Loading...
1993-01-19 Council minutesPage No. 3495 January 19, 1993 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, January 19, 1993 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 was ill and 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 January 5, 1993 regular meeting. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the December 22, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the January 12th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. C. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for December. d. Acknowledgment of a withdrawal of a request for sign size variance from Somerset Heights Elementary School (Planning Commission Case No. 92-36). e. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the December 2, 1992 NDC-4 meeting. Page No. 3496 January 19, 1993 f. Acknowledgment of an update from Administrative Assistant Batchelder on the initiation of sand volleyball leagues. g. Acknowledgment of an update from Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding 1993 softball leagues. h. Acknowledgment of a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding a supplemental premium for workers' compensation insurance and information on the workers' compensation reserve account status. i. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated January 19, 1993 and attached hereto. j. Approval of the list of claims dated January 19, 1993 and totalling $2,037,041.64. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Mertensotto announced that applications for appointment to the Planning and Parks Commission would be accepted through January 20th at 4:30 P.M. GEORGE'S GOLF RANGE, Attorney John Bannigan, representing George and Dorothy Waters, was present to request approval of a conditional use permit and variances to allow George's Golf Range to continue its operation on Highway 55, within an industrially zoned district. Mr. Bannigan informed Council that Mn/DOT has acquired right-of-way by the quick take process and as a result, George's cannot meet the city's setback requirements. The variances requested would allow a five foot parking setback on the north, a 10 foot front yard parking setback on the east, a 22 foot front yard setback for the pro shop, and a 31 foot front yard setback for the golf canopy. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the facility will lose its miniature golf area, grass tee area, and 42 parking stalls and that the Mn/DOT acquisition brings the right-of-way within nine feet of the canopy and 18 feet of the pro shop. He stated that Page No. 3497 January 19, 1993 the City Planner's report indicates that at some time in the future the property may be used for industrial purposes. He pointed out that the driving range has operated for 40 years in its present location and will likely remain there as long as it is economically feasible. He stated that he personally believes that the best use for the land would be industrial and that the city should retain control, but that the Waters' have been very good commercial operators in the city and there is no intent by the city to say that the facility must go. Mr. Bannigan stated that the applicants would like to have the ability to park cars within 10 feet of the new right-of-way. He stated that the facility has a good clientele and there is no question that the parking lot will be filled in the summer months. He further stated that the applicants acknowledge that neither the city nor Mn/DOT has made any commitment that they will allow parking on the frontage road, nor is this the owners' intent. He informed Council that the owners would like to retain and improve the pro shop and canopy. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Council could grant the requested variances only as long as the property is used as a golf driving range and when it is no longer so used the variances would terminate. City Attorney Hart responded that the request is for the issuance of a conditional use permit, and variances in the context of a CUP, and that the permit can be subject to the condition that the variances terminate when the use terminates. The approving resolution can provide that the variances and conditional use permit terminate at such time as the use terminates. Councilmember Krebsbach informed Council that the Planning Commission did not agree to a request for variance for a pylon sign. Mr. Bannigan responded that the pylon sign variance was an afterthought and that there are other places on the site which could be acceptable for the sign. He further stated that if the applicants find it a hardship to locate the sign in an area that does not require a variance, they will come back before Page No. 3498 January 19, 1993 the Planning Commission to request a variance. Mr. Bannigan informed Council that he would agree to inclusion of the condition for the termination of the conditional use permit and variances. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that it should be specifically stated that the use is a golf driving range rather than participative athletics. Councilmember Smith moved to grant the conditional use permit subject to adoption of a definitive resolution to grant the variances, other than the pylon sign variance, and including language such that the conditional use permit and variances terminate as such time as the grandfathered golf driving range use ceases. CASE NO. 93 -03 Mr. Dave Coen was present to request approval COEN VARIANCE, of a 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition to his home 20 feet from the rear property line at 2375 Apache Court. He explained that the hardship is that a corner lot requires a 30 foot setback on the front, side and back of a lot, and the home was originally built 35 feet back from the front lot line. He informed Council that the 20 foot addition would be built where a 15 foot deck currently exists. The deck would be moved to the side. Mr. Coen stated that he has considered other ways of putting on the addition but none of them would work. He explained that he wants to move the family room space from his basement to the addition because there is no escape from the basement in the event of a fire. Councilmember Huber asked if the pitch of the roof and roof line would be the same. Mr. Coen responded that it will be an exact match to the existing roof line. Councilmember Smith asked where the setback would be measured from. Mr. Coen responded that the 20 feet setback would be from the edge of the fireplace. He also stated that he hopes to plant 8 to 10 additional pine trees in his back yard. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to approve a 10 foot rear yard setback variance, based on the Mr. Mazzara stated that the property owners have accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission but ask that the seventh condition, that individual home designs be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, be modified. He asked that the Planning Commission review the site plans but not house plans. He informed Council that architectural guidelines will be established for the three homes in the PUD and those guidelines will be made available to the Commission and city staff. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that it would appear that one of the main concerns is the private roadway. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that one member of the Commission was concerned about not having street right -of -way. She informed Council that the Commission was concerned that the architecture of the structures be appropriate to the natural setting. She felt that the Commission does want to review the building plans and that if the PUD process is followed, the Commission has the right to review the plans. Councilmember Smith stated that she has two j more basic concerns - she did not understand why the application is for a PUD, since it is a single use and there are proposed to be only Page No. 3499 January 19, 1993 hardship of extra restrictions associated with development of a corner lot, to allow construction of a 20 foot addition twenty feet from the rear property line at 2375 Apache Court. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 92 -39 Council acknowledged receipt of several SOMERSET PLACE P.U.D, planning reports on an application from MAZZARA (CASE 92 -31) Gerald Mazzara for the proposed Somerset Place PUD located within the superblock area south of Wentworth Avenue between Delaware and Dodd, an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the legality of the use of a PUD, a report from City Planner John Uban regarding the use of a PUD versus a plat with variances, and soil exploration and environmental reports submitted by the applicant. Mr. Mazzara stated that the property owners have accepted the recommendation of the Planning Commission but ask that the seventh condition, that individual home designs be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, be modified. He asked that the Planning Commission review the site plans but not house plans. He informed Council that architectural guidelines will be established for the three homes in the PUD and those guidelines will be made available to the Commission and city staff. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that it would appear that one of the main concerns is the private roadway. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that one member of the Commission was concerned about not having street right -of -way. She informed Council that the Commission was concerned that the architecture of the structures be appropriate to the natural setting. She felt that the Commission does want to review the building plans and that if the PUD process is followed, the Commission has the right to review the plans. Councilmember Smith stated that she has two j more basic concerns - she did not understand why the application is for a PUD, since it is a single use and there are proposed to be only Page No. 3500 January 19, 1993 one structure per lot. She asked if there are any extenuating circumstances for the development to be treated as a PUD. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council can impose conditions under a PUD, and that the process is probably being requested because of the private roadway. Mr. Mazzara responded that this is correct, and that private roadways are allowed in a PUD. Councilmember Smith stated that a development for single family use only would not be appropriate for a PUD. Mr. Mazzara stated that the issue of public right-of-way is important. There was a meeting of the neighbors in the superblock area, and they unanimously expressed concern about having any future public streets coming into that end of the superblock area. The people living next to the site are also concerned that there would be a future public street coming along the property line. This is why the PUD is being requested. Councilmember Smith responded that she has no problem with the plan but questioned the process being used. Mr. Mazzara responded that the property is granting a public utility easement for future streets and wants to protect as much of the land as is possible. He stated that the wetland outlot was created to ensure that the wetland is protected, and that a private roadway could be worked through the trees to protect them. He pointed out that if a 50 to 60 foot easement for a roadway were imposed a roadway could be built and destroy the vegetation. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if the Garret family decided to subdivide their property it would present a problem if there is no public right-of-way to their property. She further stated she understands that the Garrets do not expect to develop their property but that the lack of right-of-way to their property is the only problem she can see with allowing a private street. Councilmember Smith stated that she appreciates that the neighbors oppose Page No. 3501 January 19, 1993 development in the area and understands their intent but that she does not feel that they fully appreciate the future considerations. She stated that future owners of the superblock property may be interested in subdividing and if the PUD were approved, Council would be missing a chance to enhance the area through long range planning. She suggested that the residents should ask for up- zoning to a lower density. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that the Commission had discussed requiring public right -of -way without requiring the developers to build a road. The compromise was the utility easement, and in the end the Commission felt the developers had answered the question. Councilmember Smith stated that she would be willing to look at accomplishing in another way what the developers are trying to do. She did not see that a PUD would be of any benefit to the city and did not think that the need for a PUD has been demonstrated. ? Councilmember Krebsbach asked what would be changed if Council denies the PUD. Councilmember Smith responded that there could be flag lots. She expressed concern about the lack of public right -of -way and felt that Council would be limiting what can be done with other properties in the future and lose its opportunity to do cohesive planning for the future. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the question is how to accommodate what is proposed - through the use of a PUD or through the platting process with the use of variances. He asked Mr. Mazzara how he proposes to preserve the wetlands. Mr. Mazzara responded that he chose to use the PUD process because that was what he was told to do. He stated that the wetlands will be preserved as a natural outlot owned equally by the three lot owners with the stipulation that the outlot must remain a natural area. He informed Council that there will be a homeowners association. Page No. 3502 January 19, 1993 Mayor Mertensotto asked if there will be a covenant against further encroachment on the wetlands area. Mr. Mazzara responded that part of the condition of approval would be that there would be no wetlands permits or variances allowed and the building envelopes have been established on each site, which is one of the reasons for using a PUD. He further stated that by self - imposing conditions and creating the wetlands as a separate use the developer is telling the city that the wetlands will remain forever. Attorney Hart stated that private covenants can be changed by all three property owners if they agree but that a scenic easement could be covered in the context of a PUD agreement or developers agreement in a subdivision, and the document could be filed with the PUD or plat. He stated that in this case, the city has more discretion in using a PUD. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Planning Commission was hopeful of staying away from flag lots and discussed the PUD question extensively. Councilmember Smith responded that the way she reads the ordinance the plan does not qualify as a PUD. She agreed that flag lots are not ideal and stated that she does not like private roads. She further stated that to comply with the ordinance she would be against using the PUD process for the development. Mayor Mertensotto asked if there are any public roads in the city that are not being maintained by the city. Public Works Danielson responded that the city maintains all public roadways. Councilmember Smith pointed out that the Planning Commission explored requiring public right -of -way but not making it a public road. She asked if the public right -of -way were built like a private drive, as the one proposed, if the owners can maintain it. Public Works Director Danielson responded that j Carmen Tuminelly dedicated one -half of the right -of -way in one of his developments and j built a private drive on the right -of -way with Page No. 3503 January 19, 1993 the understanding that when the property to the north of the plat develops a public road would be built on his part of the right -of- way. Mayor Mertensotto stated that with the understanding of the developer and buyers of the property, one requirement would be that unless the street is brought up to city standards it would not be maintained by the city. He further stated that putting the buyers on notice would accomplish the developer's purpose - lots would front on a public right -of -way which would not be maintained. Mr. Mazzara responded that it would be feasible that if public right -of -way were dedicated the city could put in a future public street and all of the effort that went into preservation of the wetlands area would be lost. He asked why public right -of -way is needed if the city does not plan to build a public street. He asked if the Council could approve a private road on a public right -of- way and if it were a public roadway what kind of road standard would need to be built. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the roadway could be limited to the existing 24 foot driveway standard as is proposed. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that nothing would change except that the applicant would be complying with the Zoning Ordinance. If the developer were to use the PUD process rather than the platting process, she would want them to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of building plans. Mayor Mertensotto asked by what mechanism Council could accomplish platted right -of -way and through a developer's agreement detail the street requirement. He also asked if the land owner could covenant the wetlands restrictions with the city as part of the platting process. Attorney Hart responded that the developer's agreement could be recorded with the plat, and how the outlot is held is up to the individuals - it could either be held by the three property owners or the homeowners association. Page No. 3504 January 19, 1993 Mr. Mazzara stated that the three owners would own an underlying interest in the outlot in equal parts. He informed Council that he is trying to protect the environment and the concerns of the adjacent property owners that they do not ever want a public street. He stated that he can agree with public right-of- way if Council gives him some agreement that a private road can be maintained on the right- of-way. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the property owners did not agree, a public street could never be built and assessed. He further stated that the development agreement can stipulate that the property owners would maintain a 24 foot driveway section on the right-of-way: through a covenant the owners would consent to maintain a 24 foot driveway section on the right-of-way. He asked there needs to be a public hearing under the platting process if the development does not proceed under the PUD process. Attorney Hart responded that the question is whether due process has been met - whether it is the same plan or if there are any material distinctions between the proposed PUD and the subdivision. Flag lots would be a substantive change which would require a hearing. Mayor Mertensotto give the applican- at this time. Council discussed setback variances proposed driveway right-of-way. stated that Council could t approval of a concept plan the question of whether would be needed if the area were to be public Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if Council were to indicate an intent to approve a plat it must also show intent to grant variances which would be necessary because of public- right-of-way. Administrator Lawell stated that the actions which have been described and the variances and platting would require a hearing before the Planning Commission, which could not occur until February. The case would then be returned to Council in March at the earliest. Page No. 3505 January 19, 1993 Mr. Mazzara informed Council that there is a conditional sale on the property and it is likely that the buyer will be lost if the approval process is delayed. Councilmember Huber responded that everyone wants to get the process completed, but the question is how it should be accomplished. He further stated that the superblock is an area of very desirable properties that Council would like to preserve. Mr. Mazzara stated that there are two issues, the plan and the plat. He asked if Council could approve the plan subject to approval of the plat. Mayor Mertensotto responded that it cannot because there is no plat in front of Council. He further stated that Mr. Mazzara has done an excellent job and Council likes the plan, however the question of process remains - whether it should be done by PUD or plat showing right-of-way with all of the required conditions contained in a covenant running to the city. He informed Mr. Mazzara that PUD approval requires a 4/5ths vote of Council, but that Council could waive all fees for a subdivision application. Councilmember Smith asked if Council could give the applicant an indication of intent without compromising the process. Administrator Lawell responded that the issue of timing is apparently a problem and he did not know what assurance Mr. Mazzara's clients need. He pointed out that if they need a guarantee, they will have to wait until after the Planning Commission hearing and return of the plat to Council. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in the interim, staff could work out the terms of a covenant with the developers, which would reduce the delays after the plat comes to the Council. Mr. Bill Berg, realtor representing the property owner, Mr. Norm Harris, stated that as Mr. Mazzara has mentioned, there is a tremendous amount of frustration on the part of the buyer and seller of the property over the amount of time the planning process has taken. Both have felt that all the way back Page No. 3506 January 19, 1993 to September that they were told to go one way, then another. He further stated that he is not sure they will come back with a subdivision application. He pointed out that there is a letter from the City Attorney to he city that appears to indicate that a PUD is an acceptable way to process the plan and now Councilmember Smith is saying that regardless of counsel's letter a PUD is inappropriate. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the question is how many methods are available - Council knows that the plan can go through the plat approval process and the City Attorney has indicated that it could also be done by PUD. He did not think all of the applicants' work has gone to waste and pointed out that it is a very difficult parcel to address. He further stated that he understands that the feedback from the people in superblock is that they do not want a north/south street through the center of the superblock. Mr. Berg stated that in the spring of 1990 there was a parcel subdivided towards the middle of superblock, and he believed that when one home was built on the site, it created a situation where three homes use a private drive as access to Dodd Road, and that the drive is substantially in excess of the private road proposed in this plan. The drive is about 1,000 feet long coming in from Dodd to serve the three homes and does not approach anywhere near a 24 foot width. He further stated that there was no reference at that time in making the drive a public road. Mr. Berg informed Council that he is concerned that both the buyer and seller have tried to work within the guidelines that have been presented to them and have spent considerable time and money retaining Mr. Mazzara, who has worked with the needs of the buyer, seller, neighbors and city. He stated that the application was before the Planning commission in September, October, November and December, and the parties to the transaction are hoping to get a final answer this evening. He further stated that now some of Council is saying that regardless of legal opinion the applicants should throw everything away and start over at a three month minimum delay. He felt that the plan that is being presented is very sensitive to the wishes of what has been asked by all of the city representatives, and Page No. 3507 January 19, 1993 all of the neighbors and what the buyer and seller want, and he did not know that he could get that kind of consensus again. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the issue of the PUD process was raised before the Planning Commission in September and the Commission did not find the City Attorney's memo to be definitive. She further stated that she believes the Commission would be pleased to see public right-of-way, and that the feeling of the Commission was that the plan could go either way, as a PUD or plat. Mr. Berg asked if Council could vote on the proposal before them. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council does not have an application for plat approval before it and that the question of right-of- way is what is holding things up. If right- of-way is granted the plan can be processed as a plat, and the PUD is not needed. He informed Mr. Berg that Council can certainly indicate informally how it would view a plat showing public right-of-way along the alignment of the private road. He pointed out that a setback variance would be required for Lot 1 and that he sees no problem with going along with all of the other conditions. Councilmember Smith asked whether the right- of-way should follow the existing drive or along the edge of the lot. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that it should follow the driveway to preserve the area, leaving the property as it is as much as possible. Mr. Mazzara stated that he went to the Planning Commission for a PUD and received a recommendation on that plan. He further stated that in 20 years in the business he has never seen a Council turn a submission into another kind of submission, and that the city ordinance apparently does not allow for a PUD but PUD's have been approved. Councilmember Smith stated that PUD's generally work with multi-family or a combination of multi-family and commercial uses. Page No. 3508 January 19, 1993 Administrator Lawell responded that there have been instances where the ordinance language has been waived - Copperfield is a single family development which was approved as a PUD, as an example. He suggested that perhaps the city should address whether or not future applicants should not be directed to pursue PUD's or if the ordinance language should be changed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council could pass a motion that would authorize the city to accept an application for platting from Mr. Mazzara without any additional fees. The intent would be that the plan be the same but that the applicant will provide public right- of-way in the location of the proposed private road. Councilmember Huber moved that no further fees will be required in the event that the applicant desires to submit an application for plat approval. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 STREET LIGHT REQUEST Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding a request from Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Callahan, 1851 Warrior Drive, for installation of a street light in the cul-de-sac at the north end of Warrior Drive. Mr. & Mrs. Callahan were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would prefer use of a street light similar to those on Mendota Heights Road to the standard NSP street light. Public Works Director Danielson responded that NSP has a light similar to those on Mendota Heights Road, and that installation is free but there is a monthly fee for the lights. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would like to have all of the old style lights replaced with the style of light used on Mendota Heights Road. With respect to the Callahan request, he stated that there should be a request from the neighborhood. Councilmember Smith stated that Council must know what the lighting is and what the design Page No. 3509 January 19, 1993 is and set a standard for the community and a policy for residential street lighting. Administrator Lawell stated that staff will provide pictures of the lights available from NSP at the next meeting and that individual members can go to an NSP facility to look at the lights, if they desire, and that perhaps a decision can then be made at the February 2nd Council meeting. IVY FALLS CREEK UPDATE Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding the proposed Ivy Falls Creek improvements and the assessment reduction approved by Council on December 15th. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council has been notified by the City Attorney, and the attorney for the League of Minnesota Cities concurs, that the city should conduct a public hearing any time when assessments are changed, including when they are reduced. He stated that the staff recommends adopting a resolution calling for a new assessment hearing on February 16th to reaffirm the action taken on December 15th. Councilmember Smith asked if Council would be required to hold a subsequent hearing if the proposed assessments are changed on February 16th. Attorney Hart responded that it would not, and that staff's thinking is that Council should conduct the February 16th hearing to be sure it will not be necessary to deal with procedural issues in the assessment challenge procedures. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 93 -04, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR IVY FALLS CREEK IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 6)," the hearing to be held at 8:00 P.M. on February 16th. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Resolution No. 93 -05, "A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THREE FORMAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEALS RELATED TO THE IVY FALLS CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND CLARIFYING Page No. 3510 January 19, 1993 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE APPEALS." Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 FORESTRY ISSUES Council Acknowledged a report from Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding forestry options in response to a memo from Parks commissioner Vick Katz regarding the threat of oak wilt in the Hunter/Culligan Lane neighborhood. The options presented are status quo, which would provide no additional services and have no immediate initial impact on the city budget; referral services, whereby the city would be an informational resource to link property owners with professionals on a private basis; consultant services, where the city would contract with a Certified Tree Inspector to provide pest and disease control expertise to private property owners; and institution of a full service forestry program including creation of a city forester position. Councilmember Smith asked which of the Tree City USA standards the city complies with and what the function of a tree board would be. Assistant Batchelder responded that the city already fulfills two of the four standards and that a tree board would organize Arbor Day celebrations, apply for grants, etc. He informed Council that the Park Commission has asked staff to review a tree ordinance last fall and staff presented sample ordinances for their review. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he prefers the referral option but would like to see what the need is and how it might be addressed. Assistant Batchelder responded that the fourth option, a full service forestry program, would include the adoption of a tree ordinance and establishing a tree board, developing a comprehensive management plan and other details. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she would like to encourage Council to look at a tree ordinance and suggested that staff come back with an estimated cost for someone to analyze the oak wilt problem. Page No. 3511 January 19, 1993 Councilmember Huber stated that if he had an oak wilt problem on his property, he would not call the city but would take care of the problem himself. He felt that if property owners feel they have a problem with oak wilt, they should deal directly with people who deal with such problems. He stated that he could agree with a referral list but has a problem with the city getting into the tree business. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels the city should identify the problem and make recommendations to the residents as to what they could do to solve the problem. Councilmember Huber responded that he has no problem with having a list of contractors available for referral as long as there is a disclaimer, but that he would have a problem with spending city money for tree problems unless the trees are on city property. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that most of the homeowners who have expressed concern are along Highway 13 and that it is a matter of maintaining the bluff. She felt that costs should be further investigated. Mayor Mertensotto stated that consultants should be contacted and asked how they provide the service, and at what cost, and if their names could be given to residents. He further felt that staff should be directed to investigate the costs of a survey. BOARD OF REVIEW Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding the scheduling of the annual Board of Review meeting. Councilmember Smith moved to schedule the annual Board of Review meeting for 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, April 20, 1993. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Smith informed Council that one of the NDC -4 member cities has made demands to be complied with before it will consent to the purchase of the NDC -4 building. The City of West St. Paul is considering whether or not to continue with the NDC -4 Joint Powers Agreement and, as an NDC -4 Commission member, she feels some of the requests from West St. Paul would Page No. 3512 January 19, 1993 have an impact. She informed Council that the City of South St. Paul is presenting an ordinance this evening to respond to West St. Paul. She asked staff to get copies of what has been adopted by South St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights and prepare an appropriate response to West St. Paul for discussion at the next meeting. PUD REGULATIONS Administrator Lawell stated that staff had felt that the Mazzara application was consistent with past practice and that the language raised this evening really did not apply. He stated that the language (more than one building per lot or more than one use per lot) was probably brought into the ordinance by Howard Dahlgren many years ago - the Ivy Falls PUD was done many years ago with more than one use, but no PUD's have been done that way since. He stated that this is why Mr. Mazzara was given direction to use the PUD process, because of the unique nature of the site, etc. Administrator Lawell further stated that if Council feels that the types of developments proposed by Mr. Mazzara and others in the past make good use of a PUD, the ordinance can be amended: if the city is never to have two uses or two structures on a lot, the language should be deleted; if Council never intends to again issue a PUD, the language should remain. City Attorney Hart stated that if the city has a great deal more control and discretion in the PUD process than it does in the subdivision process. Councilmember Smith stated that she would be willing to expand the ordinance to accommodate such requests but would still have a problem with private roads. Attorney Hart responded that Council could refuse to allow private roadways in all circumstances, which is exactly the type of discretion a PUD process is designed to do. Councilmember Smith felt that the PUD process generally gives an applicant more discretion. Attorney Hart responded that it does not, that Council can attach all sorts of conditions it could not otherwise require in a subdivision process. The PUD is designed to streamline the variance process, but requires a 4/5 Page No. 3513 January 19, 1993 Council vote and subjects a developer to a substantial amount of additional city control. Councilmember Smith stated that she would like to clarify what she said earlier in that planning can be whatever people desire it to be. She further stated that property owners have certain rights to request subdivisions as long as they comply with the Zoning ordinance. and having the kind of plan in place that would please the owners of the superblock now, could be accomplished through a plat. She felt it would be better to have a cohesive plan than to let the superblock develop haphazardly. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that the Planning commission does want to abide by the ordinance and that some clarification of the ordinance language would be helpful. Attorney Hart stated that is hard to overlook what the ordinance says but there have been 25 years of historical application of the PUD as a planning tool. He informed Council that Planner Uban was shocked that the language is still in the ordinance and that every city he serves has eliminated the language. He further stated that the language originated in the very early days of PUDs and was an effective overall treatment of a development site, but is not done now. He stated that he feels Council must find the benefit to a PUD in every PUD application. Preservation of open space is a primary goal in every PUD, and the PUD is used widely as a very flexible tool. Mayor Mertensotto stated that perhaps a section should be added to the ordinance for unsewered lots. Administrator Lawell stated that public right- of-way as it is described by the city has been 60 feet wide and that perhaps that could be cut back to 50 feet. He further stated that it makes sense (in the Mazzara development) that the right of way abuts the property line. He asked if it is Council's intent that the right of way should run the full way through the Mazzara site. Mayor Mertensotto responded that it should follow what is shown on the drawings. Page No. 3514 January 19, 1993 Administrator Lawell responded that the intent of the right of way is to provide access for utilities, and asked if it is the intent to provide utilities just to the three homes in the plat. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the utility easement should go on the east side of the property but the right of way should follow where the private drive is intended. He property owners would have to maintain that section and there would be an understanding that the city would not maintain the drive until it is upgraded to city standards. He further stated that Mr. Mazzara agreed to a utility easement along the east property line. Councilmember Smith stated that with respect to the utility easement, the city may want to ensure that it does not go through a treed area. Public Works Director Danielson responded that a 35 foot width is needed for sewer and water and that it doesn't really matter where it is located at this time because the easement can be traded in the future when an actual location is determined. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if an unsewered lot ordinance is proposed she would also like an option for a PUD in the PUD ordinance for the superblock. Administrator Lawell asked if Council should direct the Planning Commission to begin the process of clarifying the paragraph that has given so much problem. Attorney Hart stated that Council should keep in mind that even if the language is deleted, Section 23 of the Zoning ordinance says that a PUD can only be approved if it satisfies all of seven conditions - and that is the section that gives Council the discretion to approve or disapprove a PUD application. Administrative Assistant Batchelder informed Council that the first superblock meeting was well attended by residents in the area that they see the PUD process as a great tool for developing the superblock; in fact, there was discussion at that meeting about making the superblock a PUD district. He further stated that it was almost unanimous that the PUD was a process that they could use to protect their Page No. 3515 January 19, 1993 neighborhood. He stated that staff has received a petition from property owners asking that a PUD district start at 2.5 acres per lot, and the request may be coming before Council in the future. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the meeting be adjourned to 6:45 P.M., February 2nd for Commission interviews Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:23 o'clock P.M. kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL January 19, 1993 Asphalt License Pind Bend Paving Inc. Concrete License H.W. Cook & Sons B.R. Moline Masonry Inc. Excavating License Dasen Contracting Co. Inc. Kuper Excavating Company Marty Bros Wenzel Plumbing & Heating Gas Piping License A- aarons A. Binder & Son Centraire Inc. Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. Fireplace Specialist Judkins Heating & A/C Inc. Metro Air Minnesota Plumbing & Heating Inc. Jim Murr Plumbing, Inc. Riccar Heating Twin City Furnace Co. Inc. Spriggs Plumbing & Heating Thompson Plumbing Corp. Valley Plumbing Ray N. Welter Heating Co. Wenzel Heating & A/C HVAC Contractors License A. Binder & Son, Inc. Centraire Inc. Dependable Indoor Air Quality Horwitz, Inc. Judkins Heating & A/C Master Mechanical Metro Air Minnesota Plumbing & Heating Riccar Heating Twin City Furnace Co., Inc. Ray N. Welter Heating Company Wenzel Heating & A/C General contractors Brin Northwestern Glass Company Determan Welding & Tank Service Inc. Industrial Sprinkler Corporation Janning's Acoustics, Inc. Metro Siding, Inc. McGough Construction Co. National Home Framers Inc. New Age Designs, Home Builders Schindler Elevator Corp. Tappe Construction Drywall License Deluxe Drywall Quality Drywall Inc. Sign -'ticense Norquist Sign Signart Rubbish License Roadway Rubbish Cigarette License Finaserve Inc.