Loading...
1990-07-10 Council minutesPage No. 2852 July 10, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 10, 1990 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 Anderson, Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Anderson moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes of the June 11th Air Noise Workshop meeting. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the minutes of the June 19th regular meeting. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Hartmann 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 June 26th Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for June. I c. Adoption of Resolution No. 90-41, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE MENDOTA WOODS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 89, PROJECT NO. 7).11 Page No. 2853 July 10, 1990 d. Approval of the permanent appointment of Kim Blaeser as Senior Secretary along with salary advancement to Step E of the salary matrix. e. Approval of the permanent appointment of Nancy Bauer as Secretary. f. Acknowledgment of an Evergreen Knolls speeding survey report from Police Chief Delmont. g. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 10, 1990 and attached hereto. h. Approval of the List of Claims dated July 10, and totalling $285,876.80. i. Approval of a 22 foot front yard setback variance for Klayton Eckles, to allow construction of a home on Lot 10, Block 1, Michael D. Dupont Addition (2005 Victoria Road) 35 feet from the front property line Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Nelson, 2366 Apache Court, presented Council with a petition for a variance from the weed cutting requirement of Ordinance No. 1001 for a one acre hillside parcel they and two other residents own at the northwest of the intersection of Huber Drive and Pond View. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Nelson stated that the residents are not requesting anything that would intentionally allow noxious weeds. After discussion, Council referred the petition to staff for a report and recommendation, and further directed that copies of the report be sent to the three property owners. PERSONNEL Police Chief Delmont was present to recommend the probationary appointment of Neil Garlock, Jr. as a Police Officer. Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the appointment of Neil Garlock, Jr. as a probationary police officer effective on July 16, 1990, permanent appointment to be Page No. 2854 July 10, 1990 contingent upon successful completion of a one year probation period. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SIBLEY PARK WETLANDS Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson informing Council that a wetlands permit is needed for City filling of a small wetlands area on the Sibley Park site. He recommended that Council find that the permit be processed under the minor development provision of the Wetlands Ordinance. Councilmember Cummins moved to waive Planning Commission review and the public hearing requirement and approve a wetlands permit for the filling of a minor wetland area on the Sibley Park site in connection with construction of athletic facilities. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING, CASE NO. 90- Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the SJOHOLM purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. & Mrs. Jack Sjoholm, 1161 Delaware Avenue, for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 6 foot solid board fence along their property line abutting Wentworth Avenue. Mr. Sjoholm explained that the fence is proposed to go in their back yard along Wentworth. He stated that he has agreed to placing the fence 48 feet from the centerline of Wentworth for the majority of its length, and 43 feet from the centerline for a small portion of the fence. He proposed to put evergreen trees on the house side of the fence to provide a buffer, and stated that the Planning Commission supported this plan. Councilmember Blesener asked if all of the landscaping shown on the landscape plan is in place, particularly, how much of the landscaping outside of the fence line exists and how much is proposed. Mr. Sjoholm responded that all of the items which are named on the plan are in place. The numbered items are proposed and will be put inside the fence. He further stated that he Page No. 2855 July 10, 1990 may put additional landscaping on the other side of the fence. Councilmember Anderson stated that he is sympathetic with the applicants' desire for a noise barrier but that he is concerned over setting a precedent. He pointed out that the City has just embarked on a trail plan to which there have been some residents opposition because they felt people will be able to walk into their homes.. He stated that Council has not often approved variances this much above the standard along rights-of- way. He also stated that board on board not only provides a solid appearance, it also tends to refract sound back. He was not sure that approving the request would be a good precedent to set. Mr. Sjoholm responded that there is no current plan for a bike way along Wentworth and that there are special circumstances. He further stated that the property across the street is Somerset Golf course, and if sound refracts, it will only affect passing vehicles. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that at some time the City may have to put a water line along Dodd to Wentworth, and that he could also envision the future widening of Wentworth and a possible bike trail. Councilmember Anderson stated that residents always cite precedent when they wish to do something others have done. He stated that although he is sympathetic, a concern council must foresee is how it would affect other residents and what they expect of the Council - others may ask if a six foot fence is all right, why not a taller fence to prevent people from looking over it. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in Mr. Sjoholm's favor, the fence is 45 feet from the right of way. He asked whether the fence must be continuous or whether it could be opened in places where the setback changes. Mr. Sjoholm responded that the continuous fence is his first solution from the privacy and design aspects - headlights shine in the bedroom windows. The fence would be rough cedar and would be allowed to weather. Page No. 2856 July 10, 1990 Responding to a question from Councilmember Blesener, Mr. Sjoholm stated that he has contacted the Dakota County Highway Department and was told that the right-of-way is 33 feet from the centerline, and that they suggested keeping the fence back from the ditch to allow snowplowing, etc., but that there was no inference that they had a problem with the 33 foot right-of-way width. Councilmember Blesener also raised her concern about the present day appearance and the need for a fence in the proposed location given the size of the back yard. She did not see that there is a hardship or a good reason for putting the fence where proposed. Mr. Sjoholm responded that he has concerns with the speeds and noise generated on Wentworth and felt that there are very special circumstances. Councilmember Anderson suggested that an alternate might be to plant more fir and pine trees and within that perimeter put in a chain link fence or one like Somerset, where it is not seen. He felt that a hedge of fir and pine would abate the sound and the fence would not be seen in the wintertime. He stated that he is concerned over the precedential value and that if approved, people along the trails will want board on board fences. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto over the length of the fence, Mr. Sjoholm stated that it is proposed to be 175 feet long, which leaves about 150 feet of the property line open. Councilmember Cummins expressed his concern over precedential value, but felt that the redeeming factor is that with the additional setback proposed in the revised plan, the fence would only be marginally visible from the roadway. He stated that he feels the proposed fence in the revised location would be much less offensive than any other situation in the City. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that conditional use permits are granted on an individual basis so that Council has an element of control. He asked whether Mr. Sjoholm could put in a section of fence which would be most effective Page No. 2857 July 10, 1990 for him on a test basis rather than the full length proposed. Mr. Sjoholm stated that he would consider the option but that he was concerned over new permits and problems at each stage of installation. He asked whether he would need further Council approval. He also stated that he feels the fence will be invisible after a period of time and that perhaps there is an alternative that could be explored with the City staff - a shorter fence would be better than nothing at all. Councilmember Hartmann commented that he would rather see hedging than a 175 foot solid fence. It was noted that perhaps the 43 to 48 foot distance from the centerline is what makes this different from others which might come before Council, that there is 25 feet of landscaping between the ditch and the proposed fence and that there are would be very few similar situations in the City. Councilmember Blesener stated that she would like to see the fence location outside of any future right-of-way acquisition, 50 to 51 feet from the centerline, and also something less than six foot tall if it is to be solid. She also felt that there should be more landscaping outside the fence and that it should be less than 175 feet long. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be continued to July 17th to provide an opportunity for the applicants to consider a compromise. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING, CASE NO. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the 90-18, FRISCH purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. Gerald Frisch for a conditional use permit for a fence. Mr. Frisch stated that he proposes to install a five foot high chain link fence on his Page No. 2858 July 10, 1990 property inside an existing maple hedge. He informed Council that he has two dogs that get through the foliage and run through the neighborhood in the winter and the proposed fence will restrain them. He stated that he thought the fence matter was resolved when he received approval for his pool but that City staff has informed him he must get the conditional use permit for the fence extension from the southeast corner where it intersects with the existing fence and then generally northwest to join with the corner of his home. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that since the property is adjacent to a county road, he needs permission from the County. Mr. Frisch responded that he did get County approval when his original conditional use permit was processed but that the County Attorney is reluctant to give him a letter at this time. It was noted that staff reports indicate that the existing shrubs and the posts for the proposed fence are within the County right-of- way. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the County Board must approve the fence, since Victoria is a County Road, and also pointed out that Victoria will be turned back to the City some time after the Victoria/T.H. 13 intersection changes are made. At that time Victoria will become a City road, and will be put into the MSA system. He stated that at that time the City would probably upgrade Victoria to Lexington Avenue, and if Mr. Frisch has any plantings or a fence in the right-of-way they will have to be removed. He pointed out that the Council does not want Mr. Frisch to come back at that time and say that the City gave him a conditional use permit and could not require him to remove the fence or plantings. Mr. Frisch responded that it should be noted in the City record that he would be installing the fence at his own risk and that if he installs anything in the right-of-way he will remove it without compensation from the City. Councilmember Blesener stated that the Council could grant permission for the fence if it is on the property line but not if it is in the right-of-way. Page No. 2859 July 10, 1990 Councilmember Anderson pointed out that while Mr. Frisch acknowledges the requirement for removal, the property could be sold, and asked what would bind future property owners to the same agreement. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that there should be a developers agreement in which Mr. Frisch would agree that for whatever reason the City or County desires to upgrade Victoria and needs to have the fence and/or landscaping removed, Mr. Frisch would do so at his expense, and which would bind subsequent owners to the same requirement. Councilmember Anderson stated that Mr. Frisch must also get some type of written approval from the County. He further stated that the five foot chain like fence would provide for pool safety and from that standpoint it makes sense. Mr. Frisch stated that if he is not able to get that approval, he would like City permission to install the fence on his property line as an alternative. Councilmember Blesener asked about the possibility of using an invisible fence, and Mr. Frisch stated that he has considered this option. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the proposed fence is substantially in the right- of-way and that he agrees with Councilmember Anderson that the fence would not only protect the pool but also it is an open fence. He stated that Mr. Frisch should get approval from the County, but that he would first need approval from the City. City approval would have to be conditioned upon Mr. Frisch entering into an agreement which could be recorded with the County to bind him and his successors to remove anything within the right-of-way at the request of the City or County. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Page No. 2860 July 10, 1990 Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 90-42, "RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE," as amended to include a condition that Mr. & Mrs. Frisch execute a recordable agreement binding them and their successor grantees to remove the fence and/or plantings at their own expense if requested to do so by the City or other governmental agency for the upgrading or widening of Victoria or for snowplowing purposes, and in the event that the applicant fails to receive County approval for installation of the fence within the right-of- way, the fence may be placed along the property line subject to the conditions regarding submission of a survey, the agreement for fence and/or planting removal, and hedge maintenance. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RESIGNATION Council acknowledged a letter from Bernard Friel informing Council of his resignation as the City's MASAC representative. Councilmember Cummins stated that he doubts that anyone in the community has given so much to better the community, both because of Mr. Friel's involvement in MASAC and in other ways. Councilmember Anderson moved to express Council's appreciation to Bernard Friel and to accept his resignation with regret and to direct staff to begin the process to recruit a replacement. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 90-21, Mr. Dan Houpt, from Kiesland, Inc., and BATESVILLE Architect Bruce Jones were present to request approval of the division of Lot 4, Block 1, Northland Plaza along with variances for driveway setback and sideyard setback abutting a street. Mr. Houpt stated that his company will be purchasing both Lots 3 and 4 and proposed to construct a new building on Lot 4 for the Batesville Casket Company. Page No. 2861 July 10, 1990 Mr. Jones reviewed the design implications and overall project. He stated that the site is challenging to develop, primarily because of accessibility - it is bounded by I-35E, 1-494 and T.H. 55. The only point of access is from Northland Drive. The applicants wish to combine the driveways for the two lots, and that this driveway divide the two sites, serving each simultaneously. He stated that they have considered their needs and the City's needs in locating the truck docks, and that they believe the best location is on the 1-494 side because of the distance and natural grade change. He also stated that while there are no current plans for building expansion, the applicants felt that it is important to predict a future expansion and are therefore requesting a 20 foot sideyard setback variance to allow future expansion along T.H. 55. The proposed Batesville structure would be 30,000 square feet and a 10,000 future expansion is anticipated. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the applicants are requesting approval of a shared driveway, and that Council needs to have some idea of what the building pad and elevations will be for the future use of Lot 3. Mr. Houpt responded that he is very sensitive to what can be done with Lot 3 and decided that he did not want the loading docks exposed to Northland Drive. Mr. Jones stated that the applicants have decided to make sure that the lots are compatible and that the single drive is as much for the future development of Lot 3 as for Batesville. Mr. Jones showed Council photos of a building recently constructed in the metro area (an office/warehouse) which was used as a model. Councilmember Anderson asked whether the Batesville structure would have a 230 foot blank wall. Mr. Jones responded that it would, but that if it is taken in context and with the proper screening, he feels it will not have a negative impact. Mr. Houpt stated that there will be very few windows in the building, but lots of screening, and stressed that landscaping is very important to the company. There will be significant landscaping with coniferous and deciduous Page No. 2862 July 10, 1990 plantings. Responding to a comment from Councilmember Anderson about the proposed Linden Ash, he stated that this can be changed and that landscaping has been increased along 1-494 and near the building. He stated that the applicants are sensitive to screening the impact of the blank wall. Councilmember