Loading...
1993-07-06 Council minutesPage No. 3663 July 6, 1993 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 6, 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, Koch and Smith. Councilmember Krebsbach had notified the Council that she would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Huber moved approval of the minutes of the June 15, 1993 regular meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: Mertensotto 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 Building Activity Report for June. b. Acknowledgment of a report from Assistant Engineer Eckles regarding proposed seal coating areas and authorization to advertise for bids for seal coating. c. Authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a cost sharing agreement with Dakota County for County Project 31-25, Pilot Knob Road and County Project 43-15, Lexington Avenue (in connection with the Mendota Interchange Project). d. Authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute settlement agreements in connection with the Ivy Falls Creek Page No. 3664 July 6, 1993 improvement projects (Denis, Taylor and Libra) . e. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the June 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. f. Acknowledgment of a memo from the City Administrator informing Council of the resignation of Holly Yerrigan from her position as the NDC -4 Executive Director. g. Adoption of Ordinance No. 292 , "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1113," authorizing the installation of stop signs on Lockwood Drive and formalizing the installation of stop signs along Mendota Heights Road. h. Adoption of Ordinance No. 293 , "AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MENDAKOTA DRIVE BETWEEN DODD ROAD AND MENDAKOTA COURT." i. Approval of the 1993 -1994 Labor Contract Settlement between the City and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.. and authorization for the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a formal labor contract document to incorporate contract revisions contained in a memo from the City Administrator dated July 2, 1993. j. Direction to staff to install "Dead End" signs on Diane Road and Douglas Road near the intersection. k. Adoption of Resolution No. 93 -39, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE ASSOCIATED BUREAUS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 4)." 1. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 6, 1993 and attached hereto. 1. Approval of the list of claims dated July 6, 1993 and totalling $978,739.90. m. Acknowledgment of an update on construction of the Public Works maintenance facility addition. Page No. 3665 July 6, 1993 n. Acknowledgement of bids received and contracts awarded for the following construction on the Public Works facility addition: Keith Dahn Excavation, excavation, site grading and storm sewer for its low quote of $9,210.00; K.E.I. Electric, electrical contract, for its low quote of $14,000; award of the contract for overhead garage doors to Twin City Garage Door for its low bid of $5,691.00; and approval of the following change orders: Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Westside Equipment (for removal and replacement of the underground tanks) to allow installation of a floor hoist in the existing maintenance bay at a cost of $6,666.00; Change order Number 2 to Westside Equipment for fuel pumps, encoder, keys and waste oil tank at a total cost of $3,777.00; Change Order No. 3 to Keith Dahn Excavation for soils exchange at a cost of $16,682.75. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 93-15, Council acknowledged an application from VISITATION CONVENT the Convent of the Visitation for a conditional use permit and variance to allow installation of a 2,700 square foot temporary building to house an Early Childhood Montessori Program on the Visitation property. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Mary Bernard Pabst described the early childhood program for Council, explaining that she trains childhood specialists to care for and educate children up to first grade age. She stated that the plan is to broaden the existing early childhood program for currently enrolled and new participants, who may need additional care for their children. She further stated that the program will provide care and education for children and is not a traditional day care program but rather is the Montessori approach, which does include state licensing for day care. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is sure that the objective is laudable and compatible with the school but that the major objection of the Page No. 3666 July 6, 1993 adjoining neighborhood appears to be the location of the proposed facility. Mr. Gary Ostberg, representing the Convent, stated that the proposed location was selected because the facility will be temporary and if the program is successful, Visitation hopes to build a permanent facility in the future on property the Convent owns on the south side of Mendota Heights Road. Ms. Pabst stated that the temporary building would be close to where the existing Montessori program is housed and the children would have easy access to it and the play area. Mr. Ostberg stated that the Convent considered the site on the east of the parking lot but there is a 50 foot easement on that side. The soccer field is located on the west side of the parking lot, and that site is very open. A site close to St. Thomas was also considered, but it is very far from the playground and is an area that the sisters use as part of the monastery. He further stated that the proposed site is surrounded by trees and is at the back of the parking lot - traffic to the facility will not interfere with the traffic in the parking lot. Mayor Mertensotto asked about the size of the area to the south, along the service road, that is fenced in. A sister from the convent stated that this is an area that the convent uses for its pets and is part of the monastery yard. She further stated that it is also used for service deliveries to the convent and school, and if the early childhood facility were located there children would have to cross the drive to get to the playground. Mayor Mertensotto stated that traffic to the proposed facility would have about a 1/4 mile drive from Mendota Heights Road and would interfere with traffic to the school. He pointed out that the school had promised there would be no access from Lake Drive to the school, but location of the proposed facility in its proposed location might result in people using the Lake Drive access. Page No. 3667 July 6, 1993 The sister stated that several years ago the convent was denied a request for the extension of Lake Drive and that it has no intent to again ask for an extension. She stated that in 1983 the convent was told by the city that Lake Drive could never be extended because there is not enough space for it and the convent has no intention of asking again. She explained that there should be no interference with traffic to the school because traffic to the temporary facility because the early childhood program begins at 7:00 a.m. and ends at 6:30 p.m., whereas traffic to the school occurs at 8:00 and the end of the school day. Mr. Ostberg stated that in the conditional use permit approval Council could add a condition that there would never be an extension of Lake Drive. He explained that it would be very expensive to bring in a road from Lake because of the ditch and culverts and there would also not be sufficient stacking room for cars. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Rogers Lake neighborhood is an established residential district and the rights of the residents should be preserved. He pointed out that those residents did not ask to build directly across from a day care facility. Councilmember Huber asked if Mr. Ostberg has asked NSP if it would allow an encroachment on its easement to allow the facility to be installed east of the parking lot. Mr. Ostberg responded that the 50 foot easement goes north and south along the property and the building must sit back ten feet from the parking lot and not enough room would be available for the structure. He stated that he has not contacted NSP and there are safety issues involving power lines and he would prefer that the children are as far away from them as possible. Mr. Dan Commers, a member of the Visitation Board of Trustees, stated that the school does not want access from Lake Drive and Council could place a condition on the approval that the school can never open access to Lake to the temporary building. He stated that the convent hopes to build a permanent facility across Mendota Heights Road on the 26 acres Visitation owns. Page No. 3668 July 6, 1993 Mayor Mertensotto responded that it could well be that the structure would become a permanent facility, and he felt that the people who live in the residential area directly across from the Visitation property do not want to have a day care facility within 30 feet of the right- of-way. Mr. Commers responded that the proposal is not a day care facility but rather an early childhood program. Mr. Ostberg stated that it is very important to note that the Visitation property is also being used by the community. Mend-Eagan is using it for ball games and neighborhood children use the playground. Mr. Bob Lockard, a neighbor, stated that the proposed building would be directly south of his home, and would be closer to Lake Drive than his home. He informed Council that he moved into the area in 1959 and when both schools were built the neighbors were informed that Lake Drive would not be an access road to the schools. He stated that Lake Drive becomes a race track during the school season and activity does not cease in the summer because of use of the ball fields. He explained that he is concerned about noise from the proposed facility. Mr. Lockard stated that when the schools were built the neighbors were informed that the property would be landscaped in such a way that the noise would be kept down and Lake Drive would not be used. He stated that if children are going to be in the building they will have to cross the parking lot to get to the playground, and further stated that he is shocked that given all of the Visitation property, the proposed location is the only one that can be found for the facility. He felt that if the building is approved the school will ask for another access route into it and Lake Drive will be the one proposed. He asked why the west side of the property is not being considered since the area is already secured with cyclone fence and would be quiet and safe for the children. He felt that consideration should be given to the neighbors. Page No. 3669 July 6, 1993 Dr. Jennifer Knaas stated that her home is at the corner of Lake Drive and Roger Avenue, and the proposed structure would be across from her property. She stated that her main concern is not the access road, but that she did not buy her home to be next to a day care center. She stated that she realizes the facility is to be temporary but that five years is a long time. She informed Council that she met with Mr. Ostberg last week and let him know of her concerns about traffic and about parking problems. She stated that there is a real problem with on- street parking for people using the ball fields and students driving very fast on Lake Drive. She further stated that her concern is not that the school may want an access road five years from now. Mr. George Russell, a member of the Visitation Board of Trustees, stated that he can appreciate the concern of the neighborhood over traffic on Lake Drive but if the facility is located where it has been suggested this evening traffic on Lake drive would only increase more. He stated that the parking problems the neighbors have commented on have nothing to do with Visitation but rather with allowing the city to use Visitation's facilities. He stated that the school has no control over traffic speeds and that speeding on Lake Drive should be a concern of the police department. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the residents have mentioned locating the structure to the south of the service road. He stated that assuming the facility would be located 30 feet from the Lake Drive right -of -way, everyone would have to come in from Mendota Heights Road, make the long drive and cross the parking lot - using Lake would be much easier. He stated that Visitation owns 80 to 90 acres and that while he is aware of the concern over the power lines, the property should accommodate another location for the facility instead of placing it right along Lake Drive. He stated that he lives directly across the street from the location proposed by Visitation. Mr. Russell stated that there are many evergreen trees along the site and neither of the closest homes would see the facility. Page No. 3670 July 6, 1993 Mayor Mertensotto responded that the trees provide a visual screen but would not dampen the noise. He stated that it is not a question of who has superior rights but that the city would not want to create a problem for an established residential area. He felt that Visitation's program is laudable and Council wants to work with them, but that the proposed location is very objectionable. Mr. Russell stated that the age-group of children at the facility will be from under a year to four or five years of age, and they would not be nearly as noisy as the people who are using the ball field. Mr. Ostberg stated that the children will be present during the normal school hours and there is already noise from the school children using the play area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that when children are in a fenced area near a residential area, there may be some residents who do not object and others who do. Mr. Ostberg stated that everyone in the area was notified of the Planning commission hearing and the Commission recommended approval. He further stated that if the Commission had suggested that the facility be located somewhere else, he could have been prepared to address the question for Council. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if the neighbors had been aware of the proposed location they would have appeared at the Commission hearing. Mr. Ostberg stated that he went to the Commission knowing visitation was on a tight schedule, and since the Commission recommended approval he had the impression the location was acceptable. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he had contacted Mr. Ostberg as soon as he knew of the plan and told him that there would be problems. He explained that since there is a problem with connecting to the sanitary sewer, he told Mr. Ostberg he would not object to an on-site system. Page No. 3671 July 6, 1993 Mr. Commers asked if Council could approve the concept with conditions. He stated that the sisters need to start the early childhood program in September. He explained that a fund raising drive will soon start to raise funds to build a permanent facility and other buildings on the south side of Mendota Heights road. He explained that Visitation needs the temporary building in order to get the program going and do fund raising so that a permanent facility can be built in four or five years. Mayor Mertensotto stated that several of the neighbors have spoken to him about the proposal, and that while no one is against the program, they do not think it is unreasonable to relocate the proposed facility. Councilmember Huber asked if the facility could be located off of the main entrance to Visitation. Mr. Commers stated that the children must get to the existing play facilities and Visitation does not want them to have to cross the parking lot. The current plan is to build a path to the playground. He further stated that most of the parents will bring their children to the facility between 6:30 and 7:00 a.m. and most of the traffic to the existing school is from 8:00 to 8:05 a.m. He informed Council that none of the existing trees along the proposed site will be removed, and that Visitation does not have a back-up plan because the proposal is for a temporary building. Councilmember Huber stated that he would like to approve the request but that it is hard to believe that, given the amount of acreage, there is not a second choice for a location. Mr. Russell responded that there are other considerations in site selection, including cost and the danger involved in taking the children back and forth between buildings. He explained that one of the reasons the site was picked because of its proximity to the watermain and utilities. He stated that a number of other possible locations was considered, including the one on the east side which was dismissed because of the right-of- way problem. He explained that if it were located on the west side it would be much Page No. 3672 July 6, 1993 further from the school and from the utilities. Mr. Russell stated that Visitation will not have to rely on the existing school when the facility is permanently located because it will have its own facilities. For the temporary facilities, meals will be brought from the school, carts will transport the toddlers from the facility to the school, and convenient access to the school is necessary. Mr. Lockard responded that residents in the neighborhood will see all of the activity that will go on at the facility and hear all of the noise because the evergreen trees are trimmed to six or seven feet from the ground. He stated that residents had been told when the schools were proposed that the area near to the residences would be landscaped. Visitation now wants to build a facility close to the residences and doesn't plan any shrubbery. He stated that he did not think homes in the area would sell if the plan is approved and suggested that action be delayed so that a compromise can be found. He felt that the east site would be quiet, and safe and pointed out that it is already fenced in. Dr. Knaas stated that she did not receive a Planning Commission hearing notice. She also stated that while the area near the proposed location may have been landscaped nicely at one time, neighbors can see under the trees now, there is quite a distance between the trees, and they do not provide a screen. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that when the school district asked for a conditional use permit for a temporary classroom at Mendota School, they bermed the site so that the building and the activities would not be seen. Mr. Ostberg responded that the Mendota School facility is clearly much more visible than the one proposed by Visitation will be. He explained that the Visitation plan shows a 30 foot setback from the parking lot for the facility because he was under the impression that this was required by ordinance. He informed Council he has been informed that in fact, the setback is only required to be 10 feet, and the facility can be located 20 feet closer to the parking lot than has been proposed. Page No. 3673 July 6, 1993 Mr. Commers informed Council that if the city would like a berm, Visitation would be willing to construct one. Ms. Pabst stated that there are many planned residential communities that are built with a child care facility in the center of the neighborhood and people are buying homes there because of the child care facilities. She did not feel that the facility will be detrimental as a single add-on to an existing school. Mayor Mertensotto responded that there are arguments on both sides of the issue - Ms. Pabst refers to the use as a child care program and others see it as a day care program. Mr. Ostberg stated that the proposed facility is only 2,700 square feet, 15 feet tall, and will be constructed in a residential style with wood siding. He further stated that Visitation will landscape around the structure and that it will look like another house from Lake Drive, compatible with the neighborhood. He explained that Visitation has access to much dirt and could build a berm - if the facility is moved 20 feet closer to the parking lot and a berm is constructed, the facility would not be very visible. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the applicants would be willing to install a 7 foot berm, since the trees are trimmed to 7 feet. Mr. Commers suggested that Visitation work with the city staff and work out berm details. He stated that Visitation would have no problem with a berm requirement and would meet with the neighbors as well. Councilmember Huber suggested tabling action for two weeks. Councilmember Smith stated that a dialogue has been started and she felt that some type of agreement can be reached if the matter is tabled. Mayor Mertensotto responded that neighborhood representatives must be involved. He stated that he has no problem with keeping the Page No. 3674 July 6, 1993 dialogue open and seeing what options are available. Dr. Knaas stated that the Visitation representatives keep talking about proximity to the playground but have also said that they would have a playground right next to the temporary building. she further stated that the neighbors are also concerned that this is a commercial endeavor and do not want the facility in the proposed location. Councilmember Huber responded that he would hope that Visitation will re-think all of its alternatives including an alternative site. He stated that he would not want to portray Council as being against the facility somewhere on the Visitation property but that he would like Visitation to find an alternative that addresses the residents' concerns. Councilmember Smith moved to continue the discussion to July 20th. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PICKETING ORDINANCE Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator and proposed ordinance restricting targeted residential picketing. Police Chief Delmont explained that the problem is free speech versus targeting the object (individual) of the picketing. He informed Council that in his discussions with the City Administrator they have always kept in mind that the proposed ordinance is not intended to restrict the expression of opinions but that they feel it very important that the citizens of Mendota Heights selected the community because of its peaceful nature. The ordinance was built from two samples, an ordinance from White Bear Township comprises the major part of the proposed ordinance. He informed Council the city's prosecuting attorney has prosecuted under the White Bear Township ordinance. He stated that section two is, in his opinion, the most important section. Chief Delmont informed Council that the experience the city has had is primarily Page No. 3675 July 6, 1993 associated with one physician who has been targeted for two years or so. Picketers have encountered neighborhood children and have given them very offensive literature. He informed Council that he had intended to contact the residents of the neighborhood but was only able to contact a few. He stated that the department has been called by neighbors with complaints but has never been contacted by the people who have been targeted. Those who have contacted him were in favor of the ordinance but neither wanted to appear before Council to express their views because of fear of repercussions. He felt that the ordinance will maintain the peace of city neighborhoods while making sure not to stifle the rights of people to voice their opinions. Mayor Mertensotto stated that people living next to a "target" have rights and should not have to tolerate targeted picketing. Chief Delmont responded that keeping targeted picketers 150 feet away will resolve the problem. He explained that the specific incidence of targeted picketing pickets one individual being pointed out and exposing an individual who should have right to privacy. People should not be able to picket with pictures of the targeted individual and wording such as "do you know that the individual hates children", etc. He reiterated that those being picketed have not lodged a complaint but rather that the ordinance is in response to complaints from the neighborhood. Mr. John Katzmark, 2461 Bridgeview Court, stated that he lives in the neighborhood where there has been targeted picketing. He stated that although he would like to say that regardless of the issues freedom of speech should be protected, there is also a distinction between residential streets and commercial streets. He stated that what the neighborhood is objecting to are many individuals who are not members of the neighborhood or community, even in a very large respect, coming onto the residential streets and doing targeted picketing. He further stated that it is a very uncomfortable situation that the picketers choose to express their freedom of speech in a very threatening Page No. 3676 July 6, 1993 manner. He informed Council of an incident where two young neighborhood children were stopped by an individual who was picketing and handed them offensive material. He stated that the individual told him he did not know the children and that he had a right to be there. He stated that the neighborhood has a right to ensure the safety of their children, and that the neighborhood is not an appropriate place to approach minor children and influence whatever their beliefs are. He further stated that he has a right to some degree of control of the environment of the neighborhood yet there is currently no ordinance to prevent what is occurring. Mayor Mertensotto felt that in order to protect the well-being, tranquility and safety of each individual and to make the ordinance effective, it should require a picketing distance of a city block from the targeted residence. He pointed out that the zoning ordinance requires the mailing of hearing notices 350 feet from property boundaries. Mr. Katzmark responded that a residential street with homes on it is very distinct from a commercial thoroughfare like T.H. 110, Mendota Heights Road, etc., and suggested that picketing be prohibited from residential streets. Acting City Attorney Evan Coobs stated that most similar ordinances use the terminology "near or about a residential dwelling" which would keep targeted picketing off of residential streets. Chief Delmont responded that he agrees that 150 feet seems a very short distance and pointed out that the identification factor is very important. Mayor Mertensotto asked the length of a standard residential street. Public Works Director Danielson responded that 300 feet used to be the standard. Chief Delmont felt that using the term "residential street" would be a little vague and would be difficult to enforce, but that 300 feet would certainly be helpful. Page No. 3677 July 6, 1993 Mr. Dominique Najjar, 2476 Bridgeview Court, stated that he lives across from the targeted individual. He stated that though he did not come to the meeting to speak to the issue, Council is discussing a venue for free speech. He stated that he views the issue as a fine line between freedom of speech and becoming a nuisance. He informed Council that he had asked a police officer who was present at one of the demonstrations if something could be done about it and was told that as long as there is no public policy nothing could be done. He stated that he has four children who have been confronted with some very unpleasant photographs. He stated that he has also been disturbed by the ever-present video cameras used by the picketers recording the movement of those in the neighborhood. Mr. Najjar stated that he is hard-pressed to think that 300 feet, the width of three lots, would eliminate the nuisance. He stated that he has a problem with stepping outside the bounds of logic, mostly where it affects small children. He stated that he thinks Council's concern would be how the ordinance would be viewed in terms of freedom of speech. He did not know if this uneasiness has any bearing and stated that he believes that whether laws are written or not people are entitled to come home from work and feel good about their children going outside to play - taking away that freedom fuzzes freedom of speech with becoming a nuisance. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what is being discussed is the well-being, privacy and tranquility of the home being targeted and that the city cannot take the ordinance too far. He stated that if the ordinance is adopted and citations are given for its violation, the city must back the ordinance up in court. He stated that Mendota Heights is a residential community and its residents should be protected but on the other hand, he would not be in favor of spending $25,000 on litigation and lose because the ordinance is not properly written. Mr. Najjar responded that it is his opinion that people are creating a nuisance and asked if the question of nuisance can be pursued. Chief Delmont stated that the city's public nuisance ordinance is very broad, the city Page No. 3678 July 6, 1993 also has a disorderly conduct ordinance, and the state statute now defines harassment definitively. He further stated that he would feel very comfortable with changing the 150 foot limit to a ten block area which would be closer to 1,000 feet. Attorney Coobs responded that Council could make the finding that the lots in Mendota Heights are larger than those in other cities - some cities have frontages of 50 feet wide. Councilmember Smith expressed the concern that city cul-de-sacs can be 500 feet long and if a home is at the end of a cul-de-sac, picketers could cut off the cul-de-sac and affect everyone living on the street. Attorney Coobs responded that the boundary must be as narrowly drawn as possible - if picketers can be pushed 300 to 500 feet away, targeted picketing will be less effective. Chief Delmont responded that the problem the department has is that the picketers are trying to impress on the targeted individual that she should stop the activity they are picketing against. He explained that he would like to be able to tell the officers a distance and does not want them to have to make a decision on whether a street is residential or commercial. Councilmember Smith suggested that the distance be 500 feet. She stated that most people have two ways of entrance and exit to their neighborhood except those on cul-de- sacs, and if the home being targeted is at the end of a cul-de-sac, neighbors would have no choice but to pass by the picketers. She felt that if the distance specified in the ordinance is 500 feet, people would have a choice. Chief Delmont responded that he thinks a determined person will make his presence known, and the idea of the ordinance is that people have a place to escape to. He further stated that if people are approaching the targeted house the officers would have a reason to stop and make them identify themselves. Page No. 3679 July 6, 1993 Attorney Coobs stated that if people block the entrance to a cul-de-sac or breach the peace, those actions can be addressed under breach of peace laws. Mr. Brian Birch stated that he had not heard of the ordinance before coming into the meeting and perceives it as something that deals with people's rights. He felt that people should have the right to picket in front of someone's house and to show their concerns to the individual but do not have the right to be boisterous and disrupt the neighborhood. He felt that people should be allowed to picket in a decent, orderly manner but acknowledged that this standard would be very difficult to define. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the repetitive nature of the incident and the tactics being used are what cry for the need for the proposed ordinance. He explained that there are many situations where picketing occurs and in this particular case the issue is abortion. He stated that Council is not here to discuss the issue but rather to protect the peace, tranquility and safety of the neighborhoods. Mr. Ken Kauffman, husband of the individual being targeted, quoted former Supreme Court Justice Sutherland regarding individuals' rights. Mr. Virgil McQuay stated that he believes very strongly in the rights of individuals to be free to defend themselves from harassment and that the ordinance should very specifically define harassment. Mr. Joe Lester, 2496 Bridgeview Court, stated that it is clear that the sentiment is in favor of the ordinance and to expand the distance. He stated that he wants to support his neighbors but is extremely torn between any limit on freedom of expression and the problems of unwanted photographs, literature and approaching children. He felt that these are issues that should be addressed through conventional criminal laws. He informed Council that 25 years ago he was involved in picketing at the White House and he thought the right to picket was extremely important. He explained that as much as he is torn, he Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 McQUAY COMPLAINT Page No. 3680 July 6, 1993 would support an ordinance to protect the neighborhood if the ordinance is the best solution, but that Council must consider whether the ordinance will achieve the intended result or just fill jails. Councilmember Huber stated that when people involve themselves in controversial issues his guesss is that most of them might not like the picketing but acknowledge that it comes with the territory. He explained that Council is trying to address the concerns of those who, through no fault of their own, by living next to the one being picketed are suffering. Council is trying to protect the rights and interests of the people who live around the ones who are being picketed. Councilmember Smith stated that she does not think people have brought attacks upon themselves and that many innocent people are targeted. Mr. Birch stated that the ordinance should be written so that people can picket the frontage of the property being picketed, which would allow them to picket only the individual. He felt that this would keep the number of people picketing to a small number and would not disrupt a neighborhood. Attorney Coobs explained that if the ordinance is adopted, people will still be allowed to picket, but cannot put a name and picture or position on the banners they are carrying. Councilmember Huber moved adoption of Ordinance No. 294, "AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AND REGULATING TARGETED RESIDENTIAL PICKETING IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA," revised to establish a distance of 500 feet in Sections 1.2 and 1.3. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. Virgil McQuay and numerous communications from Mr. McQuay, NSP and city staff regarding a tree trimming incident in 1989 at the McQuay residence. Mr. McQuay stated that he wrote Council a six page letter specifically asking whether Page No. 3681 July 6, 1993 Council supports him in his contentions involving a December 18, 1989 incident at his property. Mr. McQuay then reviewed the contents of the letter. He asked Council to order the Police Chief to enforce a civil arrest that he had made on the date of the incident. He stated that he has asked the chief several times to enforce the charge but the chief has refused. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. McQuay has contacted the County Attorney. Mr. McQuay stated that the County Attorney did not consider the charge since the police chief would not consider it and it occurred over three years ago. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if Mr. McQuay has a claim against the city, the city will cooperate. He explained that Mr. McQuay's earlier claim for damage was turned over to the city's insurer who investigated and subsequently denied the claim. Mr. McQuay asked if Council will order the Police Chief to enforce the civil arrest. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council will not do so. He further stated that if Mr. McQuay has any claims against the city they will be filed with the city's insurer. EVERGREEN KNOLLS Council acknowledged a letter from James Gryc and associated memo from Public Works Director Danielson in regard to Mr. Gryc's request for approval to develop Outlot A, Evergreen Knolls Addition. Ms. Janet Simmons, prospective purchaser of the property, stated that she needs assistance from the city for several reasons. She stated that the outlot was originally intended to be two lots but she plans to build one house on it. She stated that in order to connect to the sanitary sewer she would have to run a sewer line a couple of hundred feet from the main and raise the elevation of the house, which will be very costly. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that building the one residence would preclude further subdivision of the lot. He asked if the slope of the land would support gravity flow. Page No. 3682 July 6, 1993 Public Works Director Danielson stated that it will if the elevation of the structure is appropriate. Ms. Simmons stated that she would be willing to make the connection to the sewer if she does not have to pay the sewer and water hook- up charge (equivalent assessment). Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is not justifiable reason why Ms. Simmons should hook into the city sewer without paying the hook-up charges. Ms. Simmons responded that she could install an on-site sewer for $5,000 and a well for $2,000. Raising the elevation of the house to connect to the city sewer and a 250 foot connection to the sewer would be very costly. Mayor Mertensotto stated that no one knows when Wachtler will be extended to the south, past the outlot but that if the property is not connected to the utilities now, it can be connected when Wachtler is extended. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the original plan was to extend sewer north from Bachelor to serve the property, and that this would be a much easier way to serve the outlot. Mayor Mertensotto asked if it would be better to allow Ms. Simmons to install on-site systems at this time. Ms. Simmons responded that she would then be required to connect to the public utilities when they are constructed, and she is not willing to do that. She stated that she is willing to spend the money for public sewer and water now and prefers to be connected to city sewer. Councilmember Smith asked what the cost would be if sewer and water were brought up from the south. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the cost would be determined at the time construction is done. He explained the outlot is at a lower elevation than those in Evergreen Knolls and it would be more Page No. 3683 July 6, 1993 convenient to connect to utilities which would come from the south in the future. He showed an overhead drawing on the availability of the utilities and explained that Wachtler had been anticipated to be extended along Par 3 when Evergreen Knolls was developed but people to the south objected and it was delayed for future consideration. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it makes sense not to deviate from prior plans for utilities. He pointed out that Ms. Simmons has stated that she will have to raise the elevation of the house because of the sewer but would not have to if the utilities came from the originally planned location. He stated that Council must look at the lot from a municipal planning standpoint and that it may be appropriate for the city to bring water and sewer from the south. Mr. Gryc responded that the Cherry Hills and Trail Road residents did not want the road to be extended because they did not want traffic from T.H. 13 racing down Wachtler. He informed Council that the owner of Par 3, Mr. Liefschultz has told him that he has already dedicated a 30 foot right-of-way for the street. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if sewer were extended from the south the lot would not need gravity flow. He felt that sewer should come from Bachelor and asked where water would come from to serve the lot. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the big question would be future development of Par 3 and the Slowinski property. He stated that the lot can be served with water from Evergreen Knolls without any problem. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he appreciates Ms. Simmons concern over building an on-site system and then later having to connect to the public system, but the question is how the lot should be served and who should pay for it. He stated that the decision to build one home on the outlot may mean that it would not be beneficial to run the utilities from Bachelor. He explained that the city would not expect Ms. Simmons to pay the total cost of extending the sewer line from Bachelor because other properties could be connected to it. Mayor Page No. 3684 July 6, 1993 Mertensotto stated that look into the cost of e: Bachelor, and asked Ms. constraints are. Ms. Simmons stated that start building in three he would like staff to Ktending utilities from Simmons what her time she would like to weeks. Public Works Director Danielson stated that staff would need to do a study to determine the costs and what kind of complications there are between the outlot and Bachelor Avenue. With respect to Ms. Simmons request on excusing the hook-up charge, Mayor Mertensotto stated that the problem is that this would set a precedent. He informed Ms. Simmons that every residential lot in the city is required to pay an assessment or a hook-up charge for city utilities. He stated that the hook-up charge for the lot, based on city policy is $6,300 according to the Public Works Director's report. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to prepare a report on the cost of extending utilities from Bachelor and to continue the discussion to July 20th. COMMUNITY SURVEY Council appointed Councilmembers Krebsbach and Smith and Administrator Lawell to serve as a Council subcommittee to prepare a revised draft of the community survey for review on July 20th. BUROW FARM Council acknowledged a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy, letter from Ronald Patrick Smith and letter from Berkley Risk Services, Inc., with respect to a proposal from Mr. Smith that the city purchase the Burow farm property. Mayor Mertensotto reviewed the history of the issue, informing the audience that Mr. Smith has approached the city with respect to preserving the homestead as a 19th century farm museum. He explained that Council is looking at whether the city should purchase the site as a farm homestead and what the financial obligation would be to the city. The original proposal by Mr. Smith was for the city to pay $50,000 up front to Mr. Burow and that Mr. Burow would live on the property and be paid $1,000 per month for a life estate and for maintaining the property during his life Page No. 3685 July 6, 1993 time, the cost to be capped at $200,000. The property would then revert to the city after Mr. Burow's death. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the current proposal from Mr. Smith is for the city to purchase a contract for deed for $200,000, with $50,000 down and payments of $1,000 per month and 8% on the remaining $150,000. He stated that there is no question that the value of the property would exceed the purchase price but the city would not be purchasing it for recreation purposes but rather for its historical value. He explained that city's insurer has raised several questions from an risk management standpoint. If the city were to purchase the property, the buildings would have to be upgraded to ADA requirements and the city would possibly also need to install a 6 foot chain link fence along the exposure. Some of the risks would have to be covered by a financial appropriation, and if the city were to purchase the property as proposed by Mr. Smith it would have an unfunded liability of $150,000 which would have to be appropriated. He felt that the best way for the city to be involved would be if there were a non - profit entity that would run and own the property. He stated that the idea is very laudable and that he would not like to cut off further discussion but that it should be pursued by a non - profit corporation. Councilmember Smith agreed, stating that she does not see the city taking title or operating the facility in the future. She further stated that she would like to see the city find an appropriate vehicle of accomplishing what Mr. Smith has in mind and suggested the county, historical society and school district as possibilities. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city should not be the owner of the property and that it should be looked at as historical preservation - the city would be better served if a non- profit organization were to be involved. He stated that if the city were involved it could become a very restrictive situation and an unfunded liability, and no money is budgeted to research what should be done. Councilmember Smith stated that she thinks the first step would be to talk to Mr. Smith and find out exactly what his objectives are and Page No. 3686 July 6, 1993 find a match with an appropriate agency. She did not think the city should try to form a non-profit corporation. Administrator Lawell stated that the issue was whether the city was going to come into title to the property, and that the city's attorney and risk management people felt that what is suggested is not a standard. Therefore one of the options would be a non-profit organization purchasing and running the property and the city would then contract for a public service. He stated that it would be up to Mr. Smith and the neighbors in the area to form the non- profit group that the city would contract with. The city would then have to set parameters on what would be expected - finding out who would be targeted and what particular service the city would be trying to provide before making any public investment in private property. Council directed Administrator Lawell to prepare a response to Mr. Smith, notifying him that the general consensus is that a non- profit group should be formed to own and operate the Burow farm as a farm museum. AIR NOISE COMMISSION Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding applications received from ten individuals interested in appointment to the Airport Relations Commission. It was the consensus that Council conduct interviews of the candidates on Thursday, July 22nd at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Koch informed Council that she cannot attend the August 3rd meeting. Councilmember Smith asked about parking on Mendota Heights Road and the scheduling of events at Hagstrom-King Park. Administrator Lawell responded that staff has been looking at painting crosswalks. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that the Park Commission has discussed the matter and it was their feeling that the park was always intended for scheduled play. He stated that money was allocated to build bring the fields up to the same level of pay as the other city ball fields and that almost every neighborhood park has a similar problem. Page No. 3687 July 6, 1993 Councilmember Smith stated that she does not think it is right to restrict traffic on Mendota Heights Road to accommodate parking for the ball field. Assistant Batchelder stated that the Commission has discussed the parking problems and it is their intent to not blacktop additional park area to provide additional parking. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the commission take a look at parking on the street at all of the city parks. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session to discuss pending litigation. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:30 o'clock P.M. Y?athleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: -Ir jw,.�.a 001"11- Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL July 5, 1993 Asphalt License Asphalt Driveway Co. Masonry License Prestige Concrete & Snowplowing Co. Cavanaugh Concrete Co. Concrete Systems Inc. Southside Concrete Zellmer Masonry Excavating License F.M. Frattalone Excavating & Grading Inc. Keith Dahn Construction Southside Concrete Specialized Turf Gas Piping License Palmer Service Electric Parsons Plumbing & Heating Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning Inc. Metro Gas Installers Rumpca Services Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. St. Marie Sheet Metal Inc. HVAC License Palmer Service Electric Parsons Plumbing & Heating Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning Inc. Rumpca Services Cool Air Mechanical, Inc. St. Marie Sheet Metal Inc. General Contractors License 3M Midstate Erection Inc. Schreiber Mulaney Construction Co. Inc. CNS Construction Inc. Petroleum Maintenance Co. Stockdill Construction Carlson Automatic Fire Protection Drywall License Drywall Systems Inc. Custom Drywall Kevin T. & Sheri L. Zitzow, Ltd Sicm License Identi Graphics