Loading...
1995-09-05 Council minutesPage No. 4530 September 5, 1995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, September 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 Huber, Krebsbach and Smith. Councilmember Koch had notified the Council that she would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Huber moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the August 1, 995 regular meeting with correction. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the August 15, 995 regular meeting with correction. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Smith moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item 5k, Kensington soccer field landscape improvements, and 51, replacement of wood foot bridges, to the regular agenda along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for August. b. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for July. c. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 9 Airport Relations Commission meeting. d. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the August 22 Planning Commission meeting. Page No. 4531 September 5, 1995 e. Acknowledgment of a billing from Independent School District 197 for $15,450 for Sibley Park maintenance. f. Acknowledgment of receipt of the 1994 -1995 I.S.D. 197 Community Education annual report. g. Adoption of Resolution No. 95 -44, "RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC SALE OF $2,170,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1995." h. Approval of a request from St. Thomas Academy for a variance to operate a motorized pontoon on Roger's Lake for lake sampling and testing in accordance with a letter from St. Thomas dated August 20, 1995. i. Acknowledgment of a letter of resignation from John Neska from the Public Works Department and authorization for staff to advertise to fill the two Public Works Department vacancies. j. Approval to schedule a hearing on applications for Limited Service Hotel On -Sale and On -Sale Sunday Liquor Licenses for September 19. k. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated September 5, 1995 and attached hereto. 1. Approval of the list of claims dated and totaling $317,872.63. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 KENSINGTON PARK Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager Guy Kullander regarding landscape improvements to the South Kensington Park soccer complex and a request to increase the tree budget for the project. Mr. Kullander explained that the budget for South Kensington Park landscaping includes $1,000 to plant pine trees, but that only four 12 to 15 foot pines or 50 to 60 two to three foot pines could be purchased for that amount. He informed Council that the Mendota Heights Athletic Association has volunteered to plant the trees. He also informed Council that the youth soccer goals purchased and Page No. 4532 September 5, 1995 installed in the park cost $2,300, rather than the $4,000 which had been budgeted and recommended that the landscaping plan be modified to authorize the remaining $1,700 to be used to purchase larger trees. He explained that he has received a bid of $2,438 for thirty 6 foot spruce trees and a contractor's fee to auger the holes should cost between $600 and $800. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that the 2 to 3 foot tall trees would be fine. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, Mr. Kullander stated that spruce trees generally grow about one foot a year and are 25 to 30 feet tall at maturity. He stated that six foot trees would provide a noise, wind and visual barrier earlier than the smaller trees would. Also responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, he stated that the smaller trees will come directly from the nursery and will not have a guarantee. Mayor Mertensotto stated that regardless of whether two foot or six foot trees are planted there will still be noise from the freeway. Councilmember Huber moved to authorize the original planting program, with two to three foot trees, and to direct staff to coordinate the installation of the trees with the volunteer help offered by the M.H.A.A. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PARK BRIDGES Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager Kullander regarding bridge replacements in Wentworth, Valley and Rogers Lake Parks. Mr. Kullander gave Council a history of the bridges and informed Council that five wood bridges have deteriorated to the extent that they need replacement, three in Wentworth Park, one in Valley Park and one in Rogers Lake Park. He stated that the Park Commission had originally looked at replacing the Valley Park bridge in 1994, but the bids for replacement with a steel bridge was $25,000 to $35,000 and the Commission decided to re -bid the project this year. In the meantime, the Commission recommended replacing the bridges in Wentworth Park, and the bridge in Rogers Lake Park. He explained that $35,000 of Special Park Fund money was budgeted in the 1995 budget to replace four bridges - the intent being to replace three with prefab steel bridges and one with a culvert - but the steel bridges are too expensive. He explained that it is now proposed to Page No. 4533 September 5, 1995 replace two of the bridges with steel bridges and install three culverts to replace the other bridges. He described the pre-fab steel bridges for Council. Councilmember Huber felt that the bridge replacement is a maintenance item since there are facilities in place, and that they should be therefore funded by the General Fund rather than the Special Park Fund. Treasurer Shaughnessy responded that there are about 15 items of major replacement in the operating budget, and the bridge replacement is over and above those items. Assistant Batchelder stated that the Park Commission originally recommended that the bridge replacement be funded by the General Fund but at the time the budget was adopted Special Park funding was earmarked for the replacement in the discussions between the Council and the commission. Councilmember Krebsbach recommended holding a budget workshop and discuss bridge replacement funding at that time. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that Council authorize the work and defer a decision on where financing will come from. Councilmember Huber moved to direct staff to proceed with the bridge replacement plan as described in Park Project Manager Kullander's memo dated September 1, 1995, directing staff to issue a purchase order in the amount of $14,202.84 to Continental Bridge for the fabrication and delivery of two steel pedestrian and light vehicle bridges and further directing staff to seek bids for the remaining portions of the work, and to reserve a decision on funding. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 NDC-4 BUDGET Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding the 1996 NDC-4 budget and cable television franchise renewal request. NDC-4 Executive Director Jodie Miller and community representative Mike Sokol were present for the discussion. Ms. Miller gave Council a presentation on the proposed budget and an update on NDC-4 activities and legislative issues. She also Page No. 4534 September 5, 1995 informed Council that Continental Cable has requested an extension the length of its cable television franchise. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels that when NDC -4 holds its budget discussions, it should conduct a public hearing on the franchise agreement and on the issue of getting involved in programming. He asked what guarantee there is on when Continental will complete system upgrading, and also asked what the major sources of funding for NDC -4 are and what percentage increase is proposed in the 1996 budget. Ms. Miller responded that the primary source of funding is franchise fees from Continental and a direct grant from Continental to NDC - TV. She explained that the operating budget is proposed to increase about 3% on most items. She informed Council that the franchise fees for the first two quarters of 1995 exceed budget and the proposed 1996 budget includes a list of contingency items, for about $13,000, which were deleted from the first budget draft but which NDC -4 would like to do if the franchise fees increase as they have in the first half of 1995. She also informed Council that NDC -4 has reduced the grant to the non - profit corporation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she served on the League of Minnesota Cities telecommunications task force last year and she supports the League in its efforts to maintain city control over rights -of -way. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that NDC -4 submits its budget to the seven member cities and if the cities do not approve or deny the budget, it is automatically assumed after 45 days that it is approved. He stated that Council will allow the 45 days to run. Councilmember Huber stated that NDC -4 does a good job and is already meeting its budget on revenue producing items. Ms. Miller thanked Councilmember Huber and Mr. Sokol for their active representation of the city's interests. FRIENDLY HILLS Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public ASSESSMENT HEARING hearing on proposed assessments for the Friendly Hills street reconstruction project. Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer Marc Mogan along with the proposed assessment roll. Councilmember Smith stated that Engineer Mogan's memo indicated that staff recommends adoption of the assessment roll this year, even though the project is not fully completed, because Page No. 4535 September 5, 1995 considerable interest expense would accrue if certification of the assessment roll is delayed until 1996. She asked whether adoption and certification this year will represent an ultimate savings to everyone. She also asked about the anticipated interest rate on the bonds which will be sold to finance the project. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the residents will realize a savings, and if the roll were not certified until 1996, another year's worth of construction interest would accumulate. With respect to interest rates, Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that he anticipates a bond rate of 5.5 to 5.75 %. He explained that rates applied to assessment rolls are generally one percent higher than the bond rate, and that the rate proposed for the Friendly Hills assessment roll is 7 %. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Ms. Renee Schmid, 729 Mohican Court, stated that she was present to formally object to her proposed assessment. She stated that her property did not receive street or curb and gutter improvements and that the developer paid for the street and curb and gutter that was constructed in her area when the property was developed four years ago. She submitted a written objection to the assessment. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the total assessment is not for curb and gutter and that Ms. Schmid's property is now part of the overall storm sewer system. He informed Ms. Schmid that the Friendly Hills property owners are not paying the full cost of the project and that the improvements are being assessed on an equalized per lot assessment rather than on a front foot basis. Ms. Schmid stated that when work was being done three or four years ago she asked if she would have to pay for it and was told the developer would be paying for the improvements. She further stated that no work was done on her property in the Friendly Hills project and she does not see that her property has been improved. Mr. James Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that there are a considerable number of soft spots in the first layer of asphalt, and he expressed concern that if the final layer of blacktop is laid this fall it will need repair in the spring. Public Works Director Danielson responded that he is aware of the soft spots, the worst area being on Decorah where the water line was Page No. 4536 September 5, 1995 installed. He explained that there was very poor compaction and the contractor is aware of the problem and has been advised that he must dig and re- compact the soft spots. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is concerned about the debris on the top of the first lift and that it will wash into the storm sewer system. He also stated that the contractor should be directed to defer the final asphalt lift to next spring so that the one year warranty does not start until spring. He directed staff to get a definitive statement from the contractor on what is going to be done and to direct them to re- compact the soft spots. Councilmember Huber agreed that given the experience with the soft spots the contractor should be ordered to delay the second lift. Mayor Mertensotto asked why there is only a three -way stop at Keokuk and Pagel and expressed concern over safety. Mr. Danielson agreed that there is a potential problem and stated that staff will prepare a proposed ordinance to change the intersection to a four -way stop. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, he stated that the contractor will clean up the debris from the streets. Ms. Rosemary Rued expressed concern about the contractor laying sod. She stated that the sod that was laid on her property three weeks ago has died and also that the contractor did not back -fill enough behind the curb and along the driveway apron. She asked what guarantee the contractor has given. Public Works Director Danielson responded that there is a one -year guarantee. Mayor Mertensotto directed Engineer Mogan to check the sod situation and the curb compaction. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Krebsbach moved to close the hearing. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 95- 45, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION/REHABILI- TATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE FRIENDLY HILLS REARRANGEMENT, HASELBURGER ADDITION, SIMEK I I . _j Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is not comfortable with the current draft of the agreement and has some questions regarding the service charge that has been added. After brief discussion, the matter was tabled for further review and negotiation. BALL FIELDS Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Batchelder regarding potential development of ball fields at the Mendota Plaza. Council also acknowledged a cost estimate and layout prepared by Park Project Manager Kullander. Assistant Batchelder stated that last spring the city started looking at alternative sites in the city for youth baseball, including contacting the owners of the Mendota Plaza to determine if temporary ball fields could be constructed on Plaza property. He stated that Mendota Plaza Associates gave the city a positive response, and staff met with the M.H.A.A. to determine which fields would best benefit its organization's activities. The athletic association responded that two smaller fields, to accommodate 8 to 11 year old play are needed. He informed the audience that the Mendota Heights Athletic Association has submitted a letter of support for development of fields at Mendota Plaza. Assistant Batchelder stated that if the city is to move forward on the issue, Park Project Manager Kullander must adopt a time schedule so that the fields are ready for play in the spring. He informed Council that he would hope to get an agreement for at least five to ten years for use of the property. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Kullander stated that he envisions ten foot high back stops, and the fields would be for baseball and softball use. Responding to a question on why the estimated cost, $60,000 is so great, Mr. Kullander stated that there is no topsoil and the grading of the dirt that is on site and filling in the low spots will be costly. Page No. 4537 September 5, 1995 REARRANGEMENT AND SURROUNDING AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 6)." Ayes: 4 Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Nays: 0 ST. PAUL WATER Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director AGREEMENT Danielson regarding the proposed St. Paul Water Utility Agreement. Mr. Bernie Bullert, from St. Paul Water, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is not comfortable with the current draft of the agreement and has some questions regarding the service charge that has been added. After brief discussion, the matter was tabled for further review and negotiation. BALL FIELDS Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Batchelder regarding potential development of ball fields at the Mendota Plaza. Council also acknowledged a cost estimate and layout prepared by Park Project Manager Kullander. Assistant Batchelder stated that last spring the city started looking at alternative sites in the city for youth baseball, including contacting the owners of the Mendota Plaza to determine if temporary ball fields could be constructed on Plaza property. He stated that Mendota Plaza Associates gave the city a positive response, and staff met with the M.H.A.A. to determine which fields would best benefit its organization's activities. The athletic association responded that two smaller fields, to accommodate 8 to 11 year old play are needed. He informed the audience that the Mendota Heights Athletic Association has submitted a letter of support for development of fields at Mendota Plaza. Assistant Batchelder stated that if the city is to move forward on the issue, Park Project Manager Kullander must adopt a time schedule so that the fields are ready for play in the spring. He informed Council that he would hope to get an agreement for at least five to ten years for use of the property. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Kullander stated that he envisions ten foot high back stops, and the fields would be for baseball and softball use. Responding to a question on why the estimated cost, $60,000 is so great, Mr. Kullander stated that there is no topsoil and the grading of the dirt that is on site and filling in the low spots will be costly. Page No. 4538 September 5, 1995 Councilmember Krebsbach asked if both baseball and softball can be played on the fields at Mendota Plaza without hitting cars, etc. She stated that when she suggested the site, she suggested it be for tee ball. Assistant Batchelder responded that the site is not ideal and there will be cars parked nearby, so foul balls could be a problem. Responding to a question from Councilmember Huber, Mr. Kullander stated that it is forty feet form the foul line to the curb and gutter. Councilmember Krebsbach asked what happened to the tee ball needs. She stated that she thought that the need was for tee ball. Assistant Batchelder responded that when the issue was first discussed, fields were needed for tee ball - last year two tee ball fields were proposed at the Public Works Garage site. At that time, MHAA had indicated that it was running out of space for tee ball, but tee ball can be played on grassy areas. He stated that MHAA has established a transitional league that begins at age seven, and they want a skinned infield for that. He explained that the proposed fields would accommodate the transitional league, and MHAA has indicated they are running out of fields for 7 to 14 year olds. The Plaza fields would provide for youth play in the age groups which has the greatest need for fields. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that there are two issues. One issue is what happened to the tee ball needs, and when the suggestion was made to Mr. Paster, owner of the Plaza, it was tee ball. She felt that the issue has changed. Assistant Batchelder stated that Mr. Paster has been informed about the proposed use. Councilmember Huber stated that originally Council was talking about tee ball but when the cemetery site was discussed, the discussion was about the transitional league. He stated that the city has been trying to find a place for the transitional league to play because they need a skinned infield, whereas there are more options for tee ball which can utilize a smaller space. Assistant Batchelder stated that throughout the discussions with MHAA, both on this issue and Mendakota Park, they have made it clear that they can always find a place for tee ball but need space for the age group that graduates from tee ball. Page No. 4539 September 5, 1995 Mr. Charlie Godbout, representing the MHAA, stated that when the cemetery site was discussed, the discussion was about fields for seven year olds, and it was determined that if a field is built strictly for seven year olds it gets used two days a week and is vacant the rest of the week. If a larger field is built, play will occur on Monday and Wednesday for seven year olds and Tuesday and Thursday for 8 and 9 year olds. Councilmember Smith stated that she is concerned that this is a temporary situation and she does not believe any of the Council members thought it would not be suitable for play without such a high cost. Councilmember Krebsbach questioned whether the Plaza is the best place for the city to make such an investment since it is a temporary use. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council wants to have fields available for next spring it must do something now. He further stated that if Council wants to build permanent fields the Plaza would not be the place to build them as the location for the fields is the only place where the shopping center could expand. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she has not seen any documentation that Mr. Paster understands that the fields would be used for more than tee ball. Councilmember Huber stated that Mr. Kullander is just asking for direction to proceed and there would be further discussion with Mr. Paster. Mr. Kullander stated that staff needs to do topographic work on the fields, etc., to see how much grading is necessary. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the city needs to discuss the issue with Mr. Paster to let him know about what is proposed. She also wanted to be sure that the fields will not interfere with parking. Councilmember Smith stetted that she would also want to know what total time commitment Mr. Paster will give. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the city spent $65,000 on temporary fields at the Civic Center site and the Park Commission has indicate that it would spend $25,000 of Special Park Fund Page No. 4540 September 5, 1995 money on the fields. He suggested that perhaps the city could use TIF funds for soil correction. Assistant Batchelder stated that staff informed the Park and Recreation Commission that discussion on fields at the Plaza may go to the Council before the Park Commission and the Commission indicated that they were aware of the MHAA needs. They are not aware of the money involved, however, and they authorized up to $25,000 but did not say they would commit to more money. Mayor Mertensotto suggested approving the concept without ordering the project. He stated that discussions with Mr. Paster must occur before a decision is made and if the fields are to be safe, they must be graded and seeded. It was the consensus to approve the concept to the extent of obtaining additional information, and to direct staff to work out the details and get approvals from Mr. Paster. HEARING - CAO 95 -03, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a SCHAEFER public hearing on an application from Mr. Joe Schaefer for approval of a modified critical area site plan to allow construction of a porch addition, walkway, garage expansion, pool and retaining wall at his home at 1889 Hunter Lane. Council acknowledged reports from Administrative Assistant Batchelder and City Planner Uban and an unsigned letter of objection from an unidentified neighbor. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that apparently there was only one letter objecting to the proposed improvements. Mr. Schaefer responded that there was just one anonymous letter which the Planning Commission did not consider because it was not signed. Assistant Batchelder informed Council that hearing notices were mailed and published for both the Planning Commission hearing and this evening's hearing on the application. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Michael Ciresi, 1247 Culligan Lane, stated that he was out of town and could not attend the Planning Commission meeting. He informed Council that he lives immediately northwest of the Schaefer property and has concerns about the height of the addition to the garage and the type of landscaping that will be planted on the northwest side. He stated that it appears that the shrubbery will end on the north edge of the pool. He was also concerned about the Page No. 4541 September 5, 1995 location of the pool facility, because the pump, filter, etc., can be noisy, and had concern about the fence, which will abut his property. He stated that he is concerned about the fence because he has evergreens near where the fence will go and that the fence will be very close to his house. With respect to the garage height, Mr. Schaefer stated that the addition will be the same height as the existing garage. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that her concern is that often people make significant changes to their property in the bluff area and then move on. Mr. Schaefer stated that he had lived in the area for 16 years and that he intends to reside in the home for a long time. Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Ciresi reviewed the plans outside of the Council chambers and discussed Mr. Ciresi's concerns. Mr. Ciresi informed Council that Mr. Schaefer has agreed to plant pine trees between his house and the fence to buffer the view between his home and the pool, he will also put some vines on the fence, and the utility location will be buffered. Mr. Schaefer stated that he will plant 20 foot tall pine trees. Mr. Ciresi asked if city staff has checked the drainage. Public Works Director Danielson responded that Mr. Schaefer is not altering the drainage pattern but there will be an increase in drainage because of the increased hard surface. After discussion, Councilmember Huber moved to close the hearing and approve the Critical Area modified site plan as proposed, to allow construction of a porch addition, walkway, garage expansion, pool and retaining wall with the following conditions: 1.) that four to five 20 foot tall pine trees be planted between the pool and the Ciresi home; 2.) that vines will be placed over the green cyclone fence along the entire length of the fence between the two houses; that there will be buffer on the utility location or the utility location will be moved if possible. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PRELIMINARY BUDGET/ Council acknowledged receipt of a memo from Treasurer Page No. 4542 September 5, 1995 TAX LEVY Shaughnessy regarding the proposed 1996 budget and tax levy. Council also acknowledged a letter from Ms. Joan Olin objecting to any consideration of financing for the proposed Burow farm acquisition. Mayor Mertensotto stated that by state law the city must adopt a preliminary budget and levy and certify the levy to Dakota County by September 15, after which time the levy cannot be increased. He informed the audience that the proposed 1996 budget includes about a five percent increase in total expenditures over the 1995 budget. He stated that Council instructed city staff to hold the line on the budget because of the impact of the school district referendum and potential school district special levy. He explained that Council does not plan to exceed the proposed five percent increase, but there are some add -on items, such as the Burow farm, which will be discussed. Mr. Ronald Patrick Smith gave an update on the Burow Farm issue, informing Council of a recent informational meeting he had held on the matter. He stated that at the meeting he distributed copies of a petition in support of the acquisition, and he submitted to Council 53 pages of petitions which he stated held approximately 400 signatures. He asked that Council include funding for the farm acquisition in the 1996 budget and reviewed the history of discussions and the involvement of the Friends of the Burow Farm (FBF). Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that there is no definitive plan in place and that it would be costly for the city to upgrade the facility, providing handicapped accessibility, etc. He stated that the FBF does not exist and informed Mr. Smith that to him it has become a question of unfunded liability. He pointed out that the city would have to maintain the property if the FBF became extinct, and the maintenance costs could be considerable. Councilmember Smith stated that she supports open space as much as anyone else does but is concerned about many of the details. She stated that while there are good intentions at this time, if the FBF does not maintain the facility to city standards or the standards of the neighborhood, the city would receive all of the complaints but would have little to say given the proposed structure of the non- profit organization. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the same end result could be } accomplished if the property is acquired and managed by a non- profit corporation. He informed Mr. Smith that Council must think Page No. 4543 September 5, 1995 ahead and cannot commit the tax payers to the costs. He pointed out that there is no extra funding to commit to this type of project and that it is anticipated that the state will reduce the HACA aid to the city by 20% or more. He stated that the issue of acquiring the farm arose because of fire damage to the buildings. He informed Mr. Smith of the objection from Mrs. Olin and a call he had received from Mr. Clarence Neff, who stated that she would move from town if Council commits to acquiring the farm. He stated that Mr. Smith sent flyers out to a large number of homes in the area around the farm and he has received over thirty calls from people who were concerned that the property would develop as multi - family. He felt that there is much misinformation about potential future development of the property. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Smith that he cannot support city acquisition of the farm and that he feels that Mr. Smith should instead work with a non - profit organization. Councilmember Krebsbach expressed her she support for preservation of the farm, but stated that she does not believe there is sufficient Council support for funding the proposal. She stated that the budget workshop which had been scheduled for last week had to be canceled because of conflicting Council member schedules. She felt that Council should review the proposed budget in a workshop with department heads as it has done in past years. Mayor Mertensotto agreed that conducting a workshop is appropriate, but stated that the workshop can be held after the preliminary levy is adopted, since the levy amount cannot be increased after it is certified. He pointed out that the preliminary levy must be certified to Dakota County by September 15. Councilmember Huber agreed that he would like a workshop, but stated that he did not feel it needs to be held before the preliminary levy certification. With regard to the Burow farm issue, he stated that in his mind is whether there is any community support for the proposal outside of the immediate neighborhood. He stated that while 400 signatures on a petition is not a trivial amount, it represents only about eight to nine percent of the voting residents and he is concerned about how the other 90 percent view the issue. He noted that on some pages of the petition there are many names of people on the same street but on many pages there are lots of groups where there are only a few people on the same street. He explained that there were about 60 people at Mr. Smith's informational meeting, and if each took a petition, each was able to get six to seven signatures. He was very concerned that those circulating the petition probably knocked on many doors and contacted many Page No. 4544 September 5, 1995 people who gave a negative response. Councilmember Huber stated that if Council votes not to acquire the property and there is a huge cry of outrage from the residents, Council will know about it. He further stated that if there is a public outcry, there may be time for Council to approach the issue differently, but at the moment he would like to have seen a much broader base of support than 400 signatures. Councilmember Smith stated that on many occasions she has expressed support for the open space concept and that as she reads the petition she could sign it, but as a representative of the city she is concerned about the city's ultimate obligation and the many unknowns. She stated that she would need answers to many questions before she could support acquiring the farm. She suggested to Mr. Smith that if time is truly of the essence, as he has indicated, perhaps the city could take an option on the property to work through all of the issues. She pointed out that this is an entirely untested and new venture that the city is being asked to enter into - it is a new way of dealing with a property, very different from what Council has done before, and there are many unanswered questions. Councilmember Huber moved to schedule a special meeting for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 13 for discussion of the proposed 1996 levy and budget and adoption of the preliminary levy. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 95 -13, STAR Council acknowledged an application from Star Builders for BUILDERS modified critical area site plan review, variance to allow a second garage, a variance to allow the garage to be closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, and conditional use permit to allow construction of a pool house at 1010 Sibley Memorial Highway. Council also acknowledged reports from the City Planner and Administrative Assistant Batchelder. Mr. Kenneth Nordby, architect for the project, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that a variance is needed because only one attached or detached garage can be constructed on a lot, and a second garage is considered an accessory structure. He asked if the garage will be used as a garage. Mr. Nordby responded that the property owner, Alden Landreville, has antique cars, a sports car, a boat and a snowmobile which will be stored in the garage. He explained that Mr. Landreville considered Page No. 4545 September 5, 1995 expanding his existing garage but that would necessitate removal of trees, relocation of existing landscaping and an increased driveway slope. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council cannot extend to everyone in the city the ability to build a second garage, but there is a distinction in this case because the property is a five acre parcel that cannot be subdivided. He asked if the property owner below the Landreville property objected to the proposal. Mr. Nordby responded that the neighbor was worried about excess run off but the project will not create any additional run off except from the impervious surface in the pool and will not add to the Werthauser drainage problems. He informed Council that no trees will be eliminated and the garage will be shielded from all neighbors. He explained that he staked out the proposed garage and the city's planner visited the site and confirmed that no trees would be removed nor with the grade be changed for the garage. He stated that no soil will be removed or brought to the site and the garage will only be seen from the Landreville home. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if it is Council's desire to approve the application, a condition should be that silt fencing be put in place during construction until the soil is re- stabilized. He stated that the applicant should submit a modified plan to show silt fencing. Councilmember Smith stated that Mr. Landreville's plan makes good sense for the site. She expressed concern that city ordinances do not accommodate such plans, and suggested that Council should consider addressing this type of situation in the Zoning Ordinance. Council made the following findings: 1) that the site is unique in that it is five acres in size; 2) the property is screened from the neighbors; 3) the proposed structures will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Council discussed a condition of approval to restrict future subdivision of the property. It was noted that any future proposal to subdivide the lot would require City Council deliberation and action. City Attorney Hart stated that Council cannot bind a future Council, and if Mr. Landreville or a subsequent owner came to a future Council it could grant subdivision. He pointed out, however, that by inserting language in the approving resolution with respect to future subdivision would establish Council's intent for future Councils. Page No. 4546 September 5, 1995 Councilmember Smith suggested that a condition of approval be that any attempt to subdivide the land in the future would result in automatic termination of the variance for the second accessory structure. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 95 -46, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES AND CRITICAL AREA REVIEW ALLOWING A GARAGE, POOL AND POOL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 1010 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY (PLANNING CASE NO. 95 -13)," revised to include the following conditions: that silt fence installation be required from the time construction begins until the soil is re- stabilized; that the applicant submit revised plans showing the silt fence; and that any attempt to subdivide the property will automatically terminate the variances with respect to the garage. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 95 -14, CRUZ Council acknowledged an application from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Cruz for variances to allow an existing driveway to remain at 1338 Cherry Hill Road and to allow storage of a recreational vehicle in the required side yard. Council also acknowledged a letter from the applicants to the Planning Commission and reports from the city planner and Administrative Assistant Batchelder. Mr. & Mrs. Cruz and their legal counsel, Mr. Richard Gabriel, were present for the discussion. Mr. Gabriel informed Council that Mr. & Mrs. Cruz had received a letter from Code Enforcement Officer Berg and Attorney Martin Costello advising them that they could no longer park their motor home alongside their house. He stated that Mr. Cruz constructed the home in 1993, and the house is configures on the lot such that the home is at an angle, which restricts the side yard. The recreational vehicle cannot be stored within the setback limitations, and the applicants are requesting a variance from the setback to allow them to park their 23 foot long recreational vehicle along side their house and to allow them to retain an existing ten foot wide concrete pad on which the vehicle is stored. He explained that Mr. Cruz has explored the possibility of purchasing ten feet of property from the adjoining land owners but they do not want to sell any of their lot. He stated that the back of the lot fronts on Wachtler Avenue but there is no access from Wachtler. He informed Council that Mr. Cruz has received bids for plantings and fencing to screen the Page No. 4547 September 5, 1995 sideyard, and stated that there are many recreational vehicles in the city parked where they should not be. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Gabriel that the city received a complaint from the neighbors of the Cruz's, which brought the matter to the city's attention. He pointed out that the city does not permit the storage of a mobile home in a driveway. Councilmember Huber stated that Mr. Cruz is attempting to come up with some way to screen the vehicle. Mr. Cruz responded that he has talked to landscapers and has also agreed to a fence, as was suggested by the neighbor who now says no. He explained that bushes would screen the vehicle and would be entirely on his property. He stated that because of the angle of the house and the trees, he cannot get the motor home into his back yard. He further stated that he has tried to accommodate the neighbor by screening any way the neighbor desires. Councilmember Smith stated that it appears that the back yard is highly visible from the Park Place neighborhood, and putting the vehicle in the back yard would not make it any less visible. Councilmember Huber stated that it is unlikely that Mr. Cruz could even get the vehicle into the back yard given the configuration of the house. He pointed out that the Planning Commission determined that there is no basis for a hardship, but he felt that perhaps having to store the vehicle in a remote location where it would have to be loaded, unloaded and maintained would be a hardship. Mayor Mertensotto responded that to grant a variance the Planning Commission looks at hardships on the premises. Mr. Gabriel stated that the hardship is that the lot configuration does not permit the storage of a recreational vehicle in an area that is allowed for storage by the city's ordinance. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, City Attorney Hart stated that the concept of hardship has changed in state statute so that cities now deal with practical difficulty, but the hardship must generally relate to the characteristics of the land and not to the use. He further stated that the residence was able to be built in compliance with city ordinances, and any hardship would be unrelated to the development of a facility on the lots. He explained that there does not seem to be a characteristic of the property that Page No. 4548 September 5, 1995 creates a hardship, and if Mr. Cruz built the house he created the hardship himself. Mr. Cruz responded that he tried to do everything right by putting in a screen and the fence the neighbor wanted, and now the neighbor will not agree. He informed Council that he has planted 21 trees in his yard. Councilmember Smith asked why the site survey does not show the driveway pad. Mr. Cruz responded that the survey was done at the time his planner drew up the preliminary plan and the pad was an idea after the plan was submitted. Councilmember Huber stated that the only options Mr. Cruz has are to store the vehicle off site or to increase the height of his garage to accommodate the vehicle. Councilmember Smith stated that she could support approval if this were a unique situation, but it is not unique. Mr. Cruz stated that if he had known that he could not have a concrete pad at the property line or store the motor vehicle in that area, he would have done things differently in the beginning. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Cruz that Council has turned down requests similar to his in the past, and stated that Mr. Cruz' neighbors have voiced their objections. He explained that Council must rely on precedent so that everyone is treated equally. Councilmember Huber stated that Mr. Cruz has indicated that he built his home in its location because the home had to fit in with the way the existing houses on the cul de sac are angled. He noted that if the home were square on the lot, it would have been possible to use the sideyard for storage, as is allowed by ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the Planning Commission minutes reflect that the concrete pad was never shown on the site plan or it would have been caught in the building permit application process. He stated that the commission recommended denial and that lie cannot see any possible way that Council can deviate from past precedent where it has turned down similar requests if there was no hardship basis. He stated that the sideyard setback for storage is ten feet and the setback for driveways is five feet from the side lot line; and noted that the Cruz side yard is ten feet at its narrowest point. Page No. 4549 September 5, 1995 Mr. Gabriel responded that there is a way to bring the vehicle in the property and stay ten feet from the property line, but it would stick out in front of the house. He explained that Mr. Cruz is trying to have a vehicle on his lot in the best possible way for the neighborhood by adding screening, etc. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the precedent is for denial and that if Council concurs with the Planning Commission it should direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the request, which details Council's findings based on discussions this evening and at the Planning Commission hearing. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the application for side yard variance and storage of a recreational vehicle in a driveway and to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on lack of hardship and denial of similar requests in the past. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Huber CASE NO. 95 -19, LANE Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Jerome Lane for a wetlands permit to install a fence within 100 feet of LeMay Lake and to install a dock. Council also acknowledged reports from Planner Uban and Assistant Batchelder. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Lane that the Wetlands Ordinance stipulates that nothing can be installed within a designated wetlands area. He asked Mr. Lane how far the fence will be from the water and if the lake is navigable. Mr. Lane responded that it will be down to the water's edge and that his lot line goes into LeMay Lake. He explained that he wants to install the 42 inch chain link fence for the safety of his neighbor's children, and that all of his neighbors support his request. He stated that he uses a row boat on the lake. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, he stated that his lawn extends all the way to the lake and the proposed fence would be a replacement for a fence that was taken out when the public utilities were constructed, although the original fence did not extend all the way to the lake. He informed Council that there is already a dock on the lake and there was a dock on his property when he bought it. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city does not have a scenic easement along the lake as it does in the Copperfield ponds, where a Page No. 4550 September 5, 1995 recent dock request was denied. He asked Mr. Lane why the fence must go all the way to the lake. Mr. Lane responded that if he did not extend the fence to the water, the children and dogs next door could get around it and it would do no good. He explained that keeping the toddlers away is a big worry for him and also older children in the area bring their dirt bikes and run into his retaining walls. With respect to the dock request, Attorney Hart stated that the only issue is under the wetlands ordinance - Council would have to make the findings required under the ordinance. Councilmember Huber stated that he has no problem with the dock, as everyone who could see it approves the request. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Mr. Lane's area is subjected to significant airport noise, the greatest air noise in the city, and she would like Council to do what it can to make the area better to live in. She did not, however, like the fence to go to the water. Mr. Lane responded that anything else would not keep the children out. He stated that the dock will be on pads so that it can be moved, and there will be some posts to stabilize it. Councilmember Huber pointed out that Council did not approve the Copperfield dock request even though the applicant said it would be temporary. Attorney Hart clarified that under the wetlands ordinance, Council does not need to make a finding of hardship - if the application and the proposed use meets the criteria of the ordinance, the applicant is entitled to a wetlands permit, which is different from the requirements for a variance. He further stated that all the wetlands ordinance says is that the criteria established by the ordinance must be satisfied, and the Lane application may well satisfy those criteria. Councilmember Smith noted that the neighborhood is isolated. She stated that Council would be looking at the application in terms of the dock's impact on the wetland. She further stated that her only concern is precedent and that she would like to define the specific conditions that make the dock approvable before Council approves it. Councilmember Smith moved to approve the issuance of a wetlands permit to Jerome Lane to allow installation of a 42 inch chain link Page No. 4551 September 5, 1995 fence to the water's edge on LeMay Lake with the condition that no vegetation can be removed, and to defer action on the dock request to a later date pending additional research. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 95-22, SLATER Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Billie Slater for a wetlands permit to continue and finish a landscape project, including a playhouse/structure, wooden stairs vegetation removal and replacement at 2464 Pond Circle East, within 100 feet of the wetlands. Council also acknowledged reports from the city planner and administrative assistant, along with a letter of intent regarding landscaping changes from Ms. Slater. After brief discussion, Councilmember Huber moved to approve the issuance of a wetlands permit subject to restoration of the vegetation and placement of the playhouse/structure no closer than 71 feet from the water's edge. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 95-23, SIMMONDS Council acknowledged an application from Ms. Janice Simmonds, 1324 Sylvandale Road, for a conditional use permit to add 900 cubic yards of fill to Outlot A, Evergreen Knolls. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Simmonds and Mr. Jim Gryc, developer of Evergreen Knolls, were present for the discussion. Ms. Simmonds stated that she proposes to add fill so that her house elevation can be raised so that it can have gravity flow to the sanitary sewer on Wachtler Avenue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Ms. Simmonds had previously come before Council to ask that she not be required to pay more than the normal assessment for connection to the sanitary sewer system than a normal 100 foot lot would pay. He asked what street the outlot will front on. Ms. Simmonds responded that the lot fronts on the Wachtler Avenue right-of-way. Responding to a Council question, she stated that her lot is lower than the lot to the north and the front of the outlot will be raised from elevation 880 to 882. Page No. 4552 September 5, 1995 Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach about why the property was platted as an outlot, Public Works Director Danielson stated that lots are typically platted as outlots because there is some future action intended. He stated that in this case, it was intended that the outlot be divided into two lots in the future if Wachtler were ever to be constructed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not want to curtail the possible future construction of the extension of Wachtler. He asked if raising the elevation of the outlot would curtail that extension. Ms. Simmonds responded that there is an 18 foot ravine where the street would be. Mr. John Hartmann, 812 Deer Trail Point, stated that the lot has been filled over the past five or six years without a permit and there is a considerable amount of fill on it already, some of which is dirty fill including concrete. He stated that in filling the lot a natural water way that runs through the property was blocked and the street that exists goes down to the corner house on Evergreen Knolls and Wachtler. He further stated that the water comes down the street at a steep grade and washes fill that has been placed into a ravine on the Slowinski property. Mr. Hartmann stated that he understands that the applicant proposes to fill the property so that they can put in a gravity sewer to somehow get the sewer line to the corner of Wachtler and Evergreen Knoll. He pointed out that this is a long run, and stated that he assumes it would be a private sewer line and there cannot be future development of the lot. He stated that since there will be no street, plowing in the winter will be very difficult and he asked how emergency vehicles and plows will get to the Simmonds. He felt that there needs to be an adequate street to serve the property and some provision to take care of the storm water so that it does not erode everyone's property as well as some way to serve the outlot with sewer. He stated that the public street ends at the existing homes, so it would have to be extended 100 feet. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not want to foreclose the option of extending Wachtler to the south. He also stated that the other problem is whether the city would have to carry half of an assessment if a public street is constructed. He pointed out that Mr. Gryc obviously did not plat the lot at the time of platting Evergreen Knolls and the city certainly wants to give him some use of the property since he has been paying taxes on it, but stated that Council wants to exercise good planning so that future planning is not closed off. Page No. 4553 September 5, 1995 Mr. Gryc responded that the street would probably only have to be extended 50 feet to serve the Simmonds home. He pointed out that the lost time Ms. Simmonds appeared before the Council, there was discussion about a possible turn around. He stated that the street ends half way back to the lot on Deer Trail Court and perhaps that lot could be assessed as well as the outlot. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the last time Ms. Simmonds came to the Council it was because she wanted utilities but did not want to pay all of the cost. Ms. Simmonds responded that she will have to pay the full cost of the utilities. She stated that her proposal will not jeopardize the future extension of Wachtler, but extending it would probably be cost prohibitive. Mr. Hartmann stated that because of the growth on the right -of -way there seems to be a very significant drop off and it would be very expensive to extend Wachtler, but if it is extended enough it would create the option for potential future development of the Slowinski property. j Mayor Mertensotto asked Ms. Simmonds if she would still proposed - only one home on the outlot if the road were to come through, pointing out that two homes could easily be built on the property. Ms. Simmonds responded that if she were to subdivide the lot she would still need the 900 yards of fill. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that the proposed house does not accommodate the contours of the lot. Councilmember Smith stated that her concern is to ensure that drainage does not interfere with anyone else's property. She also stated that there are many trees on the lot and she would like to see how many would need to be removed. Further discussion on the application was tabled to September 19. CASE NO. 95 -24, NELSON Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Dan Nelson for a fence height variance to allow his existing five foot high patio fence, at 575 Sibley Court, to remain. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Page No. 4554 September 5, 1995 Councilmember Smith stated that she is concerned that the people who are using the facilities at Sibley High School. She asked if there are no public facilities at the Sibley park. Mr. Nelson responded that he complained to the school last year and they have since provided portable units, but there are people constantly coming and going to the park because of the events. He explained that he lives directly across from the ball field. Councilmember Smith stated that she believes Mr. Nelson's request is reasonable given the public use across the street. She also pointed out that the patio fence is not really like a fence, but if the Nelsons sell and there is an eight foot variance for a fence along the property, future owners could build a solid fence along the property. Mr. Nelson responded that the fence only encompasses the patio area - it is 18 feet long on Warrior Drive and about another 11 feet north and west. He explained that only about 20 feet of the fence does not comply with the ordinance. He also stated that once the trees he has planted mature he may remove the fence. On the basis of the unusual circumstances, Councilmember Huber moved to approve a 24 inch fence height variance to allow a five foot high ornamental wood fence to remain as constructed, the fence not to exceed five feet in height or 20 feet in total length and be no closer than 22 feet from the right of way. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 95 -21, AT &T Council acknowledged an application from AT &T Wireless Services for a conditional use permit for a cellular telephone transmission tower, variance for tower height and variance for building setback for a tower facility which AT &T constructed on Mn/DOT property at T.H. 55 and I -494 without city approval. Council also acknowledged numerous communications from AT &T, associated staff reports, and letters of support from AT &T cellular customers. Mr. Peter Beck, AT &T legal counsel, and several representatives of AT &T including Ted Olson and engineers were present for the discussion. Mr. Peter Beck reviewed the application and history for Council. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he will recommend adoption of a j motion to authorize city staff to make application to Mn/DOT to transfer the surplus right -of -way to the city. He explained that there Page No. 4555 September 5, 1995 is a real question over why Mn/DOT has not given the city the opportunity for turn-back acquisition. Mr. Beck responded that he does not think anyone knew it had been declared surplus. Mayor Mertensotto stated that this is apparently one of the reasons why federal approval has not been granted to Mn/DOT to lease the property. Mr. Beck described how cellular systems work and explained that there are sixty similar towers in the Twin Cities area. He explained that the height of the antenna is determined by coverage issues. He reviewed graphics depicting coverage gaps at antenna heights of 75, 95 and 125 feet. Referring to a facsimile letter from AT &T to the city dated September 1, 1995, he stated that AT &T has decided to use a 95 foot pole even though there is a concern about a 3/8 to 1/2 mile gap of service on I -494 - the maximum antenna height would be 100 feet. He explained that AT &T has agreed to remove the top section of the existing 125 foot pole that is in place, and stated that the tower will not have a microwave dish on it. He further stated that the most recent letter from AT &T states that it will comply with all of the Planning Commission recommendations including significant improvement to the landscaping, etc. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, he stated that the tower location is the best location given all circumstances, and is a better site than the water tower. Councilmember Huber pointed out that a 3/8 to 1/2 mile service interruption is only 30 seconds in time at freeway speeds. Mr. Beck responded that in most circumstances when service is interrupted, a call is lost. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the precedent exists for the conditions the city has set. He pointed out that Council is very conscious of tower heights, and the AT &T proposal is totally different from a recent denial because it is not located on a substandard residential lot in a residential district and is not governed by PRB -1. He stated that the developer of the city's industrial park is very conscientious and a very good developer, and all of the buildings are finished on all four sides. He stated that he supports good cellular service but is concerned over deviation in building material and aesthetics, and pointed out that although Mr. Beck has stated that the antenna will be reduced to 95 feet, an antenna will be extended over that. Page No. 4556 September 5, 1995 Mr. Beck responded that AT &T will hold the antenna at 95 feet if Council wishes and will use whatever building materials Council requires. He also agreed that AT &T will paint the tower antennas to match the color of the city's water tower. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith regarding the projected length of time the tower will serve AT &T needs, and if it is likely that the tower can be brought down to 75 feet high in the future, AT &T's engineer stated that it is unlikely that there will need to be any enhancements to the system for many years. He did not foresee needing another site in Mendota Heights for at least and stated that AT &T would not want to abandon the site since it is a very good location in terms of terrain and proximity to the freeway. Mr. Beck stated that AT &T's lease with Mn/DOT will be a two year lease which is presumably renewable. He explained that Mn/DOT's position with respect to right -of -way is that they cannot put anything permanent on it - the tower is an imbedded pole and is not cemented in. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council's concern is the general welfare of the community, so it establishes aesthetic guidelines, etc. He pointed out that the facility AT &T has on T.H. 13 represents a precedent, and it is 75 feet tall. He explained that Council must look at how to accommodate the structure on the site, and the guidelines have been set for the city as far as the height of the facility - Council has allowed one tower at 75 feet in height. Mr. Beck responded that the 75 foot height was uses because that was needed at that particular location. He recognized that the new pole is 20 feet higher but it is in an industrial zone and located considerably farther away from residential use than the T.H. 13 location. He also stated that the 95 foot height is below where it is needed to serve AT &T's needs. He stated that the exterior of the facilities will be brought up to whatever level of detail Council feels is necessary. Mayor Mertensotto read Planner Uban's recommendations for the audience and AT &T representatives. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one of her issues is not so much the tower as the fact that after talking to Council about antennas on the water tower, AT &T put up the tower without permission. She expressed her disappointment with AT &T in the process it used. Page No. 4557 September 5, 1995 Mr. Beck responded that AT &T has made every effort to rectify its mistake. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the tower height will set a precedent and Council is concerned about the city's industrial area. He pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 50 feet and a 75 foot pole was permitted on Highway 13, and stated that he would support a 75 foot pole. Mr. Beck responded that a 75 foot antenna would not serve the function and purpose. He stated that over a period of time systems tend to lower antennas, and he suggested that AT &T submit to the city a semi - annual engineering study to show AT &T is continuing to analyze the system and can bring the pole down to 75 feet as soon as possible. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that Council could approve the 95 foot pole with the condition that it be reduced to 75 feet over a period of time. Mr. Olson stated that many times AT &T can engineer from a coverage perspective where antennas will go, and this is a location j where AT &T does not have good coverage or capacity, and capacity drives the height of antennas down. Mr. Beck suggested that Council approve a temporary, five year conditional use permit at 95 feet and that AT &T come back in two years and justify the need to stay at 95 feet. Mayor Mertensotto responded that this would give AT &T and control, and that he would go along with a 95 foot maximum height provided that in two to three years the tower is lowered or the city will impose a significant fine. In the alternative, he suggested that if AT &T did not lower the tower to 75 feet in five years the conditional use permit would automatically be revoked with no guarantee of renewal, and AT &T would have to comply with all of the city conditions. Mr. Beck responded that if AT &T is unable to lower the tower it would like the opportunity to keep it at 95 feet so AT &T can apply with no guarantee of future application approval just because the facility exists. City Attorney Hart stated that the structure was built before issuance of a building permit and the city would have to be certain that it has no liability with respect to construction of the structure. Page No. 4558 September 5, 1995 Attorney Beck responded that AT &T has provided all the inspection reports to the city's inspection department and will provide everything that is available. He informed Council that the engineers who tested the tower on Highway 13 also tested the new tower. He also stated that AT &T will give the city a hold harmless agreement. Responding to a question from Administrator Lawell, Mr. Beck stated that there are six antennas on the tower now and there will be a maximum of nine antennas - the three future antennas would go horizontally between the existing six. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council could allow six antennas with the right for AT &T to come back to request a maximum of three additional antennas in the future. It was the consensus to direct staff to prepare a resolution for consideration by Council on September 19 and to grant AT &T permission to proceed with finalizing building construction but to withhold permission to activate the system before adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to direct staff to file with the Director of Highways and Right -of -Way for Mn/DOT an application one -half acres of surplus right-of-way for the transfer of the one and urp g Y to the city. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 AIR NOISE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell and draft Minneapolis /St. Paul Airport Area Community Protection Concept Package. Council discussed the document and gave Administrator Lawell direction on changes and additions. PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE Council acknowledged a memo from Code Enforcement Officer Gill regarding sites around the community which are affected by purple loosestrife. Mayor Mertensotto stated that something must be done to assist homeowners in dealing with loosestrife elimination. He suggested that the city offer to contribute $100 to homeowners to treat purple loosestrife. Page No. 4559 September 5, 1995 Councilmember Smith stated that she thinks this is an opportunity for the city to work with the community to get volunteers to pull out the weeds, since removal is the most effective control. MEETING SCHEDULE Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding scheduling of the joint T.H. 55 workshop, and recommending that the October 3 Council meeting be rescheduled because it falls on Yom Kippur. It was the consensus of Council to conduct a joint workshop with the Planning Commission on September 28 for discussion of the T.H. 55 study and to reschedule the regular October 3 meeting to Thursday, October 5. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Huber moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 1:47 o'clock A.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Asphalt Contractor License Bill & Co., Inc. Concrete/Masonry Contractor License A & H Cement Construction, Inc. General Cont etor License A Top Roofing & Construction, Inc. Blaeser Landscape Steenberg & Watrud Constuction Inc. D.L. Property Report Dave Taylor Construction Co., Inc. Gass piping Contractor License Metro Air HVAC Contractor License Metro Air Drywall Contractors License Donald Goodroad