Loading...
1995-12-05 Council minutesPage No. 1 December 5, 1995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, December 5, 1995 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 Koch, Krebsbach and Huber. Councilmember Smith had notified the Council that she would be late. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Koch moved approval of the minutes of the November 21, 1995 regular meeting with correction. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Krebsbach 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 Building Activity Report for November. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the November 18, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, with correction. c. Acknowledgment of the unapproved minutes of the November 1, 1995 NDC -4 meeting. d. Adoption of Resolution No. 95 -66, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL PARK STORM SEWER Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 2 December 5, 1995 (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 5)," authorizing fmal payment of $482,586.00 to Imperial Developers, Inc. e. Adoption of Resolution No. 95 -67, "RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT ON WATER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS ON WENTWORTH AVENUE." f. Adoption of Resolution No. 95 -68, "RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES ALLOWING ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE" (Sargent). g. Acknowledgment of quotes received for the purchase of confined space entry equipment for the Public Works Department, and authorization for issuance of a purchase order to Continental Safety Equipment for its low quote of $3,749.00. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 95 -69, "RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES TO THE DAKOTA COUNTY AUDITOR FOR COLLECTION WITH REAL ESTATE TAXES." i. Acknowledgment of a memo from Recreation Programmer Shelli Heinsch regarding seasonal rink attendant hiring and approval of the hiring of eleven part-time seasonal rink attendants recommended by Ms. Heinsch. j. Acceptance of the resignation of Ms. Shelli Heinsch from the part-time Recreation Programmer position and authorization for staff to advertise the position. k. Acknowledgment of a memo from the City Clerk recommending delaying the purchase of a copier, and authorization to dedicate $20,000 from the 1996 Unappropriated Surplus for the purchase of a copier. 1. Approval of the List of Claims dated December 5, 1995 and totaling $400,076.36. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Councilmember Smith arrived at 7:55 p.m. Page No. 3 December 5, 1995 HEARING - TRUTH IN Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public TAXATIONBUDGET hearing on the proposed tax levy and budget for 1996. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that Council cannot increase the preliminary levy or the proposed budget but that reductions can be made. He informed the audience that the capital outlay program includes the acquisition of a new ladder /rescue truck for the fire department, which will be delivered in 1997 and financed in 1998 by equipment certificates. He stated that $25,000 in excess revenues from 1995 will be set aside to initiate a new fund for future major capital equipment purchases for the fire department and public works department. Treasurer Shaughnessy explained that this evening's hearing is the state - required Truth in Taxation hearing. He informed the audience that the recent real estate tax notices, which had been mailed by Dakota County, do not reflect the recent school district excess levy referendum approval. He stated that the Council approved a preliminary levy in August, and he reviewed graphics on anticipated 1996 General Fund expenses and revenues. He explained that a 2.3% General Fund increase is proposed for 1996. Mr. Shaughnessy reviewed tax levies for debt services and special funds and revenues and expenses for the enterprise and special funds. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved to adjourn the public hearing to a subsequent hearing at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MCTO ROUTES Council acknowledged a memo from Interim Administrator Batchelder regarding Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) transit alternatives and transit service changes. Mr. Steve Legler, MCTO Manager of Service Planning, was present for the discussion. Mr. Legler explained that he was present to discuss bus service options for replacement of Route 29, which is planned to be discontinued on April 1. He described the two routes, Route 29 and Route 5, that currently serve Mendota Heights. He stated that Page No. 4 December 5, 1995 in June MCTO conducted public hearings regarding discontinuance of Route 29 due to severe funding cutbacks in 1995 and 1996 of approximately $10 million per year. Mr. Legler informed Council that as a result of funding cuts, service reductions throughout the metro area were necessary both in 1995 and 1996, and some of the services that need to be cut back or discontinued are the high subsidy routes. He stated that Route 29 has been a high subsidy route for some time due to low ridership. He informed Council that the primary result of the MCTO hearings was if the MCTO could consider, rather than total elimination of the service, some service options to preserve some of the trips into St. Paul to cover the work shifts. He stated that MCTO did look at possible service options to replace some of the route 29 service and began discussions with city staff. Mr. Legler reviewed his letter of October 10, 1995 to Administrator Lawell summarizing the service options. Those options are: 1) extension of Route 5 to pick up some of Route 29 and back into St. Paul; 2) extension of Route 7 from Smith Avenue and Wentworth into Mendota Heights via Wentworth/Dodd/Marie and then the Route 29 loop; 3) Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Route 48A, providing service along Dodd to Smith and into St. Paul. He stated that MCTO feels that a combination of alternatives is probably the pest - a combination of alternatives 2 and 3. He stated that MCTO staff has discussed the 48A option with the MTVA staff and while it would require MTVA approval, its staff was interested in further investigation. Mr. Legler informed Council and the audience of possible new services to Mendota Heights in 1996. He stated that Route 95M, from a park and ride at Target in West St. Paul providing service to downtown Minneapolis, could be rerouted to come west along T.H. 110 to a potential new park and ride at Dodd and 110 and then west across the Mendota Bridge express to downtown Minneapolis. He explained that this would require a new park and ride site on Mn/DOT land at the northeast quadrant of Dodd and 110, and Mn/DOT has indicated that it would consider the park and ride. He stated that in the short term, he would envision minimal improvements such as gravel and lighting and shelter, and if the market develops substantially MCTO could consider more significant improvements at a later time. Mr. Legler stated that MCTO had been using the Mendota Plaza until the parking lot improvements were made and the Plaza owners have indicated they did not want to have busses turning around in the lot any longer because of possible damage to the blacktop. He informed Council that MCTO has asked Paster Enterprises what type of Page No. 5 December 5, 1995 monetary arrangement could be made and the response was $400 per month on a lease basis. MCTO did not want to enter into such an arrangement for monetary reasons, but would be willing to make a capital contribution to assist the shopping center, and he asked for city assistance in the matter. He stated that Pagel road is not a very desirable location for turning around. Mr. Legler stated that he understands that there will be a senior citizen facility constructed at the end of South Plaza Drive, which would increase ridership, and MCTO would consider a turn around in that location in the fixture rather than the Plaza. He informed Council on the timeline for changes, explaining that MCTO needs to receive comments from the Council by December 20 on the potential route changes so that there is enough lead time to develop schedules and put them in place by April when Route 29 will be discontinued. MCTO also needs to meet with Mn/DOT this winter and reach agreement on the park and ride for Route 95 to Minneapolis by summer in order to reroute service from Mendota Heights to downtown Minneapolis in the fall of 1996. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Legler that Mendota Heights tax payers annually contribute about $420,000 to MCTO. He pointed out that at the $4 to $5 per passenger subsidy for Route 29, Mendota Heights is subsidizing 233 passengers a day. Mr. Legler responded that there is a transit redesign project currently being worked on and the question of tax structure is one question that the project will be addressing. He explained that there is currently heavy reliance on property taxes. He stated that at the present time there is not a balance throughout the metro area on taxes collected in a community versus service. He further stated that all the MCTO has to rely on is routes having enough ridership. Councilmember Smith asked Mr. Legler if he is implying that if the ridership per route increases, the tax will go down. Mr. Legler responded that the tax rate is uniform throughout the metro area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if MCTO stops service along Dodd it will miss the opportunity to pick up the largest number of passengers and transport them to St. Paul. He further stated that if there were a route to Minneapolis, with a park and ride, he believes that ridership will increase. He informed Mr. Legler that when the senior citizen project is built, there will be at least 65 senior Page No. 6 December 5, 1995 residents looking forward to some type of transportation from the area just south of the shopping center. He suggested that the area of the shopping center property where the Halloween bonfire used to be located may be a possible site for a park and ride. He stated that using the northeast corner of Dodd and T.H. 110 for a park and ride is a good idea, pointing out that the land has been unused for many years except for temporary storage of maintenance equipment and dirt storage. He informed Mr. Legler that Council realizes that the city must participate in the tax levy in the metro area as everyone else does, but when $420,000 is spent each year to support the MCTO, city tax payers should get more for their money. Mr. Legler responded that this is the reason MCTO initiated the redesign project. Councilmember Huber stated that he has ridden the bus to work for fifteen years, but drives to Cretin Avenue to pick up a bus to downtown Minneapolis. He stated that the problem he sees is that the last bus out of downtown is 5:16 at Sixth and Hennepin, and while he agrees with the proposal to add something through Mendota Heights to downtown Minneapolis, a later bus should be added to accommodate riders who are asked to work late on occasion. He felt that if there were a 6:16 bus as well it would be a comfort and would accommodate many people. Mr. Legler responded that if MCTO is able to reroute the service to provide better service to Mendota Heights, the draw area and customer base would increase and there would be a much better opportunity to fill up a bus at a time later than 5:00 p.m. He informed Council that MCTO has been experimenting with more fringe of peak service with the heavier corridors, and in some cases the later buses have been successful and some have not. He stated that 5:45 p.m. buses have been successful, whereas those after 6:00 p.m. have not been successful. He felt that by increasing the drawing area to serve Mendota Heights better it would be much easier to justify the later bus and he would push for that. Responding to a question about to what extent the MCTO has the transportation franchise, Mr. Legler stated that MVTA operates into downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, and MVTA staff have indicated in preliminary discussions that they are open to the idea of providing service along Dodd. Page No. 7 December 5, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto asked if the city can totally withdraw from the MCTO and contract with MVTA. Interim Administrator Batchelder responded that the cities that comprise MVTA did opt out in the mid- 1980's and every community had a one -time option to opt out at that time. He stated that Mendota Heights did not join MVTA and if Council desires to do so now, special legislation would be required. Councilmember Smith expressed concern that riders along route 29 who will lose that route on April 1 will not have to option for public transportation until something else is changed. Mr. Legler responded that the options he described would be simultaneous with the elimination of route 29. Councilmember Krebsbach asked how many cars are envisioned to use the T.H. 110 park and ride and how long the lot would be left as gravel. Mr. Legler responded that he envisions 50 cars using the lot and if it is a success, paving could occur in the next construction season. Councilmembers Huber and Smith were appointed as a Council committee to meet with MCTO representatives and make a recommendation for Council consideration on December 19. ATHLETIC STADIUMS Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding the proposed athletic stadium amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Council also acknowledged receipt of letters from St. Thomas Academy and Visitation Convent School. Mr. Jack Zahr, Athletic Director for St. Thomas Academy, and Mr. Dean Verdoes, Athletic Director for School District 197, were present for the discussion. Mr. Zahr stated that, as stated in the written comments from St. Thomas, the Academy opposes the proposed ordinance being retroactive since the Academy feels that it met the city's requirements at the time of the stadium construction. He stated that he also has some specific questions to clarify, including stadium location. He asked how the regulations would apply to an existing stadium if residential development is built near an area where a stadium has already been constructed. Page No. 8 December 5, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto responded that he does not think residential development is a viable option for the land near St. Thomas because that would mean more homes near the airport runway, but he could see the concern of St. Thomas representatives about now meeting the 600 foot setback requirement. He explained that St. Thomas' athletic stadium would be grandfathered. City Attorney Hart stated that there are two topics in the ordinance - general qualifications and granting of conditional use permits. He stated that St. Thomas already has a conditional use permit and would not be subject to the initial threshold: the regulation of the use of the facility is a distinct part of the ordinance and would be applicable to existing facilities. Mr. Zahr asked if there is a fee associated with a lighting license. Interim Administrator Batchelder responded that there is no fee specified in the ordinance, and that typically a zoning ordinance will refer to a fee as established by Council resolution. He stated that although the stadium amendment does not currently make such a reference, it could do so in the future. Mr. Zahr asked if St. Thomas will have to reconfigure its lighting if residential development occurs. Mayor Mertensotto responded that lighting was part of the St. Thomas conditional use permit in terms of lumen intensity and height etc., so Council did impose restrictions at the time the conditional use permit was issued. Attorney Hart stated that lighting would be subject to the general standards relating to a lighting license, but he did not think the city would ask St. Thomas to reconfigure or move lighting if there were residential development, although the intensity of the lighting would need to be modified if required by the city. Mr. Zahr responded that lighting needs are affected by post- season play, weather postponements, the need for practice without spectators and community use. He asked whether it would be difficult to get permission to turn on the lights on short notice, for example, on a Wednesday if a Tuesday game had to be postponed. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that it would be the school's option as to what nights to use the lighting - Council arranged in Page No. 9 December 5, 1995 the conditional use permit for a number of nights, but did not specify the nights. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he thinks the ordinance goes a little further, and if the school's soccer program expands, St. Thomas may desire more nights. He asked what would happen if one of the programs expands, either track or soccer, and there is a need for more than 15 nights for lights. He stated that if he were running the program, he would be concerned by the limitations being proposed. Councilmember Smith stated that she thinks that the proposed ordinance needs refinement and that the city wants to accommodate the school's needs but another of her concerns is that stadiums do occur in residential areas and she is concerned that Council not allow something to be overly obtrusive in residential areas. She stated that she is less concerned over which nights lights are used than how many nights. Mr. Zahr responded that he understands that the school would have to apply for a permit for certain nights, and asked if the school could change the schedule to use the lights on Wednesday if a game was postponed on Tuesday because of the weather. City Attorney Hart stated that as currently drafted, it requires the applicant to state with particularity which dates will be used and would present problems for the school. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would much prefer a set number of nights and give the school the discretion on which nights to use the lights. Mr. Zahr stated that proposed section 21.6(3), parking, is also a concern. He stated that St. Thomas is concerned about adding bike racks, and does not want to encourage people to ride bikes to the school's night events because of fear over their safety. Mr. Verdoes stated that he too has concerns about the proposed ordinance, and would have the same concerns as Mr. Zahr if there were a stadium at Sibley. He stated that there is no stadium at Sibley now but he cannot say there never will be one. He explained that the school district has made a recent decision to upgrade the Charles Mattson facility, but if there were a donor to help build a stadium, his recommendation would be that it be built at Henry Sibley. He was concerned that the ordinance as written Page No. 10 December 5, 1995 would never allow the school district to build a stadium at Sibley, and he did not believe one will be built in the near future, but he feels the school district should have the option, as a stadium would be beneficial to the school and the community. Mayor Mertensotto asked what the limiting factors would be. Mr. Verdoes responded that the 600 foot distance from a residential structure would not allow construction of a stadium on the north side of the school, which he felt would be the best location. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what must be considered is what is the driving objective of the proposed ordinance. Interim Administrator Batchelder responded that as Council may recall, St. Thomas applied for a permit for its stadium, and at the time it was processed as a conditional use permit for an accessory structure. He explained that there was little definition in the R -1 District that would pertain to stadiums, and the city was concerned about lights, parking, traffic and noise. He stated that the city was able to reach agreement with St. Thomas on those issues but it was felt that perhaps standards should be adopted so that the next time an application was made for a stadium there would be some standards in the ordinance. He stated that the proposed ordinance would add "athletic stadium" as a conditional use in the R -1 zone and would provide the standards. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the ordinance would not apply to city parks, and the city needs to expand its field usage, which may mean lighting. Interim Administrator Batchelder responded that he does not believe the city's parks are covered in the ordinance and that he would hope that if the city did light the bailfields at Mendakota Park, it would attempt to achieve the standards of the ordinance. He stated that Mendakota Park would not fall within the definition of an athletic stadium. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the same standards that it uses to control noise, lights, etc., at schools should be applied to any athletic facility, including those of the city. Page No. 11 December 5, 1995 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would not be inclined to want to see a stadium north of Henry Sibley High School and would want a fixture stadium kept away from the neighborhoods. She asked Mr. Verdoes if there has been any consideration of putting a future stadium closer to T.H. 110. Mr. Verdoes responded that he is only speaking for himself on the possible future location, but if a stadium were put down below the school two baseball fields, a football field and other large practice fields, which are used for the 9th, 10th and Junior Varsity programs, would be lost. He did not know if the school will ever have a stadium, but if there is a benefactor and more funding, it would likely be considered. Councilmember Huber stated that his biggest problem with the ordinance is the lighting license, at least in terms of making it retroactive. He stated that Council agreed to conditions with St. Thomas on its conditional use permit, and the conditions are working. He felt there is no need to change them. He stated that if Council permitted a stadium for another facility, the applicant would go through the same mechanism as St. Thomas did, and whatever conditions Council applies in terms of lighting must apply to all facilities, including city parks. He felt that park fields are much more intrusive than athletic stadiums, pointing out that baseball field lights are on much later and for a much longer season than football. He stated that St. Thomas fits all the conditions of the ordinance, and he could not see adopting the ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto suggested referring the ordinance back to the Planning Commission and inform them of the input Council has received from the schools on the number of night uses and rescheduling on short notice for cancellation, etc. He did not think the conditional use permit limits St. Thomas to fifteen nights of lighting, and the question to the Planning Commission is "what is reasonable." He further stated that he would like the Planning Commission to address why, if the city is going to set up licenses and light standards for stadiums, those standards should not apply to city athletic facilities as well. Councilmember Smith stated that she has driven by the St. Thomas stadium on nights when games have not been played and the lights have been on, and if there are going to be a certain number of nights when lights can be used for the stadium, all activities should be included. Page No. 12 December 5, 1995 Interim Administrator Batchelder responded that the existing conditional use permit with St. Thomas does limit lighting to 15 evenings per year. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks there is a certain level of common sense which should be used - if lighting becomes a problem for a neighborhood, the schedule could be more strictly enforced. Mr. Verdoes asked that the ordinance be written so that there is a possibility that there could someday be a stadium at Sibley. The matter was referred back to the Planning Commission. MENDOTA HOMES Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding a request from Mr. John Mathern for a pre - application conference for a proposed planned unit development on Lots 1 -4, Carmen Courts, a 3.38 acre site, owned by Carmen Tuminelly and located west of Crown Point. Council also acknowledged a report from the City Planner. Mr. Mathern stated that his desire is for a pre- application i conference to discuss in general a planned unit development on a site located at the northeast quadrant of T.H. 110 and 1-3 5E, which is currently zoned R -1. He informed Council that through a series of meetings with the neighborhood and the Planning Commission, he felt that townhouses would be a better use of the property, and he is proposing 10 units (five twin homes) on the parcel. He described the site and the market for townhouses for Mendota Heights residents. He felt that the site would lend itself to a townhouse setting because of the ring road, varying driveway widths, and varying setbacks from one structure to another. He stated that he has spoken to Mn /DOT about the safety issues raised at the neighborhood meetings, and in 1996 Mn/DOT plans to upgrade T.H. 110 and will provide a turn lane from westbound T.H. 110 to Crown Point Drive. He stated that since the state is building the exit lane into Crown Point, he would be willing to participate in the widening of the frontage road. He further stated that there may also be a possibility of bringing the trail from Valley Park into the neighborhood. He informed Council that the development would be a mixture of one and two story townhouses. Mr. Mathern stated that two tax forfeited parcels north of the development are not within the development but could be added if additional space is desired. Page No. 13 December 5, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto stated that the addition of the tax forfeited parcels would be vital, and even if Council went along with a waiver of the 10 acre PUD requirement, Mr. Mathern would still need 15,000 square feet per unit of lot area. He stated that the question is whether a PUD could be used for the site. He stated that Mr. Mathern has indicated that the existing home has a detached building with four garage stalls, and they would have to be removed. Mr. Mathern responded that his agreement is that they would be removed from the site. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the other complaint is that the townhouses Mr. Mathern built in Lilydale are nicely appointed inside but leave something to be desired on the exterior. Mr. Mathern responded that they are a combination of brick and cedar, and what has been suggested is that he use brick and stucco. He stated that concern over the exterior of the structures can be addressed in a developer's agreement. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto about two driveways coming in to units one and two and one driveway serving the other twin homes, Mr. Mathern stated that there is a large pine tree which prompted the design, but changes can be made to the plan so that there is a shared driveway. He stated that the proposed building pad for the house and garage is 40 by 64 feet, which would allow one level living with a double garage of 480 to 600 square feet - the garage would be part of the 2,560 square foot building footprint. Ms. Shawn O'Gara submitted a neighborhood petition opposing the proposed development. She stated that she lives in Crown Point and that this is the eighth meeting she has attended on development of the property. She stated that the reason Mr. Mathern wants the PUD is because he feels the land is obsolete for single family dwellings. She stated that Mr. Tuminelly priced the lots at $62,000 to 480,000 each, and most of the lots in Crown Point sold for $20,000 to $35,000. She felt that if the lots were offered in that price range, they would sell and homes comparable to the Crown Point neighborhood would be built. She felt that the developers are simply trying to maximize their profits by proposing a PUD. Page No. 14 December 5, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto stated that he can see where people may be reluctant to construct a smaller home next to the large home that exists on the property. He stated that the developer has not had an offer for the lots. Mrs. O'Gara responded that people hear the lots are being sold for such a high price next to the freeway and they are not interested. She informed Council that the petition she submitted contains the signatures of 37 out of the 38 Crown Point property owners in opposition to rezoning of the property. She stated that if the parcel is developed in single family homes there would be no need to widen the frontage road. She further stated that Mr. Mathern is not responsible for the turn lane - that was a decision which was made long before he became involved in the development. Ms. Judy Leitner stated that her property is just to the east of the property. She stated that the developer of Crown Point, Bill Strub, was not allowed to construct any double homes because of the traffic, and if Mr. Mathern is granted a PUD, she would like to take her two acres and do what Mr. Mathern did in Lilydale. She stated that none of the neighbors want the development being proposed, and also if the frontage road is to be made like a city street there is not enough room unless many pine trees are removed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that rightly or wrongly, Mr. Tuminelly bought the property and did the improvements and that is why he is marketing the lots so high. Mrs. Delores Seibell stated that when the property was originally proposed for development, one of the problems initially was the traffic, and now there is a postage stamp property that will add 20 to 25 cars to an already serious situation. She did not think the project is right, and that the city needs to consider is the people in Crown Point who bought their property for a certain use and should not have to pay for Mr. Tuminelly's mistake. Mayor Mertensotto responded that it would be very easy to say sell the property for residences, but he would not want to buy it for a residence and likely those in Crown Point would not either. He stated that there are problems because of the noise impact from the freeway, and Mn/DOT will not consider a sound wall. He further stated that the prior owner of the property had tried to sell it for a number of years without success and the only interest in it was for non - residential use. Page No. 15 December 5, 1995 Mr. Dan Malecha, who lives just north of the property, stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is zoned R -1, and that is what the plan was when everyone in Crown Point bought their property and the neighborhood feels strongly that it should stay single family. He stated that it has been said that the parcel does not relate to the adjacent property, but it does relate to his property. He stated that Mr. Tuminelly made a bad real estate investment and the city should not ask the neighborhood to bail him out of that bad investment. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the property must be developed somehow and he did not think it will develop as residential, but rather as business or townhouse development. Mr. Malecha responded that he does not see the market changing in the four months since Mr. Mathern became involved. He stated that one of the recommendations from the Planning Commission at the time Mr. Tuminelly platted the property was that there be no further development, and now the proposal has increased from four homes to ten. He asked what has changed in just a few months, and stated that the traffic problem would increase with the additional density and the development would be demeaning to the Crown Point neighborhood. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the PUD would provide a common area and buffer area between Crown Point and the property, and right now there is no protection. He stated that under a development everything is controlled by a developer's agreement. Counciimember Krebsbach stated that the property is zoned residential and there is a tree moratorium in effect. She further stated that a tree moratorium is one way a community could require a perimeter tree buffer so that single family residences can have the same benefit as they would have under a PUD. She stated that in normal residential development this cannot be required. She asked if the neighbors object to townhouses or to the number of units proposed. Mr. Malecha responded that he objects to the size, because the views of the existing homes would be blocked, and also, the development is about 50 yards from his property. He further stated that he objects to the density as well, as there would be 25,000 square feet of building on the 3.3 acre parcel, and also he objects to Page No. 16 December 5, 1995 having ten families on the property rather than the four single family homes. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if the existing structure was taken down it would be possible to build more than four homes by replatting the lots. She noted that it does not appear that the original four lots will work and the neighborhood objects to townhouses. She asked Ms. Leitner if she is interested in developing her property. Ms. Leitner responded that she is not, and that she bought her property for privacy and land area. She stated that she would sell the property rather than developing it. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that development of the Tuminelly property would foreclose future development of Ms. Leitner's parcel. Councilmember Huber stated that he does not think Council needs to try to find a way to develop the Tuminelly property and did not think the rules should be bent to try to develop it. Councilmember Koch stated that she also cannot support the proposal given the amount of developable area. She felt that 3.3 acres is to small of a parcel for PUD development. Councilmember Smith agreed, stating that she feels this is a change in use and a change in the expectations of the neighbors, who rely on the comprehensive plan.' She stated that she would be willing to look at a replat to add a couple of lots. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not think single family homes are viable and felt that the proposal is a reasonable use of the property and the city would have control under a developer's agreement. He suggested that perhaps the number of units should be scaled down, and stated that the property owner is entitled to reasonable use of his property. He stated that he wants to avoid having the courts decide how to develop the property. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she feels the answer is somewhere between the townhouses and four lots and a compromise should be considered by Mr. Mathem. Page No. 17 December 5, 1995 Mr. Mathern responded that the community has a need for homes for those who are moving out of their houses. He stated that the property has a freeway abutting it on three sides and its use as single family is extremely limited. He further stated that most of the lot is towards the freeway and it is more suited to townhouse use. He informed Council that he came with the plan because the property is a transition between the single family use in Crown Point and the freeway. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the parcel might be one site where the Metropolitan Council says they want the city to designate affordable housing. Councilmember Huber stated that he highly doubts that the Metropolitan Council would tell the city it would have to put affordable housing on the site as there is absolutely no mass transit available to it. He stated that Mr. Tuminelly has only owned the property for two or three years and if the owner had owned it for many years, things might be different. He stated that Mr. Tuminelly knew the zoning and he knew the freeway there. Councilmember Smith stated that there are a number of goals cities must comply with including life cycle housing, and while she supports the neighborhood, she pointed out that this is a project that would provide life cycle housing and would be more of a senior housing development. Mr. Mathern stated that he felt he could develop the site with very nice town homes to provide housing for Mendota Heights residents who move out of their homes and would be a good property for ten town homes. Councilmember Smith asked if Mr.Mathern would be willing to consider fewer units on the lot to compromise with the city and the neighborhood. Mr. Malecha stated that he thinks the concept is a different use, not single family, but five townhomes is certainly much better than ten and solves many of the safety problems. AIRPORT RELATIONS Mayor Mertensotto stated that he felt that all of the candidates for COMMISSION appointment to Dr. Olin's unexpired term on the Airport Relations Commission are excellent candidates and encouraged those who Page No. 18 December 5, 1995 are not appointed to apply for other commission openings. He then recommended Bernie Gross for appointment to the commission. Councilmember Huber moved to appoint Bernie Gross to serve the unexpired term of Dr. Olin on the Airport Relations Commission. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COMM[TNITY Council acknowledged a memo from Interim Administrator PROTECTION CONCEPT Batchelder regarding a request from the City of Richfield for Mendota Heights participation in promoting legislation in 1996 on a Minneapolis /St. Paul airport area Community Protection Concept Package, the result of a year -long planning process by the Metropolitan Council, MAC and the cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Minneapolis and Richfield (MSP communities). Council also acknowledged a "City of Mendota Heights - MSP Airport Noise Mitigation Needs" report. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if staff is involved in this type of activity, there should be regular reports to Council on discussions and objectives of the group. He stated that the group is unwilling to address noise mitigation in the concept package. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council should stay strongly on the issue of noise mitigation. She was greatly concerned with the MAC's ability to regulate the airport, and stated that she can see why MAC is directing the attention in the document to the terminal because they are concerned about construction. She felt that the issues are not fundamental to the impact on surrounding communities. Councilmember Huber stated that Council should be sure the city's Noise Mitigation Needs response goes to those who receive copies of the Concept Package. He was concerned that Mendota Heights is referenced as supporting the document. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city must notify Richfield that since the document does not incorporate the operational issues in the Mendota Heights response, Council respectfully declines to be included in the report. Councilmember Huber moved to notify the City of Richfield and all communities involved in the Community Protection Concept Page No. 19 December 5, 1995 that in the city's response it advised that the package as proposed was void of operational issues and the group saw fit not to include air noise mitigation practices that address the operation of the airport. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Staff was directed to send copies of the response to adjoining communities, communities in the Community Protection Package group and to the city's legislative representatives. MEETING DATE Council acknowledged a memo from Interim Administrator Batchelder regarding conducting the first meeting in January on January 2. It was the consensus that the meeting be held on its scheduled date. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Mertensotto directed staff to research the elected officials' salary survey and propose an increase in Council salaries. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:35 P.M. thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor