Loading...
1994-05-03 Council minutesPage No. 4004 May 3, 1994 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 3, 1994 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Huber, Krebsbach and Smith. Councilmember Koch had notified the Council that she would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the minutes of the April 19,1994 regular meeting with corrections. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Smith 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 minutes of the April 26, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. c. Approval to appoint Yvette Ann Tillery to the position of probationary police officer effective on or after May 17, 1994. d. Acknowledgment of the unapproved minutes of the April 6, 1994 NDC -4 meeting. e. Approval of the selection of MSA Consulting Engineers as the consulting firm to complete the engineering service required to paint and recondition the city's water tower, for its low quote of $30,850, and direction to staff to prepare the appropriate contracts for execution. Page No. 4005 May 3, 1994 f. Approval of the execution of an agreement with the Environment and Energy Resource Center to perform the audit and to apply for funding of energy retrofits for City Hall and the Public Works Garage through NSP's Local Government Energy Conservation Program. g. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated May 3, 1994 and attached hereto. 1. Approval of the list of claims dated May 3, 1994 and totaling $166,791.24. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BASEBALL TOURNAMENTS Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding a request from the Mend -Eagan Athletic Association for approval to conduct two youth baseball tournaments at Mendakota Park. Mr. Dick Arnold, Mend - Eagan's baseball commissioner, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that at the last Council meeting, Council discussed the playing of baseball at Mendakota. He explained that a proposal was before Council for consideration of the installation of netting to prevent foul balls during baseball games from hitting people in the concession and viewing areas. He informed Mr. Arnold that as the result of the discussion, Council made a decision not to allow baseball at Mendakota but that Council was not aware at that time that Mend -Eagan had received consent to hold a tournament on the week -end of June 17. Mayor Mertensotto informed Council that he has met with Mend -Eagan representatives and told them that, on the condition that the group name the city as an additional insured party on its insurance policy, he would recommend that Council permit the June 17 -19 tournament and another on June 3 -5 for which Mend -Eagan has planned and received registrations. He informed Mr. Arnold that if the recommendation is approved, Council will not make any guarantees on future baseball use at Mendakota. Councilmember Smith asked, since there have been injuries from foul ball reported, if Mend -Eagan would assign people to spot during the games as a condition of approval. Mr. Arnold agreed that individuals will be assigned to be spotters. Page No. 4006 May 3, 1994 Mayor Mertensotto suggested that placards be put up to warn people not to let their children run around behind the backstops to prevent injury from foul balls. Assistant Batchelder stated that he would order the appropriate signs. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to support the Mend -Eagan baseball tournaments for June 3 -5 and June 17 -19 on the condition that Mend -Eagan provide spotters. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 GARDEN CLUB Mayor Mertensotto expressed appreciation to the Mendota Heights Garden Club for its donation of a Red Splendor Crabapple tree which has been planted at City Hall. TREE PLANTING PROGRAM Council acknowledged a tabulation of quotes received for the 1994 tree planting program. Councilmember Smith moved to award a purchase order to Blaeser Landscaping for its low bid of $12,800 for the 1994 tree planting program. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach asked whether anything has been done with respect to Council's discussion on the planting of apple trees along T.H. 110. Administrator Lawell responded that many trees had been removed as part of the Mendota Interchange Project and staff has asked Mn/DOT to submit a landscape plan. He further stated that NWDOT has been asked to recognize that a number of the trees that were removed were crab apple trees and the city would like their replacement included in the landscape plan. He informed Council that a response has not yet been received. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the trees had originally been planted by the Jaycees in the 1960's. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like Council to also encourage residents to plant crab apples all along T.H. 110 and particularly would like to see them planted along the south side of the Fina station. Page No. 4007 May 3, 1994 Administrator Lawell responded that staff wrote to Mn/DOT some time ago to express the city's concern about the Mn/DOT property at the T.H. 110/149 intersection. He stated that he will suggest that Mn/DOT reintroduce crab apple trees in that section of T.H. 110. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that perhaps Council should increase the tree planting budget to start a program of replacing the trees along T.H. 110 and also encourage local organizations to join in the effort. IVY KEEP NORTH BIDS Council acknowledged a tabulation of bids received for the London/Downing street rehabilitation project and Ivy Keep North improvements. Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution No. 94 -28, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET REHABILITATION, LONDON /DOWNING (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 3) AND SANITARY SEWERS, WATERMAINS, STORM SEWERS AND STREETS TO SERVE IVY KEEP NORTH ADDITION (ARNDT PLAT, IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 1)," awarding the contract to Ace Blacktop, Inc. for its low bid of $199,925.55. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mayor Mertensotto directed staff to retain the bid security for the two lowest bidders, returning the bond of the second lowest bidder upon execution of the contract. STREET SWEEPING Mayor Mertensotto asked about the progress of street sweeping. He commented that he did not think the sweeper was doing a good job and asked Civil Engineer Sanders to look into the matter. Civil Engineer Shawn Sanders informed Council that the program is about 80% completed. He explained that the sweepers have been done for repairs. Administrator Lawell informed Council that many cities have done sweeping early in the spring so that spring rains do not flush all the sand into the storm sewers, but early sweeping will possibly result in having to sweep again. CASE NO. 94 -05, Council acknowledged a report and proposed resolution relative to CONSTABLE continued discussion on an application from David Constable for variances for the R.L. Johnson warehouse, along with a letter from Mr. Jim Dorsey, attorney for R.L. Johnson. Mr. Constable and Mr. Dorsey were present for the discussion. Page No. 4008 May 3, 1994 Mr. Dorsey stated that the application for variance had been made at his suggestion because of the taking of property by Mn/DOT for right -of -way. Mr. Constable applied for four variances, one dealing with green space, two for setbacks and one for parking. He explained he understood that the Planning Commission had recommended approval but that Council had approved a conditional use permit to enable the variances. Mr. Dorsey stated that the nature of conditional use permits is more uncertain as to the continuation of the use, and when there is uncertainty with a piece of property it gets more difficult to finance and sell a property. He further stated that the conditional use permit that was drafted to enable the variances has a provision which states that if the use stops for one year it conclusively lapses, whereas the Zoning Ordinance provides that a conditional use lapses if the conditional use ceases for six months. He explained that variances cannot be lost but must be used within six months of issuance, and stated that variances and conditional use permits are similar in that if there are conditions for conditional use permits or variances, all conditions must be fulfilled or the permit or variance does not take affect. He informed Council that one reason the variances were requested was to mitigate damages from the property taking. He felt that a conditional use permit would result in greater damage because of the loss of use. He informed Council that the value of the property is $6 million. Mayor Mertensotto stated that variances run with the land. He asked what would be done with the variances if the building was no longer used as office /warehouse space or if it was substantially destroyed. City Attorney Hart responded that generally, the standard in Mendota Heights is 50% damage for a conditional use. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows Council, in considering variances, to impose conditions on variances and those conditions are usually tied into a particular structure. He stated that it would not be inappropriate to say that if the structure is destroyed, the variances would lapse and also that the variances could not be expanded if the structure expands. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that a conditional use permit was issued for the George's Golf Range when Mn/DOT took some of its property. Mr. Dorsey responded that the city's Zoning Ordinance requires conditional use permits for golf courses in industrial districts. He stated that George's is a different circumstance since the use is only permitted as a conditional use. Page No. 4009 May 3, 1994 Mayor Mertensotto responded that the applicant is asking for variances so that the structure is not non - conforming after the Mn/DOT taking is completed. He felt that the warehouse should be treated the same as George's since, George's existed before the taking and the owner did not want a non - conforming situation. He stated that Council approval of a conditional use permit should not affect the property's value and would only present a problem if the structure is more than 50% destroyed. Mr. Dorsey responded that the conditional use would create a problem for lenders and buyers looking at the property. He explained that he is trying to mitigate damages so that there is no uncertainty over conditional use versus variances. He stated that if the structure were to be destroyed, the owner could rebuild and meet the setbacks required in the ordinance. He further stated that the purpose of variances is to deal with hardship cases and he did not think that a conditional use permit is appropriate for a use that is permitted in the industrial district. He felt that the same conditions that would be imposed by the proposed conditional use permit resolution would be applicable to the variances. He explained that there is a difference between conditional uses and variances, particularly with respect to a property of the caliber of the R.L. Johnson property and the way lenders look at it, and if there are any concerns about the property the lenders will look at it adversely. Councilmember Smith asked what the Zoning Ordinance requires for parking for the facility. Mr. Constable responded that 347 spaces are required and 276 will remain after the taking, but that truck parking can be converted. Councilmember Smith stated that in the past Council has indicated that it does not wish to see any more blacktop than is necessary but has required proof of parking. She informed Mr. Constable that the applicant would have to provide proof of parking to protect the users of the facility if the use ever changes and additional parking is needed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that variances run with the land and conditional use permits run to the use and that Council is addressing the use. He asked if the existing eight foot chain link fence with barbed ware on top is still needed. Mr. Constable responded that the property is more marketable with a security fence. He stated that the applicant is trying to get the Page No. 4010 May 3, 1994 facility into the same use as it currently is with the same value as it now has. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the city would not be taking the use from the applicant and pointed out that the state's taking of land creates the situation where the facility no longer conforms to city code. Councilmember Smith stated that the point is that there are permitted uses which would require a heavier percentage of parking than is currently needed for the Johnson facility. She further stated that she would like to have proof of parking on file even though the parking may not currently be needed. Mr. Constable responded that he will provide the proof of parking. Mr. Dorsey stated that he did not feel that it is technically correct to do a conditional use permit and that he does not know that the conditional use procedures have been followed. Mayor Mertensotto responded that when Council addressed the matter on April 5, the direction taken was to consider a conditional use permit rather than variances. He stated that the only other way to deal with the matter would be to grant variances with conditions and terminate the variances if the conditions are not met so that they do not run with the land - if the condition for which the variances were granted ceases, the variances would cease. Mr. Dorsey responded that perhaps he could draft a resolution that would be mutually agreeable to all parties. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the primary concern is parking, and should the structure change there may not be adequate parking. Councilmember Smith stated that one problem is that should the building be substantially destroyed it could not be built back on the same foot print. Mr. Dorsey responded that his primary concern with the draft resolution is that it states that if the use ceases the permit is lost and that it is permanently lost if the building is vacant or not used for its intended purpose for six months. He asked that he be allowed to work with the city's staff to come up with a resolution, for review at the next meeting, that meets Council's desires and the desires of the applicant. Page No. 4011 May 3, 1994 Responding to a comment from Councilmember Krebsbach, Mr. Constable stated that the structure is currently all warehouse use and parking needs are met. He stated that he is comfortable that the parking requirements of the ordinance can be met by using truck parking, without expanding into the green space, if more parking is needed in the future. Councilmember Huber asked if the building was originally built under a conditional use permit. Mayor Mertensotto responded that it was not, that it was built as a warehouse /office building in the industrial zone and it was built to code requirements. He stated that the applicant wants the variances granted so that if something happened they could build the building back as it is. He pointed out that Council wants conditions placed on the property so that the owner does not have the right to build at the same location on the site using variances that run with the land and also that Council wants to be sure that if the use changes there will be adequate parking. He explained that this is why he would prefer granting a conditional use permit, but if all of Council's concerns can be covered, he does not care whether the action is on variances or a conditional use permit as long as the resolution is written so that the variances abate if the building is destroyed. Mr. Dorsey responded that he would prefer variances and will cover the city's concerns in the resolution. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Dorsey that he should restructure the city's proposed resolution as variances but that he must retain all of the conditions. Councilmember Krebsbach suggested planting improved landscaping along some of the walls to break up the expanse. Mr. Constable responded that more plantings will be installed along the wall that is close to the road. Mayor Mertensotto directed that the barbed wire be removed from the fencing. Mr. Constable responded that the fencing will look better because there will be significantly more plantings and a berm. CASE NO. 94 -10, ARNDT Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Erich Arndt for a 16.5 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a two car garage at 2163 Aztec Lane. It was noted that a former garage had been converted to living space by the prior owner. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and signatures of approval from adjoining property owners. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Arndt if he can meet the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, which are the addition Page No. 4012 May 3, 1994 of a window on the south wall of the garage, and that Mr. Arndt work with the city's engineering staff in determining a better grade between the street and the garage. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the neighbors agree to the variance, since the garage will block their view. Mr. Arndt responded that he agrees to the Planning Commission's conditions and that the neighbors support his request. He stated that his original plan was to build the garage on the other side of the house but it would butt up against the bedrooms and there was a concern about carbon monoxide. He also stated that a basement bedroom egress window on that side of the house would not be usable. He further stated that he had also considered a tuck -under garage but the grade of the lot is insufficient to support a tuck- under. He informed Council that he will do extensive landscaping to increase the appeal of the garage and will plant spruce trees to screen it and make it more visually appealing for the neighbors. Councilmember Smith asked what the likelihood is that the neighbor to the north will build a garage. Mr. Arndt responded that his neighbor has no plans or desire to build a garage at this time but if he were to do so could probably get by with a 10 foot variance. He stated that he has spoken to all of his neighbors and none have voiced any objections and all have given him their verbal approval and signatures. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it has been city policy to grant variances in the Friendly Hills 1 st and 2nd Additions so that owners can get more living space by converting existing garages. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to find that there is a hardship due to the size and shape of the Arndt lot and the existing structure because of egress required from the basement, and to grant a 16.5 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of an attached garage as proposed with the condition that a window be added on the south wall and that Mr. Arndt work with the city's engineering staff in determining a better grade between the street and the garage. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 94 -08, OPP Council acknowledged an application from Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Opp for preliminary and final plat approval for the Opp Addition, which would result in the combination of Lot 2, Block 2, Evergreen Knolls 1 st Addition (Opp property) and the rear 88.5 feet of the Devalerio Page No. 4013 May 3, 1994 parcel , which is an adjoining unplatted lot to the north of the Opp property. Mr. William Brown, from the Paul McLagan land surveying firm, stated that the Opps propose to purchase the south portion of the Devalario property to enhance their lot, and the subdivision would allow the Devalarios to sell their property for combination with the Opp lot under a single parcel number. He informed Council that there are no anticipated grade or drainage changes, and the only change that will occur will be the change in ownership of the land divided from the Devalario property. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, he stated that the area of the existing Opp lot plus the land to be purchased from the Devalarios will result in a combined total of just under 30,000 square feet. Councilmember Smith stated that the property cannot be further subdivided. Mr. Brown responded that neither the proposed Opp plat nor the Devalario properties can be further subdivided. Councilmember Smith noted that there is a barbed wire fence on the east side of the property and asked what its need is. Mr. Brown responded that the fence has been on the property for probably 70 years, and that a number of fences were built on the property lines of the original unplatted lots in the area. Mr. Opp stated that if Council has any concerns, he would be willing to take the fence down. He informed Council that most of the fence has already been knocked down. Mayor Mertensotto asked that the fence be removed. He asked whether the Devalario property is torrens property. Mr. Brown responded that the property is abstract. He informed Council that it was very common to subdivide the lots along Wentworth over the years and file them as metes and bounds descriptions. He explained that in this case, since one property is unplatted and the other is in a platted area, they cannot be combined under one legal description unless they are platted. Councilmember Huber noted that Mrs. McGowan, an adjoining property owner, had expressed concern about further division of land in the area. Page No. 4014 May 3, 1994 Mr. Brown responded that Mrs. McGowan split her property a few years ago and created four lots, which she owns, lots directly east of the Devalerio property. He stated that there will be no further subdivision behind Mrs. McGowan's property because it has all been platted as Evergreen Knolls. He informed Council that there has been agreement drafted between the Opps and Mrs. McGowan (prepared by Clint McLagan) to eliminate any potential for gaps in legal descriptions. Mr. Brown reviewed the legal description of the proposed plat for the Council. Mayor Mertensotto directed Mr. Brown to submit a certified copy of the legal description to the city inclusion in the plat file. Councilmember Smith stated that the information before Council indicates that the plat would be just over 20,000 square feet whereas the survey says over 29,000 square feet. Mr. Brown responded that the total area will be 29,954 square feet. Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the Devalario property conditioned upon submission of certified legal descriptions of the property before and after the lot split, and approval of the preliminary plat for the Opp Addition. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 94- 29, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR OPP ADDITION." Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 94 -06, NEWBERG Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Doug Newberg for conditional use permit to replace a 20 by 20 foot screened porch at 721 Third Avenue, along with associated staff reports. Mr. Newberg informed Council that the existing porch is in disrepair and he proposes to tear it down and replace it with a new porch, retaining as much of the existing concrete block as possible. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Newberg that Council can only address the size, location and appearance of the structure and cannot approve any deviation from the building code. He explained that the city's code enforcement staff will require that the structure meet all Page No. 4015 May 3, 1994 code requirements. He asked if Mr. Newberg intends to use the structure for living quarters. Mr. Newberg responded that it will not be used for sleeping or living quarters and will not be heated. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that the Planning Commission indicated that Mr. Newberg could replace the structure without applying for a conditional use permit. Mr. Newberg responded that the city's staff felt that a permit was necessary. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no question a conditional use permit is needed since the porch is an accessory structure. He asked if it meets the size requirements of the zoning ordinance. Assistant Batchelder responded that the existing porch is a legal non - conforming structure and is larger than the permitted accessory structure size of 144 square feet. He explained that the ordinance allows repair of legal non - conforming structures but does not allow rebuilding when they have been in a deteriorated condition, so when Mr. Newberg asked for a building permit to reconstruct the structure, staff made the determination that application for conditional use permit should be made. Councilmember Krebsbach noted Mr. Newberg's request to the that the conditional use permit fee be refunded. She asked what fees are required for conditional use permits. Assistant Batchelder responded that a $350 application fee is required and that applicants must submit abstractor certificates of property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. He explained that Mr. Newberg asked the Planning Commission to waive the fee and the Commission responded that they could not recommend action on fees. Mr. Newberg informed Council that the abstractor's certificate cost $285, and that he has spent $635 on the application and certificate. He stated that his neighbors are happy to see that the porch will be rebuilt. Mayor Mertensotto felt that the situation is unusual and recommended waiving the $250 application fee. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that all city costs should be paid. Page No. 4016 May 3, 1994 Mayor Mertensotto recommended that $250 be refunded if the city has not incurred more than $100 in costs for publication and processing. Mayor Mertensotto asked for public comments. There were no comments. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 94- 30, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 721 THIRD AVENUE," and to authorize a refund of up to $250 of the application fee to offset the cost of the abstractor's certificate. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 94 -07, STEHR Council acknowledged an application from Mr. James Stehr for a conditional use permit for a 400 square foot accessory structure to be used as a pigeon coop to replace two existing outbuildings at 1635 Dodd Road. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Stehr stated that he has 35 pairs of pigeons regularly, and up to 200 pigeons including young, depending on the time of the year. He explained that he has show pigeons which are bred strictly for show and never leave the coop, as well as racing pigeons. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there have ever been any objections from neighbors. Mr. Stehr responded that the has not received any complaints and his neighbors like the fact that he has the pigeons. He informed Council that his lot is two acres in size and the building behind his garage, which houses the birds, was existing when he bought his property. He explained that he does not know what the building was originally used for but he connected it to an existing loft. He stated that he wants to move the building away from his garage and make it look better, explaining that he will incorporate his deck, garage and new loft in a proper setting aesthetically. With respect to the city planner's recommended conditions of matching the existing garage and landscaping at the back of the loft, he stated that he will landscape completely around the building. He stated that he will place gravel and shrubs surrounding the building, that there is a flower garden in front of the building and pine trees around the rear. He informed Council that the existing 24 foot by 24 foot and 12 by 24 foot existing buildings will be torn down. The larger building will be removed as soon as approval is given for the conditional use Page No. 4017 May 3, 1994 permit, and the other will be removed after the new building has been constructed. Mayor Mertensotto asked what would happen if the property is sold. He asked what assurances Council has that a new owner would maintain proper health conditions, etc. Mr. Stehr responded that the chance of his selling the property to another pigeon breeder would be rare as there are few breeders. He explained that he is building the structure to maintain a healthy condition for his birds. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that what Mr. Stehr proposes is unusual, but if Council approves the permit problems could be created if the property is sold. She pointed out, for example, that Council would not want the loft used for chickens. Mr. Stehr responded that pigeon lofts can never be used for any other purpose. City Attorney Hart stated that Council can limit the permit to the raising of pigeons, pointing out that since the application is for conditional use permit Council can make a finding that other types of poultry would have other conditions not consistent with pigeons, such as noise. He stated that Council can limit the use of the structure to pigeons and provide that it cannot be used for any other animals. He further suggested that Council could stipulate a condition that if pigeons are raised by another owner of the property, the structure must be maintained in the same manner as it is maintained by Mr. Stehr. Mayor Mertensotto stated that any use other than the housing, raising and maintaining of pigeons will be a violation of the conditional use permit. Attorney Hart suggested that Council incorporate conditions that the two existing buildings must be removed within 12 months and that the new structure match the existing garage. He further suggested that the conditional use permit be granted for the sole purpose of raising pigeons with the conditions recommended by the city planner, which are that the pigeons must be kept clean and must be kept on the property and not allowed to roost elsewhere, that the structure be kept clean and free of rodents, debris and noticeable odors, and that pigeon noise be kept to a minimum and only during daylight hours. Page No. 4018 May 3, 1994 Mr. Stehr responded that when he exercises the pigeons, they make 1/4 to two mile circles around his premises and land only in the pigeon loft. Councilmember Huber felt that the noise requirement did not make much sense and should be restated. Councilmember Smith pointed out that the birds are not let out at night. Mr. Stehr stated that the only noise in the loft is from the pigeons cooing at each other and the sound does not carry. It was the consensus of Council that the concern is that noise be kept to a minimum so as to avoid constituting a nuisance to surrounding land owners. Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution No. 94 -31, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1635 DODD ROAD," with addition of the following conditions : 1. that the two existing buildings must be removed within 12 months of construction of the loft; 2. that the new structure must match the existing garage; 3. that the conditional use permit is granted for the sole purpose of raising pigeons; 4. that the structure must be kept clean and free of debris, rodents and noticeable odors 5. that the pigeons are to be kept on the premises and not allowed to roost elsewhere; and 6. that the pigeon noise is to be kept to a minimum to avoid constituting a nuisance to surrounding land owners. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Mr. Stehr stated that he is replacing an older structure with a new one and has paid $650 in costs for the conditional use permit. He explained that even though he has only two neighbors (because of the size of his lot), an abstractor's certificate which was required to list the names of property owners within 350 feet of his property had 30 names and cost $300. He informed Council that of the 30 property owners, only five know he raises pigeons. He felt that his circumstance was similar to that of Mr. Newberg. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the difference between the two applications is that the difference is that Mr. Stehr is operating a business. Page No. 4019 May 3, 1994 Mr. Stehr responded that his operation is not a business and he does not make a profit from raising the birds. Mayor Mertensotto recommended refunding $150 of the application fee after both of the existing accessory buildings are removed and upon receipt of a written statement from Mr. Stehr certifying that both structures have been removed. Councilmember Smith pointed out that a conditional use permit would be required for the use (raising of the pigeons) irregardless of the accessory structure. Councilmember Smith moved to authorize refunding $150 of the conditional use pen-nit application fee to defray the cost of the abstractor's certificate after receipt of a certification from Mr. Stehr that he has removed the two existing accessory buildings. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 94-09, UNITED Council acknowledged an application from United Properties and PROPERTIES/BDS BDS, Inc., for subdivision, sign setback variance and site plan review. Council also acknowledged a request from United Properties/BDS for tax increment financing and staff memos regarding the planning and tax increment financing requests. Mr. Dale Glowa, from United Properties, briefly reviewed the site plan. Mayor Mertensotto asked if any changes had been made since the preliminary discussion by Council on April 19. He also asked if the decorative band had been removed from the back of the proposed structure. Mr. Glowa responded that the band had never been envisioned for the back of the building. He stated that the exterior of the structure has been modified to add decorative (rock face) block, which gives the appearance of brick, on the back rather than cinder block which had originally been envisioned. He showed a rendering of the proposed structure, explaining that the dark color throughout the building is architectural masonry black made to look like brick. He explained that he had considered burnished block for the building after testing the material decided to instead use painted architectural rock face block which may need to be painted in 10 years. He informed Council that this material was used on the VGC building. Page No. 4020 May 3, 1994 Councilmember Smith asked about the rear of the building. Mr. Glowa responded that it will be a light- colored painted material and the only difference between the back and the other sides of the building is that there will be no dark coloring on the back. Councilmember Smith responded that it is Council's intent that all structures in the business park must have the same surface on all four sides. Mr. Glowa stated that the building will be very attractive and will have a number of design features . He felt that the building will banding will give it a completely different look and the design will stand the test of time. He informed Council that there will be considerable landscaping on the site and the structure will have many features not normally found on an industrial building. Councilmember Smith stated that she was not referring to the materials proposed to be used on the front and sides, but rather that a different approach is proposed to be used on the back. Mr. Glowa responded that exactly the same materials will be used on the back except that the dark color will not be added. He stated ' that the rear of the building will not be visible and will face the R.L. Johnson building and a walkway that will someday be constructed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must avoid instances where it is told one thing in the preliminary design process and TIF discussions and then things change. He informed Mr. Glowa that Council's desire is to improve the appearance of the overall industrial park, which includes finishing on all sides and maintaining the appearance of the buildings over time. He stated that he thought it was great when the building exterior was proposed to have impregnated block which would never need painting. Mr. Glowa responded that it will be at least ten years before painting will be needed and that all of the buildings in the business park needs lots of on -going attention to keep them looking good. He informed Council that the initial plan for the building was for painted cinder block in the back, and that rock face block will make it look better and landscaping which has been added to the plan is a positive change. Councilmember Krebsbach asked Mr. Glowa if he feels that this area of the business park is down zoned and needs more office space. Page No. 4021 May 3, 1994 Mr. Glowa responded that there is no market for office space in the area, that the office market has matured and there are many better alternatives in the southwest metro area. He informed Council that United Properties has a master plan for the park that it has kept to. He explained that the firm patiently waited for the freeway completion and has a plan for commercial and office space along the freeway and has left those sites untouched to date. He stated that United Properties has developed very upscale facilities for Solvay and other firms but the further away from the freeway the site is, the market dictates industrial uses. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Mendota Bridge will open in November and the estimated traffic count for the years 2010 to 2015 could be 35,000 to 40,000. He stated that T.H. 110 will suddenly become the front door to the city from the west and T.H. 55 will be directly connected. He envisioned that this would bring a different trend. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that people who live in Mendota Heights tell her that T.H. 55 may have more value as office space. She felt that perhaps the airport uncertainty is delaying development and asked the city continues industrial types of uses if it is forcing the same type of market along T.H. 55. Mr. Glowa responded that no one can force a market and that a number of the companies that United Properties has attracted have come from the western suburbs. He stated that Woodbury is an example of not creating a market, which has no office or industrial market even though 3M has tried to create a market for years. He explained that the majority of the decision makers are in the southwest market and they want to be close to where they live. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that many people live in the Mendota Heights /Eagan/Apple Valley area but are unable to work in the area and are forced to have a one hour commute to work. Mr. Glowa responded that United Properties has been doing the best development in the airport south (Mendota Heights, Eagan, Apple Valley) market and is trying to market the business park for office space but the only office sites in the park are along the freeway. He pointed out that Associated Bureaus is a user -owned building, not a spec building, and that he cannot change the spec office market. With respect to T.H. 110 and Lexington Avenue, he stated that while he understands that the city would like to see hotels and offices at the gateway to the city, the reality is that the dynamics of the office market will be directed by I -35E and I -494 more than they will be by Page No. 4022 May 3, 1994 T.H. 110 and T.H. 55 because getting employees to and from the office requires using I -494 and I -35E. He further stated that although there may be some exceptions, those will be isolated occurrences. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Glowa if he would continue the band around the back of the building so that Council does not run into the problem of allowing the building not to be finished on all four sides. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the use is appropriate and that he feels BDS will be a welcome addition. He further stated that he thinks the building is attractive but that he is bothered that the back of the building will not be finished in the same manner as the rest of the building. He reminded Mr. Glowa that Council has had much discussion lately about finishing all sides of buildings and has required it. He asked how much it would cost to have the same exterior on all four sides. Mr. Glowa responded that it would possibly cost $10,000. He explained that the rear can be painted to look like the other sides, and even though the linear size of the block on the rear is different from the size of the rock faced block on the front, there would be no noticeable difference after painting. He stated that if he were walking along the trail behind the building, he would not see the band. Councilmember Smith stated that Associated Bureaus was required to add substantial landscaping at the back of its building so that the difference would not be conspicuous. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Council has spent considerable time telling developers that buildings must be finished on all sides, and Council would like to see the same quality of material used on all sides. He felt that $10,000 is not too large an amount to spend to make the back side of the building consistent with the other sides. Councilmember Smith stated that the city is being asked to make a substantial TIF investment and expects something in return for that investment. Mr. Glowa responded that no one looking at the building will be able to visually tell there is a difference, and to put the same band block on the back will be wasting money. He further stated that the same material used on the back was used on all sides of VGC and it is beautiful. He felt that Council would have approved that block all around the building if the other material had not been introduced on Page No. 4023 May 3, 1994 the front and sides of the BDS building to create the banding. He stated that most people will not recognize that there is a difference in materials anywhere around the building. Councilmember Smith stated that Council would lose credibility if it accepted anything less than consistency on all four sides. Mr. Glowa responded that the quality is the same all around the building with a slightly different look on the other three sides, but he would discuss the matter with BDS. Councilmember Smith stated that the TIF figures which were provided by Publicorp on the cash flow assumptions shows a zero estimated market value on the land. She stated that she believes Council has always said that applicants must use what the current market value is to determine the increment. Administrator Lawell responded that he has spoken to Mr. Glowa about the issue. The current value on the entire parcel proposed to be subdivided is $84,400, which could be proportioned out to determine the value of the portion of the parcel which BDS is purchasing. He informed Council that it is Mr. Glowa's assumption that whatever the County has as the base value is what is used, but stated that he agrees with Councilmember Smith that current value has been used in past applications. He further stated that Mr. Glowa has indicated to him that if it is appropriate to use current value he will agree to insert it. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that he is not sure how the county will divide the value and that he thinks a substantial portion of the $84,400 will remain on the existing parcel. He informed Council that the current tax is $6,300, $2,100 of which is already tax increment. The base value produces $718 worth of tax, which is the tax paid in 1980 when the tax increment district was formed. He stated that in most of the projects in the MAC area, the original value was zero because it was exempt property when it was placed in the district. Mayor Mertensotto directed that Treasurer Shaughnessy contact the Dakota County Auditor to determine which value to use. Councilmember Smith stated that there were some questions about landscaping and existing trees in the planner's report. She asked Mr. Glowa to interpret the landscaping plan. Page No. 4024 May 3, 1994 Mr. Glowa responded that the planner's report dealt with the original landscaping plan which had been prepared for BDS before it selected a developer. He informed Council that a revised landscaping plan has been submitted which was prepared by the same landscape architect who has designed the landscaping for the entire business park. He stated that the individual was directed to include the recommendations of the City Planner, except that the Planning Commission agreed not to require that all of the existing trees be retained, since many are cottonwood. He explained that all of the trees on the north property line will be looked at and he will save all that can be saved. ' Mr. Glowa informed Council that another exception from the planner's report was the calculation of 5% of the parking surface. He stated that he has discussed with the planner and city staff the possibility of allowing part of the retention pond green area to be used in the calculation, since it would be developed for parking if it were not used for the retention pond. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Glowa what his intent is with respect to concerns over the rear of the building. Mr. Glowa responded that he will discuss the matter with the owner of BDS to see if he wants to spend as much as $10,000 for the band. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council would not be consistent if it did not require that all sides of the building be finished the same. Mr. Glows informed Council that United Properties has protective covenants which require that all buildings and properties be maintained, and maintenance is not taken care of, United Properties steps in and does it. He asked if it would be possible to cover the cost of the additional improvement to the rear with tax increment funds since it would be upgraded materials. Administrator Lawell responded that upgraded material is not an allowable TIF expenditure. Responding to a Council question, Mr. Glowa stated that the project is ready to go and he would like to request conditional approval of a building permit. Councilmember Smith responded that permit approval could be conditioned upon using the same exterior materials and detail on all four sides, and if BDS does not agree to the condition, they could return at the next meeting. Page No. 4025 May 3, 1994 Mayor Mertensotto agreed that the conditional approval could be granted, but stated that if the condition becomes a deal breaker because of cost, Council would like Mr. Glowa to bring the matter back for discussion of alternatives. Administrator Lawell stated that the developers agreement for TIF must come before Council at a future meeting, and the only item needing to be resolved with respect to TIF is the base value. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the figures used by Publicorp include land value entirely from the tax increment calculation, so that it does not make a difference which value is used. He further stated that they are taking nothing for land value or base value, only the value of the building, and that the tax projections are just based on the $1 million building value. Councilmember Smith stated that United Properties is asking less than the total increment and there should be no problem, but that she wants to be sure that Council is consistent in the way it approaches TIF values. With respect to the retention pond, she stated that it is located on the lot line, and asked Mr. Glowa if it can be incorporated with ponding for the adjacent lot should that be desirable in the future. Mr. Glowa responded that this is his preference, but it may not be practical, depending on how the site develops. He stated that he would like to have some flexibility, and if it does not make sense to incorporate it he would like to be able to relocate the pond for the second site. Council agreed to allow flexibility, but asked Mr. Glowa to use just one pond if possible. Councilmember Huber moved to approve the preliminary plat for the BDS Addition, and to direct staff to prepare a resolution to include the following: approval of the tax increment financing plan, approval of the site plan and issuance of a building permit, subject to review and approval by the Code Enforcement Officers, approval of a twenty foot sign setback variance, all with the understanding that the building must be finished on all four sides and that the tax increment plan is subject to further review. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 4026 May 3, 1994 Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 94 -32, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR BDS ADDITION." Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 REGIONAL BLUEPRINT Council acknowledged receipt of the Metropolitan Council's draft Regional Blueprint for the Twin Cities metropolitan area, along with a memo from the City Administrator. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no question that the city should respond, and asked if the League of Minnesota Cities has taken a position on the document. Administrator Lawell responded that the League has taken a position and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will be formulating its position this week. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council must keep in mind Dale Glowa's comments on how part of the city is viewed and the decisions the legislature are making on how the city develops. She felt that Council must take a very serious look at the blueprint and let the legislators know how Council wants the southeast metro developed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there must be flexibility involved and that he does not know how a blueprint can be adopted. He felt that Council should spend considerable time on the issue and suggested that discussion be tabled to May 17. It was the consensus that the matter be tabled to May 17 and that in the interim if Administrator Lawell thinks something should be done sooner he should so advise Council and a special meeting will be called. JOINT MEETING Council discussed potential dates for a joint workshop with the Airport Relations Commission. It was the consensus to conduct the workshop on May 31 at 7:00 p.m. and to direct staff to notify the commission members to see if the date is agreeable. MISCELLANEOUS Administrator Lawell reported on the status of the Pentel radio.tower consultant report. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Mertensotto asked staff to follow up on Mr. Glowa's comments regarding development of T.H. 110155 with,the.e ty planner. Page No. 4027 May 3, 1994 Councilmember.,Smith informed Council that she will be out of town from June 9�fi1 p,> ,h une-2l r MEETING TIME CHANGE Councilmember Huber reminded Council that the School District ,- election will be held.ori.May 17 and the, regularly scheduled.,gouncil meeting caiinot be conducted`before' 8.00 .p.fi7. ADJOURN There being no; further: busiriess to 'come before the �Cojun4il; Councilrnember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned: Councihnember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF, ADJOURNMENT:* 11:07 o'clock P.M.' ATTEST: lam" I- Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor thleen M. Swanson == City Clerk