Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-27-88 Council MinutesP,1INUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MIPJN~SOTA Agenda Item No. 1 Agenda Item No. 2 Minutes Agenda item Plo. 3 Announce- ments Agenda Item No. 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Little Canada, Plinnesota was held on the 27th day of Januar•y, 1988 in the Council Chamber•s of the City Center• located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. January 27, 1988 Mayor•Plichael Fahey chair•ed the meeting and called it to order• at 7:30 P.M. and the following member~s of the Council wer•e pr•esent at roll call: MEMBERS PRESENT ALSO PRESE~IT Mayor• Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilwoman City Attor•ney Consulting Engineer City Planner Recor~di ng Secr•etar•y Mr•. Michael Fahey Mr. Bill Blesener Mr•. Rick Collova Mr. Jim LaValle Mrs. Beverly Scalze Mr•. Thomas Sweeney P4r. Donald Carley Mr~. Steve Gr~i ttman Mr•s. Kathl een C,1 anzer h1r•s. Scalze intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its atloption: RESOLUTION P10. 88-1-20 - APPROVING THF MINUTES OF TNE JANUARY 13, 1988 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AS SUBMITTED The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Blesener•. Ayes (5) alesener~, Scalze, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. ~iays (0). Resolution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book P•lo. 19, Page ?0. Fahey announced that there will be a workshop meetinc! of the Economic Development Committee on Februar•y 2, 1988 at 7:30 Fl.P9. Blesener• indicated that he will be on vacation and unable to attend that meeting. Fahey reminded the Council of the workshop meeting scheduled for Febr~uar~y 10, 1988 at 6:30 P.P1. to discuss the dr~aft of the City's par•k sur•vey with Decision Resources, Ltd. Fahey announced the upcoming Childr•en's Skating Par~ty sponsor~ed by the Recreation Association for Little Canada childr~en of all ages to be held on Febr•uar•y 6, 1988 fr~om 1 P.M. until 4 P.P~. at the skating rinks next to the Fire Barns. Page -1- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Announce- alesener• r•epor•ted that ther~e will be a meeting of the Recycling Committee ments with local r~efuse hauler•s on Febr•uar~y 2, 1988 at 9:30 A.M. to discuss (Cont.) ways of r~educing the cost of gar~bage pick-up for~ local r~esidents. Blesener• invited any inter•ested Councilmember• to attend that meeting. Text Fahey opened the public hear•ing to consider• amending Section 903.050.D.8.k. Amendment by r•equi r•i ng pavi ng of al l par~ki ng 1 ots wi th mor•e than thr~ee par~ki ng Paving Of stalls in commer•cial, industr•ial and multi-famil,y zoning distr•icts. Parking Lots Fahey pointed out that the City Planner~ has r•ecommended that par~king lots of five spaces or• mor•e be r~equir•ed to be paved, while the Planning Agenda Commission has r•ecommended that par•king lots of thr•ee spaces or• mor•e Item No. 5 be paved. The Planning Commission's r~ecommendation would include multi-family residential development. The Planning Commission also felt it should be left to the discr~etion of the Quilding Inspector~ whether• or~ not the City Engineer• needed to r•eview the par•king lot plans for• residential development. The Or•dinance r•equir~es the Engineer• to r•eview par•king lot plans for~ commer•cial and industr•ial development. Ther•e was no one pr~esent fr~om the qener•al public wishing to comment on this matter. Mr•. Blesener~ intr•oduced the followin~ r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOP! N0. 88-1-21 - CLOSIfJ6 THE PUBLIC HEARING COMSIDERING THE PROPOSED TEXT APIENDMENT REQUIRIPIG THF PAVING OF PARKING LOTS The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. LaValle. Ayes (5) Blesener•, LaValle, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 21. The Ci ty Pl anner~ r•epor•ted that he i s r~ecommendi ng the pavi ng of 5 par•ki ng spaces or~ mor~e as by r~educing the requir•ement down to 3 would include multi-family r•esidential development. Blesener reported that he viewed a duplex as a money-making operation with at least one side being rented out. Blesener• felt that the par•king ar~eas for• duplexes should be r•equir~ed to be paved. The Planner• noted that the way the or•dinance is wr~itten, if the City r•equir~es the paving of multi-family development par•king ar~eas, these areas will also be required to be curbed and striped. However, the Planner~ noted that the or~dinance can be fur•ther• amended to eliminate this r~equir~ement for• multi-family. Page -2- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Paving Of The Planner• also noted that the pr•oposed amendment does not define Parking paving by listing materials that would be acceptable in order to Lots (Cont.) avoid leaving an acceptable material from the list. The Planner stated that the amendment pr~ovides for• Building Inspector~ r•eview of the mater~ial to be used for• paving. The Planner~ noted that this is how most other cities handle this issue. Scalze noted that at the Planning Commission meeting it was stated that unpaved par•king lots in the City would be ar•andfather~ed in if this or~dinance amendment is adopted. Scalze noted that ther~e ar•e a number• of development who wer•e r~equir~ed to pave, but these developments have not done so. The Planner• noted that these developments ar~e illegal non-confor•mina and would not be gr•andfather~ed in. Only legal non-confor~ming development, those that wer~e not r~equired to pave under• the existing or•dinance, would be gr•andfather•ed in. Fahey stated that he feels a development should not be r•equir•ed to pave its par•king lot unless that par~king lot has 5 spaces. Fahey did not feel that duplexes should be r•equir~ed to pr•ovide cur~b and str~i pi ng. The Planner noted that the City can exempt duplexes fr•om cur•bing and striping or set up a different set of performance standards for multi- family development, such as bituminous curbs or no curbs. Fahey felt that most newly developed duplexes will pave r~egar~dless of whether• or• not pavi ng i s r•equi r~ed under~ the or~di nance. Scalze stated that she would like to see duplexes r~equir•ed to pave their~ par~king ar•eas. 6lesener~ agreed, but felt that cur•bing and str•iping of duplex par~king ar•eas shoul d not be r•equi r•ed. LaValle asked the maximum amount of spaces allowed befor•e a handicapped par~king space is r~equir•ed. The P1 anner~ r~epl i ed that the State r~equi r•es al l commer~ci al to have at least one handicapped par~king space, and then the r•atio is 1 handicapped space for• ever~y 50 par•king spaces. However•, if a business has 51 par~king spaces, then 2 handicapped par•king spaces ar~e r•equir•ed. The Planner~ was unsur•e about r~esidential r•equir~ements. Mr~. Fahey intr•oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-22 - APPROVING THE ADOPTIOPI OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE N0. 292 AS ORIGINALLY SU6MITTED BY THE CITY PLANNER IN FIIS REPORT DATED JANUARY 20, 1988 REQUIRING THE PAVING OF PARKING LOTS I~IITH FIVE OR MORE PARKING SPACES Page -3- P9INUTES City Council Jan. 22, 1988 Paving Of The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. LaValle. Par•king Ayes (1) Fahey. Lots (Cont.) Nays (4) LaValle, Collova, Scalze, Blesener. Resolution denied. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 22. Mr•. Blesener• intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-23 - ADOPTING OROINAPJCE N0. 292 AMENDING SECTION 903 REQUIRING THE PAVING OF PARKING LOTS THREE OR MORE SPACES IN SIZE WNICH WAS SUBMITED BY THE CITY PLANNER AS ALTERNATE B The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~s. Scalze. Ayes (4) Blesener, Scalze, CaValle, Collova. Nays (1) Fahey. Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 23. Blesener~ felt that the Planner~ should r~eview the cur~bing and str~iping section of the Or~dinance and make a r•ecommendation for• the deletion of this requirement for duplexes. LaValle felt that both 4-plexes and II-plexes should not be r•equir•ed to cur~b and str•i pe thei r~ par•ki ng ar•eas. It was noted that r~esi denti al devel opment i s r•equi r•ed to have 2 par~ki ng spaces for~ each residential dwelling unit. That means a minimum of 8 par•king spaces ar•e r~equir•ed for~ a 4-plex and a minimum of 16 par•king spaces are required for an 8-plex. The City Planner~ r~epor•ted that most communities r•equir~e the paving of par•ki ng ar•eas for• anythi ng gr~eater~ than a dupl ex, wi th some al l owi ng a 4-plex not to pave. LaValle pointed out that gar~age ar•ea is counted as a par~king space, ther•efor~e if an 8-plex has a gar•age for~ each unit, only 8 additional par•ki ng spaces ar~e r•equi r•ed to sati sfy the or~di nance r~equi r•ements. Mr~. Blesener• intr~oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ~10. 88-1-24 CITY PLANNER TO PREPARE MENT FOR CONSIDERATION EXEMPTING SINGLE-FAD1ILY FROM THE REQUIREMEMT OF OF PARKING AREAS - INSTRUCTING THE AN ORDINANCC AMFND- 3Y THE CITY COUNCIL HOMES APlD DUPLEXES CURf3I~IG AND STRIPING Page -4- RESOLUTIO~IS City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Paving Of Par~ki ng Lots (Cont.) Fritze CUP Amendment ,4genda Item ~lo. 7 The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Collova. Ayes (4) Blesener•, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (1) LaValle. Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 24. Fahey r•epor•ted that Mr•. Warr~en Fr~itze, 2573 Spr~uce Str~eet, has r•equested that his conditional use per~mit for~ a second accessor~y building be amended to that he can place the building on the nor•thwest cor~ner• of his pr~operty. This placement is now possible without need for a variance as the City r~ecently vacated Lake Str•eet adjacent to the Fr•itze nor•th pr~oper•ty 1 i ne. Dlesener• pointed out that ther•e ar~e two dr•iveways on the Fr•itze pr~oper•ty and Code only allows one. Blesener~ suggested that any appr•oval of the CUP amendment be subject to r•emoval of the nor•ther•n-most dr•iveway. Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission has r•ecommended appr~oval of the CUP amendment subject to the r•ecommendations of the City Planner~ as contained in his Septembev 28, 1987 report. Scalze pointed out that the Planning Commission r•equested that the second gar~age not be used for~ commer•cial pur~poses and asked how the City can ensur~e that the building is not used for~ commer•cial pur~poses. Scal ze poi nted out that Mr•. Fr~i tze i ntends to r~estor•e vi ntage car•s i n this building, and she wanted to ensur~e that the sale of car•s fr~om this location did not get out-of-hand. Blesener• noted that Mr•. Fr~itze indicated that the r•estor•ation of car•s was his hobby and the Planner~ has indicated in his repor~t that commer•cial use of this building is not per~mitted. Mr~. Fahey intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-25 - AMENDING THE FRITZE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING APPROVING THE NEI~! LOCATIOM OF THAT 6UILDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE FRITZE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING PAVING BEING RE~40VED FROM THE NORTHERN-MOST DRIVEWAY, AND SUBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIO~IS OF THE CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN HIS REPORT DATFD SEPTED1f3ER 28, 1987 Ayes (5) Fahey, Collova, Scalze, Blesener~, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This resolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Pages 25 and 26. The for~egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Collova. Page -5- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Gar•dner• Fahey r•epor~ted that the matter•s of the Gardner~ ar~os. sign var•iance Br~os. and lot split have been cancelled. Agenda Items No. 6 & ~ Flashing P1r~. Dennis Nelson, r~epr~esenting Family Video on Little Canada Road, Lights appear~ed befor•e the Council. Nelson r•eported that the City has Family r•eceived a complaint about the flashing lights at Family Video and Video the Building Inspector• has infor~med him to discontinue flashing these lights. Nelson r~eported that ther•e ar•e r~esidential homes closer• than Ag~nda the one whose owner• is complaining, and these residents have not voiced Item No. 9 any complaints about the flashing liqhts. Nelson felt that the complaint was not a legitimate one and that he was being har~assed. The City Planner reported that he discussed this ~uilding Inspector•, and City or•dinance pr•ohibits flashing of lights except in the case of holiday reviewed the ordinance and it was noted that the that holiday signs can be displayed for~ a per~iod longer~ than two days following the holiday. situation with the the inter~mittent signs. The Planner~ ordinance provides of 45 days, but not Council discussed the matter~ and felt that the ordinance rnust be enfor•ced. It was suggested that Melson obtain a cop,y of the ordinance, and that he fol l ow the pr•ovi si ons of the or•di nance ~di th r•egar~d to holiday signs. Council agr~eed that the Building Inspector~ should continue to enfor~ce the or~dinance as it per~tains to flashing lights and holiday signs. Bank SNot Fahey reported that at the second Coiancil meeting in December, the Billiar•ds City Council appr~oved a conditional use per•mit for~ Bank Shot Billiar•ds for• a billiar•d center and established a closing time of 4 A.M. and ,4genda a maximum of 8 amusement devices on the pr~emises. Item Plo. 10 At the Januar•y Planning Commission meeting the Commission discussed this matter• at length and due to concer~ns expr~essed by the public to var•ious Commission member~s, r•ecommended that the Council r~econsider• the ter•ms of the conditional use per•mit. The Planning Commission felt a 1 A.M. closing time should be set and that the business be limited to 4 amusement devices. The Planning Commission also asked if the City had a cur•few law and, if not, suggested that a cur~few law similar• to the City of Roseville's be adopted and enforced. Fahey pointed out that the Cit,y does have a cur•few law which is mor~e str~ingent than Roseville's establishing a 10 P.M. cur•few for~ childr•en under the age of 18. Roseville's curfew is 10 P.M. for children under 16 and P4i dni ght for~ chi 1 dr•en under~ 18. page -6- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Bank Shot Fahey r•epor~ted that the Planning Commission also asked if the City Bi 11 i ar~ds had a 1 oi ter~i ng or~di nance, whi ch i t does. However~, the 1 oi ter~i ng (Cont.) ordinance applies to children under the age of 18 and not to adults. Blesener• pointed out that adults ar~e cover•ed under• the disor~der•ly conduct or•dinance. Fahey r•epor•ted that he contacted Mr•. Schifsky of Bank Shot Billiar~ds, who indicated that in the inter•est of being good neighbor~s, they would agr•ee to a 2 A.M. closing time and a limit of 4 amusement devices for~ a per~iod of 120 days, after~ which time the Council would r~eview with thoughts of extending the closing time to 4 A.P4. and incr•easing the amusement devices to 8 if ther~e have been no pr•oblems at the center~. Fahey r~epor~ted that he per~sonally has r•eceived no complaints about the Council's action in appr•oving the CUP for• Bank Shot Billiar•ds. However•, si nce concer•ns may exi st over• the bi 11 i ar•d center~ and the bi 11 i ar•d center• has expr~essed a willingness to accept the 2 A.M, closing and limit on amusement devices on a voluntary basis with a 120 day r~eview, he would suppor~t the amendment to the CUP. Blesener• noted that the Planner• had r•ecommended a limit of 5 amusement devices at the billiar~d center~ or•iginally, and it was the Planning Commission who incr•eased that number~ to eight. Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission is r~equesting a 1 A.M. closing time, but or•iginally appr•oved a 2 A.~4. closing time. Fahey felt that the 2 A.D1. closing time should be set for~ the 120 day per~iod. Mr~. Blesener~ intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTI0~1 M0. 88-1-26 - RECONSIDERING RECENT CITY COUPlCIL ACTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERPIIT FOR QANK SHOT BILLIARDS A~ID BRINGI~IG THE MATTER BACK TO TABLE IN LIGHT OF RECENT RECOMMEMDATIONS FROM THE PLANMING COMMISSI0~1 REGARDI~IG CLOSING TIME AND NUMBER OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Collova. Ayes (5) Blesener•, Collova, LaValle, Fahey, Scalze. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 27. Blesener reported that he has received no complaints about the Council's r~ecent acti ons appr•ovi ng a CUP for• Bank Shot l~i 11 i ar~ds. Fahey r~epl i ed that he has r•eceived no complaints as well. Scal ze r•epor~ted that concer~ns have been expr•essed to her~ about thi s appr~oval . Page -7- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Bank Shot Billiards (Cont.) Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-27 - AMENDI~IG RESOLUTION N0. 87-12-582 APPROVI~IG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BANK SHOT BILLIARDS, DECLARING APPROVAL SUftJECT TO THE RECOMP~ENDATIONS OF THE CITY PLANNER AS CONTAINED IN HIS REPORT DATED DECEMBER 3, 1987 bIITH THE EXCEPTION TNAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES IS LIMITED TO FOUR AND THAT CLOSING TIME IS SET AT 2 A.P1., tJITH THESE CHANGES BEIPlG MADE DUE TO THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST I~l COOPERATING WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PIAN~IING COMMISSION AND SUBJECT TO A REVIEW AT 120 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF OPENING OF THE BUSINESS, WITH CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN TO INCREASIPIG THE HOURS OF OPEPATION A~1D NUMBER OF AMUSEMENT DEVICES ALLOWED AT THAT TIP4E ~days (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Qook No. 19, Pages 28 and ?.9. The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Blesener~. Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. Planning Fahey r•epor~ted that the Planning Commission has asked for• clar~ification Commission of the Council's ability to over•r•ule a Planning Commission r~ecommendation Concer~ns without r•efer•r~ing the matter~ back to the Commission. Agenda Fahey pointed out that occasionally the Council does disagr~ee with a Addition r~ecommendation of the Planning Commission, but that in such instances the Council is not r~equir•ed to send the matter• back to the Planning Commission unless for• some r•eason the Or•dinance r~equir•es an amendment or the matter requires further study. Scalze r•epor•ted that she appr•eciates the amount of time the Planning Commission spends discussing var•ious issues and this tliscussion as contained in their meeting minutes decr•eases the amount of time the Council has to spend r•eviewing a pr•oposal or• issue. Collova pointed out that when a matter• is tabled by the Planning Commission the Council cannot r•eview that matter~ for• 60 days or• until the Council r•eceives a r•ecommendation fr~om the Planning Commission, whichever is sooner•. B1 esener~ stated that i f i t wer•e r•equi r•ed that both the P1 anni ng Commission and the City Council had to completely agree on an issue or• devel opment pr•oposal , ther~e ar~e some i tems that woul d never~ be r~esol ved. Page -8- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Planning Fahey noted that the Planning Commission is an advisor~y board and Commission once the Council r~eceives the r•ecommendation of the Commission it Concer~ns is fr~ee to accept or~ r~eject that r•ecommendation. (Cont.) The Pl anner• r•epor•ted that ther~e i s 1 egi sl ati on pendi ng that wnul ~i gi ve planning commissions mor•e power~ and mor~e accountability. The legislation states that if a r•ecommendation of a p1anning commission is not accepted, the par~ticular• issue must pass by a 2/3r•d's vote of the City Council, which would mean 4 affir•mative votes of a 5-member~ Council. Fahey commented that if this legislation passes, he feels that planning commissions should then become elected bodies and mor•e accountable to the general public. The Ci ty Attor•ney r~epor~ted that under~ the Ci ty' s pr~esent or•di nance the Planning Commission is an advisor~y body. The only time a matter would need to be r•etur~ned to the Planning Commission is if a final plat wer~e changed substantially fr~om the plat r~eviewed by the Planning Commission. Cur~few Council discussed the City's cur•few or~dinance with the thought of Or~dinance amending it to coincide with Roseville's cur~few or~dinance. (Cont.) The City Attor•ney r•epor~ted that the City's cur•few or~dinance is consistent with those of other• cities, although these or~dinances ar~e not gener•ally enforced. LaValle agr•eed the or•dinance is not gener~ally enfor~ced, but can be if a child is causing a problem. Fahey felt a 10 P.M. cur•few for a 16 or• 17 year~ old was too str~ingent a cur•few and suggested that this be amended to Plidnight. LaValle suggested that the City's cur•few r•emain as is so that it can be used as a tool by law enfor•cement officer•s. Blesener suggested the City Attorney review Roseville's curfew ordinance as well as the City's existing or•dinance and make a r•ecommendation. Fahey felt if the pr•esent or•dinance ser~ves police purposes, it should r•emain as is. The major•ity of the Council agr•eed. Loi ter•i ng Fahey agai n poi nted out that the Ci ty' s 1 oi ter•i ng or~di nance r•efer•s to Or•dinance minor•s under the age of 18. Fahey asked the Council's feelings for• (Cont.) a loiter•ing or•dinance that would apply to adults as well. Council felt the disor~der~ly conduct ordinance was sufficient. Page -9- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Loiter~ing Ordinance (Cont.) Gardner Br•os. Lot Split Fahey instr•ucted the City Cler•k to send copies of pages 37 and 38 of the Council agenda to the Planning Commission which contain copies of the City's cur~few and loiter•ing or•dinances. Fahey infor•med Mr•. Lar•ry Lee, v~ho just ar~r•ived at the meeting, that the Gardner Bros. lot split request was cancelled from this evening's agenda. Agenda Lar~r•y Lee repor~ted that he is the potential pur~chaser~ of the 2.7 acr~es Item No. 8 of pr~oper•ty that Gar•dner• Br•os. i s r•equesti ng to spl i t fr•om thei r~ par~cel . Lee r•epor~ted that i t i s hi s under•standi ng that befor~e the Planning Commission will act on the lot split, they want to see development plans for~ the par~cel. Fahey r~epor~ted that one of the concer•ns r•aised by the Planning Commission was whether~ or• not the pr~oper•ty was buildable. Fahey r•epor•ted that the ~ correction Planning Commission wants to be assur~ed that t~pr•oper•ty is buildable rzes. 88-2-38 before acting on the lot split. The City has- received a letter from the City Engineer~ stating that the pr•oper~ty is buildable. Lee r•epor~ted that he has just begun working on development plans for• the parcel and questioned the need to provide final development plans befor~e getting a lot split. Lee felt this was a gr~eat expense to be put to with no assur~ance that the lot split would even be appr~oved. Scalze suggested that Lee pr~ovide a sketch plan for~ the development of the site. Lee pointed out that development plans r•equir•e a lot of time. Lee al so poi nted out that he i s r~equesti ng no var•i ance for• the par•cel . Fahey pointed out that the lot split was tabled pending a r~epor~t fr•om the City Attor•ney, City Engineer• and City Planner• on the buildability of the par•cel. The City now has a r•epor~t fr•om the Engineer• stating that the par~cel is buildable. Blesener~ felt that the buildability of the site should per•tain to the soil conditions of the pr~oper~ty. Any building plans would have to meet or•di nance r•equi r•ements. Lee pointed out that ponding was also discussed, and the amount of ponding for• the site cannot be deter~mined until building plans ar•e developed. Scalze felt the matter• was br~ought up due to the soil conditions of P1r•. Lee's Slumber•land development and the necessity to pur•chase an easement fr•om Gar•dner• Br•os. for• thi s devel opment. Scal ze poi nted out that Mr•. Lee has testified that soil conditions ar•e bad in this ar•ea. Page -10- MIPJUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Gar•dner~ Br~os. Lee r~eplied that he was r~equir•ed to pur~chase the 60 foot easement for• Lot Split the Slumber~land development due to the State Fir~e code. (Cont.) Lee pointed out that it will take about 6 weeks just to do the engineer•ing on the site he pr•oposes to buy fr~om Gar•dner• Br•os. Lee questioned why he had to have this all done befor~e he could get a lot split appr•oved. Fahey felt that since the City now has the Engineer•'s r•epor•t stating that the pr~operty is buildable, the lot split is a r~outine matter•. The Engineer• pointed out that he has indicated that soil bor•ings should be done on the site. Lee r•eplied that he would have to have soil bor•ings in any event for~ mortgage purposes. The Planner• noted that the Planning Commission was also concer•ned about the amount of ponding that will be necessar•y on the site and whether• or~ not var~iances will be r~equested by the developer•. However~, the Planner• stated that the City Engineer~'s r•epor•t addresses these concer•ns. Collova questioned whether• it was the City's place to r•equir•e the developer to pr•ove a lot was buildable befor•e gr•anting a lot split. Fahey agr~eed that that issue would be handled by the Building Code and the Building Inspector. LaValle questioned the necessity for• building plans, noting that a per•son could just pur~chase a pr~oper~ty for• speculation. Lee asked if it will be necessary to submit building plans in or~der• to get the lot split appr•oved. FaYiey did not believe it was necessar•y. Fahey pointed out that the lot split was tabled pending a r•epor•t fr•om the City Attor~ney, City Engineer• and City Planner• on the buildability of the pr~oper•ty. The City Engineer• has now submi tted such a r•epor•t. The Planner agr~eed that the City Engineer's report covews the question of buildability. Scalze askeA if ther•e was a liability to the City in splitting a lot and then having it deter•mined that the lot was not buildable. The City Attor•ney stated that ther~e was no liability to the City in such an instance. Scalze asked the minimum lot size in this ar•ea. The Planner~ r•eplied that the minimum lot size is 1 acr~e and the pr~oposal i s to cr~eate a 2.7 acr•e si te. Page -11- MI~IUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Sl umberl and Lar•r•y Lee asked the pr~ocess he woul d have to go thr•ough to r~equest a Sign r•econsider•ation of the Slumber•land r~equest for~ sign var•iance. Var~i ance Fahey stated that the pr•ocess for• r~econsider•ation is to make the Agenda r•equest after• the meeting in which a matter• was denied. Fahey felt Addition a sign var~iance request at this point would have to be tr•eated as a new r~equest and sent back to the Planning Commission. The Planner agreed. Fahey pointed out that while the City Planner~ had r•ecommended appr•oval of the sign variance r~equest pr~eviously submitted by Slumber~land, the Planning Commission r•ecommended denial. Blesener• stated that the ar•guments for~ the sign var~iance would have to be significantly differ~ent to convince him to vote in favor~ of such a var•i ance. Scalze agr•eed. Fahey noted that the pr•evious r~equest was denied by a 3 to 2 vote ~nd it would take 4 affir•mative votes to pass such a var•iance r~equest. Blesener~ suggested that if su~h r•equest is going to be r•esubmitted, ~es~~-r3'~"' he would like to see the sign-~~~~-SOf the Cities of Roseville, Shor~eview, White Bear~ Lake, Eden Pr~air~ie, Fagan, Bur•nsville and Cdina. B1 esener• noted that Eden Pr•ai r•i e and Fagan ar~e gr•owi ng communi ti es and he notices ver~y few signs in those cities. Fahey stated that he was aar~eeable to r•eviewing the r•equest again. Scalze noted that the last time the City amended its sign or•dinance, it incr•eased the size of signs fr•om 10% of the building silouette to 15%. Lee r•epor•ted that hi s r•easoni ng for~ the si gn var~i ance i s that the total acr•eage of the site is 16 acr~es. If this pr•oper~ty wer•e subdivided, the amount of signage for the area would be much greater than the one sign Slumber~land has now. Lee also r•epor•ted that he will be coming in with a pr~oposal to add another~ 100,000 feet to the east side of the Slumber~- land facility. Lee felt that with the size of the facility and only one user• on 16 acr•es, that an adjustment in the size of the sign was warranted. Blesener felt Lee would have to prove that the City's ordinance is inconsistent with what other~ cities ar•ound Little Canada ar~e doing. Fahey asked the Planner• to compare the pr•ovisions in var•ious sign or•dinances dealing with acr•eage and size of builtling. Fahey agr~eed that the issue should be considered by the Planning Commission befor~e coming to the Council. Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission discussed r~evision of the sign or•dinance at their~ last meeting, and did not want to spend the time and money r•evising it since the or•dinance Page -12- razNUrEs City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Slumber~land was developed thr•ough the joint effor•ts of the City and business Sign community. Var•iance (Cont.) Blesener~ pointed out that if a var~iance is appr•oved for• Slumber~land, Gardner Bros, will be back to request a similar variance. Lee pointed out that he could have 17 sites on this 16 acr~es r•ather~ than one. Scalze pointed out that a r~oad would be impr~oved thr•ough the site, in that instance, with signs facing the r~oad. Lee felt that if the City was inter•ested in getting o,uality development from an economic development standpoint, larger siqns were warranted. Lee also pointed out that Slumber•land developed without any tax incr~ement financing assistance. Fahey asked the Planner~ to deter~mine if the City's or•dinance is out-of- line with what other~ cities ar~e doing, noting that the City is competing for• development with cities that have a lot mor~e to offer•. Slumber~land Lee asked the status of getting sewer• and water to the Slumber•land Sewer and development. t~later The City Attor•ney r~eplied that the necessar•y easements ar•e in conclei*~nation Agenda and it will take 120 days from when the condemnation pr~ocess began to Addition get the easements finalized. TIF Lee asked if the ar~ea was in a Tax Incr•ement Financing Distr•ict. Agenda The City Planner~ r~eplied that the ar~ea has been designated as a develop- Addition ment distr•ict. Consider~ation of tax incr~ement financing is on a by project basis. Lee reported that he would like to r~equest Tax Incr•ement Financing assistance to develop the cor•ner~ pr•oper~ty that he would be pur•chasing fr•om Gar~dner~ Br~os. once the 1 ot spl i t i s appr~oved. Lee r~epor~ted that he must buy this pr~oper•ty due to the easement that was necessar~y for• the Slumber~land site and that he could not develop the site without TIF. Fahey suggested that P~r~. Lee di scuss thi s matter~ wi th the Ci ty P1 anner•. Fahey also suggested that the Planner• study the City's sign or•dinance and submit it to the Planning Commission for• their~ review. Bi 11 boar~ds Scal ze noted that ther~e ar•e thr~ee bi 11 boar•ds i n the Ci ty that she i s awar•e of. When the Ci ty revi sed i ts si gn or•di nance, bi 11 boar~ds wer~e Agenda eliminated as per~mitted signs, and the owner~s of these billboar•ds were Addition given 5 year•s to r•emove them. Scalze felt the 5 year•s had lapsed and Page -13- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Billboards asked the Council's feelings for• enfor~cing the ordinance at this time. (Cont.) The Ci ty Pl anner~ agr~eed that the or~di nance defi ned bi 11 boar~d as a pr•ohibited sign and included a sunset clause of 5 year•s fr•om the enactment of the or•dinance stating that after~ that time the billboar•d had to be either~ r•emoved or~ br~ought into confor~mity ~aith the or~dinance. Fahey felt that the sign owner•s would ar•gue that they had not had sufficient time to r~ealize a r•etur•n on their~ investment. Fahe,y asked the City Attorney whether or not the ordinance was enforceable on this matter•. The Planner~ noted that other• communities have or•dinances which include sunset clauses. The City Attor•ney r•epor~ted that the Minnesota Supr~eme Cour~t has not deter•mined a r•easonable time to enfor~ce something out of existence without having to pay for~ it. The Attor•ney did not know if this pr•ovision was enfor•ceable, and it was his exper~ience that a city can wor•k something out with an owner to take down a sign r~ather~ than doing i t thr•ough cour~t acti on. The Attor•ney stated that the P1i nnesota Supr~eme Cour~t i s goi ng i n favor• of pr•oper~ty owner~s, and the City may have to pay for~ whatever• usable life is left in the billboar•d. Council discussed the matter and felt that the City Clerkshould write a letter• to the billboar~d owner• r~eminding him of the pr•ovisions of the or~dinance, and asking plans for• br•inging the billboar•ds into confor•mance with the or•dinance. Council felt a solution might be able to be wor~ked out with the sign owner. Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIO~! N0. 88-1-2$-INSTFiUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO 41RITE A LETTER TO NAEGELE SIGPI COMPAMY ASKING THEIR INTENTIO~IS FOR BRIMGING THEIR RILLBOARDS W.ITIiIN TFIE CITY INTO CONFORMAF!CE WITH THE CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 30. Bank Shot Fahey updated Ar•t Her~kenhoff, Planning Commission member•, on the Billiar~ds action the Council just took with r~egar•d to the conditional use per~mit (Cont.) for~ Bank Shot Billiar~ds. Pa~e -14- MIPIUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Bank Shot Herkenhoff r~epor•ted that the Planning Commission pr•efer~red a 1 A.P1. Billiar•ds closing time and indicated that if the business is meant as a family- (Cont.) business as the applicant has indicated, a 1 A.M. closing time would be more appropriate. Fahey r~epor~ted that the applicant has indicated that ther•e ar~e other• billiar•d centers open until 4 A.P9. with no pr~oblems. Fahey pointed out that there are people working second shifts, who enjo,y playing billiar•ds after• wor~k. Fler•kenhoff fel t that ther•e shoul d be adequate contr~ol s at the bi 11 i ar~d center• to r•esol ve pr•obl ems shoul d they occur•. Fahey pointed out that a 2 Fl.M. closing time was set with a r•evieea after 120 days. Recess At this point in the meeting, 8:56 P.M., Council took a shor~t r~ecess. The meeting was r•econvened at 9:05 P.M. P9ostad Lot The City Engineer• submitted for• appr•oval a lot split and assessment Spl i t& r•eappor•ti onment for~ that por•ti on of the Mostad pr•oper•ty that the Ci ty Assessment has purchased for park land. The Fngineer• recommended approval. Reappor~- tionment P1r. Blesener introduced the folloa~ing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOM PJO. 88-1-29 - APPROVIPIG THE MOSTAD LOT SPLIT AND ASSESSP9EDIT REAPPORTIONME~IT FOR DIVISION N0. 061208 AS RECOMMEPIDFD RY THE CITY ENGI~IEER A~JD AS CONTAI~IED I~I COUMCIL AGENDAS The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by P9r•. LaValle. Ayes (5) Blesener•, Lavalle, Scalze, Collova, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book Mo. 19, Page 31. Update The Ci ty Attor•ney r~epor~ted that he has pr•epar•ed and submi tted an opti on On agr~eement to Gene Fasciana for• the Cit,y's purchase of the Fasciana Centerville property in the Centerville Road property. Purchase price is Road appr~oximately $21,000 per~ acr•e plus $25,000 for~ the existing house Property on the property. P~r. Fasciana has indicated acceptance of the pur~chase amount, however•, the option agr~eement needs to be signed /~genda by the Fasciana family. Item No. 11 The Attor•ney r~epor~ted that he has discussed the pur•chase of the Dave Fr•attal one pr•operty i n the Center~vi 11 e Road ar~ea wi th Fr~ank Fr•attal one, Dave Frattalone's son.. P1r~. Frattalone will discuss the matter with his father~ and come back with a counter~-offer~. p~~a -lri- MI~IUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Update On The Attorney also r•epor~ted that he has discussed the pur•chase of the Center~ville Qibeau pr~oper~ty with Mr•s. Bibeau and John Bibeau. They have indicated Road that they ar•e willing to sell to the City for• the best pr•ice that is Pr•oper•ty offer~ed to the other~ pr~oper•ty owner~s. The Bibeau's have also indicated (Cont.) that they ar•e now willing to sell their~ house as well and ar~e not inter~ested in r~etaining a life estate. The Attor~ney stated that he will have a fur•ther~ update at the Febr•uar~y 10 Council meeting. Thunder• The City Attor•ney r•epor~ted that the City has closed on the Thunder• Bay Add. Bay Second Addition and has conveyed the pr•oper•ty to Fr•ank Fr•attalone. Ther•e ar•e cer•tain documents that r•equir•e the Mayor's signatur•e in Agenda this matter•. Addition Ryan Scalze asked if the City Planner• and Building Inspector• have completed Industr•ial their~ inventor~y of site plans in Ryan Industr•ial Par•k to determine Par•k compliance with these plans. Agenda The Planner~ r~eplied that the inventor•y is not completed, but that Addition he and the Building Inspector• would complete it in the near• futur•e. Cable TV Fahey reviewed a letter received by the City from Project Clean-up which is an or•ganization wor•king to help clean-up the pr•oblem of Agenda obscenity on Cable TV. Addition Tar•nowski r~epor~ted that he discussed this matter~ with the Cable TV company and they indicated that por~nogr•aphy is not being br•oadcast on Cable TV. Tar•nowski r•epor~ted that ther•e ar~e non-r~ated movies available on a pay-per-view basis on Cable TV, however, subscribers have the capacity to lock-out these pr•ogr•ams to pr•event minor•s fr•om viewing them. Tar•nowski r•epor•ted that he talked to the City staff and the City has r•eceived no complaints about por•nogr•aphy being br•oadcast on Cable TV. Fahey stated that his concer•n was that the City appr~oved a Cable TV fr•anchise, and at that time concer~ns were r•aised about por•nogr•aphy, and the City was assur•ed that this type of mater•ial would not be br~oadcast on the City's channels. The Council discussed the matter~ and felt that the Cable TV Commission should be contacted r•egar•ding this concer~n and asked for~ their~ position on the issue. Tar•nowski r•epor•ted that he would also discuss it at the next Cable TV Commission meeting. Page -16- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Cable TV (Cont.) Housing Author•ity Agenda Item Plo. 13 Mr•. LaValle intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTI0~1 N0. 88-1-30 - AUTHORI7ING THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER TO THE CA~LE TV COf4MISSION STATING TNAT THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA IS OPPOSED TO THE BROADCASTING OF PORPIOGRAPHY ON CABLE TV AND ASKING THE CADLE COMMISSION'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Fahey. Ayes (5) LaValle, Fahey, Scalze, Dlesener, Collova. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 32. Fahey suggested that the City Council consider• the feasibility of acquir•ing the additional land next to the senior~ citizen apar•tment building in the f9arket Place Shopping Center as a possible site for another~ senior• citizen building. Fahey suggested that to accomplish this the City consider~ the cr•eation of its own housing author•ity. Fahey felt that the cost savings r•ealized in the City contr•acting for• the development of the senior~ citizen building could be passed on in the for•m of r~educed r•ents to senior• citizens. Fahey suggestetl that the City Planner~ look into this idea and r~epor~t back to the Council. Fahey also r•epor•ted that he is of the impr•ession that Tax Incr~ement Financing can be used to under•write the cost of the land. Fahey also asked if the City can set standards, such as r•esidency r•equir~ement for• senior~ citizens inter~ested in r•enting the units. Mr~s. Scalze intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-31 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY PLAPdNER TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE CITY ESTABLISHING A HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING AND REQUESTING A REPORT WITHIN 30 DAYS The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Collova. Ayes (5) Scalze, Collova, LaValle, Blesener, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 33. page -17- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 ~lock Fahey r~epor~ted that the cor•r~espondence in Council aqendas on block Grants grants for senior citizen housing is for Council information. Agenda Item PJo. 13 Add' 1. D1 esener r•epor•ted that the Publ i c 6dor~ks Super~i ntendent has submi tted Public a letter~ r•equesting an additional employee in the Public Wor~ks Works Department. Employee Scalze suggested that since the Council just r•eceived the letter•, Agenda the Council have time to r•eview the r~equest and discuss it at the Item No. 14 next Council meeting. Fahey asked that he be pr~ovided with a copy of the letter~ that was submitted justifying an additional employee the last time such a r•equest was made in 1985. County's Blesener• r•epor~ted that the Public Wor~ks Super~intendent will be meeting Five-Year~ with the County to discuss their~ five-year• plan for~ capital impr~ovements. Plan Some of the things that the Cit,y will asl< to be included on the plan is the Little Canada Road br~idge and a bike path ar~ound La!<e Ger~vais. Agenda Public Works will also wor!< with the City Fngineer to determine if Addition ther•e ar•e any impr•ovements to County r~oads within the City that should be included in the plan. Blesener~ suggested that if the Council had any other~ suggestions, they contact the Public Wor~ks Super•intendent with this infor~mation. Bl esener• r~epor•ted that he i s a member~ of the County' s advi sor•y commi ttee that will r•eview the pr•ojects that will be submitted for inclusion in the County's five-year~ plan. City Center Blesener suggested that the Council review the list of comments he Expansion submitted to them r•eqar•ding the City Center~ expansion pr•oposal and be pr•epar~ed to discuss this matter• at the next Council meeting. Agenda Addition Fahey pointed out that this issue is addr~essed in the City's upcomine, survey, and suggested that the City wait for the survey results before taking action on the matter~. Rlesener• suggested that the Council take the next step and r•eview the var•ious comments and then submit these comments to Shor•t, Elliott and Hendr•ickson. Fahey pointed out the situation at the School ~istr•ict and the possibility that the City may be r•equested to pur•chase Spooner~ Par•k in the near• futur~e. Fahey stated that he ~aould like to pur~chase this pr•operty if appr•oached by the School Distr•ict, r~ather~ than spending money on expansion of the City Center. Page -18- P9IIdUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 C i ty Center Expansion (Cont.) Blesener• agr•eed, but suggested that at this point the City move for•war•d with the study of the expansion of the City Center•. Fahey instr~ucted the City Cler~k to place this matter~ on the agenda of the next Council meeting. Additional Blesener~ pointed out that the City budgeted for• an additional public Public wor~ks employee for~ 1988 and that the letter• submitted by the Public Wor•ks ldor•ks Super•intendent is justifying the need to hir•e an additional Employee full-time employee. (Cont.) Blesener• pointed out that the Super•intendent is attempting to spr•ead out the Depar•tment's wor~k over• the year•. Blesener~ also pointed out that Public Works has a tempor~ar•y employee at this time, which the Super~intendent would like to make a per•manent full-time employee befor•e investing the time necessar•y to tr•ain this employee fully. Fahey questioned the Super•intendent's statement that his position is becoming mor•e managing and super•visory. Fahey stated that he does not want to get away fr•om having a hands-on Super~intendent. Blesener~ agr~eed that the job is becoming mor•e super•visor~y, noting that with the additional utilities within the City, atlditional time is needed for~ or•ganization. Blesener• also pointed out the var~ious meetings necessar~y that the Super•intendent attend which also take up a good deal of time. Fahey suggested that he discuss the matter• with the Super~intendent, and that the Council r•eview the request, and the matter• be discussed at the next Council meeting. Blesener• also suggested that if the decision is made to hire a full-time Public Wor•ks employee, that the position be offer~ed to the cur~r~ent tempor~ar~y employee as was done in the past with the City office staff. Scalze agr~eed that this wor•ked out well in the past. Blesener also suggested that the salar•y as outlined in the Super•intendent's letter• be for~ a per•iod of one year• with no 6-month incr•ease as was suggested by the Super~intendent. Par•k R Rec Scal ze r~epor~tetl that at the next Par~k and Recr~eati on meeti ng, the Repor•t Commission will be holding a neighbor~hood meeting with the r~esidents i n the Thunder~ Bay ar~ea r•egar•di ng thei r• wi shes for~ the devel opment of Agenda a neighbor•hood par~k in this ar•ea. Pr•oper~ty owner•s in the ar~ea of Item No. U Payne Avenue to Greenbrier and from Allen to County Road D will be notified. Scalze also invited any inter•ested Councilmembers to attend. Page -19- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 198II Par•k & Rec Scalze r•epor•ted that due to his other~ duties, Jack Fitzger•ald asked Repor•t not to be r~eappointed as Chair•man of the Par•k and Recr•eation Commission. (Cont.) Scalze publically thanked Fitzger•ald for his time and effor•ts as Chair•man of the Commission in the past. Scalze r•epor~ted that the Commission elected Ken Wehr~le as Chair•man for• the year• 1988. Plor~th Scal ze r~epor~ted that she wi 11 be attendi ng a meeti ng of the Nor•th Suburban Suburban Chamber of Commerce and will report on matters discussed Chamber• by the City Council which have an impact on business within the P9eeting community. Agenda Addition Tr•ails Scalze r•epor•ted that Jack Fitzger~ald r•eceived a r~equest to have the tr~ails within the City plowed dur•ing the winter• months so that City Agenda r•esidents can use them at this time of the year~ as well as other•s. Addition L~lesener felt it was a good idea and something that the Public Idorks Depar~tment should look into. 6lesener~ suggested that it might be difficult to begin plowing the tr~ails at this time of the year~, but is something that can be consider~ed for• next year~. Royal Gems Fahey r•epor~ted that the City has r•eceived an application fr•om Royal Pawn Br•oker~ Gems located at 2954 N. Rice Str~eet for• a license to oper~ate as a License pawn broker. Agenda Council felt the matter~ should be r•eviewed by the City Cler~k as well Addition as City Planner~. Mr~. 6lesener~ intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-32 - APPROVING A BUSINESS LICENSE FOR ROYAL GEMS TO OPERATE AS A PA41N BROKER AT THEIR PLACE OF BUSINESS, 2954 N. RICE STREFT, SUBJECT TO TNE APPROVAL OF THE CITY PLANNER AND CITY CLERK AND SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY POLICE REPORT The for•egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr~. Fahey. Ayes (5) Blesener, Fahey, Scalze, Collova, LaValle. Nays (O). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear~s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 34. Page -20- P9INUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Paisley The City Attor•ney submitted a letter~ dated Januar•y 13, 1988 outlinina Easement payments that should be made r•elative to condemnation on Imp. No. 86-13. Agenda Mr~s. Scalze intr~oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Addition RESOLUTIOPI ~IO. 88-1-33 - APPROVI~IG THE PAYMEPJT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ATTORNEYS INVOLVED RELATIVE TO THE CONDEP9NATION ON IMPROVEMENT N0. 86-13, LITTLE CANADA VERSUS PAISLEY, ET AL, AS OUTLI~IED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY IN HIS LETTER DATED J1~NUARY 13, 1988 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Fahey. Ayes (5) Scalze, Fahey, LaValle, Collova, Blesener. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 35. Amending P1r•. LaValle r~epor•ted that it is necessar•y to amend the r~epayment Viking str~uctur~e of the Viking Par•tner•ship Development Bonds of 1982. Par•tner•shi p Dev. Bonds P1r~. LaValle intr•oduced the followinq r•esolution and moved its adoption: Agenda RESOLUTI0~1 P10. 88-1-3~4 - AUTHORIZ.T~IG EXECUTION Item ~lo. 18 AMD DELIVERY OF A SUPPLEP9EMTAL I~IDENTURE OF TRUST RELATING TO THF $1,000,000 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OF 1982 (VIKIPlG PARTNERSHIP PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLFRK TO SIGM SUCH DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P1r. Blesener. Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener~, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar•ed adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 19, Pages 36 and 37. Employee Mr•. LaValle outlined var•ious quotations the City Cler•k has obtained Health for~ City employees' health insur~ance cover•age. Insurance Blesener~ pointed out that some of the quotations ar~e based on a gr~oup Agenda of 8 employees, and other•s ar~e based on 9 employees and 7 employees. Ttem No. 18 Blesener• pointed out that the amounts being compar•ed ar~e not fair• compar•isons due to this. Blesener~ also suggested that befor~e the Council take action on employees' health insur•ance, the City Cler~k speak to the employees effected to determine their~ feelings on the matter~. Page -21- MINUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Employee Blesener• pointed out that cur•r~ent cover•age with SHARE can be cancelled Health with a 31-day notice. Ther~efor•e, the City should do some fur•ther~ Insur~ance investigating into the var•ious options available in the next 30 days. (Cont.) Blesener• also pointed out that the City could join the Ramsey County Health Plan, which would give City employees a choice of HMO's that they could join. Ar~t Ner•kenhoff suggested that the City deter•mine if insur~ance companies ar•e changed, if pr•e-existing conditions would not be cover~ed and how this might effect City employees. Her•kenhoff r~epor~ted that he is cur•r~ently havi ng a pr•obl em of thi s natur•e. Fahey instr•ucted the City Cler•k to pr•epar•e a cost br~eak-down of insur•ance costs per• employee on a monthly basis per~ HMO. The Cler•k should also r•esear•ch the Ramsey County Health Plan as an option and deter•mine if pr•e-existing conditions ar~e cover•ed by the var•ious HMO's being consider~ed. Comparable LaValle reported that there is a comparable worth workshop that will Wor•th be held in Februar•y and r•equested author•ization to attend. LaValle also suggested that another• Councilmember• to author•ized to attend as Agenda well. Addition Mr•. Fahey intr~oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-35 - AUTHORIZI~IG THE ATTENDAMCF OF JIM LAVALLE AND ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO ATTEND A WORKSHOP ON COMPARABLE4JORTH AT CITY EXPENSE The for~egoing r•esolution was duly seconded by P9r~s. Scalze. Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Blesener•, Collova. Nays (O1. Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appear~s in Resolution Book Plo. 19, Page 38. Voucher~s LaValle suggested that the voucher•s be appr•oved with the exception of Check No. 22058 which will be r•eissued to the League of Minnesota Agenda Cities in a cor~r•ected amount of $111.26. Item No. 18 Mr•. LaValle intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-36 - APPROVIPIG TNE VOUCHERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHECK #,22058 I~IHICH WILL BE REISSUED TO TNE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $111.26 Page -22- r~zNUTEs City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Voucher•s The for•e9oing r•esolution was duly seconded by Mr•. Blesener~. (Cont.l Ayes (5) LaValle, Blesener•, Collova, Scalze, Fahey. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appear~s in Resolution Qook No. 19, Page 39, Adj our•n Agenda Item ~lo. 19 Mr•. Fahey intr•oduced the following r~esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 88-1-37 - ADJOURNING The for•egoing r~esolution was duly seconded by P1r•s. Scalze. Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, Collova, Blesener•, LaValle. Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 19, Page 39. Ther~e being no further~ business, the meeting was adjour~ned at 10:00 P.~9. Respectfully submited, ,1 ~ C' , ~ , ~ ~ (~-~,.y~ ~ /~ ~ :z.,;:_-z%./`~.. i~ `" Kathleen Glanzer~' ~% Recording Secretary Page -23-