Loading...
1992-04-21 Council minutesPage No 3295 - April 21, 1992 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Board of Review/Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, April 21, 1992 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the annual Board of Review meeting for the 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 Cummins, Koch and Smith. Councilmember Blesener had notified the Council that she would be late. BOARD OF REVIEW County Assessor Marvin Pulju informed Council and the audience that the meeting is being held to review valuations for 1992 taxes payable in 1993, and that sales from September, 1990 to September, 1991 were used to establish values. The average valuation for the City is 93.8%, and the market value of the City increased 3.6% over the 1991 assessment. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Pulju stated that 75 home sales were used to establish the sales ratios. Mr. Pulju asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, the Council suspended the Board of Review meeting to allow the Assessor's staff to meet individually with residents to discuss their property valuations. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins 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 April 14th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Page No. 3,296' April 21, 1992 b. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the March 28th Adjourned Planning Commission meeting. c. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for March. d. Approval of the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation on the Curley Trail and direction to staff to begin planning for the incorporation of the Lexington Avenue/Tom Thumb Boulevard replacement trail as part of the Mn/DOT intersection improvements in 1993/1994. e. Approval of the issuance of a two-day on- sale 3.2 malt beverage license to St. Peter's Church for September 19th and 20th, in conjunction with the annual Father Galtier Days, along with waiver of the license fee. f. Approval to accept the premium refund option for Workers' Compensation renewal. g. Approval to establish a policy that advertising panels will not be allowed in City parks, as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission. h. Approval of the probationary appointment of Gary Pike as maintenance worker in the Street Department, effective May 4, 1992 at a starting salary of $9.86 per hour in accordance with the Public Works labor agreement. i. Approval of the probationary appointment of Linda Shipton as Receptionist/Clerk Typist, effective May 4, 1992, at a starting salary of $17,957, Step I, Grade I of the city's pay matrix. j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated April 21, 1992 and attached hereto. k. Approval of the list of claims dated April 21, 1992 and totalling $538,916.83. 11 Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 3297 April 21, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Marlin Grant, of Marvin Anderson Homes, was present to inform Council on what has occurred with respect to the Bridgeview Shores development since the last Council discussion. He also informed Council that the boundary dispute with Bernard Friel has been resolved and submitted a letter from Attorney Dale Happe to Mr. Friel's legal representative with respect to the boundary dispute resolution. Mr. Grant asked that Council authorize the city's utility contractor to resume work on the improvement project. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council gave Marvin Anderson and the Bridgeview Shores residents 60 days to address the concerns about Phases 2 and 3, and that Council will not address the issues this evening, since the matter is scheduled for the May 5th meeting. With respect to the request for resumption of utility work, Mayor Mertensotto stated that the project was put on hold for the 60 day period and that it is not appropriate to consider the request prior to the May 5th meeting. Mr. Norman Linnell, representing the Bridgeview Shores resident, submitted a copy of a letter to Marvin Anderson Homes expressing the terms and conditions acceptable to the residents, and informed Council that progress has been made on the matter. VGC FOUNDATION PERMIT/ Mr. Dale Glowa was present to request a TAX INCREMENT footing/foundation permit, site plan FINANCING approval and tax increment financing assistance for a 50,000 square foot industrial project for the VGC Corporation. The facility is proposed to be located on a parcel in the former MAC site, on Pilot Knob Road across from the Big Wheel/Rossi building. Mr. Glowa gave Council a background on the VGC Corporation and explained that the proposed facility will be a regional facility serving the Midwest and a branch office serving Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto asked what the density transfer is for the MAC site. Mr. Glowa responded that all development is restricted to east of Highway 13 and that the development plan approved by the MAC and the City in 1986 totalled approximately 650,000 square feet of Page No. 3;QR April 21, 1992 development (all office and industrial). MAC provided a transfer of density from the river bottom area, which gives United Properties the opportunity to develop most of the 50 acre parcel as 90% office. He stated that it is, however, highly unlikely that 90% will be office: the overall plan for the park is industrial. Mr. Glowa reviewed the site plan and exterior building treatment for Council and the audience. Responding to a Council question, he stated that there will be traffic controls at the intersection of new T.H. 13 and Pilot Knob and an at -grade crossing, and there will also be signals at the intersection of new T.H. 13 and T.H. 55. Existing T.H. 55 will become a frontage road. He informed Council that he will appear at the next Planning Commission meeting to request two parking variances and a sign variance. Councilmember Blesener arrived at 8:10 P.M. Councilmember Cummins asked how many employees there will be. Mr. Glowa responded that there j will be 58 employees initially and that the building is designed with enough growth space for a 20% increase in the work force. VGC will own the building, and no hazardous materials will be stored or used in the facility. There was considerable discussion over the "pay -as- you -go" tax increment request, particularly as it relates to what would occur if the firm were to default on tax payments or sell the property. Administrator Lawell responded that Council has a choice on terms in the EVENT of default. As part of the TIF package, the request is for $340,000 up front and $270,000 as "pay- as -you- go." He stated that a developers agreement would be prepared to address development and TIF conditions. Attorney Hart stated that if the owner defaults on current taxes he would forfeit the "pay -as- you -go" note payment for that year. The obligation of the city to make payments on the note is contingent upon the payment of taxes. If taxes are not paid, the city is not obligated to the payment. Page No. 3299 . April 21, 1992 Administrator Lawell stated that Council could tie the "pay -as- you -go" to the full satisfaction of taxes each year. With respect to sale of the structure, Council could direct that the agreement be phrased such that VGC would have to own and occupy the facility in order to get the assistance. Mayor Mertensotto felt that the condition should be that taxes must be paid promptly and that no payment would be made for a year in which taxes were defaulted, even if they were paid in a later year. He did not feel payment should be made for any year in which taxes were not kept current. He also felt that the note should go with the owner, not the building, so that the "pay -as- you -go" would cease if the building were sold. Mr. Glowa responded that the beauty of "pay - as- you -go11 is that it is only paid if taxes are current. He stated that he hopes that if the owner defaults but subsequently corrects the problem, the benefit would stay in place - when tax payments should stop, but when the tax is paid, the benefit should start again. He also felt that the "pay -as- you -go" should run with the property, not the owner, because it would be beneficial in selling the property. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he does not feel there should be a note payment on defaulted taxes after the default has been cured. Attorney Hart responded that he would write the developers agreement such that no "pay -as- you-go" will be made under the note for the period of time during which taxes are missed. Councilmember Smith stated that she would like to see the "pay -as- you -go" non - transferable to a different owner. She felt that this is a specific situation and project and relates to current market conditions. The city would be compensating VGC for those market conditions. She stated that she does not see any reason to underwrite a future buyer. Councilmember Blesener responded that the TIF assistance would be to facilitate the construction of the facility in the industrial Page No. 3:300_ April 21, 1992 park, and the presence of the building in the park should be Council's major concern. Council is trying to encourage the development, and taxes are paid on the value of the property regardless of who owns it. Mr. Glowa stated that whoever owns the property will be paying the taxes and if the taxes were not paid, the benefit would not be received. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that in this situation, the owner would be getting $270,000 in TIF up front and he felt there is merit is saying that the "pay-as-you-go" ends if VGC no longer owns or occupies the facility. He also felt that Council should have been involved in the discussion much earlier. He asked Treasurer Shaughnessy for his recommendation. Treasurer Shaughnessy responded that staff is requesting authority to develop an agreement which would spell out all of the TIF details. What is being requested by Mr. Glowa is consistent with what has been done in the Tax Increment Districts and with funds that are available. Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the site plan, with the exception of the variances, and approval of a foundation permit subject to staff review and approval of the plans, and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations for a developers agreement for a tax increment package on the basis that "pay - as- you -go" will be forfeited for years in which tax payments are not made and to determine in negotiations whether VGC has concerns about tying the "pay-as-you-go" to VGC should they vacate or transfer title for the facility. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Smith stated that she feels strongly about the note not being transferred to a future owner since the city is initially underwriting the project and has no responsibility to create value for VGC should they sell the facility. CASE 92-02, Council acknowledged a letter from Rottlund ROTTLUND Homes regarding its application for conditional use permit for planned unit Page No - '3-s03 • , April 21, 1992 development for the proposed Winterwood P.U.D, rezoning, subdivision and sketch plan approval. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports and letters from Mr. & Mrs. Michael Dumer, 2515 Arbor Court, and Mr. Kenneth Kauffman, 2467 Bridgeview Court. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the Rottlund application had been continued from the April 7th meeting based on the developer's request that the proposal be submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission with respect to the park contribution issue. Mr. John Bannigan, legal representative for the applicant, stated that at the April 7th meeting Council raised a number of concerns and that the applicant has attempted to address those concerns in a revised sketch plan. He informed Council that Mr. Tod Stutz and Don Jensen, from Rottlund Homes, and Mr. Dick Putnam were present for the discussion. Mr. Stutz, Executive Vice President of Rottlund Homes, stated that the proposed PUD area consists of a total of 10.63 acres which is comprised of two components, 64 residential units on 9.5 acres, and a day care use on 1.05 acres. He then reviewed changes which have been made to the sketch plan since April 7th. He informed Council that Rottlund representatives appeared before the Park and Recreation Commission on April 14th to consider whether the Commission preferred a dedication of land or cash in the amount of $750 per unit. He stated that in response to the Commission's concern about the provision of open space, the proposal has been reduced from 68 to 64 units to reduce the amount of pavement by about 10%, thus increasing the amount of green space by 10%, from 49% of the area to 59%. He stated that this created about an additional acre of green space in the middle of the site. He felt that the proposed open space more than adequately serves the population that will be served by the development. Mr. Stutz informed Council that 5 foot wide trails have been added throughout the development to connect to the existing public trail along Mendota Heights Road. With respect to a tot lot, he stated that the development will be marketed to "empty nesters" and a tot lot would not be appropriate. He stated that an issue has been Pa.S,a No. 3302-;: April 21, 1992 raised with respect to ordinance requirements on open space, and that the plans before Council tlh,is evening indicate that the plan is well within the requirement for open space. With respect to transition from the north and east, Mr. Stutz stated that berms will be constructed along Mendota Heights Road and that the homes to the east are about 20 to 22 feet higher than the proposed development site but that Rottlund has increased landscaping in that area and has increased the building setbacks from the property line. The buildings are single story on the ends and increase to a height of 28 feet. He pointed out that a typical two-story home is about 28 feet in height. With respect to density, he stated that the HR-PUD permits eight units per acre. The plan reviewed by Council on April 7th was for 7.1 units per acre, and the revised development proposed this evening is for 6.68 units per acre, or about 1.4 units less than is permitted in an HR-PUD district. Mr. Stutz also reviewed off-street parking in the revised plan. Regarding public streets, Mr. Stutz stated that the sketch plan shows the potential for construction of a public cul-de-sac on the east portion of the site, but that the developer does not feel it is necessary. He felt that the private streets in the development are consistent with what has been approved in other developments in the city. The private streets are proposed to be 24 feet wide, and there is the ability to widen the loop street to 26 feet if the city desires it. He stated that all of the private streets will be signed for no-parking. The loop street will be maintained by the development because of the city concerns over emergency access. Mr. Stutz stated that he feels the plan reviewed by Council on April 7th was consistent with the city's zoning ordinance, meets and exceeds most of the requirements, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He further stated that he believes the currently proposed site plan improves and responds to the Council's concerns of April 7th. Councilmember Blesener stated that she had asked city staff for statistical information which has been provided regarding street Page. No. 3303 .. - April 21, 1992 widths in the Victoria Highlands, Victoria Townhomes and Kingsley Estates developments. She felt that, in terms of private streets, the proposed site plan is consistent with those townhouse developments. Councilmember Smith stated that the analysis shows 20 foot one-way streets, 25 foot streets, 26 and 28 foot wide two way streets. She felt that traffic is considerably less on those private roads than it would be in the proposed development because the density for those subdivisions is about three to four units per acre. Councilmember Cummins stated that it is his recollection that in the Victoria Townhomes and the Highlands areas there were site constraints which made it difficult to use standard public streets. Councilmember Blesener asked what purpose would be served by making a street wider than necessary for two cars to pass if there is no parking on the street, and also what purpose would be served in making the streets public. She pointed out that the city has long-term maintenance costs, and that as long as the streets meet life safety standards she could not see why the city would want to cover more land with pavement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in the proposed plan that space is instead covered with roofs. Councilmember Blesener stated that a 24 foot width, with no on-street parking, is more than adequate for two cars to pass. She felt that the driving reason for dedication of public streets is so that the city can require that all residential setbacks can be adhered to, which is not the case in a PUD. She felt that the purpose of a PUD is to do the best that can be done with a piece of land and to capitalize on the features of the site. She stated that little can be done with the subject property and that the open space proposed and the clustering of the buildings as proposed is in her opinion the best that can be done. She felt that insisting on wider streets and standard residential setbacks would be going to the extreme. Page No.' 3304 April 21, 1992 Councilmember Smith responded that her concern is the best interest of the future residents, and that public streets would better serve their interests. Councilmember Blesener responded that many streets are privately owned and maintained by homeowners associations and meet the owners needs. She did not think Council can determine that the future residents would be better served by a public street. Mayor Mertensotto stated that private streets are proposed because they are not included in density calculations. He pointed out that there is single family development north and east of the property and that the subject parcel is very small and is plagued by air noise. He stated that while he realizes that commercial may be the best use, commercial has not done well in the city. Multi-family is a better use than the single family use that surrounds the site, but the only way the developers can do what they propose is with private streets - the question is whether they are entitled to have private streets. Councilmember Blesener stated that there are land constraints in the examples cited in the staff report on private streets. She felt that Council has a double standard if private streets were acceptable in the townhouse developments which sold units in the $200,000 range but not where they will be sold for less than $100,000. She asked if the private streets would be acceptable if the units were twice as large as proposed, covered twice as much land area each and had half as many units at twice the proposed price. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that fewer trips are generated inside of the developments cited in the staff report than would be generated inside the proposed development. Mr. Stutz responded that he could certainly increase the street width if Council so desired, but doing so would just reduce open space. He felt that Council is losing sight of the fact that the HR-PUD zoning provides for eight units per acre. He stated that if Council would prefer apartments with public streets on the site, that could be a future potential. Page NO.3,305. - April 21, 1992 Councilmember Smith stated th4t..-Council must protect the property values of,pdople living in the area. She felt that the proposed project has the potential to devalue other properties but that this could take many years to prove. Councilmember Koch stated that 68 units in the area would take a long time to sell. Mr. Bannigan responded that the developer is willing to take the risk. Mr. Scott Bachman, a Bridgeview shores residents, stated that he is in favor of the project and lives across the street from it. He stated that he sees it as benefitting the neighborhood. He felt that Rottlund has done a fabulous job aesthetically. He did not see any way it could have an impact on homes several blocks away and that if the proposed landscaping is provided he can see no problems with the project. Councilmember Cummins asked about the proposed berm along Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Stutz responded that it will vary in height from four to ten feet in height. It is intended that the combination of berming with 6 to 8 foot trees on top of the berm should do a good job of screening to the north. Responding to a question from Councilmember Cummins, he stated that the berming/ landscaping concept was done by the developers in direct response to comments raised at the last Council meeting. Mr. Norm Linnell, a Bridgeview Shores resident, stated that he thinks there is a concern among the residents that the proposed development would be better than something commercial. He pointed out that Bridgeview Shores is a successful development in the air corridor. He felt that the Mendota Woods development would suffer significant property value loss because of the density in the west end of the proposed project. Mr. Linell stated that in a PUD, the concept is not that the development meets the minimum requirement of the zoning district but rather that it provides a basis to create a development that is in harmony with the surrounding area. He Page No. 3,306 April 21, 1992 further stated that at the time of the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment adoption, the southeast corner of the city was not developed. He felt that the developer should use the public street concept, in which case the streets would not be considered as open space. Mr. Mike Dummer, 2515 Arbor Court, stated that he does not see how the project would not depreciate surrounding property values. He further stated that the issue is density and that the use of private versus public streets is up to the city. Mr. Ultan Duggan, 2331 Copperfield Drive, and a member of the Planning Commission, stated that he thinks the density relative to Centex would be appropriate - the development would then end up with about 34 units. He felt that such a development would fit in with the area, in keeping with Bridgeview Shores and Mendota Woods, in terms of open space, etc. He further stated that he was led to believe that the Council felt that the Planning Commission recommendation was that of Commissioner Friel, but that it was in fact the viewpoint of all of the Commission. Mr. Duggan stated that some of the changes that have been made to the proposal were done at the request of the Commission. The developer indicated a profit level of 25 %, and that trading those dollars for berms and trees is a poor trade -off for the city. He felt that private streets with no parking will be ineffective because people tend to ignore no parking signs in areas like the proposed development. Further, he stated that the development as proposed would not fit in the area and that it would not be a gracious transition from the areas around it. Councilmember Cummins asked felt an appropriate density land would be from a planni: given that it is designated comprehensive plan for high per acre development. Mr. Duggan what he and use for the ag perspective, in the density, 8 unit Mr. Duggan responded that comprehensive plans are revised every five to ten years, therefore he does not see a problem. He pointed out that current zoning of the site is R -1, which calls for 2.9 units per acre, and that Council is being asked to change the zoning. Mr. Page No. 3307 April 21, 1992 Duggan stated that the comprehensive plan had also designated a 40 acre park in the area. He further stated that people have been left with the impression that there would only be a certain number of units on the property. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that Council has never said there would only be 30 units on the site, and that the comprehensive plan designation is for 8 units per acre. She stated that Mr. Duggan has suggested that the city has given away land, but that this area of the city has a great deal more park land than any other area of the city. Mr. Dick Putnam, owner of the property, stated that he has sat through a number of meetings on a number of projects in the southeast area, and that he would like to respond to some comments made. He stated that when the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment was first being considered by the Council, he was developing Copperfield. At that time, OPUS owned the land south of Mendota Heights Road, about an 80 acre parcel. I -494 was to be on the south side of the site, which was 650 feet deep from Mendota Heights Road to the freeway. He stated that he does not know what changed the freeway plan, but a full diamond interchange was built and the property became 275 feet deep, sandwiched between freeway ramps, Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road. That left a parcel of a very odd shape, which was zoned R -1, as was the entire area. Other parcels in the southeast area were zoned R -1A and R -1B. Those parcels were rezoned in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Putnam stated that after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, on behalf of Rauenhorst, he submitted two plans for a five acre commercial center of 35,000 square feet at the edge of the site. At that time, Councilmember Cummins made the comment that considering the proposal was not appropriate because an apartment development proposed by James Riley was before the Council. Mr. Putnam informed Council that a year later he optioned the property from Opus and came to the city with an elderly housing and neighborhood center project. He then had an option on approximately 17 acres of land, but in order to achieve the number of units necessary for the elderly housing project, he needed additional land and Page No. 3308 April 21, 1992 purchased the Clark parcel. He stated that he held a number of neighborhood meetings, and the concern of the neighbors was that if a commercial project were to develop prior to Bridgeview Shores, it would spell the doom of any single family development north of Mendota Heights Road. The project was denied, and it was said that it was not the appropriate time to consider such a proposal. He stated that he then let the option on the Clark property go. About a year ago he came back with a neighborhood center because Bridgeview Shores had begun to develop, and was told that it was a great proposal but that Council did not want commercial on the site. He then decided to work towards residential development and contacted Marvin Anderson and Putlie Homes, but they were not interested in doing residential on the site. Mr. Putnam stated that he was then approached by a religious group to develop the site as a training center (classroom and future dormitory), and that he had a purchase agreement on the offer. At the same time, he was in contact with Rottlund. He informed Council that he made the judgment that development of the site for the religious group would not be in the long-term interest of the neighborhood - it was a tax exempt use and there was uncertainty over future expansion plans and a dormitory arrangement. He felt that it was a good plan but was not convinced it was a better use for the , neighborhood. He stated that there is a very good interest in building an apartment building on the subject site, and that the comprehensive plan provides for three story, 24-unit apartment buildings. Although he would have more units in an apartment development, he stated that he preferred ownership units geared for many people who live in Mendota Heights now and have few options to still live in the community unless they have considerable money. He stated that he feels the plan is a very good use for the site and that the changes Rottlund is willing to make over open space, berming and transition north and east are commendable. He further stated that he believes the proposal is as good a use from a residential standpoint as he can put forth, and that he is running out of alternatives. He informed Council that the day care center was left in the plan because he felt it would Page No. 3309 April 21, 1992 be a direct benefit to the people who live in the area. He pointed out that he has been involved in 2/3 to 3/4 of the development of the southeast area and believes he has a feel for what people are looking for. He stated that he feels that the proposal would be a positive project, and he asked for favorable consideration by Council. Councilmember Cummins stated that strides have been made towards improving the situation, and that he is interested to know whether the developer may want to revisit the plan to see if he can generate enough votes to get the project completed. Mr. Bannigan responded that the project is under seven units per acre and that he did not think public streets are an option. He asked if there is a "magic number" of units which he could discuss with his clients. Councilmember Smith stated that there are many considerations for approving PUD's and density is just one of them. She stated that she views the density like a speed limit, it is a maximum. She felt that the site is one where there are other constraints and that when it was designated as HR-PUD in the Comprehensive Plan for four to eight units per acre, Mendota Woods had not been developed as single family. At one point, there was additional park land planned for the area. She pointed out that things have changed since the HR-PUD was approved - and that although she does not disagree with the general concept of the PUD, it does not provide enough open space, is not harmonious with the area, and there are too many units. Mr. Bannigan stated that he does not think there is any disagreement that it is a unique site. It is very shallow and has a tremendously deleterious impact from three sides and air noise, and was a borrow pit for the freeway. He informed Council that Marvin Anderson has turned the site down as an R-1 site, and that it is not a single family site by any stretch of the imagination. He stated that the applicant is looking for some middle ground that is reasonable, but that to introduce public roads other than as a means of reducing density makes no sense. Page No. 1310, April 21, 1992 Councilmember Smith responded that Council required the same standards for the private streets in Kensington as it does for public streets. Mr. Putnam responded that units almost identical to those proposed are on private streets and public streets in Kensington. He further stated that the townhouse phase of Kensington, on Claremont Drive, are on private streets and do not have the same setbacks as structures on public streets. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the site is obviously a bad one, given the constraints of the property, but that trying to shoe-horn 64 units on the property and saying the developer will need that number of units to make it a cost effective project, creates an impasse. He felt that people who live in the area don't want the proposed density. Councilmember Blesener stated that Council has heard some support from the area. She asked whether Council would rather see 80 units in one apartment building so that there is more green space, and further asked what would then happen to Council's preference for variety of housing types, ownership, etc. She stated that Council cannot just say what number of units would be appropriate for the project, and that it must be realistic about the economics. Mr. Bannigan stated that the objective is whether the proposal meets the criteria the city has established, not taking economic considerations into account. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the HR-PUD designation calls for four to eight units per acre, not eight units per acre. Mr. Bannigan responded that the applicant is entitled to any density within the guidelines. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the number of units proposed can only be achieved if 24 foot wide private streets are allowed. Councilmember Cummins stated that Council has seen every conceivable use for the site. He further stated that it is a horrible piece of land, and that the request of some of the Page No. 3312 April 21, 1992 neighbors to use the land as park land is unrealistic. He felt that there is sufficient open space and park land in the southeast area. He further stated that the proposal is not the perfect design and that he would like to see fewer units and the buildings further apart. Councilmember Cummins moved to grant the conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Attorney Hart stated that action on the rezoning request should precede action on the conditional use permit. Councilmember Blesener withdrew the second to the motion. Councilmember Cummins withdrew the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the rezoning from R-1 to HR-PUD subject to subsequent approval of the requested conditional use permit for planned unit development. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Councilmember Blesener stated that one of the specific obligations of the Council is to represent both current and future residents. She further stated that the current Council all represent owners of up-scale single family homes and that she is not sure that Council represents all of the socioeconomic parts of Mendota Heights. She cautioned that Council must look into the future and make sure it provides housing for the future demographics of the city. She stated that the fixation in the city that there must only be large, expensive homes is outdated, and that this proposal begins to address those needs in the community. Mayor Mertensotto stated that we have Phases 1, 2 and 3 in Kensington that would certainly fit into those price guidelines Councilmember Blesener responded that 200 homes out of 3,000 homes in the community is not many. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 2 Nays: 3 Mertensotto, Koch, Smith Page No. 3313 April 21, 1992 BOARD OF REVIEW Assessor Pulju informed Council that his staff had met with 20 property owners about their property valuations and that further reviews will be done on five of the properties. He stated that he will send Council a report on the valuation reviews. Councilmember Cummins moved to adjourn the Board of Review. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APACHE STREET WATER Council acknowledged a report from Administra- MAIN BREAK for Lawell regarding requests from several Apache Street property owners for consideration of claims for property damage caused by a water main break behind their properties on March 2nd. Council also acknowledged claims from Steven and Christa Gangl, 2201 Apache, and Joyce Johnson and Elizabeth Gleisner, 2209 Apache, and copies of letters from the city's insurance carrier to the claimants denying the claims. The Administrator's memo also indicated that he had been informed of damages by Jean Mortensen, 2213 Apache, but that she has not filed a formal claim. Ms. Johnson, present for the discussion, stated that her insurer has paid $3,000 for damages to the building only. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Ms. Johnson had assigned subrogation rights to her insurance company. He expressed concern that the insurer might sue the city to recapture its costs. Ms. Johnson stated that she does not know whether she assigned the rights. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he did not want to minimize the inconvenience caused to the property owners but that payment of damages by the city could set a dangerous precedent. Mrs. Gangl stated that her insurer only paid for damages to the building, including the furnace, but did not compensate for damage to any contents which needed clean-up or replacement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the properties may have a claim against the city but that the city does not have insurance coverage for the Page No. 3314. April 21, 1992 claims. He stated that he would like to determine how to do something for the property owners without getting into a box. He felt that the parties could perhaps enter into a covenant so that the city could not be sued, but that this cannot be done if the residents assigned subrogation rights to their insurers. Administrator Lawell the city's insurer, GAB, prepared an estimate of damage to 2201 and 2209 Apache before denying the claims. All of the home owners have responded with a request to the city for payment outside of the insurance coverage. The Mortensen claim was not evaluated by GAB, but she has claimed there was $100 in damage. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the city could enter into some type of agreement if the owners gave the city a covenant not to sue. He directed city staff to contact the insurers to see if the property owners had signed subrogation releases. The matter was tabled to May 5th with the direction that staff to provide a recommendation and no-suit covenant. MENDOTA INTERCHANGE Mr. Earl Van Berkum was present to review Mendota Interchange design changes for the Council. He informed Council that design changes have been approved by Mn/DOT at T.H. 13 and the connection between T.H. 55 and T.H. 110 and also at T.H. 110 to make it continuous and directional. If the plans are acceptable to Council, Mn/DOT will request Council .approval of final design plans which will not yet show the changes but will include a letter of understanding that they will be made. He stated that, because of right-of-way constraints, left turn lanes could not be constructed as requested but that a bypass lane was added, as have several medians. Councilmember Blesener asked if a free right turn can be made from T.H. 13 to T.H. 110 east. Mr. Van Berkum responded that there will be a free right turn on a red light but that there will not be an acceleration lane. He also stated that there will be stop signs on the frontage road. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out several areas which he felt should not be signed for speed Page No. 3315 April 21, 1992 limits greater than 30 miles per hour because of curves. Mendota Mayor Jim Toye stated that his only comment, as far as Mendota is concerned, is that he likes the way it now flows and that the roadway going into Mendota looks more legitimate. Administrator Lawell stated that Fire chief Maczko has expressed concern that the traffic signals be equipped opticom units, so their future installation is not precluded. Councilmember Blesener moved to endorse the design presented this evening with the continuous design for T.H. 13 and to request that the signalized intersections be designed to accommodate opticom installation in the future. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Administrator Lawell stated that two other issues related to the interchange project must be resolved, storm sewer cost splitting and approval of a construction permit to allow Mn/DOT to construct two holding ponds on City property. Engineer Klayton Eckles informed Council that he understands that Mn/DOT feels it very important that they get a reading from Council on whether the cost distribution formula is appropriate. He stated that the projected $463,200 cost is not a fixed number but rather is an estimate based on the formula. Administrator Lawell stated that the actual cost will not be determined until Mn/DOT goes to bid for the project. Staff was directed to put all of the details together with respect to the construction permits and storm drainage cost participation for discussion on May 5th. KENSINGTON ASSESSMENTS Council acknowledged a letter from Centex requesting an adjustment in the assessments distributed against the Kensington development and an associated report from Public Works Director Danielson. Dan Blake and Tom Boyce, representing Centex, were present for the discussion. Page No. '3316 April 21, 1992 Mr. Blake explained that commitments were made in 1989 with respect to the city picking up some of the costs for streets and utilities assessed along Mendota Heights Road. He informed Council that the original assessment was calculated on an acreage basis on a plan which included 27 acres of park. Since then a plan has been approved which provides for a 13 acre park. Mr. Blake further informed that city staff has split the assessments and not apportioned any costs to the city park, and that staff has informed him that they are not empowered to assess the park land - all of the costs were spread against the individual lots in the plat. He felt that the Kensington park is not a neighborhood park but rather a community-oriented use, that both of the parks are connected to sewer and water and the storm sewer system and use the public street. He felt that the entire park benefits from the original construction of Mendota Heights Road. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the original commitment Centex was given was based on a 27 acre park and that Centex only dedicated the required 10% - 13 acres. Mr. Blake stated that he is not asking the city to absorb the same dollar amount of assessments but rather for the city to use the same basis for distributing assessments - assessing on an acreage basis. He stated that city staff has said the park is a neighborhood park and that assessments are never been made against neighborhood parks. He asserted that none of the city's neighborhood parks access sewer and water and storm sewer. The original commitment was for the city to pay $78,000 in assessments for the proposed 27 acre park area and that he is asking the city to now pick up 13/27ths of that amount. Councilmember Blesener felt that Council had made a policy decision on assessing the park area and that if all of the costs were assessed against the Centex property Council would be changing the original policy. She felt that it would be consistent to spread the assessments on an acreage basis, including the park area. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the assessments were levied before the park Page No. 3317 April 21, 1992 was dedicated. When the final plats were filed, the County requested the city to split the assessments. Staff spread the assessments on an acreage basis and excluded the park because it was felt that it is a neighborhood park because the land dedicated for park was the minimum required park dedication. Mr. Boyce responded that he thought there was an agreement in writing and that he believes the city is required by law to work with property owners on assessment splits. He did not feel the Kensington Park is comparable to other neighborhood parks, such as the Hagstrom-King park, because the others do not have irrigation systems, sewer, water and storm sewer. Councilmember Cummins felt that the city should stick to the original understanding and re-distribute the assessments on an acreage basis, including the park area. Councilmember Blesener moved to pro rate the assessment on the same basis as was originally agreed upon. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Administrator Lawell stated that Centex has only provided the city with a minimum park dedication, and in all other plats which have given minimum dedication, the dedication has been considered as a neighborhood park and has not been assessed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is concerned in principle. He felt that Council must be sure it is treating all areas of open space the same, pointing out that Council will soon be discussing Mendota Heights Road assessments which will likely involve St. Thomas and Visitation, both of which have considerable open space. Councilmember Smith stated that it was her understanding that the original discussion with Centex was not a set policy but rather that it was accepted that the park area would be assessed in this case because of the excessive land dedication. Councilmember Koch stated that Council deviated from normal City policy because of the size of the parcel but that she would not Page No. 333.8. April 21, 1992 oppose doing something because of the unique nature of the park. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the $78,000 has been merged in with the Centex acreage minus the park acreage. In calculating the assessment split, the park area was deducted and the entire Centex acreage was divided into the entire assessment amount. Councilmember Cummins withdrew his second to the motion. Councilmember Blesener withdrew the motion. Council directed staff to provide additional information from the original record, including the developers agreement, minutes, etc. JAYCEE SANDBOX PROJECT Council acknowledged a request from the Jaycees for use of a city truck and manpower to aid in the delivery of sandbox sand to interested residents on May 30th. Ms. Nancy Stredde, from the Jaycees, was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the Jaycees instead hire a truck and driver and that the city would contribute to the cost rather than using city equipment and manpower. After discussion, Councilmember Bli to approve an expenditure of up to either in the form of a city truck or for a private hauler, whichever economical. Councilmember Cummins seconded the Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Bsener moved $200, and driver is most motion. DISPUTE RESOLUTION Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator regarding the use of a dispute resolution service as a form of alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Jim Levin, Executive Director of the Dispute Resolution Center was present for the discussion. Councilmember Cummins stated that he had asked staff to investigate alternative dispute resolution. He informed Council that a number of communities use DRC, which provides mediation services in the community to resolve disputes, including neighborly disputes. Page No. 33:19' April 21, 1992 Mr. Levin stated that his group has been working with the AMM for the past year and that the AMM has created a task force to encourage member cities to do mediation. He stated that his group works on any imaginable disputes except disputes involving violence, abuse or divorce. The DRC has received support from many communities in Ramsey County over the past years, and all of the mediators are volunteers. Councilmember Cummins suggested that examples of situations which could likely have benefitted from dispute resolution were the Furlong area and the prairie grass along Huber Drive. Administrator Lawell stated that staff recommended that DRC be retained on a trial basis for the sum of $200 to handle mediation cases referred to them by the city for the remainder of 1992. Staff would work with DRC on procedures to be used to refer cases. Mr. Levin stated that DRC would meet with city staff to discuss how the system will be used. He encouraged Council to use the service so that the DRC can "build a track record" with the city in 1992. Councilmember Cummins moved to authorize an expenditure of $200 to retain the services of the Dispute Resolution Center for the remainder of 1992 and to direct staff to look for opportunities to utilize the DRC services. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 IVY CREEK FEASIBILITY Council acknowledged the feasibility report for proposed Ivy Creek drainage system protection and improvements. Engineer Klayton Eckles summarized the report and stated that a number of questions must be considered before the feasibility hearing. He stated that the optimum design is gabions. He estimated that the total project could be done for about $1 million and that the preferred funding method is a combination of a 100 surcharge on sewer bills, and a $20,000 tax levy to fund 80% of the cost and to assess the remaining 20%. He then reviewed the proposed Page No. 33210.1 April 21, 1992 assessment distribution formula. He expressed concern over assessing three outlots, owned by the Ivy Hills Townhouse homeowners association, and the need for easements over two of the outlots. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the easements could be condemned and the cost could be assessed back against the outlots. Mr. Eckles responded that the parcels are valued at about $2,000 each and expressed concern over potential tax forfeiture for non-payment of assessments. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the annual tax levy should be optional because it may not be necessary unless the project is constructed. Mr. Eckles informed Council that the first addition reach is suffering quite a bit of erosion but it is more of a local collection system. He stated that there are only 3 properties on the reach, the cost for repairs is about $200,000, and all three of the affected property owners object to the project. Councilmember Blesener asked whether the situation affects anyone other than the three property owners who do not want the project done. She also stated that she has the same question about the entire project - if people who are impacted are not in favor of the improvements, the city will have to demonstrate that there is a need. She asked why the city should do the project if the project is to serve the immediate needs in their own back yards. She felt that Council should take the approach of helping those who want and need the improvement. Councilmember Cummins responded that Council has had extensive discussions about the improvements and concluded that the severity of the damage to the Brassard property and others is so significant that it must be taken care of. He stated that there is a defensible need for the project. Mr. Eckles stated that if the project is delayed the problem would only become more severe in the future. Page No. 3321 April 21, 1992 Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 92 -24, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON IVY CREEK DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 8)," calling for a public hearing on May 19th. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TOUSIGNANT PROPERTY, Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works MN /DOT CONDEMNATION Director Danielson regarding Mn /DOT condemnation of a portion of city -owned property (the former Tousignant property). Mr. Danielson informed Council that the parcel is the one which the state has made an offer to buy from the city in order to provide access to two homes along T.H. 55. The city originally accepted the $20,000 Mn /DOT acquisition offer with the condition that curb and gutter be installed along the frontage road which is to be built on the property. He stated that a letter has been received from Mn /DOT that they are proceeding with condemnation and asking if the city wishes to receive the $20,000 or have it placed with the court administrator. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council the reason Council placed the curb and gutter and condition on the sale is because Council wants to be sure that Mn /DOT will control drainage. He noted that Mn /DOT does not want to install curb because it would also have to provide storm sewer. Mr. Martin Valencourt, owner of one of the two affected properties, stated that he is concerned that culverts would be too small to drain the area. He stated that there is storm sewer along T.H. 55 now that is used and takes the drainage that comes off his land. Mn /DOT only proposed to install a 12" culvert for the new frontage road. Public Works Director Danielson stated that Mn /DOT does not curb frontage roads if they are not part of a drainage system unless the city agrees to pay the curbing cost. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council asked ( for curb and gutter so that Mn /DOT would have Page No. 3322 April 21, 1992 to bear the responsibility if there are any future drainage problems. After further discussion, it was the consensus that the $20,000 payment should be made to the Court Administrator. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Joe Maeghre was present to complain about air noise. Council responded with a synopsis of what has been done on the issue to date. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Smith asked staff to prepare a TIF application procedure. Staff was directed to contact Turner's Gymnasium regarding an illegal banner sign on the building side facing I-35E. Councilmember Smith stated that striping for all of the old turn lanes on Mendota Heights Road, on both sides of T.H. 55, are visible and asked that the road be re-striped. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:44 o'clock P.M. ka--thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: MW Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor