Loading...
1995-05-02 Council minutesPage No. 4376 May 2, 1995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 2, 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, Koch, and Smith. Councilmember Krebsbach had notified Council that she would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the April 18, 1995 regular meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Koch moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for April. b. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for March. c. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the April 25, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. d. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the April 12, 1995 Airport Relations Commission meeting. e. Adoption of Resolution No. 95-22, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE MENDOTA MEADOWS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 95, PROJECT NO. I)," and approving the issuance of a check in the amount of $9,452.00 Page No. 4377 May 2, 1995 to NSP Company for installation of street lights and buried wiring. f. Approval to advertise for bids for 1995 seal coating. g. Authorization to hire three temporary summer employees in accordance with Public Works Superintendent Olund's memo dated April 25, 1995. h. Approval of the conservation classification for tax forfeit Lot 2, Willow Springs Addition, and direction to staff to review forfeited lots in the Centre Pointe Addition for possible temporary ballfield use. i. Approval to reschedule the start of the May 16 meeting to 8:00 p.m. j. Approval to hire Anthony Fotsch as a temporary summer outside field worker for engineering on a part -time, as needed basis, from May 20 through September 15, 1995, for an hourly wage of $9.50 without benefits. k. Direction to the Police Department to perform an investigation on an application from Mendota Golf, Inc. for an on -sale non- intoxicating 3.2 malt beverage license. 1. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated May 2, 1995 and attached hereto. m. Approval of the list of claims dated and totaling $434,640.62. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ARBOR MONTH Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding Arbor Month. Mayor Mertensotto read a proposed proclamation for Council and the audience. He also thanked the Mendota Heights Garden Club for its generosity in donating Red Splendor Crab trees which have been planted at City Hall over the past four years and for its offer to donate another tree in 1995. Councilmember Huber moved to adopt a "PROCLAMATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE MONTH OF MAY, 1995 AS ARBOR Page No. 4378 May 2, 1995 MONTH." Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 DAKOTA ALLIANCE FOR Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell PREVENTION regarding the Dakota Alliance for Prevention (DAP) and recommending the reappointment of Mr. Bill Payne, 605 Hampshire Drive, as the city's representative on DAP. Mr. Payne and Ms. Jane Palumbo, President of DAP, were present for the discussion. Ms. Palumbo gave Council and the audience a history of DAP and reviewed graphics on the DAP vision and goals and a summary of its needs assessment. Mayor asked if it would be permissible for a city to have the owner of a facility selling or serving alcohol to make it a condition of a license to that the owner must provide a written statement that he will require identification from all individuals who appear to be under 21 years of age. Ms. Palumbo responded that the city could certainly make the requirement and stated that she will provide the city with some sample policies for both alcohol and tobacco. Mr. Payne reviewed data available regarding the estimated costs associated with alcohol and drug abuse. He discussed DAP efforts, projects and its procedures to reduce those costs and reviewed the benefits of DAP to the city. Mayor Mertensotto thanked Ms. Palumbo and Mr. Payne for their efforts. Councilmember Smith moved to nominate Mr. Bill Payne, 605 Hampshire Drive, to serve as the city's representative on the Dakota Alliance for Prevention for a one year term beginning July 1, 1995. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion, Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ST. THOMAS ACADEMY Council acknowledged an application from St. Thomas Academy DUGOUTS for a conditional use permit and setback variance to build baseball dugouts at the varsity baseball field, along with an associated report from Assistant Batchelder. Mr. Jack Zahr, Athletic Director for St. Thomas, stated that the Academy is seeking approval for two pre-cast concrete dugouts along the first and third base lines to make the fields safer and to present a first class facility for Academy teams, those they compete with and other teams in the community which use the fields. He Page No. 4379 May 2, 1995 explained that the school will also provide secure storage for its teams and for Mendota Heights Athletic Association equipment. He reviewed drawings for Council and the audience and stated that the school has agreed to extend the existing net to the far end of the dugout at the request of Patterson Dental, which has submitted a letter of support for the project. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council does not want to get involved in the utility net height issue between the Academy and Patterson Dental and will not get involved in the height of utility of the net. He further stated that currently the ballfield fence is five feet onto the Patterson property and the school has indicated all of its fencing will be one foot onto the school property. Mr. Zahr confirmed that the fence will be on school property. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city is not involved in the property lien dispute between the school and Patterson and the city's planning consultant had recommended that the school should work something out with Patterson regarding planting of an evergreen buffer behind the dugout. He pointed out that slab for the dug -outs are already in. Mr. Zahr responded that the slab has existed for several years. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was that Council deny the conditional use permit request and the problem is that when St. Thomas built the facility it was stated that rezoning was not necessary. The athletic complex is in an R -1 zone which creates a problem for the city. He stated that although the school is a pernutted use, there are several other ordinance provisions relating to subdivision of property, etc., including accessory structures. He noted that even though the St. Thomas property is a 50 acre site, the underlying zoning is really non - conforming and Council only generally grants variances for hardship. He asked whether the school is going to have an over -all plan for the complex. Mr. Zahr responded that a complete facility plan for the school should be finished in June and he will be happy to share it with the city. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would suggest that the Academy submit that plan to Council for review to avoid future problems. He stated that Council has been granting variances to the school as a matter of course. He informed Mr. Zahr that the other question is Page No. 4380 May 2, 1995 his letter to Patterson Dental regarding accessory structure variances, stating that the city does not have any applications on file for variances for accessory structures and that the accessory structures exceed the ordinance size because each of the dugouts exceeds 300 feet. He asked if there would be any problem if Council grants the application tonight and then the school submits an application for variances from the ordinance. He pointed out that the city must have on record that there is an application pending for the variances and also for the fence and setback. He stated that could Council grant a conditional use permit for the accessory structures tonight conditioned upon submission of an application for variance, with no additional fee, for the fence with the understanding that the applicant knows that Council is always faced with the dilemma that the school is in the residential zoning district. He pointed out that Council may request in the future that the athletic complex be put into a different zoning classification so that problems which have been experienced can be avoided. Councilmember Koch moved to approve a conditional use permit for baseball dugouts and variances to the number and square footage of accessory structures and one foot setback from the property line conditioned that the applicant file with the city an application for the variances at no additional fee. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 91 -36, KING Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Batchelder regarding a request from Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence King, 5 Beebe Avenue, for a determination if the conditional use permit and variances granted in 1991 are still valid. Mayor Mertensotto briefly reviewed the history of the application and informed Mrs. King, who was present for the discussion, that conditional use permits are void after six months and variances are void after one year unless they are made use of within that time. He pointed out that one of the problems is the height of the proposed garage structure. He stated that the Kings would not have to pay an additional application fee but that the application should be updated and reviewed by the Planning Commission. BRIDGEVIEW SHORES Council acknowledged an update from Public Works Director TRAIL Danielson regarding the Bridgeview Shores trail and staff s contact with the contractor regarding delay of construction of the trail to fall. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the Dodd/Mendota Heights signal project has been completed. Page No. 4381 May 2, 1995 Public Works Director Danielson responded that the punch list has not yet been completed. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the verbal response from the contractor is not sufficient commitment because if they come along in the fall and say they are not going to honor their statement because the city returned the bid bond. He stated that the city should have an agreement where it could return the bid bond and retainer in exchange for construction the trail at the stated price in the fall of 1995. He stated that if the contractor is willing to install the trail at the bid price, they should be willing to sign an agreement and if not, a letter from them will do no good. Public Works Director Danielson stated that he will attempt to get a new agreement. CASE NO. 95 -03, HEAVER Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Keith Heaver for subdivision and variance for a proposed 19 lot subdivision to be located at Knollwood and Clement. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and communications from neighboring property owners., Mr. Heaver stated that he received a recommendation from the - Planning Commission for the 19 lot development but through the concerns of the neighbors and some of the Commission members, he looked at it again and reduced the number of lots to 18. He felt this improved several issues of concern dramatically. He informed Council that there were three proposed lots along Clement, and these have been reduced to two and the cul de sac has been moved 15 feet to the east which allowed him to increase the lot widths on the north and south sides of the street. He explained that the average lot size is now 17,560, almost 20% greater than is required by ordinance. He stated that the average lot frontage is 115 feet, ranging from 105 to 145 feet in width. He stated that the other recommendation of the Commission was with respect to the Cherry Hills neighbors' concern about trees. He stated that he proposes some additional landscaping and a two foot high berm and also some additional landscaping on Ivy Lane. He explained that the city engineer has recommended narrowing Ivy Lane to 24 feet to save some very large trees. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto regarding park contribution, Mr. Heaver stated that the Park Commission recommended a walking path from Clement to the end of the cul -de- sac and he has agreed to give the city a ten foot wide easement and pay for an 8 foot wide path for about 260 feet. Page No. 4382 May 2, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the city has the discretion to require 10% of the raw land or cash and Mr. Heaver should realize there is no park in the immediate area. Mr. Heaver responded that when he first met with the city planner, he understood that the city was not looking form more park land. Mayor Mertensotto responded that currently there is no park land other than going to the Ivy Falls Park or Wentworth Park, which are the closest facilities to the subdivision, which is a concern. He stated that Council still has the option to require land or to adopt the Park Commission recommendation for a trail. He stated that the original application included variances along Clement and asked if the application is being amended now that the number of lots has been reduced. Mr. Heaver responded that the variances along Clement have been eliminated. He informed Council that the existing Logan and Hughes homes are not new homesteads and are not being counted in the average lot sizes for the plat. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the street layout is for a cul -de -sac from Ivy Lane and asked if it is Mr. Heaver's understanding that Ivy Lane will not be built as part of this project. Mr. Heaver responded that Ivy Lane will be built as part of the project and that he did look at running Knollwood through to Clement but that would bring direct traffic from Dodd out to Emerson. Responding to questions from the Mayor, he stated that the grade elevation is 20 to 30 feet higher and he does not know if it would be physically possible to connect First Avenue with Knollwood, and there is a similar grade change problem to connect to Medora. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he raised the issues because traffic patterns are a legitimate concern to the city in terms of safety. Mr. Paul McGinley, surveyor for the project, reviewed changes made to the plan since the Planning Commission review, including the redesigning of the berm across the back of Lots 17 and 18, the provision of pine trees in the Cherry Hills addition outside the new plat to help screen the adjoining homes from the Ivy Lane street which will be built. Responding to a question on drainage, Mr. McGinley stated that the Planner's report seemed to indicate that all the drainage would collect on Lot 16, which is not correct. He stated that all the lots to the north drain to the street and the storm sewer. Page No. 4383 May 2, 1995 Lots 14 to 16 will drain down through those yards and be collected in a storm sewer inlet. He stated that what the planner was referring to is that Lot 16 will be the lot point and that is where the inlet will collect the water. Regarding retaining walls, he stated that one will be on Mrs. Logan's property so that she can continue to use her yard and garden, and the easterly segment will be on Lot 7, He stated that the upper wall will be her responsibility to maintain, and the part on Lot 7 will be the responsibility of the owner of that lot. He explained that the walls will be engineered by a retaining wall designer. Mayor Mertensotto asked how the prospective owner of Lot 7 will be alerted to the fact that he will be responsible for maintenance of the wall. He pointed out that in the future something could happen to the wall and Council wants to avoid the possibility of having others in the neighborhood say a drainage problem should be corrected. Mr. Heaver responded that he does not think it would be any different than any retaining walls that he has built in other lots in the city. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. Heaver has a retaining wall that will be holding back as much soil as in this case - the planner's report indicated there is as much as a 50 foot drop in some cases. Mr. Heaver responded that he is looking at from a 2 to 4 foot retaining wall and that there will be extensive grading. Mayor Mertensotto asked how a future owner would know he must undertake the responsibility for the wall - the other home owners have the right to tell him to fix it if there is a drainage problem in the future. Mr. Heaver responded that the reason for the second wall is that he is trying to level out from 20 to 30 feet of flat area behind four lots and the design of some of the homes could be changes to split level, etc. Councilmember Huber stated that Council needs to know what Mr. Heaver is going to do, particularly if he is talking about a wall affecting several lots. Mr. Heaver responded that he could present something to the city staff for approval. Page No. 4384 May 2, 1995 Councilmember Koch stated that she is not sure what Council is trying to get at. She stated that it appears that what Mr. Heaver has prevented is for the ultimate circumstance and if in the designing of the home a buyer says he wants a different design the retaining wall could be eliminate. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Council had a problem with a grading plan which did not address the amount of fill that was brought in and if Mr. Heaver is going to move 400 cubic yards Council will have to know that in advance. He explained that this is what he is trying to address. Mr. Jeff Shoph stated that he designed the grading plan and home elevations and two foot contours are shown on the entire plan and in order to retain Mrs. Logan's usability of her lot it is proposed that the retaining wall be built along her lot. If the other three lots are not adjusted, a short retaining wall will be needed, and if he can reduce or eliminate that wall he will. He stated that the slope is 3:1, which is the city standard, and there is no slope stability problem. He explained that information on grading quantities has been submitted and that he is trying to achieve a balance so that he will not haul dirt in or out of the site. He stated that there are some adjustments that are always made between preliminary and final design based on city comments, and he has done a plan in detail that he knows will work. He explained that there is about 35,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of dirt that will be moved on the site. Mr. Heaver showed pictures of the Victoria Highlands townhome development, which has a 3:1 slope from the townhouses to the residential building sites. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Lots 17 -19 will be looking down on lots on Cherry Hill Road and asked what the grade is from Ivy Lane to the cul -de -sac. Mr. Shoph responded that the road and cul de sac will be put at close to the existing grade and there is a low spot by Lots 4 and 5 and a 6% grade for a short distance with a 3% grade at the end. Responding to a question about driveways, he stated that garages for Lots 5 -7 and 14 -16 are above the street and there is about a four foot grade from the street and the housing will be terraced. Councilmember Smith asked what the difference is in the height of the building pad between the south side of Knollwood Lane and the house on Cherry Hill Road. Page No. 4385 May 2, 1995 Mr. Shoph responded that it is about 3' from the walk out elevation and about 7 feet on the next lot. Councilmember Smith commented that the homes in Cherry Hills would be looking at 3 stories if the new homes are walk -outs. Mr. Tom Kraus, 1440 Cherry Hill Road, stated that the Planning Commission expressed concerns about water problems and too much traffic for the area and that he was also concerned that there are too many lots for the area. He stated that in spite of the concerns, the commission recommended approval because the plan met the minimum requirements of the ordinance. He did not believe the reduction of one lot is a significant improvement and stated that nine of the lots were 16,000 square feet in size before and now 8 are less than 16,000 square feet. He stated that eleven lots in the current proposal are actually less footage than the 19 lot proposal. He estimated a 40 to 50 foot drop in grade from Mrs. Logan's property to his property and was concerned that to meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance is not good enough for the area. He felt that the lots are much smaller than Ivy Falls West and because of the grading he thought there could be a possible erosion problem in the early stages of the project. He explained that Mr. Heaver has agreed to berm and try to save trees and has made concessions but he was not convinced that Mr. Heaver has done enough. He stated that no alternatives have been proposed for traffic and that he was concerned about who would maintain the retaining walls in the future. He stated that the city is responsible for protecting the neighborhood, and there is no drainage problem now. He state that the city code mentions a median structure height of 20 feet, which would mean a 35 foot high roof which would be overpowering to him. He further stated that Mr. Heaver has indicted a desire to build mixed housing, including ramblers, which would help. He felt that there should be fifteen foot sideyards, and that while he believes the owner is entitled to develop the land he would have no problem with 16 lots. He asked that Council be completely satisfied that Mr. Heaver has answered all questions on pertinent issues before making a decision. Mr. Preston Smith, 1416 Cherry Hill Road, stated that the biggest single concern that all the neighbors share is that the proposal would be a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. He stated that Mr. Heaver estimates a lot price of $90,000 and $350,000 to $500,000 homes, whereas the existing homes are valued at $150,000 including the lots. He stated that homes in his neighborhood are on 125 foot lots and average 60 feet wide and the proposed subdivision will have a 4:1 ratio of home to space, which Page No. 4386 May 2, 1995 is out of character with the neighborhood. The terrain will have to be leveled to create the lots, and the high lots will be lowered and the low lots will be raised, which means that the lots near Cherry Hills will be raised and the elevation of the houses will be significantly higher than those on Cherry Hills Road. He stated that many of the houses will be above and looking down on Cherry Hills. Ms. Jan Whitney, 1432 Cherry Hill Road, expressed two concerns, over density and traffic and the safety of the neighborhood children. Mr. Bill Frank stated was concerned over the type of soil in the area. He stated that Logan Hill is mostly grass and keeps the water from flowing down but when homes are built they will add water and will not keep the water from flowing down. He felt that the large roofs draining to the ground will create a real problem and noted that the soil in the area is blue and red clay and has almost no percolation. Mr. Shoph responded stated that soil samples were taken three to four feet down. He stated those lots on the upper part of the site are more sand and gravel and at the lower portion they do turn into clay or silty soils. He explained that the soil on the bottom of the site will be filled to provide more granular material for the housing pads. Mr. Les Novak, Knollwood Lane, stated that he has a 1/2 acre lot as do his neighbors and most lots in Ivy Falls West and Ivy Falls West II are 1/2 acre lots and the proposed plat is being developed as another addition to Ivy Falls. He stated that Mr. Heaver builds nice homes but in this case even wit the change in the plat to reduce the number of lots he is trying to squeeze too many lots on the parcel, which is not what is best for the neighborhood. He stated that no one is opposed to developing the property but something in keeping with the neighborhood is what should be done. He felt that 16 lots would make it more in keeping with what exists and would not dramatically affect the overall development. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council is concerned about traffic patterns, etc., and the affect on the older adjoining neighborhoods. He stated that a developer, by using a cul de sac, does not want to identify with those other developments but rather with Knollwood Lane to the west where they have 1/2 acre lots. He explained that where there is infill development it is hard to put in a buffer, and from what Mr. Heaver has been building, he is looking at large homes, which does impact on a small parcel. Mr. Arlen Logren, Mrs. Logan's son -in -law, stated that he would like to discuss the items which are not true. He stated that this is a development by the Hughes family and Mrs. Logan, who has been a Page No. 4387 May 2, 1995 resident for 39 years and has owned the land for 30 years. He explained that she and her husband purchased the land many years ago and when he died in 1983, she has since been approached many times to develop the property. She did not have to develop it then and liked open property around her, which benefited the neighbors, and she has paid taxes on the property for many years. He stated that Mrs. Logan researched seven developers for the property before deciding on Mr. Heaver, and he encouraged Council to read their letter from Mrs. Logan which give the reasons she chose Mr. Heaver. He stated that there has been much speculation going on - Mrs. Logan does not want to cause drainage issues or other concerns but she does have a right to develop her property and included in that is a financial concern. He explained that none of the neighbors have a financial interest, so it is very easy for them to say just take out two lots. In working with the city, the developer has tried to come up with a plan which maximizes benefit to the developer, which is his right, keeping in mind that he has a grading situation and retaining walls may be needed. He stated that there has been some speculation about the maintenance of the retaining wall and that certified engineering should be used on the walls. He further stated that there has been speculation about the sizes of the homes, but that is an issue at the time a building permit is requested and is not an issue here - if Council is concerned about issues, the 1 developer and owner would like to address them, but there is no question that the owner has the right to develop the property. Mayor Mertensotto responded that as the elected representatives, Council has the duty and responsibility to protect the rights of home owners. He explained that there is a concern about the retaining wall and other issues, and while Mrs. Logan has the right to develop her property, Council has the duty to protect the health and welfare of the community. Mr. Stan Linell, 1407 Cherry Hill Road, stated that he is happy Mr. Heaver is the one who will be developing the land but he is concerned about the density. He stated that the smaller of the lots are to the east yet that is where the lot was taken out. He did not think the city and neighbors understood the reasons for wanting to connect to Cherry Hill Road and Knollwood Lane and he did not think there is any objection to that although there are other options. He stated that he would like to see some effort made to reduce the amount of traffic by reducing the number of lots and would prefer that the traffic reduction be on the Cherry Hill and Knollwood side rather than the Clement side. He stated that there is no drainage Swale shown on Lot 2 so he does not know how the drainage is handled, and the drop in elevation between Cherry Hill and Page No. 4388 May 2, 1995 Knoliwood is about 16 feet. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto regarding the Park Commission recommendation on the trail, he stated that the commission compared the trail easement to dedication of land and from what he has heard from the neighbors about density of the development he felt that perhaps Council should consider the 10% land dedication instead. Councilmember Smith stated that she has received many letters from residents. She stated that Council is dealing with a number of interests - the surrounding property owners and the owner and developer. She further stated that she is also trying to bring in the interest of future home owners as a factor. She commented that one of the things brought up is that certainly the property owner has the right to develop and the development is within the city guidelines but the residents have said that this does not fit into the surrounding area. She suggested that if the city were to take 10% of the land, about an acre, which would be the equivalent of two or three lots, and if the city would impose a park contribution and donate it back to the developer to reduce the plat down to 16 lots that would enhance the development and end in a win -win situation. Mayor Mertensotto agreed that Council could consider the option. Mrs. Shirley Workman expressed concern over the retaining walls and the berm that runs behind Cherry Hill Road and about traffic. Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. With respect to the suggestion about park contribution, Mr. Heaver stated that it is his understanding that he would donate 10% and the city would give it back to him and he would come up with an agreement to educe the lots. He stated that this does not make sense to him to contribute .85 acres to be used for park land, which would force him as a developer to reduce the lot square footage to try to maintain as many lots as possible. He explained that he would be forced to reduce the lots to 100 feet wide from 115 feet wide, which is legal according to ordinance, but that he is trying to accomplish as nice a development as possible, and if the city will work with him on the width of Ivy Lane he can make the pie shaped lots more spacious and create the open space which would be better for the area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that one of the complaints Council has had in recent years is that with the Copperfield area as an example, i there is 100 feet of width at the setback line and the sideyard setback is 10 feet. The homes go 80 feet wide and the open space between Page No. 4389 May 2, 1995 them is closed off - they have steep roofs, with peaks up to 30 to 35 feet. He stated that he believes Mr. Heaver can appreciate that the neighbors want to keep the open space and Council can be cognizant of what Mr. Heaver is doing with respect to the existing neighborhood. He further stated that he realizes that the neighbors cannot control open land they do not own, but they should not have to worry about what would happen to open land. He felt that Councilmember Smith's idea is good but the city would have to find some way of using the park contribution in a non -park setting. Councilmember Smith stated that she thinks the Mayor is right that people are concerned about the distance between homes more than the lot square footages and asked if there is any way Mr. Heaver could maintain a 30 foot distance between homes. Mr. Heaver responded that the placing the home at the 30 foot front setback has a major impact - if the homes set back from the 30 foot line it minimizes the impact, and pushing it back five to seven feet a 30 foot distance between homes begins to be established. He stated that he is concerned about the same issues the neighbors have. Mayor Mertensotto stated that nothing has been demonstrated to Council about the grading of the land, and Council does not know that there is sufficient soil to do what is proposed, and there is concern about traffic patterns. He did not think there was sufficient information to make a decision this evening, that Council should see the grading plan, and that Councilmember Smith's suggestion about park land should be looked at. Responding to Mr. Heaver's request for a list of issues, Mayor Mertensotto responded with the following: park contribution - it is Council prerogative to require 10% of the land, and a decision must be made on the issue; traffic - he did not think all the traffic patterns have been looked at and would like to see in writing what patterns have been considered and why they will or will not work; grading detail for Council review; soil borings information; and how Mr. Heaver is going to notify future home owners about the responsibility for maintenance of the retaining walls. WATER TOWER Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding correspondence from TNEMEC, the Paynet suppliers for the water tower, to TMI recommending a course of action for rePayneting the tower, and communications from TMI, Inc. Page No. 4390 May 2, 1995 Mayor Mertensotto asked if the adhesion tests have been completed. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the tests have been completed and he believes the Paynet marginally passed the test, however he was not present when the test was conducted. Mayor Mertensotto expressed concern over the differences in the mil thickness proposed by TNEMEC and the use of a biodegradable detergent for the power wash rather than trisodium. He suggested that Council ask TNEMEC to respond to the results of the adhesion tests. Public Works Director Danielson responded that to his knowledge, trisodium will be used, as TMI has represented. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the letter from TNEMEC to TMI indicates that a biodegradable cleaning solution will be used and he is bothered that TNEMEC is making its representations to TMI rather than to the city. He asked Attorney Hart whether the city is entitled to rely on the supplier's recommendation since it does not contract with the supplier. Attorney Hart responded that if the city expects to be able to rely on the representations made in the letter, Council should have a statement from TNEMEC notifying the city that it can rely on those representations. Mayor Mertensotto stated that TNEMEC indicated that if the primer adhesion test is not acceptable they would come up with a different solution. He pointed out that Council must get all information so that it can make a good decision. He was also concerned that the rust might bleed through the Paynet and stated that Council should be provided with a written recommendation from the contractor or supplier rather than just a two year warranty. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Koch commented that there are several potholes on Ivy Falls Avenue and Sylvandale and asked that they be repaired. Councilmember Smith asked about a sign at Mendota Golf which appears to be in the right -of -way. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the sign does not meet required setbacks and that the owners have met with the City Planner and were notified to make application for a sign permit. Councilmember Huber informed Council on NDC -4 matters. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned to a Page No. 4391 May 2, 1995 joint workshop with the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. on May 9. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 o'clock P.M. K thleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL May 2, 1995 Asphalt Contractor License Daily & Son Blacktopping, Inc. Valley Blacktopping, Inc. Masonry Contractor License Hines & Sons, Inc. Excavating Contractor License A. Kamish & Sons Inc. HVAC Contractors License Energy Solutions Intl Inc. General Contractors License Dakota Fence of Minnesota, Inc. Fenc -co, Inc. Warren E. McCurdy Construction Inc. Meisinger Construction Company, Inc. Drywall Contractor License Hendrickson Bros. Drywall Inc.