Loading...
1991-07-16 Council minutesPage No. 3055 July 16, 1991 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 16, 1991 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 Blesener, Cummins, Koch and Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes of the July 2, 1991 regular meeting with corrections. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Blesener 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 July 9th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgement of the Treasurer's monthly report for June. c. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for June. d. Acknowledgment of a $3,386.70 contribution from Vasatka Goers VFW for the purchase of emergency lights and camera equipment for the Police Department. e. Approval of the issuance a 3.2 on -sale malt beverage license to St. Peter's Church -in conjunction with its annual Father Galtier Days celebration on Page No. 3056 July 16, 1991 September 21/22, along with waiver of the license fee. f. Approval of a modified critical area site plan for Raymond Lundgren to allow a 20 by 16 foot deck to be attached to his home at 1190 Culligan Lane along with waiver of the critical area fee. g. Authorization of the purchase of personal protection gear (coats and bunker pants) for the Fire Department from Minnesota Conway for their low bid of $2,955.00. h. Adoption of Resolution No. 91 -38, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1." i. Adoption of Resolution No. 91 -39, "RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF AN ASSESSMENT ROLL AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 92, PROJECT NO. 1)," the hearing to be held on August 20th. j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 16, 1991 and attached hereto. k. Approval of the list of claims dated July 16, 1991 and totalling $1,594,331.12. 1. Acknowledgement of an announcement of the annual household hazardous waste collection day to be held on Saturday, September 21st at the Inver Grove Heights City Hall. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD Council acknowledged and briefly discussed IMPROVEMENTS (IMP. 91, the final plans and specifications for PROJECT 4) sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, street, and street light improvements along Mendota Heights Road from I -35E to Dodd Road and pedway construction along Mendota Heights Road from Pilot Knob to T.H. 55. Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 91 -41, "RESOLUTION APPROVING Page No. 3057 July 16, 1991 FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD (M.S.A. PROJECT NOS. 140- 103-02 AND 140 - 013 -04, IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 4)." Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DODD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director Danielson reviewed preliminary layout design for the Dodd Road /T.H. 110 intersection, which includes the upgrading of Dodd from Mendakota Drive to Ridge Place. The proposed plan includes a right turn lane to T.H. 110 from northbound Dodd, a signalized left turn to eastbound T.H. 110 from southbound Dodd and a protected left turn into the shopping center. Also included is a trail on the east side of Dodd separated by a six inch high curb with crossings to the west side of Dodd on the north side of the intersection to connect to the trail to Valley Park and on the south side at South Plaza Drive to connect to the Mendakota Park trail. He informed Council that additional right -of- way from Mendakota Country Club will be necessary and that representatives of the Club have indicated they will cooperate. Additional right -of -way will also be required from a residential property owner on Ridge Place. A retaining wall is proposed, to minimize impact on the golf course. He stated that Chuck Thomey, operator of the Mendota Heights Standard did not express concern over the plan and that the Standard corporate officials have not yet responded to the plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels the plan is good but that speeding must be curtailed, and suggested that the speed limit should be reduced to 30 miles per hour. Mr. Danielson responded that underground wiring for a future traffic signal at South Plaza Drive is included in the proposed upgrading. Councilmember Blesener asked if the trail can be moved to the west side of Dodd. Councilmember Cummins expressed concern that the existing striped area on the north side of Dodd is on the west and the trail is proposed to cross over to the east at the intersection and then to the west again at South Plaza. Page No. 3058 July 16, 1991 Councilmember Blesener suggested that there be trail on both sides. Mr. Danielson responded that Mn/DOT and the City engineering staff feel that the east side of the intersection is the safest side to cross T.H. 110 but that he will look into the suggestions for moving the crossing and for trail on both sides. Councilmember Blesener stated that the intersection improvement is proposed to better serve the commercial area but does not serve the long term needs for handling traffic in the south area of the City and does not address intercommunity transportation. She felt that the resolution approving the preliminary plan should include language to the affect that by approving the plan the City is not making any commitment with respect to abandonment of T.H. 149 right-of-way north of T.H. 110. It was the consensus that the issue of disposition of the additional right-of-way be discussed as an agenda item on the evening of the budget workshop. Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-40, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN/DOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO UPGRADE THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK HIGHWAY 110,11 revised to add that it be further resolved that the adoption of this resolution in no way commits the City in respect to the abandonment of the additional right-of-way held by the State and that the City reserves the right to revisit the issue of extending South Plaza Drive to the east of the shopping center with a potential cross-over to the north side of T.H. 110. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING - CASE NO. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the 90-35, DUGGAN purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. and Mrs. Ultan Duggan for a wetlands permit to allow installation of a fence to enclose their rear yard and swimming pool at 2331 Copperfield Drive. He informed the audience that the application had been discussed at a previous meeting but the Page No. 3059 July 16, 1991 applicants had not met the criteria of submitting approvals of adjoining landowners, and therefore the public hearing was scheduled for this evening. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Council acknowledged letters from Mr. & Mrs. Ahto Niemioja, 2307 Copperfield, from Mr. Dick Putnam, representing Copperfield Associates and the Copperfield Architectural Review Committee, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Huber, and Mr. & Mrs. Patrick Tierney. Mr. Duggan stated a fence around his swimming pool is required by City ordinance and that he would like to construct the fence around the yard rather than just around the pool. Councilmember Cummins commented that at the prior Council discussion on the matter the Duggans had been asked to look at restricting the fence if possible. He asked if the applicants have considered fencing only the pool area. Mr. Duggan responded that he has rejected the idea after talking to architectural people and that he has taken a survey of people in the area, the majority of whom do not object to the fence even though at that time the fence was proposed to be mesh rather than wrought iron as is currently requested. Councilmember Cummins stated that one of the letters indicated that there have been a number of variances from the restrictive covenants to allow fences. Mr. Duggan responded that there is a fence at Delaware and Copperfield, at least three around the ponds and at least four others in the Copperfield area. He stated that the restrictive covenants require that there be nothing within 75 feet of the waterline. He pointed out that the City Planner's report stated that his proposed fence meets all of the criteria of the City's wetlands ordinance. Mr. Brent Baskfield stated that he owns four lots west of the Duggans, and that feels what the applicants propose is compatible with the style of their house a lot he "OP Page No. 3060 July 16, 1991 landscaping. He stated that many of the restrictive covenants are routinely not met. He felt that the Duggan home and landscaping are excellent and that the fence proposed would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and that the Architectural Review Committee should look instead at the lots that are not sodded, etc. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Council has received a letter from Copperfield Associates saying that the proposal is a radical departure, but that this does not appear to be the case after listening to the comments this evening. Councilmember Cummins stated that if council approves the request it will be setting a precedent and opening the way for many other, less attractive fences. He asked Mr. Baskfield if he would object if someone else in the neighborhood came to the City with a request for a chain link fence. Mr. Baskfield responded that each application should be looked at individually. Mr. Duggan reviewed the fence plan, explaining that it is proposed to be located 27 feet from the scenic easement which is a 15 foot easement, and that they are undecided as to whether the fence height will be five foot or six foot. Mrs. Duggan stated that if the fence had to be 75 feet from the waterline as required in the covenants, it would need to be placed where landscaping already exists. Also, there is no good way to fence only around the pool area. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that other people do fence in their pools and stated that the applicants do not need another 60 feet beyond the pool area. Mr. Duggan responded that the fence would be much less noticeable where it is proposed. Councilmember Blesener felt that approval would definitely be precedent setting. while putting the fence where it is proposed may be best for the Duggans, if someone else were to do the same it could have a dramatic affect on the area. Page No. 3061 July 16, 1991 Mr. Ahto Niemioja, 2307 Copperfield, stated that one issue is what type of material should be used when building a fence. He stated that when the Duggans first proposed a chain link fence he objected. As the result, the Duggans changed the plan to wrought iron, which looks much nicer, but that some chain link is still proposed, so the issue has not been completely resolved. The second issue is that of the Copperfield covenants which say that no one can build fences within 75 feet of the waterline. He felt that that condition should be respected by everyone who lives around the pond area so that the beauty of the area is not destroyed. He pointed out that there is considerable wildlife around the ponds that will eventually be destroyed if fencing is allowed. He informed Council that he had requested Architectural Review Committee (A.R.C.) review of the fence proposal. Mr. Duggan stated that every request for wetlands permit in the last five years has been approved by the City. Mrs. Cynthia Best asked why wrought iron is proposed for the sides and chain link at the back. Mrs. Duggan responded that they agreed to wrought iron because their neighbors requested it and that chain link is proposed for the back to save money, and that it will not be visible because of existing oak trees and flowers. It will be screened by vines and flowers and the area will be kept as natural as possible. Mrs. Joan Bjorklund stated that she lives on the same pond and is a member of the A.R.C. She stated that the reason the issue originally arose was that people in Copperfield are supposed to send any improvements on their land to Dick Putnam to get approval before it goes to the A.R.C., which has been part of the problem. Mr. Duggan did not submit any plans to the ARC before it was approved by the Planning Commission last year or this year. She stated that when Mr. Duggan conducted his survey he did not indicate the distance from the pond. Mr. Putnam subsequently prepared and sent a survey to owners of all properties on ponds in Copperfield, 46 properties. 25 surveys were returned, and 23 of the respondents said they Page No. 3062 July 16, 1991 did not want fencing to go down to the pond. She submitted the survey to Council. Mrs. Bjorklund stated that once a fence is approved it will set a precedent. She informed Council that the fence at the corner of Delaware and Copperfield was not approved by the ARC and the other fence in the area is hers, which was submitted to Mr. Putnam and approved before being submitted to the City for approval. The fence is 10 foot variance from the 100 foot setback requirement, and goes 4.5 feet beyond the concrete at the edge of their swimming pool. She stated that she has spoken to wrought iron companies and has been told that gates could be put in to make it easy to get from the pool area to the back yard. She stated that because the Duggans chose to berm their yard so that the pool is in a valley and that the fencing should be around the pool area regardless of the landscaping. She informed Council that this is not a personal issue for the review committee and that the committee would take the same stance regardless of who made the request. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether there are any other fences as close to the wetlands as the Duggans request. Mrs. Bjorklund responded that there is one, a wooden fence, which never came before the ARC and was not approved. Mayor Mertensotto asked how far the proposed fence would be from the pond. Mr. Duggan responded that it would be 25 to 30 feet from the pond. Mayor Mertensotto stated that this is a precedent-setting matter and asked whether there is a compromise possible. Mr. Duggan responded that no-one has told him why his request does not make sense. Councilmember Blesener stated that the request is precedent setting - the only existing fence in the area is at the 65 foot setback. She expressed concern that the Council entered into the original developer's agreement for the area with the intent that the park-like area around the ponds would be preserved and that the proposed fence is clearly in violation of that intent. She pointed out Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 3063 July 16, 1991 that Council typically listen to neighbors who object. She did not feel that the Duggan situation is one which warrants such a big deviation from the setback requirement. Councilmember Smith asked whether this would be setting precedent for all ponds in the City or just Copperfield. Councilmember Blesener responded that she is talking only about Copperfield because of the history of the development - the request is clearly not consistent with the intention of Council when the development was proposed. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Niemioja stated that fences can be built without surrounding an entire lot and that the berms the Duggans have built insure the privacy of the pool but the fence, which would be six inches from his lot line, would be seen all the way to the pond from his lot. There being no further comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Mrs. Duggan stated the Mr. Niemioja is suggesting the fence only go around the pool. She pointed out that she has the option to fence in the majority of her yard, which would not be what the neighbors want. If the wetlands permit were to be denied, the pool area must be fenced in some way and she would still want to fence the rest of the yard. She stated that fencing just around the pool area is not a consideration. Councilmember Cummins commented that what is proposed is an extraordinarily nice plan for fencing and landscaping, but that when he remembers all the time Council spent trying to make Copperfield unique by creating a natural pond and scenic easements to preserve the wildlife and the natural appearance, he thinks Council would be opening the door to a series of fences which would be just what Council tried to avoid in the planning of the development. He stated that he would be willing to consider tabling the matter to allow the applicants to present a compromise. Page No. 3064 July 16, 1991 Mr. Duggan stated that Council must respect that Copperfield is a part of Mendota Heights and should not take action on the basis that Copperfield is different. Councilmember Blesener moved to deny the requested wetlands permit but to permit the applicant to come back before Council with a modified proposal within the next two weeks without the need for reapplication and additional fee. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Koch Smith HEARING, CASE NO. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the 91-15, ANDERSON purpose of a public hearing on an application from Marvin Anderson Construction for wetlands permits in the Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition. Council acknowledged a report from the Public Works Director. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Administrator Lawell informed Council that he has met with Mr. Jim Losleben, who had requested at the June 4th Council meeting that a public hearing be scheduled on the matter. He stated that he had reviewed the application with Mr. Losleben and had informed him that the requested wetlands permit modifications were made by Marvin Anderson Construction because of a surveyor's mistake which was discovered during platting. Mr. Losleben informed staff that he can live with the wetlands setbacks recommended by the Planning Commission and indicated that he would try to get a letter to Council in time for the meeting but also asked that staff inform Council of his comments. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Koch moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins moved to grant wetlands permits for Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition Lot 7, Block 1 at 50 feet and Lot 8, Block 1 at 68 feet. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 3065 July 16, 1991 CAT CONTROL Council acknowledged reports from the Police Chief and Administrative Assistant with respect to a request from Mr. Ralph Johnson and Mr. John Mullen for adoption of a cat control ordinance. Mr. Johnson and Police Chief Delmont were present for the discussion. Chief Delmont informed Council that the cost and difficulty of enforcing a cat control ordinance would make it extremely difficult, and unless Council would wish to spend a great deal of money on a police officer or community service officer, the ordinance would not be enforced. He felt that Mr. Johnson would be happy if there were an ordinance which would allow the police department to respond to specific complaints about cats. Councilmember Cummins stated that he is not interested in adopting an ordinance that will create false expectations or enforcement problems. Mayor Mertensotto agreed that an overall, comprehensive ordinance to control cats is not the right approach. Councilmember Cummins moved to table the matter to August 6th and to direct Police Chief Delmont to meet with Mr. Johnson. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING - ZONING Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the ORDINANCE purpose of a public hearing on the proposed recodification and amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. Council acknowledged the proposed ordinance, a memo from the City Clerk reviewing the history of the recodification process and changes proposed by the Planning Commission, and a proposed summary of the ordinance for publication. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Planning Commission has recommended that the lighting standards section be revised to use lumens as a standard rather than distance. He felt that the ordinance examples submitted in response to the Commission recommendation are beyond the scope of a recodification process. Administrator Lawell stated that the examples represent a substantial change from what is contained in the draft ordinance. He further Page No. 3066 July 16, 1991 stated that he has been in contact with NSP about how to measure light intensity and they were very apprehensive about measuring intensity. He further stated that from a staff standpoint, distance is much easier to enforcement and that staff recommends the language in the draft. He pointed out that the City does not have light meters to measure intensity. It was the consensus that the language in the draft ordinance, which was agreed to at a.joint Council/Commission workshop, remain as drafted. With respect to the Commission recommendation on wetlands credit, it was agreed that no credit should be given for wetlands. Staff was directed to revise Section 22.3(3) as recommended by the Commission and to revise Section 13.2(3) in a similar manner. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the Commission recommendation to delete the PUD District section (Section 13) is not within the scope of the recodification process, and that if it is desirous to delete the section, the Planning Commission and Council would have to conduct public hearings. Councilmember Smith stated that one section of the ordinance creates PUD's as a conditional use to existing zoning and the other creates PUD districts. She stated that a PUD district is not a zoning type and that she would be in favor of putting the appropriate provisions of Section 13 into Section 22 and create PUD's based on underlying zoning. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Council concurred in the Commission's housekeeping change recommendations with the exception of the recommended change to Section 2, Intent and Purpose. Council also directed that Section 22.3(6)d be revised to include reference to property values. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Page No. 3067 July 16, 1991 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 :� �4Z6� �u thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Ordinance No. 276, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, RESTATING AND RECODIFYING ORDINANCE NO. 401," revised as directed by Council. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the summary of Ordinance No. 276 for publication. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 1992 BUDGET Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo from the City Administrator regarding the 1992 budget process. It was the consensus that Council conduct a budget workshop at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, August 7th. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Blesener moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 j Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:14 o'clock P.M. :� �4Z6� �u thleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL July 16, 1991 Asphalt License Blacktop Driveway Co., Inc. General Contractors Licenses Cities Home Improvement Co.-The Doyle Construction, Inc. Leisure Time Wood Design Stenerson Carpentry Walker Roofing Company Heating & Air Conditioning License Air Conditioning Associates, Inc.