Loading...
1994-11-01 Council minutesNovember 1, 1994 Page No. 4184 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, November 1, 1994 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, 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 Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Koch moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for October. b. Adoption of Resolution No. 94 -75, "A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.152 TO 469.1651, ON BEHALF OF NORTHWEST NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY." c. Adoption of Ordinance No. 299, "AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE CHANGE OF NAME OF PERRON ROAD TO PERRON ROAD EAST AND WEST; STATE HIGHWAY 110 FRONTAGE ROAD TO CENTRE POINTE CURVE; AND NAMING OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 55 FRONTAGE ROADS TO WATERS DRIVE AND LEMAY LAKE ROAD, " amended to remove the renaming of old T.H. 13 to Galtier Road for further discussion and to direct staff to publish the ordinance. d. Authorization for DSU to commence Phase 2 of the T.H. 55 Corridor Study. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4185 e. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the October 27 Planning Commission meeting. f. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated November 1, 1994 and attached hereto. g. Approval of the list of claims dated November 1, 1994 and totaling $266,791.08. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Fred Moore and Mrs. Lillian Hill were present to express concern over filling which is occurring on the Werthauser lot on T.H. 13, which is located in the critical area. Mr. Moore informed Council that 2,000 cubic yards of fill have already been delivered to the site. He stated that when Mr. Werthauser appeared at the October Planning Commission meeting for a retaining wall variance there had already been 800 cubic feet delivered. He stated that the Public Works Director sent the owner a letter to stop filling but he did not. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council approved a building permit for Mr. Werthauser's new home because all of the critical area conditions had been met and no variances or critical area permits were required. He explained that there was no basis to rescind the permit after its approval but when it was determined that the owner was bringing in more fill he was notified to cease. He explained that Council can work to mitigate the problem and can control the filling because a conditional use permit is required and because filling could change the course of surface water drainage. He stated that the property owner is not present but has filed an application for conditional use permit for filling and will come before the Planning Commission who will address the facts and make a recommendation to Council. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that Council should require a halt in the filling before any more occurs and expressed her concern over the integrity of the bluff. She stated that she would like the city to enforce the letter directing that filling cease until city review occurs. She also stated that she would like to revoke the building permit. Mayor Mertensotto suggested holding a special Council meeting to give the owner an opportunity to be heard. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4186 After lengthy discussion, Councilmember Krebsbach moved to conduct a special meeting on November 7 at 7:00 p.m. to consider whether or not to rescind the building permit for the Werthauser property in regards to the fill permit which is on file with the city to be processed by 'the Planning Commission. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Staff was directed to notify the property owner of the meeting and advise him that he or his representative should be present. Staff was also directed to invite the Planning Commission members to attend if they desire. FRIENDLY HILLS TASK Council acknowledged receipt of the Friendly Hills Task Force FORCE Report along with a memo from Civil Engineer Marc Mogan and proposed resolution ordering preparation of a feasibility report for street reconstruction in the Friendly Hills Additions and on Pagel Road. Mr. Mike Blake, representing the task force, stated that the task force recommends that the Council authorize the reconstruction project as described in the report. Councilmember Koch moved adoption of Resolution No. 94-76, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FRIENDLY HILLS TASK FORCE REPORT AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR FRIENDLY HILLS 1 ST, 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS AND PAGEL ROAD STREET RECONSTRUCTION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 6)," and calling for a feasibility hearing on December 6. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PENTEL ANTENNA Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding the Pentel antenna variance application, a letter from Ms. Pentel's legal counsel, Mr. John Bellows, to city legal counsel Eric Nystrom regarding roof mounted towers, and a supplemental report from Mr. Geoffrey Jillson, Guy Engineering, dated October 26, 1994, which reviewed the information provided by Mr. Bellows. Mr. Bellows and the city's experts, Mr. Jillson and Dr. John Dubois, were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto, asked Mr. Bellows if he had found any tower sources in addition to Create Design and Glen Martin Engineering November 1, 1994 Page No. 4187 since he wrote his letter. He also asked if Mr. Bellows had received a copy of Mr. Jillson's report. Mr. Bellows responded that he received Mr. Jillson's report and that he is aware that ROHN manufactures towers but they are not commonly used in amateur communications. He stated that Ms. Pentel has been involved in the antenna variance process since December 1990 and no progress has been made. He further stated that at the last meeting, the roof tower issue was raised and he had indicated that it would not be appropriate because a study would have to be done to determine if the roof structure was adequate to handle the tower and antenna. He questioned whether the height would be appropriate, stating that the maximum antenna height of 40 to 42 feet that a roof mount tower would carry would not be adequate. Mr. Bellows stated that when he received the Jillson report yesterday, it was the first time that the issue was raised with respect to power lines. He stated that Ms. Pentel has tried to compromise and has agreed that the UBC requirements for weight load and ice was appropriate, but each time he comes before Council the standards shift and he is asked for something new. Mr. Bellows stated that it is significant that the city must impose the minimum regulation necessary to accomplish its concerns and felt that the roof -mount antenna/tower is less structurally sound than ground mount and it does not meet the minimum Ms. Pentel needs. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council is trying to make a determination on what a reasonable accommodation is. He pointed out that the city's expert has indicated that if the tower /antenna is on the roof and the tower fell, it would stay on Ms. Pentel's property. He stated that Mr. Bellows is asking for the "cadillac" rather than reasonable accommodation. Mr. Bellows stated that the comment about where the antenna would fall assumes the tower would fail at its base, but they generally fail elsewhere. He stated that Ms. Pentel is asking for a "chevy," a 68 foot ground mount tower that meets 80 mph wind loads and radial ice requirements within the confines of the property, a turning radius of less than 20 feet, 40 feet in diameter. He felt that the "cadillac" would be either a log periodic antenna which has an extremely long boom and turning radius of 30 feet or more and height of maybe 120 feet. He stated that the original application was for a 68 foot antenna, which he and his client felt was a compromise. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mrs. Pentel would be willing to locate it immediately adjacent to her house such that it would be supported against the structure if it is not mounted on the house. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4188 . Mr. Bellows responded that it is his understanding that with self supporting towers bracketed against a structure you sometimes lose structural integrity. He stated that it could be free standing adjacent to the house if there is a concrete base of a certain width, but it would have to be three to four feet away from the house. Ms. Pentel prefers to go up and down if she can find a tower that meets Council's requirements. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Jillson has said that the city cannot rely on Ms. Pentel to retract the antenna. He informed Mr. Bellows that the height ordinance requirement is not intended to eliminate ham radio towers but rather is for any use in residential districts - which that brings in the issues of light, and air - and neighbors say if it is on top the house they will not have to look at it from eye level. Mr. Bellows responded that it is in the back yard so those across the street will not see it, but if it is on top of the house they will see it. Mayor Mertensotto asked what kind of operating situations Ms. Pentel will have if she has a retracting tower. He asked if she would not be operating 24 hours a day, and suggested that perhaps there could be a use limitation as a condition. Mr. Bellows responded that use should be unlimited and, for example, for Council to say that could not be used during the day time would not be acceptable. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it was her understanding that Ms. Pentel originally asked 68 feet but the court ruling was to find a concession between 68 feet and the city's request that she not do it. She asked what Ms. Pentel's concession is. Mr. Bellows responded that the question is whether there is a reasonable compromise being offered and that he is saying that Ms. Pentel's original proposal was a reasonable compromise. He stated that the circuit court was specific that the obligation of the city is to reasonably accommodate Ms. Pentel and that the local authority is obligated to enforce the minimum practical regulation. Mr. Jim Plummer stated that the original application was for 68 feet and now the city is being lead to believe this is a compromise. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4189 Mayor Mertensotto responded that it is a question of what is a reasonable accommodation so that she can maintain her amateur communications license. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council is being asked to make a judgment outside of its expertise and asked Dr. Dubois if the applicant needs five bands to do what she is trying to do. Dr. Dubois responded that she needs 10, 15 and 20 meter bands. Mr. Bellows stated that she needs 10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 meter bands. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no question that Ms. Pentel will have the right to install a tower but the question is whether it will be free standing or roof mounted, where it will be located and what height. He asked Dr. Dubois for his expert opinion in regard to what would be a reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operations to receive and transmit on those five bands. He explained that after Dr. Dubois addresses that, the height of the tower and the diameter of the antenna on top, then Council will submit that opinion to Mr. Jillson and he will tell Council what is available under those criteria to reasonably accommodate her request and what Council's options are with respect to free standing or roof mounted. He further stated that Mr. Bellows can submit written information on the same things at the same time. Mr. Bellows stated that the Hall information which he submitted in January 1991 is his response. Councilmember Smith stated that one of the things that needs to be accomplished is to accommodate reasonable reliability. She asked Dr. Dubois if is there any thing that is standard for reasonable reliability. Dr. Dubois responded that the standard ( the quiescent sun condition) is recognized as the norm and is 85 % of the time because it is affected by weather conditions. He stated that 60 percent reliability is a good number but it is variable. He explained that the reason she wants a beam antenna is to direct the power in one relatively narrow direction. The antenna she asks for has the maximum amount of directivity. He explained that as an antenna increases in height the antenna gain increases and Ms. Pentel wants an antenna that is very high gain and the optimum height. He stated that page 17 -4 of the amateur handbook talks about the most favored elevation angle at 15 degrees, which turns out to be 66 to 68 feet -the Cadillac is about 68 feet - although the circuit court said to November 1, 1994 Page No. 4190 compromise. He stated that a directional effect will be established as long as the antenna is any height above ground and while 20 to 30 feet is not acceptable and 40 possibly is not, in his opinion the best compromise is 50 feet for a directional antenna. He explained that 50 feet is optimum for some of her frequencies, 10 and 15 meter bands and maybe 17 meters, and she would still have propagation at the other meters. Mayor Mertensotto asked Dr. Dubois to put his recommendation in writing so that it can be easily understood. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city could not retain better expertise than Dr. Dubois and Mr. Jillson and she would be confident in the recommendation of 50 feet. Dr. Dubois stated that there are various types of antennas which could be put at 50 feet - less than that height is not acceptable and 68 feet is optimum. He explained that the width is fixed by the frequencies of interest and the width of the elements is fixed by the laws of physics. The number of arms and the distance between them increases the gain. Responding to a question from Councilmember Huber, he stated that every ham operator has the same receiver and transmitter and the variable is the signal strength: Ms. Pentel wants to talk as far as possible. Councilmember Huber asked why someone an individual would want to communicate with in Siberia would want or need a 20 meter frequency rather than 10. Dr. Dubois responded that sometimes the sun has absorbed the ionosphere so it will not support a signal at 10 meters but will at 20 meters. At some times of the day 20 meters would be used because it is only usable path to get to Siberia because of atmospheric conditions. Mr. Bellows stated that on a periodic basis the sun spots also affect frequencies that are available and in a few years 10 meters will only be available on an infrequent basis. He further stated that 12 meters is only available on an infrequent basis and the only ones that are available on a regular basis are 17 or 20 meters. Operators are forced to use certain bands because of time of day and where they fall within the sun spot cycle. Councilmember Huber asked if there are people in Siberia, for example, that she cannot communicate with because their equipment is not adequate to pick up her signal. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4191 Dr. Dubois responded that there are many, and what she is trying to do is upgrade her end to do the best she can with her antenna regardless of what is on the other end. A good antenna for transmitting is a good antenna for receiving. Councilmember Smith stated that it has been discussed that one can enhance an antenna by adding cross members and a longer boom. She asked what is a reasonable accommodation for an antenna operator. Dr. Dubois responded that the optimum appears to be about 8 decibels and the one Ms. Pentel is looking at is about 6.5. He explained that all the antennas being considered tonight are amateur antennas that come in big, small and medium size and Ms. Pentel is asking for the optimum of what is available to amateurs. He stated that there has never been any compromise on her part. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Dr. Dubois would select the highest possible site he could find if he were a ham operator concerned about getting these communications. Dr. Dubois responded that he would move to the country and put up a large antenna at the optimum height. He informed Council that he is a ham operator and has moved to the country in Wisconsin. Mayor Mertensotto stated that one problem Council has is that there is no information on the width of the lot or house. Mr. Jim Plummer responded that 60 feet is the maximum width of the lot. Mayor Mertensotto asked Dr. Dubois for a written recommendation on what is the reasonable accommodation. Councilmember Smith asked Dr. Dubois to include in the report how many frequencies are available at certain heights and antenna widths. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council is trying to get to a position where it can balance the city interest and the applicant's interest within the parameters of PRB -1. He stated that Dr. Dubois will give a written opinion and it will be passed it on to Mr. Jillson (after the dimensions of the lot are known) to report on what is available. Mr. Jillson stated that there are a number of manufacturers of roof mount antennas, including the two (Glen Martin Engineering and Create Design Company) discussed in Mr. Bellows' letter and November 1, 1994 Page No. 4192 ROHN. He informed Council that he has done some ice load calculations and, in this area, radial ice load would cut the structural integrity of a tower in half. He stated that Ms. Pentel proposes a five band, Telex Hy -Gain THl 1DX antenna, and the literature on it states that "it is designed to give the maximum DX performance to the serious amateur." He informed Council that this is the biggest multi -beam antenna made by Telex and results in the highest wind loading and largest space occupied by the antenna -- the footprint the antenna generates is about 37 by 24, slightly smaller than the plan area of the house. The other antennas manufactured by Telex, except for log periodic antennas, are smaller in dimension and surface area for wind loading. The roof mount tower has a total load of only several hundred pounds and with ice would go up about 25 %. He stated that he has received and reviewed many pages of information on ROHN antennas, informing Council that ROHN is one of the oldest manufactures in the country of commercial and amateur antennas. He stated that on all drawings ROHN warns to not install within towers within falling distance of power lines at the risk of injury or death, and further stated that ROHN has also taken out public safety ads as public service announcements in the "QST" magazine. Mr. Jillson informed Council that review of the Telex material indicates that in addition to the model proposed by Ms. Pentel, the company makes about nine antennas that cover the frequency bands proposed by Ms. Pentel. He stated that "Mosely" makes antennas in the size proposed by the applicant in five band range and they refer to them as commercial antennas. With respect to being able to install antennas that meet the safety criteria of not being able to fall on power lines, roof mounting is doable and practical, and roof mount towers are readily available from many manufacturers. Mr. Jillson distributed copies of the "QST" ad on Telex Hy Gain from the magazine to Council along with technical information from the Telex specifications on the antennas. He explained that with ice load, the tower could carry about 25% of the antenna proposed by Ms. Pentel but while the tower is incompatible with the proposed antenna, there are many antennas available which could be roof mounted. Mr. Bellows stated that he feels the discussion on the antenna is going nowhere, and before he comes back to Council he would like to meet with Mr. Jillson, Dr. Dubois and City Attorney Nystrom so that he can come back with something that would have some uniformity. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4193 Mr. Jillson stated that on two occasions he has made very quantitative reports so that Mr. Bellows could review them, and redesign the antenna/tower. He informed Council that he has never seen a 100 foot antenna, and the antenna being requested is the largest made for this application. Mr. Bellows responded that he would be happy to provide photos of towers and antennas. Mr. Jillson stated that he would prefer technical literature with sizes and technical parameters. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Bellows to pass on technical literature with sizes and technical parameters to Mr. Nystrom who would submit the information to Mr. Jillson and Dr. Dubois. He directed Dr. Dubois and Mr. Jillson to then report to Administrator Lawell and Attorney Nystrom. Mr. Nystrom would be responsible for submitting the information to Mr. Bellows. Councilmember Huber stated that he would like the experts and legal counsels to at least agree on what they do not agree on before the next meeting. He felt that it would be appropriate for Mr. Nystrom to try to give some sort of definition. Mr. Bellows stated that he is suggesting coming in with some information on towers and antennas that is more in line with what the applicant wants but still addresses wind load and radial ice load so that the matter can be dealt with in some kind of framework. He stated that he will not propose a tower and antenna that he knows to be structurally unsound within the criteria of the UBC. Mr. Jillson agreed, if the experts can set forth parameters that need to be met. He pointed out that the parameter that is put forth by ROHN is quite clear that the tower should not be installed in a location where it would fall on power lines. He pointed out that any free standing tower would not comply with that safety criteria and the criteria could only be met if the tower is roof mounted on the west side of the structure. He stated that the city's experts should be reviewing designs submitted by the applicant and that he did not think city representatives should proceed unless Mr. Bellows retains an engineer. Mr. Bellows responded that he will provide manufacturer's information on structural design. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4194 Dr. Dubois stated that he does not expect that he and Mr. Jillson would do structural engineering and suggested that Mr. Jillson inform them on what he on what he comes up with on gains etc. Mayor Mertensotto stated that everything should be coordinated through Attorney Nystrom, that the experts should review all facts in advance of the next Council discussion and if they cannot agree they should so inform Council. Mrs. Pat Kasheimer stated that it is her perception that the city has hired very good experts who have given reports and have come back with everything that Council has requested. She stated that Council needs to listen to what they say, and what they have said is that what is proposed is unsafe and unacceptable. She further stated that all Ms. Pentel has come back with is the same 68 foot antenna and tower proposal and she should have the burden to come back with a proposal. Ms. Kasheimer stated that she is waiting to hear the compromise from the other side. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the city is under the directive of the court to reasonably accommodate Ms. Pentel's application which is why he asked Mr. Bellows what they are proposing. He explained that now the city is going to try to do the process through its legal counsel to see if the suggestions of Dr. Dubois can be refined. Discussion on the matter was continued to December 6. RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:20 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS Two gentlemen in the audience asked about the status of the Mendota Homes proposal for townhouses and a day care center on Mendota Heights Road on the former Putnam property. Mayor Mertensotto responded that one of the problems with the proposal is the day care center. He stated that the center is apparently proposed to serve 117 children, which is the equivalent of a small elementary school. He informed the Council and audience that he has approached Mr. Putnam to see if it would be possible for the city to acquire the one acre child care center site. Mr. Putnam informed him that a purchase agreement is pending to Child Tyme, Inc., but that he would make the site available to the city for $125,000. The developer has agreed to purchase the lot back from the city, so that the property would meet the 10 acre PUD minimum, and the developer would agree to placing a conservation easement over the lot, and would then develop the remaining 9 acres in November 1, 1994 Page No. 4195 townhouses. He explained that there have been no approvals given to the proposal, but rather that it is a proposal so that the city does not get into another lawsuit. One of the residents informed Council that there is strong neighborhood opposition to the day care center and the associated traffic problems. He did not think there is any opposition to the townhouses. CASE NO. 94 -34, Mr. Chris Schneeman, 1561 Park Circle, was present in support of SCHNEEMAN his application for a front yard fence height variance. Council acknowledged receipt of associated staff reports. Mr. Schneeman informed Council that he proposes to install a scalloped, picket style fence ranging in height at the top from 48 inches to 40 inches on the eastern most portion of his corner lot in the area defined as a front yard by city ordinances. A gate and eight foot high rose arbor is proposed as an entrance to the area, which serves as the rear yard of the lot. The fence along the south lot line will be six foot tall one by six cedar boards - there will be no fencing on the north side of the lot. Councilmember Huber stated that he has spoken to the neighbors and they were very supportive of the proposal. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to find that the proposed fence is an improvement to the yard and neighborhood and find that it provides screening and safety for the yard, and to approve a fence. height variance to allow a forty eight inch fence with an eight foot high rose arbor, in accordance with a revised site plan dated June 20, 1994. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Huber added that the city action bears no relationship to any covenants which may exist in the development. CASE NO. 94 -31, UNITED Council acknowledged an application from the United Church of CHURCH OF CHRIST Christ for a sign variance to allow the addition of a temporary message board, totaling 32 feet is size) to the existing church sign located at 680 Highway 110. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Jean Lufkin, Moderator for the church, explained that the proposal is to add an eight by two foot message board between the legs of the existing sign to advertise some of the church's special November 1, 1994 Page No. 4196 activities. She explained that the sign is three -sided now, elevated above the ground and the shrubs would be cut on the side facing the highway. It was noted that the church has in the past received a variance for the size and location of the existing sign. Mayor Mertensotto expressed concern that the sign is quite far back from the highway right -of -way and he did not want the church to come back in the future and say the city gave them a size of this many feet and they want to move it closer to the highway. He stated that approval would have to be with the understanding that the size is a given and the sign cannot be relocated. He informed Ms. Lufkin that the variance only applies to the sign where it is presently located. Ms. Lufkin responded that the existing sign is permanently installed in a cement base and there is no intent to relocate it. There was also discussion over a sign request from Somerset School which had not been approved, and it was noted that the conditions of the two requests are different in the Church is requesting only an addition to the existing sign as opposed to a new sign. Councilmember Huber moved to approve the sign size variance to allow a temporary sign (message board) of thirty two (32) square feet to be added to the existing sign at its present location and as it applies to that permanent location only and with the understanding that there will be no further temporary signs. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 94 -32, HEAVER Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Keith Heaver for approval of a subdivision to adjust property lines for three lots in the North Ivy Hills Second Addition. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no statutory authority for amending the lot lines of a plat and informed Mr. Heaver that he must replat the lots. Mr. Heaver responded that it is his understanding that he is keeping the same property lines but including additional square footage to the different lots. He explained that he is planning to sell a portion November 1, 1994 Page No. 4197 of Lot 2 to Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 1 to Lot 2. The property lines are staying the same, but he is adding square footage to the lots. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that Mr. Heaver met with the planner and reviewed the request and the planner felt that the request meets the criteria of the exemption clause of the subdivision ordinance and could proceed as a simple lot division. Mayor Mertensotto responded that there are easement vacations which must occur and new easements need to be granted. He stated that the dimensions of a platted lot cannot be changed and that Council cannot amend a plat by Council resolution. Mr. Heaver stated that he does not want to change any of the existing easements and may not have to because some of the utilities between Lots 2 and 3 are not located within the easement area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the easement area would then have to be expanded in reference to the lot line which was established by the plat. Mr. Heaver informed Council that the orientation of all of the lots is to the northwest and adding ten feet to Lot 3 will provide more rear yard area and a better view for the home on the lot. He explained that the owner of Lot 3 may at some time in the future want to install a pool in the back yard and there is not enough room. He further stated that the owner of Lot 3 will landscape along the increased square footage. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Heaver that it would be very difficult to now split off part of Lot 2 and later come back for a variance because Mr. Heaver would be creating the hardship. Mr. Heaver responded that all of the lots exceed the minimum required lot size and the front line of Lot 2 is 104 feet wide. Responding to a question about utility location, Mr. Heaver stated that there is an electric box between Lots 2 and 3 that he proposes to move 7 feet west of the existing property line so that it is 7 feet over on Lot 2 from the property line between the two lots. He stated that Lot 1 is 170 feet wide with a 30 foot setback from T.H. 13 and 30 foot setback from Sutcliff, which leaves a buildable front setback of 100 feet wide. Councilmembers Huber and Smith expressed concern over lot 1 and the proximity of a future house to T.H. 13 if ten feet of the lot is November 1, 1994 Page No. 4198 given to Lot 3. Councilmember Huber asked Mr. Heaver how he would envision a house footprint for the lot. Mr. Heaver responded that the future buyer would make that determination but that he would orient the garage on the left side of the property. He stated that a two story home could be 70 to 76 feet wide and he could push the house 45 to 50 feet from the highway and still maintain a ten foot setback between Lots 1 and 2. Mayor Mertensotto stated that a lot cannot be subdivided without platting it. He asked Mr. Heaver if he would do a survey which would describe the lot plus part of the other lot on the conveyance documents (i.e., Lot 1 except the east 10 feet). Mr. Heaver stated that he does not want to amend the plat, and Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would then have to replat Lots 1, 2 and 3. City Attorney Hart stated that Mr. Heaver could receive administrative approval for two lot splits - the application for Lots 2 and 3 would in effect combine a portion of Lot 2 with Lot 3, etc., without replatting. He stated that the action would be most properly done as two lot splits approved with two separate resolutions, and the easements would remain as they are. He pointed out the approving resolutions would have to require the combination of the new area with the existing lot description for tax purposes, as well as new property identification for tax purposes. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Heaver to have new certificates of survey prepared for each of the lots, to be attached to the lot split resolutions, to prepare and submit a new declaration of easements, and to submit an opinion of title for Lot and 2, prepared by his legal counsel, to show property ownership. Mr. Heaver was informed that he must also follow the formal easement vacation process. CASE NO. 94 -33, Council acknowledged an application from General Pump, Inc., for GENERAL PUMP driveway setback variance, side yard setback variance and sign setback variance. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Len Lillieholm, architect for the General Pump project, informed Council that as originally proposed, the driveway was on Lot 3, Northland Plaza Addition, with the proper setback. At the time of Council review, the idea of a shared driveway on the property line between Lots 3 and 4 was raised so that both sites could use a shared entrance rather than two curb cuts on T.H. 55. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4199 Mayor Mertensotto stated that Lot 4 may be impacted such that future use would be limited or the owner would have to come back for variances. He noted that Council had expressed concerns about two driveway cuts and asked whether there could be one cut with an easement granted to Lot 4. He pointed out that General Pump had indicated that they may build on Lot 4. He asked whether General Pump could place the driveway can Lot 3 and place an easement of record on Lot 4 to grant the lot driveway access. Mr. Lillieholm stated that no variances were needed for the original location of the driveway but General Pump decided to ask for the variance since it owns both properties and felt one driveway would equally benefit them. He did not feel an easement would benefit Lot 4 as mush given its size, etc. He explained that the area that is screening the loading docks for Lot 3 is much larger in area because General Pump has moved the driveway towards T.H. 55 to the lot line. The end result is much more greenery along the highway and the turning radius at the docks is improved. Councilmember Smith stated that if there were a guarantee that the lots would always be of one ownership or if Council new what was going to be developed on Lot 4 she would be more comfortable with the shared driveway, but there is no guarantee and Lot 4 will be difficult to develop. Mr. Lillieholm responded that General Pump owns both sites and has the option to either expand or sell the property in the future, with the proposed variance for the driveway. He felt that the site improvements being done will make it a very good lot. He viewed the lot as being more commercial than industrial but it is zoned industrial and would be a good site for a nice industrial building. He stated that General Pump is expanding and could own the lot forever. He explained that the decision over requesting the shared driveway was given much thought - it improves Lot 3 and gives more distance of about 20 feet for grading to make the elevation transition. Councilmember Smith stated that she has no problem with the other two variances being requested but with respect to the driveway, Council must look at what could happen to Lot 4 since it is the entrance to the industrial area via T.H. 55. She pointed out that Council wants to make sure it is as attractive as possible, and while the driveway proposal would allow for more landscaping next to General Pump's building she is afraid it will reduce the potential for development on Lot 4. November 1, 1994 Page No. 4200 Mr. Lillieholm responded that if a driveway had to be built on Lot 4 in the future, it would have to be 10 feet from the property line, which would impede more on Lot 4 than the centerline of the proposed shared driveway. Councilmember Smith pointed out that all that is being requested is a variance for Lot 3, but if the variance is approved, a variance would also be needed for Lot 4. She stated that it was Council's understanding that the driveway would stay were it was originally proposed but an easement would cover access for Lot 4 in whatever its location. She agreed that Council only wants one driveway but stated that this would be possible under the original proposal without the need for a variance by granting an easement to Lot 4. Councilmember Smith stated that she would like to see an easement over the driveway under any circumstance and that she is very much in favor of a shared driveway but is concerned about Lot 4. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council wants to avoid any future request for variance from the setback from T.H. 55 for Lot 4 which could be caused by the granting of the currently requested variance. He suggested that it would be possible to approve the variance with the condition that there will be no further variances granted for the setback for Lot 4. He asked Mr. Lilliehohn to see if he can shift the location and also to provide an easement document for the shared driveway. He also asked that General Pump covenant in the recordable easement document that it will not ask for setback variances for the building line from T.H. 55. FRANSON/PERRON Council acknowledged a memo and proposed purchase agreements PROPERTY ACQUISITION from Treasurer Shaughnessy with respect to acquisition of the undeveloped Franson and Perron properties located on Acacia Boulevard. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the sellers must submit an affidavit stating that to the best of their knowledge there are no property line disputes or encroachments. After discussion, Councilmember Huber moved to approve the purchase agreements for Parcels # 27-57000-040-02, 27- 57000 -050- 02 and 27 57000-031-02, and for Parcel #27-57500-020-02 at the stated price of $1.10 per square foot, the sellers to pay all assessments and 1994 real estate taxes and to submit evidence of marketable title plus an affidavit in with respect to property line encroachments. Ayes: 5 Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Nays: 0 November 1, 1994 Page No. 4201 GIS Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding implementing GIS and a letter from the Dakota County Economic Development Partnership its application for state grant and ongoing program maintenance costs. Administrator Lawell and Public Works Director Danielson reviewed GIS capabilities, uses and benefits as well as potential costs. It was the consensus of Council not to participate at this time. ELECTION CANVASSING Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding the BOARD need to schedule an Election Canvassing Board meeting. Councilmember Smith moved to conduct the Election Canvassing Board on Wednesday, November 9 at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned to November 8. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12:27 o'clock A.M. ATTEST: eeje."4 2r Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor K-Athleen M. Swanson City Clerk