John stated he has a home office, however, he is not running a commercial operation from his home. He pointed out he now has two pickups parked in the driveway because he does not have a garage. Mr. St. John stated the trucks will be parked in the garage with no commercial vehicles parked on the surface of the driveway. Councilmember Krebsbach felt some screening should be required along the driveway. She suggested moving the driveway over to providing an area for some screening. Councilmember Huber expressed concern this area may need to be used for snow removal. Councilmember Smith pointed out the applicant would not be permitted to store snow to the left of the driveway under any circumstances given the location of his property line. Snow storage would be limited to the right side of the driveway. Mayor Mertensotto questioned whether there are regularly five or six vehicles parked on the premises and Mr. St. John stated this would be on rare occasions when there are visitors to the premises. Councilmember Krebsbach stated her belief there should be less of a variance to allow some land between the two properties. In addition she would like to see some screening to soften this area. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 21 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Smith did not feel the driveway needs to be this particular width and felt there should be a minimum of one foot for storage of snow or any other kind of activity which occurs in the driveway. Public Works Director Danielson explained a driveway variance was not considered by the Planning Commission. At the time this matter was considered by the Planning Commission, the request was for a variance to the house and garage. Councilmember Dwyer moved adopting RESOLUTION NO. 98 -70, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOUR FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE HOUSE AND A THREE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE WITH SECOND STORY LIVING SPACE AND A DRIVEWAY AT 1191 DODD ROAD UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS" to include screening along the curved portion of the driveway as depicted by the applicant. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Dwyer stated this approval will result in an area two feet from the property line to the edge of the driveway. Councilmember Huber commented when the garage is in, the applicant will have to meet the variance perfectly. In the event he has difficulty accessing the garage, he will have to return to the Council to discuss this further. Mayor Mertensotto asked what type of doors will be used on the garage. Mr. St. John stated there will be two single garage doors. Mayor Mertensotto felt it would be advisable to utilize one double door to allow for easier maneuvering of vehicles in and out of the garage. It was noted the survey being used is dated June 8, 1998 along with Mr. St. John's plans dated August 8, 1998. REQUEST TO RECONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY AT 755 WILLOW LANE Page No. 22 September 1, 1998 Mrs. Smith inquired when the construction will be started and then completed. Mr. St. John stated he is uncertain when he will begin the construction since he may need to complete some redesign work. He stated he would like to complete the work this fall. Mr. St. John stated he will be constructing the entire project at one time. He pointed out during the time in which the garage is being constructed, the business truck will need to be parked on the premises during the daytime hours, but not overnight. It was anticipated it will require six months to complete the project. Council acknowledged the memo from Mr. Brian Birch indicating he is dissatisfied relative to how his driveway apron was reconstructed under the Bunker Hills Street Reconstruction Project. Mr. Birch was in attendance to discuss this issue with the Council. Civil Engineer Marc Mogan was in attendance to address this issue as well. Mr. Birch explained a mistake was made which resulted in his driveway being 8 and 3/8 inches too high. Due to this, his car bottoms out entering his driveway. He stated even if this situation were corrected, the City would still have to raise his driveway to allow him to navigate in the winter. Mr. Birch explained at the existing elevations, the City would have to raise all of the concrete work from the street to the inside of the garage floor which would necessitate the home being raised as well. Mr. Birch explained he does not accept the solution suggested by Mr. Mogan for an "S" curve. He stated given the fact people occasionally overshoot the entrance to the driveway and the slope of the drive which is accented by the "S" curve, this solution is unacceptable. Mr. Birch stated he is, therefore, requesting a new driveway which would be relocated from the existing driveway. Mr. Birch added that his landscaping was damaged through the reconstruction of the roadway and he is requesting $5,000 in compensation for this damage. Mr. Birch provided the Council with two solutions to the situation. The first was to reconstruct Willow Lane to meet Page No. 23 September 1, 1998 his existing driveway elevations and correct any drainage problems. The second alternative would be to reconstruct his driveway in accordance with the drawing he submitted. He requested this project be completed by September 30, 1998. Councilmember Smith questioned the purpose of an 18 -foot driveway versus the existing 10 -foot driveway. Mr. Birch stated his intention to make the driveway double wide. He noted there are times snow causes difficulties in getting out of the driveway. Mr. Birch explained there are times when he is parking in his driveway and due to the snow, he cannot get out. His car then blocks the driveway and he is unable to get another car around it, leaving him homebound until such time as he can clear the snow from the driveway. Councilmember Dwyer commented Mr. Birch would have those problems regardless of the improvements which were made. Mr. Birch stated he has difficulties every year gaining enough momentum to get out of his driveway. Mr. Mogan explained the grade was raised, however, the center line of the street was raised approximately three inches. The street is now wider than it previously was. Mr. Mogan further explained Mr. Birch had a slight rise in his original driveway and a slight rise was built into the new driveway. The difference at the location of the new rise in the driveway is approximately six inches. Mr. Mogan pointed out at this time, the issue is the grade on the driveway. In addition he stated the plan he has proposed to Mr. Birch is marginally better than what he had originally, however, this does not meet with Mr. Birch's approval. Councilmember Dwyer asked for Mr. Birch's objection to the "S" curve. Mr. Birch stated aesthetically he does not like that option at all. In addition, he stated the driveway is difficult to negotiate now during the winter months and he anticipates it will be more difficult with an "S" curve. Mr. Mogan suggested if Mr. Birch wishes to use his plan, he should then be responsible for paying the difference. Page No. 24 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Smith noted both Mr. Birch and Mr. Mogan favor an access point to the west. Mr. Mogan explained this eliminates some grade between where he wants to get and where the street is. Mayor Mertensotto inquired whether there is a 16 -foot curb cut. Mr. Mogan stated this to be the current situation. Mayor Mertensotto questioned whether this is in the same area as before. Mr. Mogan explained with either plan, that would have to be relocated 10 feet further to the west to alleviate the problem with vehicles bottoming out. Mr. Birch acknowledged moving 10 feet to the west would bring the driveway back to what it was, however, he refuses to allow an "S" curve. He stated this would also prevent him from widening his driveway. Councilmember Dwyer questioned whether Mr. Birch is asking the City to pay for the widening of his driveway. Mr. Birch expressed his belief the City should pay for the entire driveway in addition to the $5,000 he is requesting for aesthetic devaluation to the property. Mr. Birch explained he has attempted to work with several plans and he noted the main problem comes with maneuvering into the garage particularly with the 10 -foot driveway. Mr. Birch stated he had not planned any changes to his driveway. At the time of construction, he decided he would like to widen the driveway to the east. Mayor Mertensotto inquired what would have to be done to restore the driveway to its previous state. Mr. Birch stated the entire driveway will have to be reconstructed. Councilmember Dwyer stated if the City has any obligation to restore the property to its condition prior to the construction project, this obligation could be satisfied by putting in a 10 -foot driveway. Mr. Birch expressed his disagreement and stated this would not satisfy him at all. Page No. 25 September 1, 1998 Mr. Birch stated he has an L- shaped property. Moving the property 23 feet into his front entry will ruin the aesthetics of his property. Mr. Birch stated his own proposal very definitely ruins the aesthetics of his driveway. Councilmember Smith questioned whether the driveway in its existing location can be rebuilt. She noted the existing driveway to be concave and asked whether there could be some reconstruction along the existing driveway making it straight rather than concave. Mr. Birch was not agreeable to this proposal. Mr. Birch stated the street was put in wrong and if he is going to accept this plan which he dislikes and it impacts on the aesthetics of his property, the City will construct the plan and provide him the $5,000 as well. Councilmember Krebsbach did not feel the Council could approve Mr. Birch's driveway plan given his belief it will ruin the aesthetics of his property. Mayor Mertensotto stated the solution must be the existing driveway to correct the problem. Mr. Birch stated he will pursue legal action on this matter. Mayor Mertensotto questioned whether the $5,000 claim should be turned over to the City's insurance carrier and Mr. Birch was in agreement with this, however, he stated this claim will not remain at $5,000. Mayor Mertensotto explained the City did not do anything intentionally. He noted Mr. Birch had problems with the driveway prior to this. Mayor Mertensotto felt getting back to the driveway that was there will correct the problem and prevent bottoming out. Mayor Mertensotto stated the City will do what has to be done to avoid the bottoming out on the 10 -foot drive, however, the City will not fund a relocation of the driveway. Mr. Birch stated he will not allow that construction on his driveway. Mr. Birch inquired how much money the City makes on the Page No. 26 September 1, 1998 50 percent deduct to the contractor for the chipping of the curb. He stated his proposal to be a reasonable conclusion which will cost less than what the City is charging the contractor. Mayor Mertensotto explained the taxpayers are underwriting the future repair of that roadway. Councilmember Smith pointed out the City does not pocket the 50 percent deduct. That will likely be a reimbursement to the property owners for the work which was done. Councilmember Dwyer felt the City has made a reasonable proposal which addresses the issue of grades. He suggested if there is a temporary fix, this should be done and if Mr. Birch wishes to pursue the matter further, he may. Mayor Mertensotto felt a permanent solution could be achieved working with the existing driveway. He questioned whether working with the existing driveway would be acceptable to the Council and they noted their agreement. Mayor Mertensotto stated if this is unacceptable to Mr. Birch, he may file a claim with the City. Mr. Birch stated he will withdraw the $5,000 claim and refile the entire matter at one time. Mayor Mertensotto stated if a claim is made, it will be turned over to the City's msurer. Mayor Mertensotto recessed the meeting at 10:35 p.m. and left the meeting at that time. Councilmember Smith reconvened the meeting at 10:40 p.m. REQUEST TO MOUNT Council acknowledged the memo from Administrative ANTENNAE ON WATER Assistant Patrick Hollister relative to the request of TOWER - AMERICAN American Portable Telecom to mount antennae on the water PORTABLE TELECOM tower. Attorney Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, appeared on behalf of American Portable Telecom along with Mike O'Rourke, Director of Operations for APT, and Steve Katkov, Real Estate Director for APT. Mr. Coyle stated he is seeking the approval of Council for formal lease negotiations to commence with staff. Page No. 27 September 1, 1998 Mr. Coyle reviewed the request being made by American Portable Telecom. He noted the only site which can be pursued, short of constructing a free standing tower, is the water tower site. Councilmember Huber inquired whether the Sibley site had been considered. Mr. O'Rourke stated when they were contacted, they were not interested in adding additional carriers. Councilmember Smith noted that the City has its own form of easement that it prefers to use and a market rate for use of the Mendota Heights water tower has been established. Councilmember Smith stated that aesthetics are important to the City and she would like to explore the best location and setting for the equipment. She noted their plans call for an encased mechanism surrounded by an 8 -foot chain link fence for secuirty rather than a brick structure as has previously been used. Councilmember Smith questioned whether the appearance of the structure could be softened, noting their plans call for an encased mechanism surrounded by an 8 -foot chain link fence for security. Mr. Coyle felt if there is an issue with a chain link fence, this could be substituted with a wood type fence and he would be willing to discuss this with staff to reach a resolution. Mr. O'Rourke addressed the Council explaining the housing would be 3' x 3' x 5'. He pointed out many cities have utilized pine tree plantings for screening around the equipment. In addition, he stated he would be willing to locate the equipment where it will not interfere with the work associated with the water tower. Administrator Batchelder stated the Council should also decide whether this action will require a Conditional Use Permit. The new ordinance does not specify whether someone locating on City property has to apply for the Page No. 28 September 1, 1998 Conditional Use Permit required by the ordinance. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she is comfortable with the request as long as the building is moved so it is not visible from Lexington Avenue. Councilmember Smith suggested given the size of the equipment, if there is sufficient space for another mezzanine within the tower, this could be considered. Councilmember Dwyer suggested allowing lease negotiations to commence with the applicant returning to the Council with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Smith noted her agreement with Councilmember Dwyer. She stated it will be important to notify the surrounding property owners there is going to be a change. In addition, she stated she would support utilizing the Conditional Use Permit process. Mr. Coyle noted his recollection based on the discussion at the time the ordinance was adopted, the way in which it was structured was to encourage co- location on an existing structure and a Conditional Use Permit would not be required. He stated requiring a Conditional Use Permit creates a disincentive in pursuing this site since it levels the playing field between a freestanding tower and co- location on an existing structure. Councilmember Smith expressed concern the surrounding industrial area could possibly suffer interference from this equipment and felt they should be made aware of the application to determine whether there will be interference which would impact on the businesses in the area in which the water tower is located. Mr. Coyle would be willing to work with staff to ensure notice is provided. He did not feel interference would be an issue given the technology the FCC licenses to APT and other companies by design is intended to be limited to a radio frequency range which is not something which would cause interference. Mr. Coyle pointed out there has never Page No. 29 September 1, 1998 been an interference issue raised which has been validated. Councilmember Smith directed staff to investigate the possibility of an agreement with American Portable Telecom, addressing the concern relative to notice and determining whether there is an alternative process which can be utilized. Councilmember Krebsbach stated she would prefer to follow the Conditional Use Permit process. She did not feel the technology to be any different from what is on the tower. Councilmember Krebsbach felt if people were not opposed to the existing equipment, they would probably not object to this equipment. Mr. Coyle pointed out this is an issue of frequency and although the technology is different, the frequency would be somewhat higher. Mr. O'Rourke explained Sprint is at similar frequencies and has not experienced any issues of interference. Councilmember Huber noted his agreement with Councilmember Dwyer and stated he would be in favor of beginning negotiations. Mr. Hollister reviewed the cellular antennae ordinance which stated if both the applicant and the City consent to mounting the antennae on the City's water tower or other municipal building, a Developer's Agreement may be necessary at the discretion of the City in addition to a Conditional Use Permit. It was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to begin lease negotiations. Negotiations should include discussion relative to screening as well as location of the equipment. Councilmember Smith stated she would like the standard lease language the City currently uses included in the agreement utilizing the existing market rate. NDC4 1999 DRAFT Council acknowledged the memo from City Administrator BUDGET Kevin Batchelder relative to the second reading of the NDC4 1999 Draft Budget. Councilmember Huber commented with respect to questions which were raised relative to the proposed budget. He Page No. 30 September 1, 1998 explained the increase in Conference and Training was for additional computer training relative to accounting and Windows 3.1 upgrades. With respect to the franchise renewal, there is an increase in the Operating Expense of $10,000 and $50,000 in the Legal, Special Projects, and Joint Powers Renewal Process. Councilmember Huber explained the franchise expires in 2000, therefore, the franchise renewal process must begin. This will probably result in a discussion of the Joint Powers Agreement. Councilmember Huber stated prior to incurring any legal expenses, there will be discussions with Media One and any expenses which are recoverable will be pursued. Councilmember Huber noted there is a decrease in Promotions as a result of program guide costs coming in less than anticipated. In addition NDC4 is receiving some in kind benefit from Sun Current for advertisements which are run in the newspaper. The budge reflects a 5 percent increase in salaries, however, this increase will not be applicable to all positions. Councilmember Huber pointed out a 3 percent increase is being utilized by the City for its employees. Councilmember Huber stated there is a provision in the budget for Member Cities Production Services. This expenditure is to assist cities in the production of training type videos. Councilmember Krebsbach felt the increase which is approved relative to salaries should be consistent with that of City staff, resulting in a 3 percent increase versus the 5 percent which is proposed. Councilmember Smith noted her agreement and suggested asking NDC4 to set a standard which is consistent with the participating cities. She commented a status change should be differentiated from a salary increase. Page No. 31 September 1, 1998 Councilmember Krebsbach moved approving the NDC4 1999 Draft Budget noting the standard salary increase for City employees is 3 percent unless there is a change of status due to education or job classification. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach inquired relative to the elm trees in Marie Park and whether they have been removed. Mr. Danielson stated his understanding they have been removed, however, he will investigate this matter. Councilmember Dwyer requested staff investigate the sidewalk located in the vicinity of Pondview and Waters Edge Terrace. He noted the sidewalk has sunk and the curb has not, leaving an 8 inch base of the curb which has caused difficulties for children bicycling in the area. Councilmember Dwyer also reported the sidewalk going east along the Old America store located at the Mendota Plaza comes to an abrupt end and drops approximately four feet into the parking lot without any warning. Mr. Danielson stated he will investigate this situation as well. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith adjourned the meeting. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:25 p.m. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 32 September 1, 1998 Prepared by Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off -Site Secretarial, Inc. September 18, 1998 Mayor C. Mertensotto City Council of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hts., MN 55118 From: Gary & Tamara St. John 1191 Dodd Road Mendota Hts., MN 55118 SEP 2 Ur 1998 Re: City Council Meeting on September 1, 1998. Case #98 -31: St. John - Side Yard Setback Variance/Resolution Case #98 -70. Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The main reason for this letter is that we feel you have heard only one side to the story regarding the accusations made against us by the Smiths at the council meeting. We are thankful that our variance was approved by the council, however, we were very disappointed in the fact that the Smiths were given freedom to express all kinds of accusations against us with your support. We feel the council was negatively influenced by a letter the Smiths had sent to the council prior to the meeting on Sept. 1st.. This letter contained accusations about us which are false, depicting us as 2nd class citizens who are not worthy of living in this area nor next door to them. It also labeled us as irresponsible people who have junk laying around our yard and who don't care about anyone's property. It angers us that these issues as well as the "truck" issue, (which had been settled with the City and Jim Danielson in June of 1997), were given so much time with no real chance for us to rebut any of these issues. We felt put on the spot by the council, questioned as though we were being put on trial, and scolded as little children. We would like to set the record straight as to the truth of these matters. We would like the City, as well as, the Chief of Police to be aware of what we have been facing. The Smiths have been unhappy with us since the "truck" issue, (which was resolved in 6/'97). Their true feelings for various reasons were not expressed until the demolition of our garage in 6/'98. There have been several encounters with the Smiths where they have been verbally abusive and confrontive. The Novotnys, (neighbors on Smith's other side), have witnessed two of these episodes and the police dept. has on record a call made by us on the 25th of April, 1998 requesting mediation as a result of Smith's verbally abusive and irrational behavior. We have been under constant surveillance by this couple. They frequently take pictures of our property, stand on their deck and glare, and have even confronted our friends and company with abusive behavior. The most troubling to us is their frequent episodes of profanity used in front of our 3 children. Our children have been frightened by them and are often afraid to play in the yard as a result. This kind of behavior is just shy of harassment in our estimation. We felt that this issue needed to be addressed. We have lived here for eight years and have had good relationships with all of our other neighbors. Not once has anyone complained about anything. Six of our neighbors came to support us at the City Planning meeting, four of which spoke. This can be found in the minutes from that meeting. We would like to also clear up a rumor that has been brought to our attention. We have been told that this rumor has been circulating around the City Office of Mendota Heights. We would like to state that what ever anyone has heard concerning a "heated" argument between the Smiths and us after the Council meeting on Sept. 1st. is completely false. We were, in fact, talking with Gerry Murphy up until we left and had no contact with the Smiths. Gerry Murphy can confirm this. Also, please note that there were many errors in the City Planning Committee minutes regarding our variance issue and incorrect names of neighbors that came in support of us. Please share this letter with all of the Council Members and include it in our file for future reference. Thank you very much. Sincerely, J". i Gary & Tamara St. John GSJ /td cc: Jim Danielson cc: Chief of Police, Scott Johnson cc: Gerry Murphy