Anderson asked how the applicants respond to the City Planner's seventh conclusion, that the building is clearly to large for the site. Mr. Houpt stated that he strongly disagrees, that the coverage ratio allowed by the City is 50%. Without the expansion there is 29% coverage, and with the addition there would be 38% coverage, which is far below what is allowed. The setback from T.H. 55 is very large, 169 feet from the edge of the road for Phase I. Councilmember Blesener stated that she does not feel the building fits the site. The applicant is not allowing enough green space to soften the mass of structure. She further stated that she has great concern over the truck dock impact on 1-494. She questioned whether the berms and landscaping would provide adequate screening. She further stated that what goes on the site should display the quality of the industrial park and. she did not like the idea of loading docks on this major roadway. She felt that the loading docks should be to the interior of the site and that the portions of the building facing the major roadways need to be more attractive. Mr. Jones responded that the applicants have spent many hours dealing with this issue. He stated that they are not asking for a lot split and they are trying to work with two lots that exist. Councilmember Blesener pointed out several problems, including orientation, building exterior, and location of the docks. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the loading docks will be seen from a distance on 1-494. Mr. Houpt stated that the applicants felt that since the site could be entirely screened along 1-494 that is the best area for the docks. Page No. 2863 July 10, 1990 Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the City has tried to develop an office park with high quality exterior materials and finished surfaces on all building sides. She asked whether there are some kinds of guidelines in the City's ordinances which define what is acceptable. Administrator Lawell responded that there is a section of the zoning ordinance which speaks to building materials, and he cited examples of those materials. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that all of the buildings in the industrial area are finished on all four sides. He stated that the applicants are asking for a variance for the building pad and that Council is concerned that the structure is too massive for the site. He asked why the building is not oriented with the truck dock towards Lot 3 since this is a warehouse structure without windows. Mr. Houpt responded that 100 to 110 feet is necessary for maneuvering the trucks and orienting the docks towards Lot 3 would make the lot useless for building purposes. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the applicants are only talking about 5 trucks per day and that they are asking for a sideyard setback variance now so in the future they can add a 44 foot building expansion. He asked why the applicants are not proposing to build the structure at that setback now and add the expansion to the other side in the future. Mr. Houpt responded stated that then the docks would be facing directly onto Lot 3 and would make it unappealing to the future occupant of a building on that lot. Councilmember Blesener stated that she has a problem with granting setback variances for a building of the proposed size and that the lot needs every foot of green space that Council can give it. Mr. Houpt responded that the distance from T.H. 55 is a grassy area and far in excess of a typical setback, and that there will be considerably more green space than normal and more than the adjacent neighbors. He pointed out that the Unisys building is about 300 yards away from the site and has similar exterior materials but felt that his proposed structure is much more attractive. Page No. 2864 July 10, 1990 He pointed out that it will have a number of angles, canopies and some windows to make it more appealing. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that action on the matter be tabled to allow the applicants to look at alternatives. Mr. Houpt responded that the applicants do have an alternative - asking Council to approve one condition, a common drive, and no setback variances. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that if the applicants just ask for a lot split and one driveway, they would be on their own as far as the building, with no guarantee that a building permit would be approved. He asked whether the applicants would like to have the opportunity to have the matter continued and come back with alternatives such as building to the future expansion line. councilmember Blesener pointed out that this would require a variance and that she is opposed to any variance on that side of the lot. councilmember Cummins stated that Council is concerned about how the building would appear from 1-494 and T.H. 55. He informed the applicants that anything that does not address those concerns will not be approved. Mr. Jones suggested that the building could be moved up 40 feet and a variance would not be required. councilmember Blesener responded that this would not resolve Council's concerns. She stated that she has a problem with the size of the building and the huge parking lot on the side of the building where it is proposed and that she is not convinced that the landscaping will be effective. Mr. Houpt asked how Council would react to a plan that would include a shared drive but no variances. councilmember Cummins stated that the concept of one driveway makes some sense but that Council would not want to approve one drive until it sees what the applicants plan to do with it. Mr. Jones showed the Council an alternate which did not require setback variances and a Page No. 2865 July 10, 1990 building that was not so long or visible from T.H. 55 but which did propose a common driveway. Councilmember Blesener asked whether Mr. Houpt would still ask to expand the building in the future under the alternate plan. He responded that he would not. The loading docks would still face 494, the site would be shifted and parking along the east side would be reduced. In terms of design, he stated that he has looked at every conceivable way of laying out the site and this is the most desirable location for the truck docks without combing the lots into one. Mayor Mertensotto informed the applicants that Council is saying that the warehouse building proposed is too large for the site. Councilmember Blesener added that Council is willing to table the matter to allow the applicants to bring back an alternate plan, but that she would otherwise move to deny the requests. She also stated that if the applicant decides to submit an alternate plan, she would like the City Planner to prepare a report. After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to table the Batesville Casket Company application to July 17th. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:37 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:48 P.M. CASE NO. 90-03, Mayor Mertensotto reviewed a staff memo CENTEX regarding the Centex Homes applications for rezoning, preliminary plat approval, conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development and wetlands permit. He informed the audience that Council would consider the Planning Commission information and review the proposed plans with the developer, and further informed the audience on the action requested by the applicants. Mr. John Bannigan, legal counsel for Centex, introduced Dick Putnam, from the Tandem Corporation, and Tom Boyce, from Centex. Mr. Putnam showed the Council and audience drawings which had been developed as the Page No. 2866 July 10, 1990 result of the Council hearing and subsequent Planning Commission discussion. He stated that changes from the last plan were made in three areas, all in response to the questions asked at the Council hearing. One of the issues addressed in the plan is buffering along Mendota Heights Road between the Centex site and the Hampshire area and buffering along the park and along 1-494. He stated that the applicants asked their landscape architect to do more detail along Mendota Heights Road, improving the landscaping looking from Hampshire towards the townhouse building. He further stated that most of the people present at the Planning Commission meeting felt that the new plan provided a good transition between the uses - an earth berm and heavy landscaping treatment. He stated that Along 1-494, there is a distance of over 200 feet between the 16 unit building and the freeway and the sketch does not reflect the distance well. The site is about 20 feet above the freeway at the earth berm, and all that can be seen from the freeway is the top of the building - the front of the building is about 300 feet from the freeway. With respect to wetlands and tree protection, he showed a site plan responding to the natural character of the land. He stated that there are 5 or 6 very nice trees retained in the plan where a building had been placed in the earlier plan. He also stated than an area which had been thought to be a wetlands is not wet and that the plan was changed to work around the trees and to create ponds on what was formerly though to be a wetland area. The recreation building was relocated. He stated that originally the condominiums were proposed adjacent to Mendota Heights Road and that the plan has been reconfigured to place townhouses in that area, reducing the number of condominium units to 276. Buildings have also been shifted to save two oak trees in the condominium area. The townhouses were moved to get a greater distance from Mendota Heights Road, some of the structures were changed from four unit to two or three unit buildings. He also stated that the plan shows the setbacks from wetlands areas where the setbacks are less than 100 feet. Page No. 2867 July 10, 1990 Mr. Putnam showed the proposed access to the south. He stated that Dr. Biehl and his neighbors prefer an easement with private streets rather than a public street, so the lots have been widened and have been shifted to give more space for the driveway easement. Mr. Putnam informed Council that a great deal of time was spent at the Planning Commission meeting going through setbacks on a case by case basis, and he believes that changes made have benefitted the plan. The last item of change was an increase in the amount of parking in the condo area so owners have in excess of 2.5 spaces per unit - one enclosed space and 1.5 outside space per unit. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that the developers addressed the issues raised by the Council at three meetings, including two Planning Commission meetings, including showing siding and brick samples. He felt that the Commission minutes and staff reports go through the issues well. With respect to roads, the private roads are proposed to be 28 feet wide with surmountable curb and gutter and built to city standards. There are about 27 acres within the park boundaries. He informed Council that there are proposed to be a total of 419 units in Kensington Phase 2, including 48 single family units. Phase 1 will be 132 units. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether the developer has any plans to develop the park area. Mr. Putnam responded that they do not. Mayor Mertensotto then pointed out that the fields, etc., are to be built at city expense. Mr. Putnam responded that the developers have designed the park space to accommodate the city's desires and have been working with the Park Commission. The developers did not designed the park, but rather designed the park area to accommodate city plans. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the park referendum included $560,000 to build the fields, comfort stations, etc., in the area. Councilmember Blesener raised a question over parking. She stated that she started to look at parking and garages and all off street used Page No. 2868 July 10, 1990 to make up 2.5 per unit. She expressed concern about the amount of paved area and blacktop in the development and stated that she is not comfortable with so much blacktop in some parts of the site. She asked whether guest parking could be clustered in a couple of sites instead and whether there is any way of widening some of the private roads and allowing parking on one side of the road to eliminate some of the pull-off parking. Administrator Lawell responded that it has been felt that if parking can be accommodated in the design there is nothing inherently bad about it. At one time it was thought that Lockwood Drive could be widened to accommodate parking on one side but that the Public Safety staff would prefer to minimize that possibility. Councilmember Blesener stated that she is only talking about parking on the private streets. She further stated that she would be willing to identify areas for future parking rather than requiring that parking be built now. Councilmember Anderson stated that there was a perceived parking inadequacy at the last Council discussion and that blacktop follows parking necessity. He felt that centralized parking looks messy and takes away from the rustic view. He did not think Council would want to promote on-street parking. Councilmember Blesener responded that she is only thinking of on street parking for the extra half stall per unit and that it seems that the extra half stall would be for guest parking and seldom used. Mr. Putnam stated that Centex's Devonwood Phase 1 in Bloomington required only 2 spaces. In that phase the development was at less than 2.2 spaces. In the second phase parking was increased to 2.4 spaces. He further stated that someone on the Planning commission commented that it would be nice if there were more off street parking because sometimes it could get crowded. Devonwood, in its recreation area, has no separate parking. In the proposed Kensington plan, there is a 10 car parking area provided for the recreation building, which is not counted in the parking requirement. With respect to on-street Page No. 2869 July 10, 1990 parking, Mr. Putnam stated that it uses more space per car and makes it very difficult to try to travel on the street many times. He felt that idea of keeping the guest spots separate and defining them by signage is a good idea. Councilmember Cummins stated that one of the issues Council addressed was design of the garages. He asked Mr. Putnam to show a larger drawing of what the garages will look like. Councilmember Blesener stated that another of her concerns with the site plan is that the two -car garages have been sprinkled around. She would like to see more of them clustered wherever possible. She also suggested eliminating all of the drives that come out onto the public street. She did not think there should be driveways backing onto the public street from the condo area. Mr. Putnam responded that people have liked the small scale as opposed to the 6 to 8 car garages. Two car garages fit nicely and they were planned on purpose, although it would be much easier to build all of them the same. With respect to the driveways, he stated that this has been changed. All of the condos have been set back so that they are the same as single family setbacks. All of the manor homes come out to the public street: there are 15 private street intersections and three garages in a distance of 2300 feet. Councilmember Cummins stated that one issue he raised at the last discussion was quality of construction and that this has not been discussed tonight except one paragraph in the staff report indicating that the buildings would be similar to the existing manor homes. He asked whether the same quality of materials and workmanship are anticipated. Mr. Putnam responded that they are. Centex spent much time with their designers and architects and are not yet finished. The exterior will be aluminum siding. Mr. Clark from Centex has done research on the matter and found that there is a remodeling type of siding and a thinner gauge for new construction. The new construction type gives a great deal of selection but there is not much variety in the remodeling type. He Page No. 2870 July 10, 1990 stated that Centex plans to use the new construction type, and that aluminum siding is permanent (60 years) as opposed to wood. The shingle grade was another issue raised. Centex plans using 240 weight material like in Hampshire. Brick quality will be the same as Hampshire, and windows will be the same as in the manor homes, which is required by the air noise regulations. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the materials must be stipulated in the developers agreement so that the Council has control in the event that the project is developed by someone other than Centex. Mr. Putnam responded that the City's agreements are such that the developer does not have the ability to make changes unless they are approved by the Council. Councilmember asked whether specifications have been written that would be included in the developers agreement. Mr. Boyce responded that he would have no problem committing to aluminum siding, etc., and type of quality but would not like to be committed to a color in case it is discontinued by the supplier. Councilmember Cummins stated that what he has spent much time going through the manor homes that have been built in Kensington and has been through many of the homes in Copperfield, Bridgeview and Hampshire. He further stated that recognizing that the discussion is over multi-family housing, he is not satisfied that the manor homes already constructed live up to his expectations. He stated that neither the quality of materials or workmanship meet the standards set in Mendota Heights, and that there will have to be a considerable upgrade in the standards and material before he will support the proposal. He felt that standards must be specified in the developers agreement, but he does not believe the standards in Kensington Phase 1 are up to established standards in Mendota Heights and stated that he does not believe the quality of the project is up to what exists in the southeast area. He informed the developers that he could not support the project until there is substantial upgrading in materials and workmanship and expressed surprise that the developers have not come back to Council with more specifics and review of the materials. Page No. 2871 July 10, 1990 With respect to the issue of potential future rentals, it was noted that Council can request the developer to establish in the condominium covenants that there can be no rentals. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is not in favor of surmountable curbs. Ms. Cathy Connolly, representing area residents, stated that the residents' position remains that this is not a proper project for the site. The residents are troubled by the fact that despite numerous inquiries there have been no answers to the type and quantity of variances the project will require. The answer she has been given was that because this is a PUD the developers are not required to go through the variance process. The stated that the PUD section of the City ordinances states criteria which must be met before variances can be given. She stated that the onus has been put on the residents to show that the variances will constitute a threat to safety, health and welfare. She stated that the residents have been put in the position of being on the defensive and are being asked to show what is wrong with the plan, where in fact it is not the.residents place to do so. City Attorney Hart responded that Ms. Connolly is correct that the standards of Section 19.26 of the Zoning Ordinance are standards Council should adhere to in approving any PUD that involves the granting of variances. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that setbacks in the plan do not meet ordinance requirements because of the clustering. Ms. Connolly stated that the extent that the developer is able to meet each of the criteria the residents have no objection to variances being granted but that they have not seen any findings. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in his judgment the whole procedure in the southeast area is contrary to the development the City has been following since 1965. Ms. Connolly stated that variances should require a practical and reasonable basis and should not be solely for financial consideration. She further stated that the Page No. 2872 July 10, 1990 developer's agreement does not wed the City to the plan - the agreement was prepared before the public hearing commenced, and any agreement prior to a public hearing makes a sham of the public hearing process. She felt that the Council is not legally bound to approve the plan on the basis of agreements which took place prior to the hearing process. Councilmember Anderson stated that before he came on the Council in January he spent three years on the Planning Commission and almost that entire time the Commission reviewed plans for the development. It was his understanding at the beginning of that time that the City had a comprehensive plan adopted in 1985. He asked why the Council has had the developers come back all of this time if all Council needs to do is say that the proposal doesn't correspond to the Comprehensive Plan and what the developers have done during all this time is for naught and that the City should turn the land into parkland. He stated that all along the comprehensive plan has been in place. He pointed out that the residents are against the developers they have purchased their homes form, and that the proposal has been clear for years, before many of the residents built their homes. He felt that a disservice is being done the rest of the residents of Mendota Heights. He did not think Council can say the comprehensive plan means nothing and that if there is a comprehensive plan, the proposed development certainly conforms with it. Ms. Connolly responded that many of the people in the area have come recently to the area and have had no opportunity - many of them have made what they felt was reasonable inquiry of the developers on what was planned. They were entitled to rely on that information. She further stated that she thinks the Council would be hard pressed to find a person who has a good history of the detail of the project, and that if any resident were to check at any point along the line they could not have concluded when they purchased their homes that what they were seeing then would be what they are seeing proposed today. Councilmember Anderson responded that it is unfair for Council to imply that everything is open. Council is adhering to precedent - the Page No. 2873 July 10, 1990 plan has been in place for some time and the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Connolly stated that the residents have identified several instances where they feel the proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and also that it is not the neighbors who are re-opening anything. She stated that the Council has before it the substance of the project and that it is not a "done deal." The residents are talking about the zoning, etc., and looking for consistency with the whole of Mendota Heights. She further stated that it is clear to the residents that there will be multi-family on the site; they are simply looking for prudent development and have not seen any consideration of the impact of the density on the southeast area of the community. Councilmember Anderson responded that the least expensive of the condominiums will cost $70,000.to $80,000. He further commented that the homes in Copperfield and Hampshire have increased in value from $200,000 to $300,000, and to take the approach that everything in Mendota Heights should have that type of value is not valid. Ms. Connolly responded that she would like to make it clear that the neighborhood would like to see a development which will benefit the community. Councilmember Cummins stated that he spoke to 20 to 25 of the residents of Copperfield and Hampshire within 24 hours after they received the hearing notice. He was concerned that the residents had received erroneous information from a variety of sources and that they diligently attempted to find out what was proposed. Councilmember Anderson stated that he does not think that City staff would give out erroneous information and that if the residents got wrong information he did not think that means the Council should change the Comprehensive Plan. His position was that if Council wished to change its position on the Comprehensive Plan based on a significant change in circumstances, he would agree to consider it. If Council is not willing to take that position, he felt that it should own up to the Page No. 2874 July 10, 1990 fact that Council must comply with precedent and the Comprehensive Plan and further felt that the proposed plan generally complies. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council has heard the public comments and has a massive public record. The issues that are under consideration are rezoning from R-1A, R-1B and R-1 to MR and HR-PUD, and unless the zoning change takes place, everything else is dead. City Attorney Tom Hart commented that it is his understanding that the zoning districts correspond to the Comprehensive Plan districts. Mr. Bannigan stated that there are some unanswered questions before a decision can be made. With respect to quality, he stated that he has listened to Councilmember Cummins comments and would like to point out that quality is in the eye of the beholder. He stated that there is some leeway to try to satisfy Councilmember Cummins concerns. He stated that there are problems with respect to the leasing issue and that when negotiating a developers agreement the developers cannot, in such cases of transfer or estates, tie the hands of the homeowner and does not want to mislead the Council by saying that no owner can lease or rent his unit. Responding to the variance question, he stated that the variances can be addressed now or whenever Council wishes, and the matter of variances has not come up in the discussions. He stated that the developers do not want to create the impression that they are trying to avoid the issue. Mr. Putnam stated that there is a set of standards that are in the Planning Commission review and that they deal with particular circumstances which he would detail if the Council would like. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not think Council could go through the whole plan approval this evening, that the final conditional use permit for PUD would have to be contingent upon the developers entering into a developers agreement to address the issues. He pointed out that if the developers can't get a 4/5th vote from the Council the matter is dead. Page No. 2875 July 10, 1990 Councilmember Cummins stated that he does support the Comprehensive Plan and has not changed his position and that the developer is correct that in terms of legal standards quality is the most subjective standard in the City's ordinance. He further stated that he thinks the Council has some advantage to the extent that it already has an example (Kensington Phase I) of what the developer intends to build. It was his observation that in all respects while Phase I manor home construction meets minimal standards, the manor homes are indeed minimal. They are not the standards the Council has come to expect in the Southeast area. He stated that the shingles are poorly installed and there is poorly installed aluminum siding. The vinyl flooring had nicks and was laid over grates. Sod was laid on clay without black dirt, and paint has been applied sparsely. There were poorly installed fireplaces. He pointed to these instances as examples of what he considers unsatisfactory quality and construction and that these are not the types of homes, single family or multi-family, which Council would like in Mendota Heights. He pointed out that there are very nice homes in Copperfield and Hampshire and that he is confident they will still be nice in 20 or 30 years. He did not have that same confidence in the manor homes, and that if Council is to address the issue, the quality must be high quality for him to support the proposal. Mr. Bannigan asked whether the concern is addressed in the developers agreement or if the developer should respond now. Councilmember Cummins responded that there are a number of long standing and qualified builders in the City and suggested that the City hire one of them to work with the developers to develop standards that would be suitable. Mr. Bannigan stated that he would prefer to satisfy the concerns and would like an opportunity to meet the concerns to the satisfaction of Councilmember Cummins. Councilmember Cummins asked whether the Council feels it is feasible to retain someone to advise it on appropriate construction Page No. 2876 July 10, 1990 standards in quality of materials and workmanship and whether there is money available to retain someone. Councilmember Blesener stated that she would suggest asking the developers to prepare a set of design standards for consideration and have staff come up with a process for reviewing the standards - find someone with expertise who could be hired as a consultant to review the material. She suggested that staff could come back with the process at the next meeting. The Council received comments from members of the audience. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12:12 o'clock A.M. K hleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: /* Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor to defer action on the planning applications Ayes: 5 and continue the matter to August 7th. Nays: 0 Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. RETIREMENT PARTY Councilmember Hartmann moved that the City hold a recognition reception for retired City Planner Howard Dahlgren and former Councilmember Liz Witt at the Marriott Ayes: 5 Courtyard on August 1st at 7:30 P.M. Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that Ayes: 5 the meeting be adjourned. Nays: 0 Councilmember. Cummins seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 12:12 o'clock A.M. K hleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: /* Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor