Loading...
1988-07-19 Council minutesPage No. 2395 July 19, 1988 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, July 19 1988 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, 750 South Plaza Drive, 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 Biesener Hartmann and Witt. Councilmember Cummins had notified the Council that he would be out of town. AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption . of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Councilmember Witt moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of all necessary documents contained therein. a. Adoption of Resolution No. 88 -45, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR PABST ADDITION." b. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for June. c. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the July 12th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. d. Acknowledgment of the proposed assessment roll for the business park street lighting project and adoption of Resolution No. 88 -46, "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT STREET LIGHTING TO SERVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS INDUSTRIAL /BUSINESS PARK, CAREW BUSINESS CENTER, INLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK, MEDALLION INDUSTRIAL PARK, YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH AND NORTHLAND PLAZA (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 11.)." Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BID AWARD, TELEPHONE SYSTEM Page No. 2396 July 19, 1988 e. Authorization for issuance of a purchase order to Struck & Irwin Paving for the slurry seal coating of Apache Court, Apache Lane, Nashua Lane and the east 600 feet of Cheyenne, for their bid of $10,097.22, along with approval of the plans and specifications for 1988 seal coating and authorization to advertise for bids for the seal coating and Public Works parking lot overlay. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 88 -47, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR COPPERFIELD IV." g. Approval of Partial Payment No. 8 to Joseph Construction for City Hall construction in the amount of $111,744.75. h. Approval of Partial Payment No. 5 to Thomas Electric for City Hall construction in the amount of $18,523. i. Approval of Partial Payment No. 6 to Doody Mechanical for City Hall construction in the amount of $29,164.50. j. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated July 19, 1988 and attached hereto. k. Approval of the list of claims dated July 19, 1988 and totalling $2,244,002.80. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator and a report and recommendation from Telephone Consultant Bill Burke regarding bids received for the purchase of a telephone system and wiring for new City Hall. Mr. Burke reviewed his report and the reasons why he is recommending rejection of the proposal from the lowest bidder. Councilmember Witt moved to accept the telephone system bids as presented by Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 KENSINGTON PUD Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 DELAWARE AVENUE Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 PROPERTY TAXES Page No. 2397 July 19, 1988 consultant Bill Burke and to award the system purchase to AirComm/T.S.I. in the amount of $12,518, and the wiring and jack installation bid to Wahl & Wahl, Inc., in the amount of $3,012, along with pre- authorization for a variation (change orders) of up to $1,500. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Public Works Director Danielson reviewed the final plat for the Kensington PUD and informed Council that the Indirect Source Permit has been issued by the State. He informed the audience that the total development of Kensington will ultimately be 500 units of townhouses, condominiums and manor homes and that the first phase of the multi-family development will consist of 136 manor homes. He informed Council that there have been no changes from the preliminary plat. After brief discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-48, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR KENSINGTON PUD." Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the Public Works Director recommending that Council request Dakota County to pave a right turn lane for north bound traffic on Delaware. Avenue at its intersection with T.H. 110. Mayor Mertensotto suggested that the Council should ask for turn lanes on Delaware on both sides of #110. Councilmember Witt moved to request Dakota County to install right turn lanes on both the north and south sides of Delaware Avenue at T.H. 110. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator regarding the Municipal Legislative Commission's legal challenge to the 1988 property tax bill. Page No. 2398 July 19, 1988 Councilmember Witt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 88-49, "RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGAL CHALLENGE OF THE 1988 PROPERTY TAX LEGISLATION," and authorization for a contribution of $2,500 from the General Fund balance to assist in defraying the cost of the lawsuit. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CITY HALL RADIO TOWER Council acknowledged a memo from the Public Works Director regarding installation of a radio tower at new City Hall. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Mertensotto STREET LIGHT Mayor Mertensotto felt stronger than the Mono that it is $1,700 less Pole would cost $4,200 Rod cost of $2,500. that the PI Rod is Pole and pointed out expensive: the Mono as opposed to the PI Councilmember Blesener felt that the Mono Pole would be more aesthetically pleasing. Councilmember Witt pointed out that if the PI Rod were chosen, there would be additional cost to install a safety shield. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to authorize the purchase and installation of a Mono Pole radio tower at new City Hall. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from the Public Works Director regarding installation of a street light on Lexington Avenue at Marie and at Avanti. Councilmember Witt stated that she is not in favor of a light at the intersection if it must be the NSP standard light, and asked if there are any other types of lights available other than the NSP standard light. Public Works Director Danielson stated that NSP does have a residential type light but that if the NSP poles are used, the standard light must be installed. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council must adopt some standards for decorative lights PLANNING COMMISSION Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 IVY HILLS DRAINAGE Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 2399 July 19, 1988 and directed that the matter be placed on an agenda in the near future. Mayor Mertensotto informed the Council that he has received a letter from Planning Commission Vice Chairman Stu Henning stating that his job demands so much of his time that he cannot continue to serve on the commission, and that he was therefore resigning immediately from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Hartmann moved to accept with much regret the immediate resignation of Stuart Henning from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. The City Administrator was directed to submit press releases to the local newspapers requesting applications for appointment to the Commission. In consideration of the 7:00 pre-Council meeting discussion with the Ivy Hills residents, Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-44, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION TO COMPLETE A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE IVY HILL PARK REACH," as amended to reflect changes discussed at the pre-Council meeting. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 8:10 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 P.M. HEARING -- LEXINGTON HEIGHTS APARTMENTS HYDRANT ASSESSMENTS Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed assessment roll for the Lexington Heights Apartment hydrant installation project. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the Page No. 2400 July 19, 1988 hearing be closed at 8:16 P.M. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Witt moved adoption of Resolution No. 88 -50, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION TO SERVE LEXINGTON HEIGHTS ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 14)." Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARING -- CREEK Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for REALIGNMENT ASSESSMENT the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed assessment roll for the Willow Springs Addition creek realignment project. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARING - STRATFORD WOODS ASSESSMENTS Mayor Mertensotto noted that the entire assessment was being levied against one lot, and Public Works Director Danielson responded that the lot is proposed to be divided into three lots but the final plat has not yet been approved. He informed Council that the property developer has agreed to accept the total assessment. There being no questions or the audience, Councilmember that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Witt seconded comments from Hartmann moved the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of Resolution No. 88 -51, 'RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR CREEK REALIGNMENT TO SERVE LOT 2, WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION IMPROVEMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO. 83, PROJECT NO. 6)." Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed assessment roll for Stratford Woods and adjacent areas. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARING -- EUGENIA STREET VACATION Page No. 2401 July 19, 1988 Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mrs. Angeline McDonald, 1925 Victoria, asked whether the project is complete. Public Works Director Danielson responded that there is some work to be done on the boulevards and storm sewer that will be completed this summer. He stated that he will meet with Mrs. McDonald to see how she wants her boulevard area completed. There being no further questions or comments, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the hearing be closed at 8:21 P.M. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of Resolution No. 88 -52, "RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER, STREETS AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE STRATFORD WOODS AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 13)." Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a continued hearing on a request for the vacation of a portion of the Eugenia Street right -of -way. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that staff recommends that if the vacation is approved the City retain a 10 foot utility easement over the northerly portion of the right -of -way and a 20 foot easement over the southerly portion for a pedestrian trail. He informed the audience that Ms. Jan Peyer has requested the vacation so that the vacated right -of -way area could be added to her adjacent lot and she would have sufficient area to divide three platted undersized lots into two lots. He stated that Council could approve the lot division without vacating the right -of -way and stated that it wouldn't make sense for the City to give the land away when it needs easements over the entire area. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Page No. 2402 July 19, 1988 Mr. Wayne Schwanz showed the Council pictures of the area and stated that the residents are asking for the vacation of all of the right-of-way to Hiawatha and that he would like to see vacation of all of the right-of-way and retention of only the 10 foot utility easement. He stated that the City vacated the alley in Block 2 a year ago and kept a 10 foot easement. He stated that most of the people have built garages on the easement area. He informed Council that he has personal use for the right-of-way that abuts his lot as does Ms. Peyer, and complained about people driving onto the right-of-way, drinking and creating a nuisance after the Lilydale Park closes at night. He stated that the residents are requesting an unencumbered vacation of Eugenia. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City would be giving away its options if it vacated the right-of-way and if the area were needed in the future the City would have to buy it back. He did not feel that the vacation would be in the best interest of the City, and pointed out that the right-of-way may be needed for some public purpose in the development of the adjacent undeveloped land. Councilmember Witt asked whether the right- of-way could be blockaded so that traffic doesn't go through the area. Councilmember Blesener expressed her hesitation to vacate the area when there is undeveloped land adjacent to it and felt that such action would be premature. Councilmember Hartmann stated that Mr. Colon's past proposal for developing the adjacent land showed a connection of Miriam and Hiawatha and never included any plan for a through street on the right-of-way. Mr. Schwanz stated that he needs to build a garage and that he doesn't think retaining an easement would be beneficial to the City. Councilmember Blesener suggested that vacating the alley between Eugenia and Page No. 2404 July 19, 1988 opinion regarding procedures for granting a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Kuntz stated that he was asked by the City to give an opinion on the number of votes required for approval of a Planned Unit Development. He stated that State Statutes require a 2/3 vote for rezonings, which would translate to a 4/5 vote of the Council, and that a conditional use permit requires a simple majority vote. Mr. Kuntz stated that the issue presented was in the context that the vote taken in 1986 was a three to two vote. Mayor Mertensotto clarified that the vote was three to one, with one member absent. Mr. Kuntz stated that the question asked of his office is whether a Council may by conditional use permit give approval to a PUD and if so, what is the authority for doing so. He stated that Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates the procedure for granting a conditional use permit and that the manner for granting approval of a PUD is by way of a conditional use permit. He informed Council that the objective of the PUD in the ordinance is to allow mixed uses and that the Supreme Court has defined a conditional use permit as a legislative decision by the City Council that those uses which are subject to conditional use are in fact allowable uses if they meet the standards the Council may impose. Mr. Kuntz stated that with this particular PUD it is clear that there is a mixed use, single family and multiple residential, and that it is his opinion that Council may approve the PUD with mixed use as a conditional use without rezoning the underlying district. Mr. Kuntz cited case law and treatises and stated that perhaps most importantly, the legislature in 1982 passed a law which expressly states that cities have the right to grant conditional use permits for all developments, including Planned Unit Developments. He stated that it is his opinion that the statute is a response by the legislature to the court case referenced in his written opinion and the procedures followed in many Minnesota Page No. 2405 July 19, 1988 cities. He noted that the statute provides that in granting a conditional use permit, the notice and hearing procedures have to be the same as rezoning and that if a CUP is to be granted Council must let everyone know what is proposed. Mr. Kuntz stated that in his opinion if that procedure was followed (in the original action) Council may proceed by majority vote to grant a conditional use permit for this development, which does in fact continue the mixed uses. He observed that it is often said in such cases, are you not changing uses in that the underlying zoning calls for single family. In a sense, he noted, every conditional use permit changes uses, and he pointed out that the City has listed planned unit developments as a conditional use in its ordinance and has established a rather demanding format and safeguards in addition to the hearing notices. He stated that it is his opinion that the ordinance does permit the Council to grant a conditional use permit by majority vote. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it should be made clear that based on Mr. Kuntz' opinion, the original conditional use permit granted in 1986 on a 3 to 1 vote was for the entire parcel. Mr. Kuntz stated that it is his opinion that that vote which passed was in fact an effective vote and Council had approved what was in front of it at that time, overall conceptual approval of that planned unit development, and that what has been submitted by C.G. Rein is a refinement of that plan. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that 106 apartment units were granted for Outlot A in the 1986 action, and that what C.G. Rein is asking for is approval of the final development plan for the 106 units. Mr. Kuntz stated that it is his opinion that the density calculations were established for the entire site at the time approval was given to the PUD, and that approval of the final development plan can be by majority vote under City ordinance. Page No. 2406 July 19, 1988 Councilmember Blesener stated that it is unclear to her whether Council would be approving a conditional use permit for the specific 106 units as opposed to approving a final development plan for this portion of the PUD, and asked for clarification. Mr. Kuntz responded that it is his understanding that in 1986, by the granting of the conditional use, Council in effect said with respect to the totality of the site, that it agreed that there could be 106 units on Outlot A and 34 on the other portion of the development subject to the developer coming back to the Council for final approval as to the particular 106 units the developer wants to construct on the site. He observed that this is what is currently happening; the developer is coming forth because of the 1986 action and showing Council how the 106 units will look. Councilmember Blesener stated that Council already granted a conditional use permit to build 106 units on the outlot and asked why it is now considering granting another conditional use permit. She asked whether •Council should now be approving a final development plan for the original conditional use permit. Mr. Kuntz responded that it is a question relating to staging and phasing and that in the zoning ordinance there are steps for preliminary and final approval and refinements along the way, and that Section 19 of the ordinance calls for a conditional use permit, which is the action to be taken. He stated that it has been the position of the planning staff in their processing of the application, that in 1986 the permit was clearly given for 106 units and that any extension or refinement of the particulars of it at any time must be granted by conditional use permit.He stated that insofar as it relates to this particular development, Council did not have the plans for what it would look like in 1986. He further stated that typically approval would be in line with the preliminary drawings, but when a final plan comes, everyone knows it is going ahead because there was preliminary approval. In ) Page No. 2407 July 19, 1988 this instance, in 1986 Council voted on an allocation of lot lines and an allocation of density, he stated. He pointed out that this is the first time Council has seen what this project would look like and that the City needs to afford itself the right to pass on that plan, and would do that as a conditional use permit. Mr. Kuntz stated that Council has allocated densities and given concept approval and the applicant is now coming in with the "bread and butter" and Council has to decide if the proposal meets its standards - theoretically the 106 units and how they integrate into the community could be different. Administrator Frazell stated that what is being considered tonight is a preliminary development plan approval and granting of a conditional use permit, that the first stage set forth the densities and this action sets the particulars. Mr. Bernard Friel asked if what Mr. Frazell is saying is that the ordinance of the City requires the granting of two conditional use permits for planned unit developments for this particular property. He stated that this is what is being done and that the notice calls for a hearing for 106 units. He asked whether it is being stated that two conditional use permit approvals are necessary for a single planned unit development. Mr. Frazell responded that this is in staff's interpretation for this particular development done in two and that he doesn't know what else be called. correct phases, it would Mr. Kuntz stated that the idea of segregating this district from the entire tract is not what the City has done in terms of its PUD approval: what the City has done is looked at the totality and has planned for the totality. He stated that Council has afforded itself the maximum opportunity to deal with the totality and that Council did not deal with the specifics in 1986 but rather specifically addressed the number of multiple and single Page No. 2408 July 19, 1988 family units. He stated that Council has afforded itself the maximum opportunity to analyze what is brought in front of them and that whether there is one CUP or however many, its approval of a Planned Unit Development is by conditional use permit. Administrator Frazell pointed out that this is consistent with the information the public was given in 1986, and that he remembers people asking then whether there would be public hearings when the development of the property came up. He stated that staff has taken the route that would give a maximum opportunity for public hearing. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if he understands Mr. Kuntz correctly, the density on Outlot A of 106 units is nondiscretionary to the Council, having been approved by the City Council in 1986 and that whether it is called a conditional use permit or whatever, the preliminary development plan for the 106 units can be done by a majority vote. Mr. Tim Marx, from the Briggs and Morgan firm and representing Mr. Friel, stated that Mr. Friel's position on the matter dating back to 1986 has been o secret. He stated that he believes that the original approval in 1986 was in fact a rezoning and requires a 4/5 vote. He stated that Mr. Kuntz allows that Council can approve a PUD with a conditional use permit that has the affect of rezoning without actually rezoning, but that he (Mr. Marx) believes that if you are doing a rezoning you must follow those procedures. He stated that Council is doing both and must follow both procedures. He suggested using the commonsense notion that if one looks at state law and City zoning ordinances a commonsense approach would yield the result that you have to have a 2/3 vote. He stated that state statute says you must have a 2/3 vote for rezoning and the statute enacted in 1982 says that Planned Unit Developments can be processed as conditional use permits by majority vote. He indicated that commonsense notion says that if it is possible, let's apply both; Page No. 2409 July 19, 1988 the City is required to give effect to both ) statutes if it can do so and that you can question PUD, but not rezoning. He stated that if the PUD were only for single family you could do it, but if you are doing a rezoning, you must have a 2/3 vote and that if you are doing both it is possible to comply with both statutes. Referencing the zoning ordinance, Mr. Marx stated that, particularly as amended last year to create a PUD district, the City has a dual notion under its own zoning ordinance. He then read section 19.22 of the ordinance and stated that the City is recognizing that there can be dual zoning within a PUD district, and then cited Section 5 of the ordinance. He stated that he finds it very interesting that Section 10A of the ordinance creates a PUD district and rezoning to a PUD district. He stated that he and Mr. Friel feel Council has to do both a PUD and rezoning and that if Council is approving a preliminary PUD by conditional use permit, it is violating the underlying density requirements of Outlot A as it is zoned single family. He stated that Outlot A is 10.6 acres and would only allow 30 units under the underlying zoning requirements. Mayor Mertensotto stated that to clarify, Mr. Kuntz is rendering the opinion to Council that the prior Council has set the density on Outlot A at 106 units and that that is non-discretionary to Council. He stated that what is discretionary is what the 106 unit development consists of: the density has been determined at 106 units in the PUD for the development. Councilmember Blesener asked Mr. Kuntz to respond to the statement that Council is approving a conditional use permit tonight and is violating the underlying zoning. Mr. Kuntz responded that he thinks the concept is being analyzed perhaps because that is the nature of a PUD. The underlying zoning in this instance, he stated, is the R-1 zoning designation, but it is his judgement that in light of the City ordinances Council has set that it can apply a conditional use permit within the Page No. 2410 July 19, 1988 structure of a PUD which will allow a developer the creativity and flexibility they ask if they meet City standards. He stated that he thinks it is significant when the legislature calls out that planned unit developments may be granted by conditional use permit and that he thinks the legislature has given cities the authority to exercise that flexibility as long as there are standards and there is public hearing. Mr. Marx stated that the hearing notice says that the Council is considering a conditional use permit for a planned unit development on Outlot A which is only 10.6 acres, and that if that is the action, Council must apply the rezoning. He stated that this is a procedural point but a valid one Administrator Frazell stated that in his presentation Mr. Marx referenced the Planned Unit Development District which was only intended to apply to the southeast area of the City. He stated that it seems to him like it is an argument of form over substance: Council promised the area residents that it would hold a hearing to discuss the developing of Outlot A. He observed that if Council had done what Mr. Marx is suggesting, it would just be looking at a building permit, and Council would have been approving something without seeing it. He stated that this process has afforded the public an opportunity to participate in how the property was to be developed. He then read a memorandum from Planner Dahlgren regarding Planned Unit Developments, supporting the concept of approval of mixed use PUDs by CUP. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer has proposed and is willing to realign the proposed buildings so that they are 100 feet back from the westerly boundary of the new dedicated right-of-way line of T.H. 149 and has realigned the access point into the project from and through Mendakota Drive rather than access to Dodd, as the Council had directed. Councilmember Biesener stated that she thinks Council needs to see the connection Page No. 2411 July 19, 1988 from the parking lot to Mendakota Drive and 1 subject to that plan, and if the park plan shows it should be moved 15 feet to the right, for example Council should have that option. She also stated that in 1986 she made her position clear that she was very much opposed to 106 units on the outlot, and that Council is told that 106 units is not discretionary tonight, but rather that Council is addressing a preliminary development plan for the specific design of the 106 units. She stated that she is satisfied with the plan as submitted, retaining some flexibility. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if he had been on the Council in 1986 he would not have been in favor of the project, 106 units on the outlot, and that he is concerned about the overall site, traffic, location of the units on the site should be easterly, and that he is not happy with the open space layout. He felt that the open space will just be a maintenance headache. Councilmember Witt stated that she doesn't like to see apartments, but Council approved the concept in 1986 subject to close scrutiny. She felt that Council has scrutinized the proposal and addressed the neighbors' concerns. Councilmember Biesener stated that if the 106 units is a given, she is satisfied that Council has done the best it can and that this would be a very high quality development. Mayor Mertensotto pointed that this is the third time the Rein plan has been before the Council and that Council has been advised that the PUD was approved by conditional use permit in 1986 so Council is bound by the density. Councilmember Witt moved adoption of Resolution No. 88-57, "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT," subject to the addition of a fifth condition that the Council retains flexibility regarding location of access to Mendakota Drive, to be determined after Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Abstain: 1 Mertensotto BETH JACOB PARKING LOT Page No. 2412 July 19, 1988 completion and review of the park plan. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Representatives of the Beth Jacob Synagogue informed Council that they plan to occupy their facility on July 21st and just became aware today that one of the City's requirements for this type of project is a paved parking lot. They stated that paving was originally included in the plans but that they had substituted class 5 gravel because of cost overruns on the project. The representatives informed Council that the Code Enforcement Officer will do a final inspection on the facility tomorrow and has informed them that he cannot issue a certificate of occupancy unless they receive approval of the parking lot change. They stated that they hope that within the next two years the lot will be paved and asked that the requirement be temporarily waived. Councilmember Blesener stated that she can understand a short-term variance to allow the certificate of occupancy, but that paved parking lots is a standard in the City and she would not be in favor of more than a 30 day variance. The Synagogue representatives stated that if they had known paving was required, they would have cut something else in the project, but they were not aware of the requirement. Administrator Frazell responded that the plans originally shown to the Council included paving, that the City staff was not informed of the change order, and the project architect certainly should have known that it was required. Mr. Sweet, one of the representatives, stated that it was the architect who suggested deleting the paving to save $12,000. He informed Council that the Synagogue just learned of the requirement this morning and would not have cut the Page No. 2413 July 19, 1988 paving if they had known of the requirement. Councilmember Blesener stated that she would be willing to approve an extension of the deadline for paving to September 1st. Mr. Sweet asked whether Council would give the Synagogue until April to meet the requirement. Councilmember Witt pointed out that she feels the Synagogue has a good argument with its architect, and suggested that Council allow 90 days before the pavement must be installed. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved that the deadline for paving of the Beth Jacob Synagogue parking lot be extended to October 15th so that a certificate of occupancy can be issued without the paving being in place before the July 21st planned occupancy date. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:32 o'clock P.M. athleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 19, 1988 Gas Piping Licenses: Constroms Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. Total Energy Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. General Contractors Licenses: Braden Construction Earthwood Builders, Inc. Installers Plus R & L Skluzacek Construction, Inc. Shield Fire Protection, Inc. Walts Repair Service Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses: Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. Constroms Heating & Air Conditioning Total Energy Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.