Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMin_84Sep5_Special 1 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 A special meeting of the Falcon Heights City Council was called to order by Moor Eggert at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Eggert, Councilmembers Baldwin, Hard, Chestovich, and Ciernia. Also PRESENT present were Attorney Van de North, Engineer Schunicht, and Fiscal Consultant Apfelbacher. None. ABSENT Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Hard, that the Consent Agenda CONSENT be approved as presented. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA APPROVED 1. Falcon Heights Fire Reports #1-01684 - #1-01884 2. Falcon Heights Ambulance Reports #2-05984 - #2-06284 3. Lauderdale Fire Reports #3-00984 - #3-01184 4. Lauderdale Rescue Reports - #4-02984 - #3-03484 5. General Disbursements 8/23/84 - 9/5/84 138,928.09 Sinking Fund $ 7.40 6. Liquor Store Disbursements 8/21/84 - 8/31/84 X29,961.54 7. General Payroll 8/16/84 - 8/31/84 ~ 7,316.05 8. Liquor Payroll 8/16/84 - 8/31/84 # 1,762.96 9. Prosecutor's Statement for July, 1984 10. Licenses: Tree Removal Gordy and Paul's Tree 3301 42nd Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 Service #1242 Contractors Milbrandt Construction #1240 5835 St. Albans Ct. N. Shoreview, MN 55112 Klawitter Tree Service #1239 430 Jay Way Vadnais Heights, M-3 55110 Driveway Design #1241 6701 Cloverdale Avenue N. Crystal, MN 55428 Cigaret~,_~ License #623 Falcon ~~ ~;ights Pharmacy 1707 N. Snelling Falcon Heights, M`N 11. Request from Jan Bykowski, 1745 St. Mary's to barricade St. Mary's from 1700 to Maple Knoll, 4 p.m. to Dark, September 14, 1984 for a Block Party 12. Bequest from Rice' Chestovich,-~1407 W. California, to barricade one Block of California, 5 to 9 p.m., September 10, 1984 for Block Party 13. Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1984 I'~v ilr MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COiINCIL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 PAGE 2 Councilmember Ciernia moved, seconded by Councilmember Hard, that the Minutes of August 22, 1984 be approved as presented. Upon a vote being taken the fo3lo~ing voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Baldwin, Hard, Ciernia, and Chestovich. Mayor Eggert abstained. Motion carried. Patrick H. Neu, presented a variance request for Lot 8, Block 1, Pothen Homesites, (1865 Hemline) for construction of a new home. After a short discussion Mayor Eggert., moved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that the following variances be grantedt (1) nine foot variance on the rear west) property line; and (2) five foot variance on the side lot line Ruggles, which is south), as recommended by the Planning Commission at their September 4, 1984 meeting. Motion carried. LJ Council reviewed the September 4, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes, Planner John Uban's report dated September 4, 1984 regarding the proposed Bullseye development, and schemes I, II, and III presented by Bullseye Golf, Inc. Attorney Robert Collins explained that they have contacted the Minnesota Department of Transportation in regard to obtaining a portion of the MN/DOT right-of-way on the west for 13 parking spaces, but at present there is ao assurance that the property can be used. The Bullseye discussion was interrupted for the public hearing scheduled for 7:15 p.m. Mayer Eggert opened the Public Hearing on Tax Increment Financing District No. 1 within Development District No. 2 at 7:15 p.m ., and presented the Affidavit of Publication. He explained that there have been some delays in completing the work on the financing district and for that reason no action could be taken at this time. Mr. Collins requested that the hearing be continued to September 19, 1984 after which Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that the hearing be continued to September 19, 1984 at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Ciernia, that the regular meeting of September 26, 1984 be cancelled and a special meeting be scheduled for 7s00 p.m. September 19, 1984.. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmember Ciernia presented an information sheet which could be used as a vehicle for identifying principals participating in at~r development, including Bullseye Golf. The matter was referred to the Attorney and will be discussed at the September 19, 1984 meeting. Mayor Eggert explained a lengthy conference telephone discussion was held September 4, in which the following participated: Mayor Eggert, Attorney Mary Ippel, Attoiv ey Robert Collins, Fiscal Consultant Steve Apfelbacher, and Clerk Administrator Barnes. The topics of discussion were Bullseye financing, the development agreement, requested variances, and conditional use request. He explained that the development agreement was re-drafted following that meeting and was to be delivered to each Councilmember that night, however, for some reason only Mayor Eggert received a copy. f MINUTES OF 8/22/84 APPROVED VARIANCES APPROVED FOR NEW HOME AT 1865 HAMLINE PATRICK H. NEU BULLSEYE GOLF, INC. PUBLIC HEAR- ING ON TIF DIST. N0. 1 CONT?NUED TO 9/19/84 9/26/84 MEET- ING CANCELLED SPECIAL MEL`P- ING ON 9/ 19/8. PROPOSED INFORMATION SHEET FOR DEVELOPERS TO BE DISCUSSED 9/19/84 BULLSEYE GOLF, INC. MINUTES ~- SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING~PUBLIC HEARING f f` SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 PAGE 3 Robert Collins and Scott Williams of Pope Associates, presented the three proposed Bullseye site plans and explained each concept. Mr. Collins explained that the Flameburger Restaurant has a lease until April of 1985 and if they do not wish to continue in the new building it would be necessary to construct the western portion of the Bullseye building and complete the eastern portion after the Flameburger lease expires. Mr. Collins also presented a Scheme IV which would reduce the size of the building ~0 34,250 square feet if an agreement cannot be reached with MN~DOT for use of the right-of-way. Council discussed with Bob Pope of Pope Associates, items such as pedestrian BULLSEYE linkage from the remote parking, ingress and egress, lighting (Mr. Pope (cont.) indicated that Mayor Eggert'a recommendation that the lighting poles in the development be 20 feet high in order that the City would no longer need street lights along Larpenteur would not do justice to the Bullseye building architecturally), and landscaping. Mr. Pope agreed to consider additional decorative lighting in the parking lot near the street. Following the discussion Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Hard VARIANCES that Variance No. 1 (building within 6 inches of alley) be approved provid- APPROVED FOR ing that no more than 7596 of the total area is used for retail and parking BiTLLSEYE subject to approval of the final plan. Motion carried unanimously. BUILDING Mag~-or Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that Variance No. 2 (parking spaces) be granted allowing the number of parking spaces indicated in any of the schemes presented at the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Ciernia, that the Conditional COI~ITIONAL Use request be granted (allowing warehousing in a B2 District). Mr. Collins USE - NO stated that he had reviewed the Zoning Ordinance and that he did not feel ACTION TAKE!J a conditional use was required. A short discussion ensued after which Mayor Eggert withdrew his motion and Councilmember Chestovich withdrew the second due to the fact that it was time for the 8:00 p.m. public hearing and there was no further time to discuss the Bullseye matter. The matter was referred to the City Attorney for further consideration. Mayor Eggert ::opened the Public Hearing on Reassessments for 1982 Albert and PUBLIC HEAR- Pascal Street Improvements and presented the necessary affidavits. He then ING ON reviewed the background of Council action leading to the street improve- REASSESSMENT meats and the original assessment, the reasons for the reassessment (appeals FOR 1982 from the original assessment, error in hearing notice, etc.), and Council's ALBERT~PASCAL reasons for establishing an assessment policy. Mayor Eggert gave an explan- STREET ation of the procedure followed in establishing the assessment policy, and IMPROVEI~ITS the application of that policy to this assessment. Attorney Van de North explained the procedure to be followed at the public ATTORNEY hearing and gave a detailed account of actions leading to the improvements, VAN DE NORTH the law suit and assessment policy. He then explained that after the group appealed the original assessment the City's legal counsel determined there were two problems: (1) the City did not have an expert real estate appraiser determine whether or not property value increases equaled assessments, and ~Li 1 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COtTNCIL MEETING~P[TBLIC HEARING sEPTEMSER 5, 1984 PAGE 4 7 (2) technical defects in the hearing notice (did not advise properly of ATTORNEY appeal rights and did not address deferrments for senior citizens and YAN DE NORTH handicapped). These problems potentially invalidated the original assess- ment, therefore the City Attorney recommended reassessment. Engineer Schunicht ezplained the assessment policy ordinance and its ENGINEER application to this reassessment for Albert~Pascal improvements. SCHUNICT his report (paired sales technique). Mr. Parranto then presented his report dated September 5, 1984, s copy of which is on file in the Clerk-Administra- tor's office. Following the presentation Mr. Parranto indicated. his conclusion was that the assessments for the lots in the reassessment area are reasonable- because they did not exceed increases in market values of benefited parcels. Mark Parranto, J. E. Parranto Associates, Inc., the real estate appraiser MARK PARRANTO hired to prepare an assessment value or benefit analysis for Albert~Pascal, REAL ESTATE presented his qualifications and explained the method followed in preparing APPRAISER Carol Masks, 1402 W. Iowa, stated that Ramsey County Assessor's Office informed her that in assessing they have no provision for improvements such as curb and gutter, a,nd Audrey Moore, Hiina Realty, stated they include no provision for curb and gutter. Mrs. Masks also had contacted three other realtors who gave her the same information. She asked Mr. Parranto why his report is in sharp contrast. Mr. Parranto explained that realtor's jobs and his are in two different areas, the realtor attempts to obtain the maximum value for the person selling the house, his job is to determine what the buyer actually did, he must determine what the range is. He also stated that County Assessor's determine values differently. Hold Arneman, 1403 W. California, stated that he was of the opinion that the sample of homes was too small. CAROL MASKE 1402 W. IOWA HAROLD ARNEMAN, 1403 W. CALIFORNIA Archie Bruder, 1375 W. California, asked why Mr. Parranto used some properties outside the City of Falcon Heights (City of Eagan). Mr. Parranto ARCHIE BRUDEP. stated he did not appraise any individual homes to determine market values, 1375 W. but took data to look at what had happened to the market between 1982 and CALIFORNIA 1984, and tha:~. the technique is valid. Bruce Rushton, 1469 w. California, asked what estimated sampling variance Mr. Parranto would ezpect from 200 homes and felt that the report presented was not a statistical analysis. Mr. Parranto replied that the report is an analysis of paired sales, and that he is not a statistician. Mr. Rushton shared his opinion that there is no statistical validity to projecting the added value that carves from curb and gutter based on Mr. Parranto's samples. BRUCE RUSHTON 1469 w. CALIFORNIA Henry Herbert, 1426 W. Idaho, asked if the homes in Eagan had street improve- HENRY ments in front of the homes, or were there collector streets, and Mr. HERBEP.T Parranto replied that the first two homes discussed were based on collector 1426 W. IDAHO streets. Mr. Herbert then asked if Mr. Parranto had any other data for basis of comparison, and commented that one of the homes in Falcon Heights used in the report was in need of many repairs such as updating electric service. Mr. Parranto replied that he did not go in any of the homes, did not deal with needed repairs, only the streets. MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COIINCIL MEETING~PUBLIC HEARING ,~ ~' SEPTET"BER 5, 1984 PAGE 5 r~- Marsha Videen, 1463 W. Iowa, asked if mailed notice should not have been MARSHA sent to property owners regarding the assessment policy hearing. Attorney YIDEE[J Van de North replied that the policy affected everyone in the city not just 463 W IOWA that particular neighborhood, and the normal procedure for establishing ~cont.~ a new ordinance was followed, that the proposed ordinance was discussed at a regular meeting, continued to a second meeting and the summary published. Notice given by publishing the hearing notice in the official newspaper was legally proper. Mr. Videen then asked if Councilmembers in the assessment area should be allowed to vote on the matter, to which the Attorney replied that he would consider the matter, but that off-hand he could see no problem. Mrs. Yideen addressed Engineer Schunicht regarding the poor drainage by their property and asked why they were being assessed for something that did not work. Mrs. Videen stated that she wished to go on record as objecting to the assessment. Mrs. Yideen then inquired of Mr. Parranto if he considered the time difference, .condition of unemployment and the economy during the time period between 1982 and 1984, and that some of the homes were sold in winter uchich usually makes a difference in sale price. Mr. Parranto stated that interest rates were high, unemployment high and prices went down. He did not understand why, but properties in the area were up. He felt that winter sales might make some difference but it would not affect his report as it covered a two year period. Robert Olson, 1386 W. Larpenteur, addressed Council. He stated that Albert is a nice street, but those who live in the area are not the only ones who use Albert and Pascal, and commented on the fact that there is no parking on either side of Albert. He wanted to know what he is getting for his money. Mayor Eggert explained that only 5096 of the street is being assessed to benefiting properties and the other 50% of funds came from the general fund because the street is used by other than local residents. Councilmember Baldwin commented that Council had looked at assessment practices of quite a few other cities and the assessment being considered is common practice. Chuck Sederberg, 1452 W. Idaho, questioned the legality since the notice of hearing on the assessment policy did not mention it would be applied retroactively. Attorney Van de North, replied that all assessments are retroactive, -.mpxb vements are done prior to assessment. Mr. Seder berg stated he was told he could pay the original assessment in full, he did pay it, and considered that a contract with the City Government. He asked if contracts ,rth governmental bodies are subject to changes. Attorney Yan de North stated he could not give an opinion on whether or not there is a contract, but that the reassessment was a necessity. Pat Fitzgerald, 1534 w. Iowa, asked if it is legal to include court costs, etc., in the current assessment, to which Mayor Eggert replied that these costs (legal, engineering, etc.) are always a portion of the construction cost. Mr. Fitzgerald disagreed with the concept and inquired is another class action suit is filed if the price would escalate. He then asked if the fee to be paid the appraiser is public information. Attorney Yan de Forth explained that no bill has been received, but that Council authorized up to 32,500 to be expended for that purpose. He also explained that if a certified appraisal had been obtained on each home the cost would have been - approximately ;200 per home. Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Parranto if he had ROBERT OLSON 1386 w. LARPENTE[TR CHUCK SEDERBERG 1452 w. rnAxc PAT FITZGERAI,D 1534 w. IowA MINUTES SPECIAL CITY C(NNCIL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 PAGE 6 the assessment figures prior to his study, and Mr. Parranto replied that PAT he received the assessment roll in the middle of his study. FITZGERALD (cont.) Bob Fry, 1457 W. Iowa, asked the Attorney when an ordinance becomes effective based on the law, to which the Attorney replied that ordinances often contain an effective date. BOB FRY 1457 W. IowA M. J. Sheehan, 1503 W. Hoyt, inquired if he would get his #500 back since he M. J. SHEEHAN is no longer in the assessment area, and if there is interest on the return. 1503 W. HOYT He stated he understood that some will receive a return and others will pay more. Mayor Eggert replied that it is true some will pay more, others will definitely receive a refund, but that he did not know about the law relative to interest on the returns. Fred Maske, 1402 W. Iowa, asked why the policy separates curb and gutter from the street constriction. Engineer Schunicht replied that parcels having curb and Bitter receive additional benefits, such as keeping cars off the. lawn, improving aesthetics, drainage, etc., it is an additional benefit to those properties. Mr. Maske asked why corner residents are funding the project when all will benefit from the drainage and that curb and gutter has been put in as it was required on a State Aid street. Mr. Schunicht replied that curb and gutter was installed because that is_the best system. The streets could have been built to rural specifications, i.e., drainage ditches, but that is not practical in the city. Mr. Maske asked why State Aid was used for storm sewer, to which Mayor Eggert replied that it had been a Council decision and there was no requirement to use any State Aid Funds for the project. Mr. Maske inquired why the X75,000 State Aid was not used for curb and gutter, to which the Engineer replied that State Aid is paying for mare than storm sewer, it also covered part of the cost of curb and gutter and some street costs. Mr. Maske again asked why people on corners should pay for runoff for everyone. Both Engineer Schunicht and Councilmember Ciernia stressed the fact that 50°,6 of the improvements costs were coming from public sources. FRED MASKS 1402 w. IowA Mayor Eggert informed those in attendance that the public hearing would OBJECTIONS be closed at 10:00 p.m., and that those who did not have a chance to be TO BE TAKEN heard regarding their objections may make them in writing and turn them UNTIL NOON at the City Office before 12:00 noon, Friday, September 7, 1984. He ON 9/7/84 reminded all that if objection is not made by that time, the right of appeal is lost. Attorney Yan de North briefly commented on senior citizens/handicapped SElvIOR/ deferrals which had been addressed in the notice of hearing. He explained HANDICAPPED that no specific guidelines were set up, but the City will entertain DEFERRAL individual requests for such deferrals, and Council will determine when hardship occurs. Carol Maske, 1402 W. Iowa asked if persons writing their objections could ezpect a written response to any questions. Mayor Eggert assured that if there are specific questions, he would respond or the proper consultant would respond. 1 MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 5. 1984 PAGE 7 Marvin Kotilinek, 1453 W. Iowa, asked if when Larpenteur or Hoyt are improved the same group would be assessed again, to which Mayor Eggert replied that the costs would be shared by the County and any other municipality bordering on the street. Mayor Eggert closed the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Council discussed the options in regard to the assessment for Pascal and Albert. Councilmember Ciernia felt there were two options only, to stay with the initial assessment in 1982 or apply the new policy and plan to live with it in the. future. Attorney Van de North advised that to assess under the old system would require another notice and hearing which would delay the matter another year as the assessments must be certified to the County by October 10th. .~: MARVIN KOTILINEK 1453 W. IOWA PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 10:05 P.M. ASSESSMENT DISCUSSION Councilmember Baldwin stated that he was attempting to decide which method would be least disruptive to the people, would the average homeowner realize that the law suit would increase the cost, would the average homeowner realize the assessment policy would be applied to a two year old assessment. He felt that at the time of the workshop and Council discussion of the policy it seemed fair, but now he does not feel it is right and would support the 1982 roll. Councilmember Ciernia asked if the old or new assessment roll would be more defendable, to which the Attorney responded that market value evidence regarding the old roll would be advisable along with a new notice and hearing, but that it would not be illegal to hold over any assessments for another year. Mayor Eggert asked Council whether they desired to settle the matter immediately or hold it over another year and all agreed they would prefer to make a decision at this time. Councilmember Hard commented on the use of State Aid money for the storm sewer and thought perhaps the cost of the curb and gutter should be spread over the entire area. Mayor Eggert m=ryved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that Resolution 84- 31 be adopted.. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor of the motion: Mayc~~ Eggert, Councilmembers Hard, Chestovich, and Ciernia, and the following vot~.~ against the same: Councilmember Baldwin. Motion carried. RESOLUTION 84-31 RESOLUTION 84-31 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REASSESSMENT ROLL FOR 1982 NORTHOME IMPROVEMENTS, CANCELLING PRIOR ASSESSMENTS, AND DIRECTING REFUNDS. Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Hard, that the meeting be MEETING extended to allow Bullseye to complete their presentation. Motion EXTENDED carried unanimously. MINUTES SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/POBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 5, 1984 PAGE 8 Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that Addendum No. 1 to the agenda be approved, and that the Public Hearing on .the 1985 Budget and Revenue Sharing be scheduled for September 19, 1984 at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Robert Pope resumed the Bullseye presentation and reviewed the plans for Council. Following a. short discussion, Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Ciernia, that the plans be approved subject to changes requested earlier in the meeting inclusive of the two subcontractors' (electrical and plumbing) certification. Motion carried unanimously. ~r ADDENDUM APPROVED HEARING ON BUDGET AND REVEt3UE SHARING ON 9/19/84 Mayor Eggert moved, seconded by Councilmember Chestovich, that the meeting ADJOURNMENT be adjourned at 10:39 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. _.~ ~ Ronald C. Eggert, M.D., Mayor ATTEST: ~~ Dewan B. Barnes, C erk Administrator Special Meeting of the-City Council/Public Hearing of September 5, 1984